Sitting of 23 February 1971

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

  CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

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

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Bill to be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

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

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

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

TORBAY CORPORATION (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    National Insurance Fund
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what will be the estimated deficit on the National Insurance Scheme, assuming no changes in benefits or contributions, in the calendar year 1971.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The present estimate is that the income of the National Insurance Fund would exceed outgo by about £30 million in 1971.
    Mrs. Williams: In view of the fact that, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree, there will be very large sums to be raised in order to meet the urgent need for a substantial increase in old-age pensions in the autumn, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this will be necessary through earnings-related contributions? Also, would he regard it as just that any earnings-related contributions should be associated with earnings-related benefits?
    Sir K. Joseph: Those questions go far beyond that on the Order Paper, but certainly the balance of contributions is now swinging towards earnings-related, as brought in by the last Government.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is it not time for the Government to recognise that the National Insurance system based on flat-rate contributions must soon come to an end?
    Sir K. Joseph: We already have a contributions system based only partly on flat rate.
    Mr. O'Malley: Will the computer complex at Newcastle be ready in April, 1973, in order to introduce earnings-related contributions?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman should put down a Question about that.

    National Health Service (Expenditure)
    Mrs. Shirley Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of the total expenditure on the National Health Service was spent on hospitals, general practice and community health services, respectively, in 1970–71; and whether he intends to alter these proportions in 1971–72 or 1972–73.
    Sir K. Joseph: Briefly, expenditure on hospitals will increase from 60·5 per cent. of the total expenditure on the health and welfare programme in 1970–71 to 62·7 per cent. of the expenditure in 1972–73. Expenditure on family practitioner services will change from 21·9 per cent. to 19·6 per cent.—an increase in the service, but including an increase in charges—and expenditure on community health and welfare services from 13·7 per cent. to 15·2 per cent. over the same period.
    I have arranged for full details to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he agree that the increase in community health and welfare services is such that it would be very difficult to put much greater reliance on those services in the next few years and that, consequently, many people would be left in institutions who,

    HEALTH AND WELFARE PROGRAMME (GREAT BRITAIN)—CALCULATED FROM TABLE 2.16 OF THE WHITE PAPER ON PUBLIC EXPENDITURE, 1969–70 TO 1974–75 (CMND 4578)

    £million

    At 1970 Survey prices

    1970–71

    1971–72

    1972–73

    HOSPITALS

    Estimate

    Estimate

    Estimate

    Capital expenditure

    …

    …

    …

    139·8

    159·3

    172·8

    Current expenditure

    …

    …

    …

    1,075·9

    1,119·7

    1,162·3

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    1,215·7

    1,279·0

    1,335·1

    (60·5 per cent)

    (62·1per cent.)

    (62·7 per cent.)

    FAMILY PRACTITIONER SERVICES

    Capital expenditure*

    …

    …

    …

    0·6

    0·2

    0·1

    Current expenditure

    …

    …

    …

    438·5

    424·7

    418·0

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    439·1

    424·9

    418·1

    (21·9 per cent.)

    (20·6 per cent.)

    (19·6 per cent.)

    COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELFARE SERVICES

    Capital expenditure*

    …

    …

    …

    38·0

    46·6

    52·0

    Current expenditure

    …

    …

    …

    221·2

    239·1

    255·6

    Selective employment tax paid by Local Authorities

    …

    …

    …

    16·0

    16·3

    16·6

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    275·2

    302·0

    324·2

    (13·7 per cent.)

    (14·6 per cent.)

    (15·2 per cent.)

    OTHER CENTRAL SERVICES AND GRANTS, DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

    Capital expenditure

    …

    …

    …

    4·0

    4·2

    4·1

    Current expenditure

    …

    …

    …

    34·1

    36·4

    38·7

    Welfare Foods

    Current expenditure

    …

    …

    …

    41·4

    15·3

    10·5

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    79·5

    55·9

    53·3

    (3·9 per cent.)

    (2·7 per cent.)

    (2·5 per cent.)

    Total expenditure on Health and Welfare

    2,009·5

    2,061·8

    2,130·7

    (100·0 per cent.)

    (100·0 per cent.)

    (100·0 per cent.)

    As is indicated in the White Paper, the above figures do not include expenditure on child care in England and Wales or on social work in Scotland.

    * Capital expenditure on health centres is included under "Community Health and Welfare services".

    strictly speaking, should be returned to the community?
    Sir K. Joseph: By any ideal standards, the hon. Lady's observations are absolutely correct. We have a long way to go to get the balance right. But she should not underestimate the differential increases which are occurring over the next two years in community health and welfare services, which will increase by just on 18 per cent., while expenditure on hospital services will increase by just on 10 per cent.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the content of the 19 per cent. for general practitioner services, in view of the fact that about 8 per cent. is for general medical services and nearly 12 per cent. for pharmaceutical services? Should there not be a change in that balance?
    Sir K. Joseph: I will examine what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Following is the information:

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what directions to date he has issued to local authorities to enable them to implement the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): My right hon. Friend has no powers to issue any such directions but a circular of guidance was issued in August last.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that circular is a shabby document, because it exaggerates the difficulty of finding out who the disabled people are and where they live? Is he further aware that the most recent estimates suggest that nearly two million people are not on the register of local authorities? Would he therefore consider issuing a new circular to encourage local authorities to compile a 100 per cent. register of ail disabled people—rather than discouraging them?
    Mr. Alison: It was a factual circular which it would be wrong to describe as "shabby". The full extent of disability is precisely what we are examining through our national surveys. The hon. Gentleman will know that a number of the "missing" disabled, if there are such large numbers, are already receiving services under other Acts.
    Dame Irene Ward: To help with the implementation of the Act, would my hon. Friend think it a good idea to hold a general conference at his Ministry to discover the problems, because in the introduction of any new Measure which contains wide-ranging provisions local authorities would welcome an opportunity to hear of the problems which are faced by other local authorities? Might it not also help the Minister to have this information?
    Mr. Alison: I certainly note my lion. Friend's suggestion. There are, of course, a large number of inter-Departmental discussions taking place on this subject the whole time. If an initiative comes from local authorities supplementary to
    286
    that which already exists, we shall certainly consider it.
    Mr. Weitzmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what guidance he has given to local authorities as required by Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, in order that they may carry out the duties imposed upon them under that Section.
    Mr. Conlanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent advice he has given to local authorities with regard to the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he is giving local authorities about the financial provision in their 1971–72 estimates for the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Sir K. Joseph: I will, if I may, answer Questions Nos. 4,7 and 37 together.
    A comprehensive circular of guidance has been sent to local authorities about the provisions of the Act, and further advice will be given on specific matters at the proper time. The Rate Support Grant negotiations of last November allowed for appreciable development of these services over the next two financial years.
    Mr. Weitzman: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that under Section 2 of this Act local authorities rely, for the carrying out of their duties, on general guidance and regulations issued by the Minister? As the Labour Government ensured, before the General Election, that the Act would become law by 29th August of last year, is it not disgraceful that nothing practical has yet been done to provide local authorities with guidance on this matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: The House knows that local government is at present reorganising its services into new social service departments. At the same time, the national survey of handicapped launched by the last Government is being printed. We shall, during the next few months, be publishing that report, and as soon as possible thereafter guidance to local authorities on how they should carry out

    287
    their local surveys of need in relation to the handicapped will be issued to help them fulfil their obligations under Section 2 of the Act.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Conlan.
    Mr. Weitzman: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Conlan: May I ask the Secretary of State—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I have no option but to call the next Question, the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) having given notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment, so shutting out about four supplementary questions.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: On a point of order. I distinctly heard you, Mr. Speaker, call my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) to put a supplementary question before my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weiztman) gave notice of his intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Speaker: I have every sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that I have no option but call the next Question. Mr. McElhone, No. 5.
    Later—
    Mr. Speaker: As there may have been some confusion over Question No. 7, for which I may have been partly responsible, I now invite the hon. Member for Gateshead, East to ask Question No. 7.
    Mr. Conlan: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have already answered it with Question No.4.
    Mr. Conlan: In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's explanation, many thousands of people are still anxiously awaiting implementation of the Act. Will he take whatever steps he can to bring about its early implementation?
    Sir K. Joseph: Implementation of the Act will not by itself increase the services available to the people concerned. If the hon. Gentleman knows of people who are
    288
    waiting for the services which are already, in principle, authorised, let him put them in touch with the local authorities or with me.
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if his Department will initiate a television and Press campaign to inform all chronically sick and disabled persons of their rights under the 1970 Act.
    Mr. Weitzmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take immediate steps through radio, television and the Press to acquaint all chronically sick and disabled persons with their rights and the duties imposed upon local authorities under the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Act is already receiving very wide publicity. In my view, the requirement now is not for general publicity but for local information about the need for, and availability of, services in each area.
    Mr. McElhone: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that as most local authority social work departments are not able fully to appreciate the implications of Sections 1 and 2 of the Act, he would be doing a service for the disabled and handicapped if such a television and Press advertising campaign were initiated?
    Sir K. Joseph: The House should recognise that the task ahead of local government in increasing help for the handicapped is enormous and that the known need will tax to the full local government resources, when reorganised. There is at this stage a need to get on with it locally, which local government will be able to do when its social service departments are in action.
    Mr. Weitzman: I apologise for my earlier statement. I did not fully appreciate the position.
    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the tremendous ignorance that exists among local authorities, among the chronically sick and disabled and among his own officers about the working of the Act? Does he recall that in regard to pensions for the over–80s he went on television to announce that a sum of £60,000 was to be paid, but that only 100,000 people were affected? About

    289
    two million chronically sick and disabled people are affected here. Are the Government so chronically sick and disabled that they are reluctant to take a step of this kind?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting his analogies wrong. In respect of the very old, we voted a specific sum and it was waiting to be collected. The needs of the disabled are infinitely varied and cannot be met by a simple act of will on the part of the Government. They need an infinite range of different services. Local publicity and local services are obviously what is needed.
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on this side of the House entirely support the underlying purpose of the Act and would like to see it implemented as widely as possible, but that there is growing evidence that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and others, are determined to use the Act as a political football, which would be entirely detrimental to the disabled, whom we all want to help?
    Sir K. Joseph: I make no complaint whatever of criticism from hon. Gentlemen opposite. However, my hon. Friend is right in that disappointment could be created among the disabled if expectations were raised so high of services that could not, in the nature of things, be created automatically on a vast scale.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is widely enough understood which categories of mentally handicapped people are provided for under this admirable Act? Will he define those categories specifically and make clear that some types of mentally sick, as well as the subnormal, are included?
    Sir K. Joseph: The Act does not define "handicap" in that way. The hon. Gentleman knows that the spectrum of Government and local authority services is seeking to improve the provision for the mentally handicapped and mentally ill in hospital and in the community.
    Dame Irene Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that hon. Members can themselves do a great deal in their constituencies to help in this matter? Is he aware, for example, that I should be horrified to hear that hon. Members did
    290
    not, when handicapped people came to see them, put them in touch with their local authorities? In other words, would my right hon. Friend agree that not just the Secretary of State and Ministers generally but hon. Members have a responsibility in this sphere?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend sets an admirable example to us all. It is indeed true that hon. Members can do a great service for their constituents and local authorities.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The right hon. Gentleman has given the impression that he wants the Act to come into operation very gradually. Will he ensure that with all haste local authorities are given the knowledge they need to implement the Act, bearing in mind that many chronically sick and disabled people are in urgent need of help, especially in the heavy industrial and coal mining areas?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is no intention to delay the implementation of the Act. There is just a realistic awareness of the difficulties through which local government is going in the reorganisation imposed on it by both parties.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree, in regard to the supplementary question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), that Section 28 of the Act empowers him to lay regulations clearing up any difficulty that might exist about the definition of chronic illness, chronic sickness, disability or disablement? In view of the points that have been made by my hon. Friends today, would he agree that he should now lay a regulation providing these interpretations?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am aware of the powers. I do not think that the time has come to use them. It would be best to wait and see how the Act is working.
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how much his Department will spend this year on research and development to assist in the mobility and independence of disabled people under Section 22 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Sir K. Joseph: Identifiable expenditure on research and development in this area will amount to about £375,000.
    Mr. McElhone: Has the Minister got his priorities right? Does not he agree that by spending more on research and development he could make life much easier for disabled people and, perhaps, save his Department money on home helps, health visitors and so on, while at the same time—which is more important—giving greater freedom and dignity to the disabled?
    Sir K. Joseph: I agree in principle that the research here can be effort well spent. If any hon. Member is aware of valuable research which is being neglected by my Department, I shall be delighted to receive evidence about it.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the £3 million which he is proposing to cut off all the research councils, especially the Medical Research Council, as a result of the additional directive which came out since the Chancellor's October cuts?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is not a question for me. My Department has a research budget of its own, and I was answering on that budget. I repeat the invitation to let me have the information for which I asked.
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware that there is widespread ignorance on the part of local authorities of the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; and whether he will take immediate steps to ensure that they are fully informed of their duties under the Act.
    Mr. Alison: I have no reason whatever to think that the responsible authorities are not aware of these provisions.
    Mr. Cocks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but I am concerned about the lack of knowledge in this matter, especially as rate projections are now being made for the coming years. Will he look into it again?
    Mr. Alison: I will look into any case which the hon. Gentleman cares to send to me. He will be aware that on 17th
    292
    August Circulars were sent not only to the clerks but to the relevant heads of departments of counties, county boroughs, London boroughs and urban and rural and district councils. They should all be aware of the provisions of the Act by now.
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what instruction his local appliance centres have sent to disabled persons and, in the case of disabled children, to their parents concerning the effect of Section 20 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; if he will reproduce a copy of this instruction in the OFFICIAL REPORT; what action he has now taken to review the instruction; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: Letters were sent to users of attendant-controlled outdoor pushchairs and electric indoor chairs. I am arranging for copies to be reproduced in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The situation in respect of both types of chair is unchanged.
    Mr. Morris: The letters from the appliance centres caused considerable concern to the parents of many severely disabled children, including thalidomide children. Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if their present vehicles cannot be properly used on the footway, they should now have vehicles which can be used outside the home as well as within it?
    Mr. Alison: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He will appreciate that it places a heavy burden of responsibility upon any Department to ask it to facilitate young thalidomide children to go out of the home on to the pavement, with, perhaps, sharp drops on to the road, without at the same time being able to guarantee complete safety, which we could not do.
    The text of the letters is as follows:

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY APPLIANCE CENTRE ADDRESS STAMP
    Dear
    Under Ministry of Transport Regulations which came into force on 29th September, 1970, the electric pushchair provided for you may be used on the pavement. There is no need now for the person who takes you out to have a driving licence. There is also no need to renew the vehicle excise licence when

    293
    it expires nor is there any requirement for insurance.
    Will you accordingly please return the Notice of Insurance, MHM 383A, the Insurance Certificate, the Registration Book and the vehicle excise licence to this office in the envelope enclosed.
    Yours faithfully,
    Dear
    I am writing about the powered indoor on them. chair provided for your use by this Department.
    The passing of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill has resulted in some publicity about the use of Powered chairs on when the London Borough of Brent at the pavement. Although it is no longer first refused to pay for the installation illegal to drive certain powered chairs on the of such a kidney machine at home, and pavement, I would like to remind you that
    the powered chair issued for your use by this Department was supplied for indoor use only. This was made clear in the Conditions of Supply to which you have given you have given your signed agreement and these continue to apply.
    Yours faithfully,

    Home Dialysis Units
    Mr. Michael Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will issue advice to local authorities that they should make no charge for any alterations needed to make a house suitable for a home dialysis unit.
    Sir K. Joseph: This is a matter for the local authority to decide in each case according to the particular circumstances.
    Mr. Cocks: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but would he not agree that here is a clear question of using powers under Section 29, since people who are dependent for the rest of their lives upon a kidney machine can, surely, be said to be chronically sick? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider making this one of the first uses of his powers in order to clear up the invidious distinctions between local authorities?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence that local authorities are not sensibly using their discretion to remit charges where necessary for those who have home dialysis units.
    Mr. Molloy: Many hon. Members on both sides feel strongly on this issue, since we had great hopes of what would come out of the Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, when we put Questions and supplementary questions, we put them very sincerely, and
    294
    will he in the circumstances ignore the asinine remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) on Question No.5?
    Sir K. Joseph: That does not arise from this question at all. I think that my hon. Friend's comments were entirely justified, though I added my own gloss on them.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall the difficulties which one of my constituents had some time ago when the London Borough of Brent at first refused to pay for the installation of such a kidney machine at home, and represented thereafter to the Ministry that, in its view, this was the Ministry's responsibility? I am not seeking to support that view, but may we have the Minister's view on the matter, before any further difficulties of this nature come in the way of people in my area or elsewhere?
    Sir K. Joseph: I would rather study that case before commenting upon it. In principle, there is no reason why people who can afford to pay for the home alterations should not be allowed to do so.

    Vitamins for Children
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the schools medical service and his medical advisory staff have been consulted about the proposal to give school children vitamin pills instead of orange juice and cod liver oil; and whether he is satisfied that this will not result in encouragement to young people to take pills of all kinds.
    Mr. Alison: The vitamin preparation to be introduced in April is intended for pre-school children only and will be in the form of liquid drops. School children are not involved.
    Mr. Redmond: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but has he seen medical reports to the effect that vitamin pills given to children who are already receiving a balanced diet can be harmful? Will he take that matter into consideration?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will have noted that for children drops. not pills, are intended.

    Regional Hospital Boards (Allocation of Funds)
    Mr. Kenneth Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the redeployment of available funds betwen regional hospital boards in order to ensure that each board receives a fair share of such funds, bearing in mind the population it serves.
    Sir K. Joseph: Annual revenue allocations to regional hospital boards are now made on a basis designed to reduce inequalities of financial provision without disrupting the services in the regions which are at present better off. The population served by each board features largely in the calculation.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but he will be aware of the great inequalities which at present exist. Is he aware, for example, that the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board is £10 million short of its fair share of revenue required to provide a service for its population? Over what period of time does he envisage redeployment ironing out these differences between regions?
    Sir K. Joseph: I spent a day recently with the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board, and I am aware of the position. It will probably take about ten years, moving gradually, as we must in order to be fair to all regions, to even out the financial provision available.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the accepted discrepancies which exist between regions in both health service provision and hospital ward expenditure, what steps is the Minister taking to obtain a fairly equal standard of national provision, and what influence does he have with boards in this matter?
    Sir K. Joseph: We are revising upwards each year the share of the extra money available to the boards with less resources in order, over about a ten-year period, to bring about equivalent revenue and capital availability, taking into account population, beds, and types and numbers of cases treated.

    Speech Therapists
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if
    296
    he is satisfied with the number of speech therapists employed by hospitals; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: The present number in England and Wales is equivalent to 172 whole-time staff and represents an increase of over 35 per cent. between 1965 and 1970, but we are aware that more would be welcome in many places.
    Mr. Davidson: I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that the services and easy availability of speech therapists are vital to those who suffer from, for example, the appalling infirmity of having lost the voice box? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient full-time therapists and that, perhaps, too many hospitals are not having to augment them with part-time therapists, excellent though these people may be?
    Mr. Alison: I note with sympathy the hon. Gentleman's reaction, but he will have noted that we are not satisfied that there are enough. The Committee of Inquiry into speech therapy services is expected to report towards the end of the year, and this will help us in assessing what further provision we should make.

    Hostels for the Mentally Handicapped
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hostels for the mentally handicapped are now in operation in the United Kingdom.
    Sir K. Joseph: There are now 240 local authority hostels for the mentally handicapped in operation in England, Scotland and Wales providing 4,956 places. An additional 2,187 places are available in voluntary and private hostels.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: To what extent will there be an increase in these hostel places? Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate of how many beds may be made free in mental hospitals as a result of the desire to move mentally handicapped people into that type of hostel?
    Sir K. Joseph: There is considerable scope for moving people from mentally handicapped hospitals into the community. There are 43 local authority hostels under construction in addition to those I mentioned, and a further 322

    297
    hostels in local authority programmes for the period up to March, 1973.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the distressingly overcrowded condition of many wards in mentally handicapped hospitals still, despite the steps taken in the past year or so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking regional hospital boards as well as local authorities to consider establishing hostels, in this case within hospital grounds? My impression is that a number of the hospitals have sites large enough to allow hostels to be constructed.
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

    Paranoia
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will initiate an inquiry into the treatment of paranoia.
    Mr. Alison: No, Sir. Paranoia is a well known, though rare, condition closely associated with schizophrenia. It appears in varying degrees of severity and a wide range of treatment is available.—[Laughter.] There is a good deal of on-going research mainly under the auspices of the Medical Research Council and in univerities.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am not quite sure why hon. Members should find this a subject to joke about. Anybody who has ever met a paranoiac realises that it is a very distressing condition. Does not my hon. Friend think that perhaps the Mental Health Act should be amended in such a way as to allow local authority medical services the power to bring such people into care by a measure of compulsion, particularly when they are no longer able to look after themselves?
    Mr. Alison: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's point. It is very difficult to make clear definitions and the borderline between paranoia and schizophrenia is one of those areas of rather vague definition. But a great deal of research is going on, and I will feed into it the question which my hon. Friend has put to me.
    Dr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? It seems to me to be an admirable area in which an inquiry could be made. Will he also take into account that the inquiry could start
    298
    in this House, particularly on the benches opposite?
    Mr. Alison: The serious point of that supplementary question is covered by my reference to the fact that the Medical Research Council is engaged in inquiries into this subject, wihch is one of its highest priorities.

    Community Physicians
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when the report of his working party on the role of the community physician will be published.
    Sir K. Joseph: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) on 2nd February.-[Vol. 810, c. 308.]
    Mr. Pavitt: It is the right hon. Gentleman's view that the community physician under the National Health Service should also be the Chief Medical Officer for the local health authority? When does he expect to bring forward his proposed report on restructuring the N.H.S. which will also cover the role of the community physician'? Will it be a consultative document or a White Paper?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions which are not on the Order Paper. I hope that there will be close co-operation in the use of the community physician between the local authority and the health authority. The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is, "Soon".

    Trade Disputes (Payments) Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the existing arrangements for welfare payments to families of people who have withdrawn their labour; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Government have been reviewing the question of supplementary benefit payments to the families of persons involved in trade disputes. I hope to make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. Madel: As families of those involved in industrial disputes often suffer more hardship than is realised, may we

    299
    take it that the Government will not make changes in welfare payments which are harsh or unnecessary?
    Sir K. Joseph: We shall not make changes which are harsh or unnecessary.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that temporary postmen who are not party to the present dispute but who are dismissed because of the stoppage of postal services have been denied both unemployment pay and National Assistance? Is not that wholly unjust?
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot believe that people with families are being denied supplementary benefit where they are entitled to it. Single persons involved in trade disputes are not entitled to supplementary benefit, but if the right hon. Gentleman knows of men or women with dependants being denied supplementary benefit when they are entitled to it, I should be grateful to be told.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in his review of the subject that we now have incontrovertible evidence that international companies are shifting investment involving many thousands of jobs from this country because of the incidence of industrial disputes? Does it make sense for the taxpayer to be required to subsidise industrial anarchy when it has such results?
    Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us how that supplementary question bears at all on the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the latter part of the supplementary question was in order, as bearing on the Question.
    Sir K. Joseph: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement which I hope to make in due course.
    Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman not listen to the siren voices, particularly in the editorial columns of the Telegraph and The Times, urging such changes in comment written by people with no understanding of industrial relations? Will he bear in mind that if he makes changes along the lines suggested, they will, along with the Industrial Relations Bill, do the exact opposite in indus-
    300
    trial relations to that which is intended and seriously worsen the situation?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am not responsible for speculation in the Press.
    Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a distinction should be drawn between unofficial and official strikes? Why should the community assist those unofficial strikers who are striking not against their company but against their own union? That is the point about which the House would like to know.
    Sir K. Joseph: I must also ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement.
    Mr. O'Malley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side utterly reject the harsh philosophy underlying the series of questions asked by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)? In view of the very broad nature of the Question, which refers to welfare payments and not to supplementary benefits, can the Secretary of State give us an assurance that in the review no consideration is being given to changing the availability of welfare benefits, as distinct from supplementary benefits, to the dependants of strikers?
    Sir K. Joseph: My answer referred only to supplementary benefit payments. I must assert that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and all hon. Members are concerned for the national interest. It is against that background that the Government are considering the problem.

    Mentally Handicapped Persons (Norwich)
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the length of the waiting list for urgent admissions for the mentally subnormal in the Norwich area, he will authorise a building programme to increase the number of beds available at Plumstead Hospital.
    Mr. Alison: No, Sir. The Region's services for the mentally handicapped are unduly concentrated in the Norwich area. The regional hospital board intends to deal with the problem by providing beds in other areas.
    Dr. Stuttaford: But is my hon. Friend aware that the long-term planning for

    301
    the mentally subnormal in the whole of the regional hospital board area makes fewer beds available in the 1980s than are available in the 1970s?
    Mr. Alison: The board's future plans are under discussion in the Department. I would rather not comment on them now. But I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is undue concentration in Norwich at present.

    Abortion and Family Planning
    Dr. Stuttafordasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the overall savings which would accrue to the social services if the number of unplanned pregnancies were reduced, he will authorise general practitioners to prescribe oral contraceptives on the standard National Health Service prescription form for social as well as medical needs.
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to make a statement on the extension of the Family Planning Service.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now ready to make a statement on an official inquiry into the working of the Abortion Act.
    Sir K. Joseph: I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, answer Questions No. 21, 101 and 105 together at the end of Question Time.

    Wolsgrave Hospital, Coventry (Private Patients)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what facilities have been available for private patients at Wolsgrave Hospital, Coventry, since its opening; how many private patients have been treated; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: The number of private in-patients treated up to 31st January was 736. I am informed that at times the number of beds used for private patients exceeded the number authorised, and I have asked the regional hospital board to investigate and to report to me on any failure to observe the statutory procedure.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the opening
    302
    of the hospital about £31,000 has been paid by private patients for private treatment? Is he aware that beds were promised to consultants before they were given authorisation by him? Is he further aware that on the hospital waiting list in the Coventry area there are over 5,000 patients? In addition to asking the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board for a report, will he institute a full public inquiry into what is fast becoming a national scandal?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I have no knowledge of these things. That is why I have asked the regional board for a full report.
    Mr. William Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to tell us what percentage of that £31,000 went to the consultants? Is not this another example of the vicious secrecy with which the regional board conducts its affairs? Is it not clear that what we want is a full investigation of the board itself?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I am not able to answer those questions. But I must emphasise that there are two questions here, apart from the report which I await. One is the past and any possible irregularities there have been; the other is the future and the right number ofs private beds in this hospital group, on which, after long correspondence, I understand, between the hospital management committee and the regional board, I am awaiting advice.
    Dr. Summerskill: What is the Government's policy towards private pay-beds? I welcome the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman will hold into this matter, but will he bear in mind that the last Government reduced the number of private pay-beds in hospitals by over 1,000 in England and Wales? Does he plan a similar reduction or an even greater reduction?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have no information on which to judge whether any reduction or increase is at the moment necessary. We think it right that people who wish to pay for hospital treatment should be entitled to do so in a proper proportion of National Health Service beds, always bearing in mind the needs of those who do not wish to pay, who constitute the vast majority.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who welcome his decision to inquire into this matter hope that he will protect the integrity of the inquiry by ensuring that any consultants or other personnel from this hospital who are also members of the regional board are not wearing two hats when the inquiry is going on? Will he take appropriate action to ensure that that does not happen?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have not promised an inquiry into these things. I said that I have asked the regional board for a report. What I do after I study the report is for the Government's decision.

    Census Data (Commercial Uses)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what restrictions he proposes to place on the sale and use of 1971 census data for commercial purposes; and whether he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: No information about identified individual people or households is released to anyone outside the census organisation.
    Census data published, sold or otherwise released are not analysed to such a level of disaggregation that information on individual people or households is disclosed. Publication of data from the census requires the permission of the Registrar General. These restrictions apply equally, whoever the user of the statistics.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that fairly large sections of the last census were sold for commercial use? If he will not change the regulations about the sale of census data for commercial use, will he change the law which insists that people have to fill in census forms?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. I assure the House that the information which was sold, and which under the law could be sold again, was in such a form that it was quite impossible for any individual identifiable information to be gathered by anyone who had access to the bought or released information.
    Captain W. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal
    304
    of anxiety about the amount of information which is required on the new census forms? Will he do his best to publicise the remarks that he has just made?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.

    Dental Treatment (Charges)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage fall-off in dental treatment was noted by his Dental Rates Study Group when charges for treatment were first introduced and when the basic charge was increased from £1 to £1 10s., respectively; and whether the advice of the study group has been sought on the effects of the new charges which take effect in April, 1971.
    Sir K. Joseph: For adults, a fall of 5 per cent. in 1952, but this was quickly recovered and the number of courses has continued to increase steadily since then—with no reduction when the charges were increased in 1968. Consultations with the Dental Rates Study Group would not have been necessary or appropriate.
    Mr. Ellis: In view of the alarming fall which occurred following the comparatively small increase in charges, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the dental profession's justifiable alarm at the prospects when his proposals come into force shortly? Would not he agree that, if he were to consult the Study Group and its advice were in line with that of previous authorities, it would be wiser for him to reconsider his decision?
    Sir K. Joseph: Certainly the dental profession is concerned, but I think that its concern is misplaced. I am sure that there will be a slight dip but that it will be recovered and that the increase of treatment will then continue.
    Dr. Miller: Does not the right lion. Gentleman realise that he is hiding behind the statistics? While there may be a slight drop, it is completely accounted for by a section of the population which most requires attention to teeth.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence of that. When the House takes into account the sharp increase in the income at which exemption will be available, it will realise that the dental profession's fears are misplaced.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Overseas Bankers' Club at Guildhall on 1st February, 1971, concerning inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st February to the Overseas Bankers' Club in London on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st February to the Overseas Bankers' Club in London on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if the public speech to overseas bankers made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London on 1st February on economic policies represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend emphasised the need to defeat inflation; and, on the European negotiations, argued that our contribution to the Community budget should not be disproportionate. I am sure that his views command general support.
    Mr. Grant: The Prime Minister will also be aware that the Chancellor referred to a voluntary incomes policy as not being practicable at present. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that direct Government action to raise food prices, rents, rates, fares, welfare charges and so on, and to interfere with trade union rights, is calculated to help towards achieving such a policy?
    The Prime Minister: This matter was debated at considerable length last Thursday, when the particular point raised by the hon. Gentleman was dealt with. The proposals on food prices, which
    306
    are part of the general agricultural policy, and the rent rebates which we are extending to the private sector as well as to the public sector as part of our housing policy, were among our proposals which we put before the electors. They have also been discussed in the House.
    Mr. Sheldon: Since the Government cannot hope to reduce inflation by undermining the role of the independent arbitrators, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government knew about the latest Civil Service pay award when they decided not to reappoint Professor Clegg?
    The Prime Minister: That is an entirely different question but I will answer it. We did not know about this award, which was being made by the arbitrator at the time my right hon. Friend informed Professor Clegg of his decision.
    I want to make it clear that the general impression given before the Report was published, that there was to be an increase of 20 per cent. for civil servants, was not correct and was unfair to the civil servants concerned. Those recommended to receive between 15 and 20 per cent. constitute no more than 3 per cent. of the staff involved. The remainder have increases from 15 per cent. to nil per cent. The average increase on the wage bill is, I am informed, 8·9 per cent.
    I hope that the House will agree that it is of the utmost importance that those who publish wage settlements, through whatever media of communication, should await the Report before they Jo so and should then report it accurately.
    Mr. Davidson: In his speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to a statutory incomes policy as "crude, unworkable and unfair". Is the Prime Minister aware that most trade unionists and their families would agree that that was an apt description of the Government's economic policy? Is he aware that that was why 100,000 of them marched in protest on Sunday?
    The Prime Minister: The statutory wages policy was abandoned by the Labour Government, as announced by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement, because it corresponded exactly to the description which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted.
    Mr. Fraser: The Prime Minister will he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking about inflation. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the inflationary effects of the abolition of subsidies for commuter rail services in London? Does he propose to put pressure on the private sector, in accordance with what the Chancellor was advocating, to prevent people from getting wage increases to make up for the loss of income when fares go up when subsidies arc taken off?
    The Prime Minister: It is well known that our policy is that none of these problems can be solved by repeatedly increasing subsidies. It is the burden of taxation on British industry and the consequential weakness which results which has led industry to ask for further and further subsidies, and which has led us into the difficulties of which we have seen an example recently.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that whereas everybody subscribes to the "desirable end", as the Chancellor of the Exchequer put it, of defeating inflation, it does no good at all for the most highly paid men in the public sector, such as Lord Melchett of the Steel Corporation, to have their salaries increased at this critical time from £16,000 a year to £25,000 a year, this after no fewer than five increases in the price of steel within two years, and all of it dreadfully inflationary?
    The Prime Minister: I fully recognise the impact of any increase in steel prices, but in my time in the House my hon. Friend has been one of those who have been foremost in emphasising that, if one is to have high quality management in the nationalised industries, it is necessary to pay those appointed salaries corresponding to those in private industry. There is also the point that under all Governments the nationalised industries have had to bring in management from outside, and this only emphasises the importance of the point which I have just mentioned.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Yesterday, in response to a point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), the Prime Minister apologised for having misled the House last Thursday. In doing so he mentioned
    308
    the figure of £10 million. Will he not now concede that he further misled the House yesterday, as in this financial year there is nothing and next year the figure will be only £2 million? Will he now come clean and tell us precisely what this means for the North-East of England?
    The Prime Minister: The position was exactly as I stated it. I said what the cost would be in a fully effective year, and I said that quite clearly. In any case, that has nothing to do with these four Questions.
    Mr. Hordern: As the Labour Party gave up all pretence of operating a prices and incomes policy in the six months before the election and as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) pumped more money into the economy in the three months before the election than he had formerly proposed to put in for the whole year, is it not the plainest hypocrisy on the part of the Labour Party to talk in terms of inflation at all?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister saying that if an arbitration award affects only a few people, 2 per cent. or 3 per cent., it is all right to pay increases of 15 per cent. or 18 per cent., but that if it is 200,000 postmen, it is not right? Is that the right Hon. Gentleman's new incomes policy?
    The Prime Minister: That was not what I said, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is not ahe case. The point I am making is that the impression given this morning before the Report was published was that it was a general wage award of 20 per cent. affecting these classes in the Civil Service. That was untrue and unfair to those in the service.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman agreed very briefly with his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) about pumping money into the economy in the second quarter of last year. Has he yet had an opportunity of looking at something to which I directed his attention, the report of the Bank of England that the greater part of the increase in the additional credit supply

    309
    was created after the second half of June last year?
    The Prime Minister: I looked at these figures and I cannot agree with the Leader of the Opposition. The situation improved in the second half of June after the return of the Conservative Government, the increase of confidence and the improvement in the gilt-edged market which then followed.

    BRENT
    Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to the London Borough of Brent.
    The Prime Minister: I have accepted an official invitation to attend the Football League Cup Final at Wembley Stadium next Saturday.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I expected him to visit not only the League Cup Final, but the F.A. Cup Final, as did his predecessor? I do not ask him necessarily to linger in Neasden, in my constituency, which would no doubt welcome him, but could he use his influence on the Conservative Neanderthal Council of the London Borough of Brent, as my borough is now getting a reputation throughout the country for its appalling housing policy which is having a terrible effect in dividing not the nation but my borough into two, Willesden and Wembley? On his way to the Cup Final, will he stop off at the town hall and have a word with the terrible Tory councillors, who are pursuing terrible policies?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the council proposes to put out to tender nearly 2,000 dwellings in 1971 and approximately 1,000 in 1972 and 1973, and those do not seem to me to be terrible proposals.
    Sir E. Bullus: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he will always be very welcome in the Borough of Brent and that he will be given a tumultuous welcome by the residents there?
    The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to seeing my hon. and gallant Friend at Wembley.

    INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for answering Questions relating to the implementation in domestic law of international human rights obligations.
    The Prime Minister: Where the Question concerns international human rights obligations in general, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would normally answer. Where it relates to obligations in a particular field, the Minister responsible for that field would reply.
    Mr. Archer: Is it not a curious arrangement, even for the present Government, to make the Foreign Secretary answerable for domestic legislation? Do we not require some machinery for supervising proposed legislation for conformity with human rights, for example, the Industrial Relations Bill, particularly as we are not entitled to discuss all the Clauses in the House?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. It has been the custom under all Administrations for the Foreign Office, which is responsible for the negotiation and observance of treaties, to have these general responsibilities for human rights. If there is a particular aspect, such as an International Labour Office regulation, naturally the Department of Employment is primarily concerned. I know that the hon. Member has suggested the setting up of an inter-departmental committee, but co-ordination among Departments about legislation of this kind is sufficiently close to deal with these matters, and to create a further piece of inter-Departmental machinery would be clumsy and expensive.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Commission has found that there is a prima facie case against this country over the Kenya-Asians, and is not this an exceedingly serious matter for the good name of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "And for Kenya."] Would he take steps to see that the Home Secretary deals with this matter in the Immigration Bill which I believe is to be presented to the House today?
    The Prime Minister: As the matter is sub judice, it would be better for me not to comment and, obviously, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary cannot take account of any view expressed by the Commission until it has reached its conclusions.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: While the right hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly right in saying that the Foreign Secretary must be the Minister responsible for the conduct of these matters in international negotiations, would he say whether when he met Major Chichester-Clark recently he drew the attention of the Northern Ireland Government yet again to the fact that we have international responsibility for human rights matters? Did he get an assurance from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland that at the earliest moment the Northern Ireland Government will proceed to remove all the aspects of the Special Powers Acts which are in conflict with our international obligations?
    The Prime Minister: The Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has given that assurance publicly, and that assurance remains firm.

    BANK OF ENGLAND
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister how many times he has been officially entertained at the Bank of England since 18th June, 1970.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir, but I have accepted an invitation to lunch with the Governor and the Court on 6th May.
    Dr. Gilbert: When the Prime Minister meets the Governor will he discuss with him the fact that his Government's heavy reliance on monetary policy is having serious effects on efficient firms which have a small ratio of cash to sales, whereas inefficient firms with large cash balances not invested are managing to get along all right? Is not this a policy of the survival of the fattest rather than the fittest? Was not this comment a criticism which the right hon. Gentleman himself made of the introduction of corporation tax, a very fair criticism when the tax was introduced in 1965? Are we not now saddled with a situation in which the pernicious effects of the tax system, which the right hon. Gentleman himself identi-
    312
    fied, are reinforced by his own Government's monetary policy?
    The Prime Minister: It is not true that the Government are relying only on monetary policy. We are relying on a combination of economic weapons in order to deal with the inflationary situation. Nor is it true that because a firm does not have a satisfactory cash flow, it is therefore efficient, or because it has cash resources, it is inefficient. That surely is a very arbitrary judgment.
    Mr. Marten: If the Prime Minister does lunch at the Bank will he remind the Governor that under the Labour Government Bank Rate was never so high for so long since 1694 when the Bank was formed?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think it necessary to remind the Governor or the Court of that fact.
    Mr. Cant: When this engagement takes place, would the Prime Minister congratulate the Governor upon his control of money supply, at any rate in recent weeks? Would he accept the fact that the problem of managing the economy is a consequence of the very large balance of payments surplus bequeathed to the Government, plus the fact that Bank Rate is at such a very high level that we have this vast flow of hot money? Would he say to the Governor, "Please reduce Bank Rate so that we can ease this problem"? Is he aware that that might lead to a more satisfactory solution to the inflation problem?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad to hear the tribute to the Governor over the control of the monetary policy, because it has been regained in the last six months. When the hon. Gentleman speaks of an inflow of money into this country he is also accepting that the control of monetary policy has been maintained even in the face of this inflow, and that is the consequence of activities on the gilt-edged market.
    Mr. Barnett: If the Prime Minister is using not only money supply, would he say what other solutions he is using to reduce unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: We had this debate on Thursday. Unemployment at the moment is to a large extent the reflection of the cost inflation against which we are battling.

ABORTION AND FAMILY PLANNING
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, now answer Question No. 21, No. 101 and No. 105 together.
The Government have now studied the working of the 1967 Abortion Act. Our conclusion is that, while the Act has operated to the benefit of many people, there is cause for real concern about the way in which certain of its provisions are working in practice. We therefore propose to appoint a committee of inquiry to review the operation of the Act on the basis that the main conditions for legal abortion remain unaltered. I will, if I may, circulate the full terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The essential point is that the inquiry will be concerned with the way the Act is working and not with the principles that underlie it. It will be open to the Committee not only to recommend changes in the law but also to suggest interim changes in the Regulations under the present Act should they find this necessary. I am glad to tell the House that the Honourable Mrs. Justice Lane has accepted our invitation to preside over the inquiry, and, in choosing other members, we shall be looking for people with the right kind of knowledge and experience who are not already committed on the subject.
The Government believe that family planning can often improve the quality of domestic life: it can prevent the unhappiness that unwanted pregnancies can cause and reduce the need for abortion. The Government propose to encourage the growth of local authority family planning, including domicilary services, particularly in areas of special need. Provision has therefore been made mainly in the rate support grant for expenditure in England and Wales to treble by 1972–73. The rate of growth in subsequent years has yet to be settled. Advice will remain free to all and so will equipment to those requiring it on medical grounds. Local authorities may waive charges for equipment in other cases.
Hospital authorities are also being asked to increase provision for family planning.
314
No change is proposed in the arrangements for the provision of family planning advice and equipment by general practitioners.
Dr. Stuttaford: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the establishment of this inquiry will give great pleasure to and allay many fears of those who are in favour of abortion law reform just as much as to those who are against it? Is he further aware that his reply about general practitioners will cause anxiety not only to general practitioners but to the general public, since a recent survey showed that the general public want and expect their general practitioner to give this advice? Is he aware that at the moment this service is curtailed because private prescriptions have to be used? If the E.C.10 could be used far more contraceptive advice could be given in general practitioners' surgeries, and accepted.
Sir K. Joseph: We are increasing the facilities throughout local government and hospital clinics for people who cannot afford the supplies involved. The Government see no reason for taking over from the vast majority of the public who are well able to seek advice and provide their own equipment if need be. The job is now done by general practitioners.
Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this most welcome and much-needed extension of the family planning service should help to relieve poverty and reduce the birth rate? Is he aware that much more will need to be done to stabilise the population over the next 30 years? Can he say when a decision will be made and announced about the Population Study Group to which the Prime Minister referred on 26th January?
Sir K. Joseph: That is a question for the Prime Minister. I would not like my right hon. and leaned Friend to delude himself into thinking that the increase in family planning is intended for population policy reasons. It is intended to increase family happiness and as such has an important contribution to make.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be welcomed by hon. Members on all sides, particularly by those who think

315
it a crazy social policy to make abortion easy and family planning difficult? Can he assure the House that all interested parties, including the medical and nursing professions, will be able to give evidence at this inquiry?
Sir K. Joseph: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We are lucky to have got so distinguished a Chairman for the inquiry.
Dr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the position which he has outlined applies to Scotland; secondly, will he accept that the medical profession will welcome any kind of investigation into abortion? Is he further aware that we also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has said categorically that the main conditions of the Act will not be affected? Can he tell me whether the position of voluntary bodies in family planning will be affected by the new proposals?
Sir K. Joseph: The abortion announcement was made on behalf of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales as well as myself. Family planning policy was announced for Scotland by the Secretary of State for Scotland about two weeks ago. Family planning bodies will, I imagine, benefit from the increased resources available.
Mr. Crawshaw: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people like myself who support this Measure will welcome the inquiry because we are concerned about certain aspects of the policy? Would he tell the House whether this inquiry will alter the imbalance in certain parts of the country, particularly in the Liverpool area, where it is almost impossible to get an abortion because of opposition from certain people there?
Sir K. Joseph: It will be open to the inquiry to consider any evidence that is put before it, including that to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Mrs. Knight: Will the inquiry be empowered to take evidence, preferably written, from women who have had abortions in the private sector as to the standard of care they received and, bearing in mind the implications of the tax position here, the sums of money that
316
they have been asked to hand over in cash?
Sir K. Joseph: That sort of question is entirely for the Committee, but as it has a Chairman who is a High Court judge I am sure that it will be able to handle such evidence, from whatever source.
Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that the House will be gratified by his statement? May we take it that there will be no religious embargo on membership of the Committee for the medical and nursing profession?
Sir K. Joseph: We shall seek objective members with suitable qualifications, obviously regardless of any religious background.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: While not accepting the morality as distinct from the legality of abortion, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, pending the results of the inquiry, he will look very closely at applications for the licensing of abortion clinics having regard to the strong feeling of the clergy and many people in my constituency about the proposal for such a clinic at Buckhurst Hill?
Sir K. Joseph: I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will continue to examine very carefully all applications for further clinics.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Before dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's very welcome announcement about the inquiry and the family planning matters, may I ask him why the B.B.C. carried on its one o'clock news a complete statement to the effect which the right hon. Gentleman has just given to the House? Will he bear out my view that it is very unfortunate for information to be given to the public through the mass media before it is given to the House?
We welcome the setting up of the committee of inquiry in view of certain disturbing features of the working of the Act. First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a close look will be taken at the working of private clinics, and particularly the length of time which people spend in them, and the possibility of touting for custom? Secondly, referring to his announcement about family planning, can he confirm that domiciliary services will be made available in all

317
parts of the country because we on this side of the House share the view that it is much better to prevent unwanted births rather than abort them? Finally, will he consider making contraceptives available free of charge to those in need on social as well as medical grounds?
Sir K. Joseph: Contraceptives are already available on social grounds when the local authority judges fit and when the income is low.
I regret that the B.B.C. has, according to the hon. Lady, published my statement in advance. I referred as long ago as October to a pending Government announcement about family planning and I have answered a number of questions tabled by my hon. Friends about abortion, with the promise of an early statement. Therefore, it is not surprising that some decisions on this matter should have been expected. Certainly the inquiry—[Interruption]—The Order Paper today is peppered with Questions on this subject and it was not surprising that people should conclude that there might be a statement today. I shall certainly see whether there has been any "leak" of the crucial information.
The inquiry will be able to consider the practice of private clinics. The Government believe that the principal growth in family planning should come in giving advice in the home to those who, for one reason or another, are not able to take advantage of contraceptive methods.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his comments on family planning matters and for setting up the inquiry, may I ask him whether I would be right in saying that the Committee will not be precluded from making comments on the essence of the Act if it felt that those comments were necessary?
Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to open up the subject which took so long to debate in the House originally, but obviously if the Committee felt trammelled by its terms of reference it would be able to write to me and say so.
Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome for the very carefully measured terms with which he made his announcement about the inquiry into the Abortion Act and that there is growing evidence that the great demand for abortions is
318
caused by a lack of family planning provisions? There will be a welcome for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has linked the two subjects together.
Will the inquiry be able to look into some of the widely publicised allegations made against the working of the Abortion Act, some of which have been found by his Department to be totally unfounded?
Sir K. Joseph: Yes. One of the main values of the inquiry will be that it will separate truth from fiction. A number of statements have been made which the House would like to have examined.
Mr. C. Pannell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the general satisfaction that the inquiry will proceed on the basis that the law will not be altered, bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of this House voted in favour of the 1967 Act and that it is proper to emphasise the terrific social benefit which the Act has brought rather than its minor shortcomings which are insisted upon by those people who voted against it in the first place?
Sir K. Joseph: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to stoke up feeling on this issue. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to reopen the whole issue, but they have come together in welcoming an inquiry into the workings of the Act.
Following are the full terms of reference:
"To review the operation of the Abortion Act, 1967, and, on the basis that the conditions for legal abortion contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and in subsections (2),(3) and (4) of Section 1 of the Act remain unaltered, to make recommendations."

FISHING VESSELS (GRANTS) SCHEME
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: On a point of order. There stands on the Order Paper a Notice of Motion asking for approval for the amendment of the fishing vessels grants scheme, the effect of which would be to cut the rate of grant for new fishing vessels by 25 per cent. You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the special attention of the House to the fact that the Government are acting ultra vires in seeking to proceed with the Scheme. My hon. Friends and I were concerned lest the Government should seek to pass

319
the Scheme in spite of the Select Committee's findings.
Can you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order for the Government to proceed with the Statutory Instrument which, on the face of it, is ultra vires the Sea Fisheries Act, 1968. Secondly, however you may rule on that point, Mr. Speaker, would it be in order for the Government to proceed with the Statutory Instrument before the House has had the opportunity to study the advice of the Select Committee?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. He is certainly within his rights in objecting to a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper, although it is more usual to await the point at which the Motion is set down as one of the items of the day's business, but as the Motion appears among the remaining Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion I will deal with the point now.
It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn this Instrument to the special attention of the House for the reason given on the Notice Paper. The Speaker is, however, bound by the practice of the House and by Rulings given from the Chair on earlier occasions, and this practice shows that the Chair is not concerned with the merits of this or any other Motion. Provided that the Motion itself does not offend against the rules of the House, its legal effect or validity is not for the Speaker to interpret. These are matters for the House and the right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity of arguing that the House should not approve the Schemes.
All I have to do as Speaker is to consider whether anything out of order would be taking place when the time comes for me to call on the Minister to move the Motion or when I propose the Question for approval to the House. There is nothing in the past practice which suggests that the Chair should intervene to prevent discussion of the Motion as it stands on the Order Paper.
Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order. I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, I accept it. But, as grave consequences may follow the passage of the Statutory Instrument
320
through the House before we have had the opportunity to look at the evidence of the Select Committee, would it be in order for me to suggest that the Leader of the House might indicate the Government's view on this extremely important point?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to the point of order. I recognise the importance of the matter which the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) has raised and of the Ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given.
The Government will naturally, as all Governments have done in the past, take note of any Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It is extremely important and the Government recognise the point which has been made. I believe that there is a satisfactory explanation which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture could give in debate when the Statutory Instrument is put down. However, in view of what the right hon. Member for Anglesey has said, I will look into the matter. I will investigate to discover when the evidence will be available. The Scheme has not yet been put down for debate. Before it is, I will consult the right hon. Member for Anglesey.
Mr. Booth: On a point of order. I submit that the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, in carrying out its duty to the House to examine this Scheme, has taken evidence relating not only to whether the form of the Scheme is correct, but whether the three Ministers concerned with the Scheme have met the requirement of the Sea Fisheries Act to consult the fishing boards before making any directives in connection with the laying of a new scheme. The Committee has taken evidence on whether the three Ministers concerned have prevented the boards from carrying out their statutory duties. You will accept, Mr. Speaker, that within the time limits laid down for a debate to approve such a Scheme, it would not be possible for the full explanations of these considerations to be given to the House in addition to the statements which hon. Members must make on the merits of the new Scheme.
Therefore, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the House has not

321
given us an assurance that the evidence of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments will be published prior to the debate, that provision will be made for a statement on the considerations before the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments on this Scheme before the debate takes place?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry, I have not made myself clear to the hon. Gentleman. I thought I did say—and if I did not I now say—that of course we shall not put down this Scheme for debate until the evidence of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has been published.
Mr. James Johnson: Further to that point of order. Three weeks ago the Leader of the House gave a personal assurance that he would consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with a view to him making a statement. To say the least, he is somewhat dilatory. I hope that we shall get this statement at the earliest possible moment. All hon. Members representing fishing and boat-building constituencies view with the utmost alarm this 25 per cent. cut, and it is up to the Minister to give the House a firm, clear statement, particularly as he himself represents a fishing constituency.
Mr. Speaker: We are getting rather far from points of order.
Mr. Maclennan: Further to the point of order originally raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). Is one to understand from the Leader of the House that the Minister of Agriculture has suggested that there is an explanation which will satisfy the House that the Instrument is proper? If this is not so and the House is dissatisfied, the Scheme will be in direct conflict with the findings of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments and will place the whole fishing industry in extreme difficulties. This is a point of substance which calls for a statement from the Minister of Agriculture prior to the debate.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has made his point, which was a point of argument.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. William Hamilton: You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that following the supplementary questions and answers on
322
Question No. 4 the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney (Mr. Weitzman) inadvertently said on a point of order that he would seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, and you automatically excluded other hon. Members who had similar Questions on the Order Paper from asking supplementary questions. You may recall that Dr. King allowed such supplementary questions to be asked if he was satisfied that the hon. Member who asked the original Question was seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment as an abuse to prevent other hon. Members from asking supplementary questions. My hon. Friend certainly was not consciously abusing the rules of procedure but did so inadvertently, and in those circumstances perhaps you would like to modify the Ruling which sought to exclude other hon. Members with similar Questions on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: I will consider the point which the hon. Member put to me. He is inviting me to embark on rather dangerous ground. I think hon. and hon. and learned Members are assumed to know the logical consequences of their actions and their words, but I will consider what the hon. Member has said.

BILLS PRESENTED
  IMMIGRATION
  Mr. Secretary Maudling, supported by Secretary Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Richard Sharples, and Mr. Attorney-General, presented a Bill to amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law and enable help to be given to those wishing to return abroad, and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 117.]
  TELEVISION LICENSING (ELDERLY PERSONS)
  Mr. John Farr, supported by Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. James Scott-Hopkins, and Mr. John Peel presented a Bill to authorise reduced television licence charges for old-age pensioners: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday, 19th March, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [NINTH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 17th February.]
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIES in the Chair]

  Clause 114

    NO COMPULSION TO WORK OR TO TAKE PART IN INDUSTRIAL ACTION
    3.54 p.m.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I beg to move Amendment No. 854, in page 80, line 41, at end insert:
    'nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached or his property distrained or seized nor be imprisoned for failure to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work'.
    The chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take also Amendment No.856, in page 81, line 4, at end insert:
    () No court shall commit a person to prison for breach of any order made in proceedings brought under this Act.
    Mr. Heffer: In the process of moving the Amendment may I be forgiven for making two comments which are of some importance? First, during last Thursday's debate the Prime Minister in his winding up speech made a comment to the effect that he thought that the Opposition should be have been more responsible and should have been more responsible and should not be tramping through the night voting against various Clauses. He then said that he should be discussing the Bill in greater detail. That is precisely what we asked to do. I am assuming that we shall now get from the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House an assurance that from now on every Clause will be properly debated and that sufficient time will be given for this. I trust that there will be a statement today to that effect.
    Secondly, last week—
    Captain Walter Elliot: On a point of order. I do not know if it is known, but proposals were made by my
    324
    right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give extra time for debating the Bill if the Opposition would also give extra time. The Opposition refused to accept that offer and, as a result, the time has been curtailed. It was in that respect that my right hon. Friend —
    The Chairman: Order. I am afraid the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in order. This is not a point of order and has nothing to do with the Chair. The business of the House is arranged by the Government, in consultation with the Opposition, and the Chair has nothing to do with it.
    Mr. Heffer: If I may comment on that without holding up the business of the Committee, what was being offered to my hon. Friends on this side of the House was nothing at all. We were being asked to give up far more days which would otherwise be available to us to debate other topics than the Government, who were not prepared to give up anything. We went out of our way to seek the fullest possible debate, and this was not allowed.
    Captain W. Elliot: Mr. Chairman, you will recall that you said that I was out of order in raising this, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is raising just this issue.
    The Chairman: It is customary for the spokesman for the Opposition to make certain brief comments. I have been well used to this practice in Standing Committee. The Chair must alone be the judge of whether those comments are brief. The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) sought to address me on a point of order, and that is what I ruled on as being strictly speaking out of order. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) is entitled to do what he is doing provided he is brief, and I am sure I can rely on him being so.
    Mr. Heffer: Thank you, Sir Robert. I shall be very brief. I have completed my first comment. My second brief comment is that during last week's debates one or two hon. Members on the Government benches suggested that trade unionists were not behind the Opposition to the Bill but were behind the Government.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    4.0 p.m.
    Mr. Heffer: Hon. Members opposite say "Hear, hear". I should like to draw their attention to the fact that at least 140,000 workers marched on Sunday against this Bill. Many other workers and their various representatives in the big cities and towns could mount a tremendous number of demonstrations in their areas, and will do as time goes on.
    Mr. David Mitchell rose—
    Mr. Heifer: Of course I do not accept hon. Members opposite to agree with me. I know that they are not—
    The Chairman: Order. I feel that we have reached a stage when the hon. Gentleman should take my advice, and I am sure that he will.
    Mr. Heffer: I was just going to move on, Sir Robert. The object of the Amendment is simple—
    Mr. David Mitchell: On a point of order. I do not wish to question the right of the Chair to choose a particular Amendment, but the situation here is unusual in that this Amendment seeks to delete a power which the Bill does not in fact contain. Is it in order for the Committee to waste time discussing an Amendment which cannot apply to this Bill?
    The Chairman: That is a matter of argument, and in any case I have deemed the Amendment to be in order, which is a matter for me.
    Mr. Heffer: It does not seek to delete anything. In fact it adds something. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has not read the Amendment, otherwise he would not have made such a ridiculous statement.
    The Solicitor-General has said in Committee from time to time that no criminal proceedings will arise from the Bill when enacted. This is disputed. We have argued throughout that although criminal proceedings may not be brought civil proceedings could ultimately lead to criminal proceedings. We want it written into the Bill so that it will be absolutely clear that no employee should be fined, or should have his earnings attached, or should have his property
    326
    distrained or seized, or should be imprisoned for failing to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work. As the Clause stands workers can go on strike, and undoubtedly will, though under certain circumstances they could be forced back to work. They have a right to go on strike but may be forced to pay compensation for taking strike action.
    It is recognised, in spite of what the Secretary of State for Employment has said, that workers will take strike action. Whether they do so individually or collectively, this is bound to happen. We know this from experience at Betteshanger Colliery where, despite the fact that the law said workers should not take strike action, they in fact did so. What happened was that, in order to get a settlement of the dispute, negotiations had to take place with branch officials who were in prison. Therefore, there must be a recognition that when workers take action they will not be forced back to work.
    Clause 114 is basically fraudulent. Workers who take strike action can be caught because they induce or aid and abet, or seek to finance action or indulge in all sorts of unfair industrial practices which may amount to an illegal strike. Therefore, the provision gives the trade union movement nothing. It does not amount to a row of beans. It is included in the Bill to give the impression that the Government are being fair to the trade union movement and to the workers at large.
    The provision is also fraudulent because, although action can be taken in other parts of the Bill against workers for unfair industrial practices, it will be seen from Clauses 124 to 126 that the Secretary of State may apply to the Industrial Court for an order which can either defer or discontinue a strike for 60 days. If that is not ordering workers back to work, I do not know what is. That is doing precisely what the Clause says cannot be done. This is the situation the whole way through the Bill. One part of the Bill says one thing and another part of the Bill says something totally different. We do not have to be Philadelphia lawyers to understand the Bill. We need to be magicians. Certainly shop stewards will never understand it, nor indeed will most lawyers. To understand the Bill

    327
    we shall all need to take magicians' courses.
    We believe that in order to make sense of the provision and to ensure that no action is taken against workers, the Government should accept our Amendment. I will not go into it further at this stage. We believe that it is a sensible, intelligent, brief Amendment which any sensible Government would accept. I only hope that on this occasion the Solicitor-General will show some semblance of sense and accept it.
    Mr. Barney Hayhoe: Although I did not agree with the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller), I was in considerable sympathy with him once he got on to his substantive points on the Amendment. I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) that this Amendment is unnecessary since the Bill does not seek to do the things that the Amendment wishes to make impossible. In other words, if I have any objection to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment it is because it is tautologous and not because it puts forward a basic argument with which I disagree.
    Having expressed by general sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, I must go on to say that I do not believe that the provisions of the Bill make it possible for any employee to be fined or be subjected to any of the other penalties outlined in the Amendment merely because he has failed to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work. But if anyone induces others to take unfair action, it is possible under other provisions of the Bill for action to be taken against him. Obviously the hon. Gentleman and I may disagree about that but, dealing with the Amendment —[Interruption.] Possibly the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) does not want the Committee to deal with it, but I intend to do just that and say that, while I have great sympathy with the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Walton, I hope very much that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be able to tell the Committee whether the Government see any problems arising from the Amendment
    328
    which I do not see. I shall be very pleased to hear my hon. and learned Friend's advice on the matter.
    Mr. John Mendelson: True to form, the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) is again acting as the Government's liberal figleaf. He offers my right hon. and hon. Friends tea and sympathy, and then votes with the Government.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am merely seeking the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. And looking back over the voting record of the hon. Member for Penistone in past years, I seem to remember that the hon. Gentleman was one of that army of paper tigers who often shouted against the actions of their Government but did not stand up for their principles in the Division Lobby.
    Mr. John Fraser: As a result of this Bill, an employer and in certain circumstances the Secretary of State can adopt any one of a multiplicity of courses which ultimately will take the form of injunctions against workers not to commit certain acts. It is not disputed that the only way in which an injunction can be enforced is by means of the deterrent of imprisonment for contempt of court or, in certain circumstances, by means of fines.
    No one can tell whether or not the effect of the Bill will be nugatory. It may be that few employers will take proceedings under the legislation. But if the Government intend to commit people to prison for contempt of court on orders made under this Measure, they will miss an enormous opportunity which was available and was taken by the previous Government to move towards a constructive improvement of our industrial relations. Perhaps the greatest absurdity lies in the fact that it will probably be argued that, in the last resort, people should be sent to prison in an attempt to get better industrial relations.
    As the Bill stands at the moment, a person can be sent to prison without his having had the benefit of legal aid in the proceedings brought against him. I raised this matter on Second Reading. and I was promised a reply. I raised the matter again as a point of order last week, and I have now received a note about it. I

    329
    make no complaint about that. It underlines the difficulty in which the Government find themselves. They have truncated our discussions on the Bill to the point where it is not even possible to announce to the Committee decisions which should be announced in public. The fact remains, however, that, as the Bill stands at the moment, a person can be committed to prison without the advantage of being represented in the court proceedings leading up to his committal.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: Two sides of the Committee are very close in their approaches to this matter. But I would suggest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) that he underestimates the importance of this Clause. It raises no simple or unnecessary matter, and certainly it is not to be treated with scorn.
    The Clause puts forward an assertion which has not appeared in previous legislation that no court shall compel anyone by an order or an injunction to take certain actions. Neither can it compel him not to strike. The hon. Gentleman suggest that the provision is whittled down in other parts of the Bill. The fact remains, however, that its inclusion in the legislaiton is significant. and I hope that he will not disparage its importance in what I trust will be an Act of Parliament.
    It is a provision which is quite different from any that we have had before in legislation, and it goes beyond any provisions intended for inclusion in any similar legislation projected by the prevous Government.
    Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, nothing in this legislation creates a crime in any sense. He implied that, although the word "crime" is not used, there is created some sort of middle world. It is not merely a civil offence but some kind of pseudo-crime.
    The Bill contains no criminal provision and, in view of that, the inclusion of the words proposed in the Amendment would be inappropriate in the context of this Clause. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we should add words to the effect that no employee shall be fined. I cannot see how the penalties referred to in the Bill could result in a fine.
    330
    As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) rightly said, there is another territory which is neither civil nor criminal where a flagrant disregard would amount to contempt of court. However, that does not arise from any of these provisions. The Bill is not a criminal one. It includes no criminal provisions. In that, it is markedly different from the legislation contemplated by the previous Government, who were prepared to introduce criminal provisions and sanctions against the individual to which they now object.
    We do not contemplate those kinds of sanctions and, while I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. Hayhoe), sympathise with the idea behind the Amendment, it is not appropriate in the setting of this Clause and the context of the Bill. I repeat that it is not a criminal Measure. There can be a flagrant disregard amounting to contempt of court, but that has nothing to do with anything contained in the Bill.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: The concluding words of the subsection read:
    "… compel an employee to do any work or to attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work."
    In my view, it should go on to the possibility of his being brought before an industrial court and fined and, if necessary, imprisoned, because that is exactly what can happen.
    It is extraordinary that we have arrived at the stage where it is necessary to write into the Bill words which in effect say that there can be no direction of labour. It should not be necessary to try to offset the provisions contained in previous Clauses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) pointed out, numerous Clauses are relevant to this matter. I have in mind Clauses 5,124,125 and 126, to cite but a few of them.
    The Solicitor-General should recognise, having had the guillotine the other night, that we are now coming on to the industrial court. This Clause flows from Clause 89 onwards with the setting up of the legal paraphernalia. The constraints upon trade unionists will be evident from reading these Clauses. We could have a situation—I think that the Solicitor-General should inform the

    331
    Committee about this—where a shop steward, for instance, instructed to use his best endeavours and refusing to do so, could be brought before the court and fined, refuse to pay the fine, have his goods or property distrained, damages, and, in the final analysis, imprisonment.
    This situation arises from equating trade unionists with criminals. A court procedure is being set up to discipline industrial workers not for breaking the common law, not for taking part in larceny or any other common crime for which anyone is liable, but to say to a certain section of workers—it is only a certain section—"You are liable under the terms of the law and of the High Court which has been set up to certain fines and constraints which are not applicable to every citizen in this country."
    The legal aspects within the terms of the Bill are a complete departure from British law as we understand it. It is applicable to a certain section of the electorate, the industrial working force, not to the whole population. These are the kind of things which face us. The more we get into the legal involvements, the more we see the constraints which will be inflicted on industrial workers.
    Mr. Gower: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this point? If I run my car into his, does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that I could be brought before two courts: one for the criminal or pseudo-criminal action of driving badly or without due care, and the other, the civil court, to which I could be brought by the hon. Gentleman for causing damage to his car? Does the hon. Gentleman see no distinction between the two?
    Mr. Orme: Being surrounded by distinguished lawyers, I shall not try to interpret the British law. I heard three Q.C.s at the beginning of the debate try to define two words—
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Five Q.C.s.
    Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend says "Five Q.C.s". However, each one arrived at a different definition, including the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D.Walker-Smith).
    We on this side feel that any form of criminal proceedings against trade union-
    332
    ists through the setting up of these industrial courts by way of fines is completely obnoxious. We are completely opposed to it. I should like to hear the Solicitor-General justify his case on this matter.
    Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I had not intended to intervene in the debate. I do so only in the hope of contributing my widow's mite to clearing up certain misapprehensions or misconceptions which seem to exist in some of the speeches which have been made.
    The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who has been a diligent and useful contributor to debates in Committee, said that the objection here was that trade unionists were being treated as criminals. That is not so. There are no criminal provisions or sanctions in the Bill.
    The Committee will appreciate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has usefully reminded us, there are two different sections of our law—criminal and civil.
    The criminal code works by way of imposition of fines or prison sentences. The civil code works by the award of damages for breach of contract, for civil wrong suffered, for a declaration of rights, or for an injunction to restrain the committing of a civil wrong. There is, therefore, a clear dichotomy between the criminal and the civil law.
    Mr. Orme: I understand the definition which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given. However, is it not a fact that a trade unionist at the end of the day could still be imprisoned for not operating under the terms of the Bill.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am coming to that in the pattern of the submission which I am putting to the Committee.
    There being that dichotomy between the two branches of the law, the Bill follows, as I have observed in more detail on previous occasions in Committee, the civil pattern.
    We find it best and most clearly set out in Clause 90(3) where three forms of civil remedy are prescribed as within the jurisdiction of the court on a complaint having been made. With a certain difference of nomenclature, those remedies

    333
    follow the civil pattern as I have just described it.
    Mr. Heffer: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is absolutely correct. But in Schedule 2, paragraph 25 deals with enforcement. Paragraph 25 then points out,
    "… the Industrial Court shall have the like powers, rights, privileges and authority—
    (a) in England and Wales, as the High Court".
    It can therefore impose a fine for contempt of court. Paragraph 26 states:
    "In relation to any fine imposed by the Industrial Court for contempt of that court, section 14 of the Criminal Justice Act 1945 and section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967… shall have effect".
    Whilst it is true that the principle within the Bill is based upon civil proceedings, at a certain point such proceedings can be transformed into criminal proceedings. That is the point which we are making.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman ought to follow the matter through. The remedies given in the Bill are analogous to civil remedies, as we see from Clause 90(3) which states,
    "an order determining the rights"—
    which is the same as a declaration given by the High Court as part of its civil jurisdiction—" … an award of compensation "—which is analogous to damages given by the High Court in its civil jurisdiction, and
    "… an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action—
    which is analogous to an injunction given by the High Court.
    So we start from the proposition that there are no criminal provisions as such in the Bill. They are purely civil provisions designed to give remedies for breaches of contract—for example, breaches of contract of legally enforceable collective agreements which may be agreed to be under the new law.
    We then come to the point which seems to be worrying hon. Gentlemen—namely, a defiance of the law. Suppose a man says, "You may whistle for your damages",or, "Despite the injunction, I propose to disobey it". We then come to the branch of the law which has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), the branch known as contempt. Contempt is not
    334
    part of the criminal jurisdiction. Contempt is the necessary residual power that any court must have if it is to be effective.
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Paul B. Rose: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware—it is interesting—that as recently as 1969 Lord Denning, in Re Bramblevale Ltd., said:
    "A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character."
    There is a great deal of judicial authority to support the view that a contempt of court is either criminal or quasi-criminal. Whether it is quasi-criminal, criminal or even civil, the result is the same—gaol.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is to some extent bandying words, and when he refers to judgments of Lord Denning that is rather like where we came in, because it was another judgment of Lord Denning which we were debating the other night, and the hon. Gentleman and I must resist every temptation to turn this Committee stage into a moot, otherwise we shall become very unpopular with those hon. Members who are not lawyers.
    We need not be semantic about it. It is clearly not criminal. I can see the force of what the hon. Gentleman says in his reference to quasi-criminal, though he will not find that that is a term of art within English law. It might be said to be quasi-criminal in that it is, in a sense, coercive, but every residual power which a court has to enforce its jurisdiction must of its nature be coercive to some extent.
    Mr. Orme: That is the point.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: This is where was pass the argument to the other side. We are dealing with Clause 114. We have passed Clause 90. Whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not—I appreciate that they do not—at this stage of the Bill we have to go on the assumption, the Committee having passed it by a majority, that Clause 90 will be good law.
    Mr. Sidney Bidwell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is a very sad set of circumstances? Who is responsible for the fact that we have not discussed the intervening circumstances and the position of the courts?
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: We have had many references to Clause 90 in our debates, as the hon. Gentleman, who has been reasonably assiduous in his attendances during the Committee stage, will recall. It is not one of the Clauses which unfortunately has been omitted from all discussion under the Bill. [Interruption.] —I have given way many times to hon. Gentlemen who have risen in their places. Perhaps I might be excused from sedentary interventions.
    Mr. Harold Walker: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that way invites me to make a standing interruption, I would ask him to point out to the Committee that it is no fault of this side but entirely a consequence of the Government's slapping on the guillotine that we have not exposed the iniquities of Clause 90.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but I wonder whether that intervention was worth taking up the time of the Committee. Whether or not that Clause received as much discussion as it should, it has been adopted by the Committee; and the hon. Gentleman must face the facts of life. After all, we are practical people. There is a strong presumption that, however long it had been debated, when it was divided upon it would have been carried, and by this time, therefore, that Clause is part of the Bill.
    We have to proceed at this stage on the assumption that there is a power in the Industrial Court to make the orders. Having reached that stage, I must pass the argument back to the other side. I ask them, that being the case, how they would propose that the court would enforce its orders, supposing that there is a refusal to abide by them. Surely hon. Gentlemen are not contemplating a situation in which a court is set up and it has no power of enforcement for its orders. If they are proposing that, the position is clear and different. They are proposing an entire departure from the rule of law under the shadow of which this country has dwelt so long. This is the logic of it. They would be proposing a system of anarchy in which, if a person refuses to obey the order of the court, there is nothing that the court can do about it, and that if an order for compensation is made those in whose favour
    336
    the order is made can whistle for the compensation to be paid.
    Mr. Orme: It is not a semantic argument. We have gone through this matter on this side previously, and, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we have arrived at the same position. We cannot impose the law without having some sanction, and ultimately that must be prison. Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that at the end of the day, be the law criminal or otherwise, the result would be gaol if the law is defied?
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: If one defies the law there must be a sanction, and the ultimate sanction is committal, as part of the law on contempt. On the other hand, it differs from an ordinary sentence of imprisonment passed as part of the criminal jurisdiction in a very important respect. If a person is awarded a criminal sentence, that is a fixed term which he must serve. But a person committed as a last resort for defiance of an order of a court under its inherent jurisdiction of contempt is committed only for so long as his contempt endures. When he purges his contempt, he comes out. [Laughter.]
    Hon. Gentlemen laugh, but that shows how little thought they have given to the matter. If they gave half as much time to thinking about the Bill as they have done to speaking, they would not laugh but would realise what a bad point they are on.
    Mr. John Prescott: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is putting points about the logic of the legal situation, and the use of a sanction by the court against those who openly breach its decision. That brings to mind a situation which I was involved in in 1960, the Seamen's strike, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was also very much involved, when a seaman came before the court for contempt of court arising out of a case in which an injunction has been sought. He could have been released from the court if he had apologised to it and agreed not to continue the action of asking men to stay on strike. But the man stayed in gaol. A whole new issue now arose because a striker had been sent to gaol.

    337
    It was no longer a simple issue of the seamen's dispute, or whether it was a contempt of court, be it criminal or civil, but the fact that a man in a dispute had been sent to gaol and the men would refuse to go back until that man had been brought out of the court's jurisdiction. What we are concerned about is not necessarily the legal logic involved, but what will happen in industrial disputes.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is not a question of what will happen in industrial disputes qua industrial disputes. Nobody goes to gaol or went to gaol because of participation in an industrial dispute. He goes to there for contempt of court—that is, for defiance of an order of the court—pending such time as he purges his contempt, which is legal language for obeying the order of the court. If a person prefers, as John Hampden did, to defy the order of the court, he wears the martyr's crown and gets a place in history. But you cannot have it all ways. John Hampden got the martyr's crown because he went inside.
    Mr. Dan Jones: I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's legal argument, but can he believe that the ordinary man in the street can ever hope to understand this?
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: That is a good question. I will answer it as best I may. The ordinary man in the street can understand the basic proposition that if we are to have—as we have—the privilege of living under the rule of law there must be a means of enforcement in the last resort of the orders of the properly constituted courts, because that is the essential and indispensable prerequisite of the rule of law.
    Many men may say that in their view a particular law is not as they wish it to be. In a democratic society—this is the other aspect of our free institutions—they are free to say so and to agitate for the reform of that law. Once this law is on the Statute Book hon. Members opposite will be entitled to continue to agitate for the reform and revision of this law. However, while the law is on the Statute Book it must be obeyed; and it can be obeyed only if in the last resort there is a sanction to uphold the rule of law.
    That is all that is happening. Nobody wants anybody to be committed for contempt of court. It is a long stop. It is
    338
    the last residual power. It operates only while the order of the court is being held in defiance.
    I must pass the argument to the other side and invite them to cite any single instance known to them of any form of law in Britain which does not have the sanction of enforcement in the last resort by proceedings for contempt of court. If that be so, they must show why and how there can be any difference here.
    I had a great deal of sympathy for what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) on an Amendment which has not been selected. Perhaps I can say something now on the same point rather than wait until the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. It would be a happy thing if there could be some provision for the extension of legal aid, more particularly as some of these cases affect individuals. So far as I am concerned this is a new application of a point I have previously made as to the desirability of legal aid in many of the sorts of proceedings which have grown up in a modern society and which are just as important to the individual taking part as the ordinary, orthodox, traditional proceedings for which legal aid is right. It is very right that the consideration should be given to this point.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Perhaps I may be allowed to say this to my right hon. and learned Friend on that last point. I speak subject to your own ruling, Sir Robert. If the opportunity arises in the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, I hope to deal with the point about legal aid which has been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). I had understood that to discuss the point on this Amendment without the selection of the intervening one would have been tempting fate perhaps too far.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend and I shall certainly look forward with great interest to hearing what he has to say.
    [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I suppose it is cold comfort to a person

    339
    lying in prison to know that he is lying there for contempt of court and not because he has committed a criminal offence. The prison is still as unpleasant and as cold or as hot as the case may be.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) is absolutely right in saying that there is no criminal sanction in the Bill. Nevertheless, he touched on the nub of the matter. The matter that is under dispute on a principle is whether there should be this long stop—this eventual sanction—and whether it is apt for the matters which are the subject matter of the Bill.
    The Amendment would not remove the provision about imprisoning or fining for contempt of court. The Amendment is concerned only with an employee, and not with a trade union official. I should have thought that in this context the trade union official might require more protection than the employee.
    The Amendment says:
    "nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached or his property distrained or seized nor be imprisoned for failure to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work".
    The matter on which the vote will be taken, as I understand it, would not in any way remove the sanction of imprisonment or fine for contempt of court.
    Ronald King Murray indicated assent.
    Mr. Hooson: I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) is in agreement.
    Though the debate has ranged over the principle of the matter, it has been misconceived, because the matter that is objected to, namely contempt, is not covered by the Amendment. Amendment No. 856 would remove the sanction of imprisonment or contempt of court, but it would not remove the sanction of a fine.
    To appreciate the position fully it is necessary to look at what the Clause is intended to achieve. The Clause seeks to put it beyond a peraventure that the traditional common law attitude that a man cannot be forced by an order for specific performance to carry out a contract of service cannot be changed; and
    340
    nothing in the Bill enables a court to enforce a contract of service, nor indeed to grant an injunction to restrain a breach of a contract of service. This has been the common law tradition in Britain. Over the years the judges have always taken this view.
    As I understand the proposal—this is where the Solicitor-General's explanation can be of great value—it is not intended that in future any man shall be forced, by specific performance or otherwise, to carry out a contract of service; and it is not the Government's intention to force him by means of a fine or imprisonment to do so either.
    Therefore, I see no reason why the Government should not accept Amendment No. 854, because no question of principle arises. A question of principle certainly arises on Amendment No. 856, because the principle is brought into question there.
    On this matter there is a plain difference between the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who very succinctly argued that there must be a long stop and an eventual sanction for the law, and those who have spoken from this side and who do not think that there should be any sanction in the way of action for contempt.
    Mr. Orme: That is not what he said. In fact, we say that the whole thing is ludicrous, that we do not want it but that there must be a long stop if it is going to operate, which can mean prison.
    Mr.Hooson: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is saying, "If the Bill is passed I accept that a long stop is necessary, but because I object to the Bill, I object also to this, because it illustrates the ludicrous position to which the Bill is leading us. Therefore, the debate goes to the heart of the Bill, the principle of the matter." But I am not sure that it does. Many judges and legal writers in recent years have attacked the very idea of contempt of court and have said that it is not necessary to have this eventual sanction. It is very sparingly used these days. Perhaps the Solicitor-General can tell us the figures, but very few people every year are sent to prison or fined for contempt of court.
    One must ask, even if the Bill is passed, is this blunt instrument necessary at the

    341
    end, or is it, for the purposes of a Bill dealing with industrial relations, much better to do without it? The British, whatever is said in the House and whatever heat may be engendered on both sides, are a very law-abiding people.
    Mr. Orme: This is bringing the law into disrespect.
    Mr. Hooson: In my view, an eventual long stop sanction is not necessary and adds nothing to the eventual value of the Bill, whatever that may be.
    Mr. John Page: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down, would he confirm that the long stop exists in our present law, including trade union law, of committal for contempt? Does it apply therefore to the enactments to be repealed in Schedule 8?
    Mr. Hooson: Of course it does. Contempt applies in the divorce court as well. If a person goes to prison for contempt, no criminal conviction is recorded against him. Some of our great martyrs have been imprisoned for contempt of court. They may be right: this is one way of challenging the principle—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is anxious to be the first martyr in this cause; what I am anxious to do is save the country from his martyrdom. We have reached the stage of society at which I do not believe that the long stop is necessary in proceedings like this.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Clause 114 is designed primarily as protection for workers and to ensure that a court cannot force them to return to work. It therefore seems extraordinary that we should have had this afternoon speeches of this sort—speeches which were no doubt made in constituencies, to trades council meetings and to union meetings in preparation for that great rally in Trafalgar Square when I per cent. of the trade union movement came to register their protest. I am not surprised that they should do so, in view of the wild distortions with which they have been fed.
    When I heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) talking about equating the trade unionists with criminals—
    Mr. Dan Jones: Of course they are, if they can go to jail.
    Mr. Mitchell: I see nowhere in the whole Bill a provision to invoke the criminal law—certainly not in a Clause which specifically says that a court cannot order a man to go back to work. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, there are none so blind as those who will not see—
    Mr. Jones: That is obvious.
    Mr. Mitchell: That also applies to the hon. Member, who obviously does not want to read the Clause. But he went on to talk about the imposing of fines, which the Bill does not, and constraints, which it does, on the unions and a section of the working force, but not the rest of our people. I would ask where in any other activity of life—in commercial life, in one's daily life or in driving—there are not in the end constraints if one defies the accepted standards of society. It seems reasonable when bargains are made between a union and an employer that there should be the same constraints to see that those bargains are kept.
    I should have thought that the Government would accept Amendment No. 854. This is not the first time, to my great surprise, that I have found myself nodding in agreement with much that the hon. Member for Walton has had to say. But to accept the Amendment would breach Donovan and existing legislation. This must be the argument which prevents by hon. and learned Friend from accepting the Amendment. It has no bearing on the Bill at all, as I tried to suggest earlier, but I understand that there is in law at this time a liability upon an individual to comply with his personal contract of service. If he fails to do so, he is liable under the existing law.
    I am aware that that existing law is not used, that employers, although they have the right, do not use it, but this matter does not arise simply on this Bill.
    Mr. Hooson: Surely, at present, under a contract of service a man is liable for damages only if he breaches it.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for confirmation of my point, that under existing legislation, which the Labour Party never sought to repeal, this Amendment would

    343
    interfere in that field. It does not apply within the context of the Bill.
    The Amendment refers to
    "… failure to do any work or attend at any place for doing any work."
    But there is nothing in the Bill to force a man to do any work or attend at any place to do any work, so in terms of this Bill, the Amendment is completely unnecessary.
    But I am not surprised that it was the hon. Member for Walton who moved this Amendment rather than his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). It would have been very difficult for her, in view of what she said should be the situation in "In Place of Strife". Paragraph 62 of that document said that a new industrial board
    "—will have power to impose financial penalties on an employer, union or individual striker —".
    No such penalities appear in the Bill. [Interruption.] I think that I have the agreement of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), without embarrassing him—that he, too, would find what his right hon. Friend proposed when in office wholly unacceptable. Therefore, I understand her not being present to lead the attack on this part of the Bill.
    That extract from "In Place of Strife" went on:
    "… financial penalities on an employer, union or individual striker as it found appropriate; and those penalties would be recoverable in England and Wales only in the appropriate County Court by attachment of earnings and other civil remedies for the collection of debts, and procedures with similar effect will apply in Scotland."
    In view of that blockbuster which the right hon. Lady wanted embodied in our legislation, I fail to see how hon. Members opposite can have the effrontery to walk into the Division Lobby.
    Mr. Heifer: We are getting tired in the Committee of hon. Members constantly reading out chunks of "In Place of Strife"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Because it is embarrassing."] It is not a bit embarrassing, for this reason—that "In Place of Strife" never became a Bill. It was a document which was discussed in the House, with the T.U.C., with the Parliamentary Labour Party and with the
    344
    Labour Party generally. Arising out of those discussions, which hon. Gentlemen opposite were not prepared to enter into with the T.U.C., the Bill which was before the House contained none of the provisions which the hon. Gentleman is saying it did contain.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am fascinated by that comment, which I anticipated would come from the hon. Member or one of his hon. Friends because they were the means by which the "In Place of Strife" proposals were shot down. However, to say that the right hon. Member for Blackburn or the then Under-Secretary did not take that view is to twist the facts.
    The central theme of the Budget statement made by the then Chancellor in the spring of 1969 was that there would be legislation on industrial relations along the lines of "In Place of Strife". It passes all imagination how hon. Gentlemen opposite now have the gall to put forward an Amendment of this kind when the Labour Government of those days proposed financial penalties, recoverable through the courts, allowing for the attachment of earnings and for smaller penalties which do not apply to the individual under this Measure. It is against this background that one can describe the speeches that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite today as extraordinary and exaggerated.
    Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who I am glad to see in his place, graces our debates when he can-that is, when the other activities in which he engages are concluded. Then he comes here, and today, being the only representative of the Liberal Party in attendance, we welcome him.
    The other day his hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) moved an Amendment which was designed to protect people who argued for those who are rather far removed from these shores and I supported him in this. He is not here today to try to support those who argue that his constituents and British working people generally should not have to go to prison by whatever process-I will come to the various processes — I will come to the various processes shortly —finally emerges from the Bill. This

    345
    notable absence of Liberal hon. Members should not escape the notice of the Committee. We must, accordingly, take the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery with a pinch of salt.
    Mr. Hooson: I trust that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is present today a higher proportion of my party than of the Labour Party.
    Mr. Mendelson: That is not novel. I have heard the hon. and learned Gentleman whisper it several times during these proceedings. He cannot deny, however, that if a party votes for a Bill, it has a duty to support the various arguments that are adduced in its favour.
    The hypocrisy of Liberal hon. Members is that, because they thought they were in the midst of a favourable wind, they wanted to be seen to be sailing with the Tories in clobbering the trade unions. They are now running away from defending the penalties which the Tories are proposing to impose on working people. My hon. Friends and I shall remind the Committee and the country at every stage of the line that the Liberals took on this Measure. I have done that for today.
    Leaving aside the crocodile tears that have been wept by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, like the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), who wish to be heard as friends of the trade union movement when the occasion arises and when it suits them, I come immediately to the charge that my hon. Friends never did anything about these issues when we felt that certain proposals of the Labour Government were not in the best interests of the trade union movement. We certainly did do something. and that is why, when our Bill came before the House in April, May and June of last year, minus any penal Clauses, it was a first-class Measure which contained provisions which were designed solely to strengthen the trade union movement and ensure industrial peace.
    We are today discussing not merely the incidence of this legislation on our constituents but what is purported to be the purpose of the Government, which is to establish a simple and efficient way of working in British industry. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), to whom we always listen with great respect and welcome to our debates, did not say
    346
    anything about that because he claims to want to discuss these provisions against the background of real life.
    We agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in that these matters must be considered in real life terms. However, we cannot go with him when he says that this legislation will mean good law and that we should not be bothering ourselves with the consequences of what will be good law. Indeed, this point of it being good law is one of the main issues that we face and is a primary factor to these debates.
    The Government are misleading the country by pretending that there will be better and more efficient industrial relations as a result of the Bill. This is the fraud that they are committing on public opinion, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in the march with us over the weekend, instead of hiding their prejudices at home by the fireside, they would know precisely what my hon. Friends and I have in mind.
    Had they been with us they would have known what the audience in Trafalgar Square were saying and they would not have made some of the ignorant remarks that we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite about that demonstration. For example, I do not agree with the suggestion that the average man will not understand what the lawyers were saying in this context. The workers understand only too well what this Bill is designed to do, and the Government should not kid themselves about that.
    Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman says that people generally know what the Bill is about. He will be aware of the pamphlets and propaganda that have been issued on this subject. Would he say that the pamphlet issued by, for example, S.O.G.A.T. was an accurate representation of the Bill?
    Mr. Mendelson: I was talking about the people who were surrounding me at the Trafalgar Square demonstration. They understand what the Bill is designed to do and the Government should not underestimate their understanding of it. Indeed, Peter Jenkins ended his article on Monday by warning the Government not to underestimate the sense of fair play which exists among the people. That is precisely the point I am making.

    347
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is correct to say that even the passing of this Amendment would not remove the obnoxious and unfair industrial practices and consequences that would flow from these provisions. Nor does it matter whether the courts are applying these legal sanctions frequently or infrequently. We and the T.U.C. are asking that the ordinary activities of working people at their places of work should not be made subject to these provisions. We are not concerned with the number of cases that may or may not arise.
    Indeed, I can imagine many employers who will never wish to implement whole parts of the Bill, who already regard it as an idiot's paradise and who have no sympathy for the speeches that we have heard from the Solicitor-General. We are here to make law and it is the duty of this Committee, which is supposed to be comprised of responsible people, to make good and fair law.
    Neither we on this side nor the trade union movement recognise as unfair industrial practices the activities so described in the various provisions of the Bill, but, by those provisions, and under the guise of not invoking the criminal law, the Government are trying to slip in further provisions the consequence of which will be that, after actions for damages have been brought, there will in the end be a number of people sent to prison.
    Does anyone think that good industrial relations can come out of that? We must give the most careful attention to the way in which we conduct our public business. Nothing could be better calculated to put this country into turmoil and growing industrial strife than for just one person, let alone a number, to be condemned and sent to prison as a result of his not fulfilling an order of the court because of something which he regards as the normal activity of a trade unionist.
    Mr. Orme: Does my hon. Friend recall that in this country—we have had reference to the Betteshanger case—in Southern Ireland in 1967, and in Australia in 1968, the imprisonment of trade unionists led to virtual national stoppages? Would not the same thing happen again in this country?
    Mr. Mendelson: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his apposite intervention.
    I turn to just one part of Clause 90, a Clause which the Committee was prevented from discussing but to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly referred in passing during his speech. Subsection (3)(c) reads:
    "an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action, and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant."
    This is an indication of the coercion to be exercised against, say, a group of men who have come out on strike in solidarity with one of their fellow workers who has been wrongly dismissed. What will the consequence be? Either there will be large-scale contempt for the law, or one will have to use legal sanctions against, say, 3,000 people, ordering them back to work when they do not want to be at work. This is in plain contradiction of Clause 114, which provides that no one should be forced to work where and when he does not want to work. It is utter nonsense.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his experience of Government, is failing in his duty to the Committee, I submit, if he ignores all these realities of life and makes things easy for himself, as he did this afternoon—he does not usually do it—in giving us a short dissertation, as though we were a first-term audience at law school, on the distinction between the criminal and the civil law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman failed in his duty to the Committee because, while we are accustomed to confusion and bad law from the Treasury Bench, at least we look to him for a reasonable attempt to meet the requirements of the occasion. But that he has failed to do.
    We on this side know full well that we cannot by an Amendment of this kind remove at one sweep the obnoxious legal implications of the Bill, but we do right to move the Amendment so as to highlight to our party, to the Conservative Party, to the trade union movement, to Parliament and to the country that we are not prepared to accept, under the guise of simple provisions, the destruction of established trade union rights. This is what the 100,000 demonstrated about on Sunday, and it is what we are protesting about now.
    Mr. David Waddington: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). I, too, consider that we are entitled to ask whether the posture adopted by the Opposition Front Bench is genuine, and we are entitled to remind the country of the long history behind this Measure.
    We look somewhat askance at the names appearing in support of the Amendment. I note with some amazement that the name of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) heads the list, and the second name, along with the rest, is that of her lieutenant, the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker).
    5.15 p.m.
    This is an odd state of affairs. Whereas nowhere in the Bill can one find any provision which would allow the Industrial Court or the National Industrial Relations Court to fine strikers or union officials, not very long ago the right hon. Lady was proposing that strikers should be fined. My hon. Friend quoted one passage from "In Place of Strife", and I shall shortly quote another, but before coming to that I shall reply to the point made—
    Mr. Heller rose—
    Mr. Waddington: I wish to reply to the totally false point made by the hon. Member for Walton (Mr. Heifer) a few minutes ago. He said that the White Paper—these were his words—did not contain a Bill. That is an extraordinary assertion. The White Paper contained the framework of a Bill.
    Mr. Heffer rose—
    Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman need not get so excited. I shall give way in a moment. The White Paper contained the framework of a Bill. At the beginning of paragraph 93, there appear these words:
    "It is for this reason that the Government will seek to reinforce, through the Industrial Relations Bill, the machinery of consultation which already exists".
    Mr. Heffer: It is important to put these things in perspective, and it is important that the country should know the truth, because hon. Members opposite are trying to create confusion. Certainly, there was the White Paper, "In Place of Strife",
    350
    but there was no Bill based upon the White Paper. There were discussions, both on detail and on principle—discussions which the Government have refused to accept here—and on the basis of those discussions the Bill which did come before the House, although it related to a good deal in "In Place of Strife", did not contain many of the proposals in "In Place of Strife". Hon. Members opposite must know that. It is a sign of their bankruptcy of argument that, instead of defending their own Bill, on each occasion they bring in "In Place of Strife", having nothing to say for their own Bill because they cannot defend it.
    Mr. David Mitchell: May I intervene? I wonder whether the hon. Member for Walton—
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) gave way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). We cannot have an intervention upon an intervention.
    Mr. Waddington: If my hon. Friend will allow me to proceed, I wish to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Walton, who, apparently, does not want to confuse the Committee by reference to the real facts. The whole course of this debate shows how hon. Members opposite, wittingly or unwittingly, are confusing the country. All this continual repetition about the Bill providing for the fining of strikers can only confuse the ordinary man in the street. No doubt, that is the reason why so many people paraded in London on Sunday.
    It is pathetic that hon. Members opposite—
    Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Waddington: No; I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to develop this part of my argument. It is pathetic for hon. Members opposite to say that there is no longer any relevance in the fact that the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn at one time wanted to fine strikers. We are talking about an Amendment which seeks to write into the Bill a provision which would prevent the fining of strikers. I cannot for the life of me see how it can be irrelevant to the debate to recall that two short years ago the

    351
    right hon. Member for Blackburn and the hon. Member for Doncaster both wanted to fine strikers. I do not want to bore the Committee with too much chapter and verse, but it is relevant—
    Mr. Harold Walker rose—
    Mr. Waddington: I wish the hon. Gentleman would restrain his impatience for a moment, because it is important to get on the record what the right hon. Lady was trying to do two years ago. What she is now trying to tell the country she so dislikes, by putting her name to the Amendment, is the very thing she wanted to see as a part of our law on industrial relations two short years ago. Paragraph 94 of "In Place of Strife" says:
    "If, despite these steps and despite the setting up by the D.E.P. of an inquiry or other appropriate machinery, the strike went ahead. the Secretary of State would, after warning the two sides, be able to issue an Order requiring those involved to return to work and to desist from industrial action for a period of twenty-eight days, and at the same time requiring the employer to observe specified conditions or terms during the pause, the conditions normally being those that existed before the dispute. If either side failed to comply with this Order the Industrial Board at its discretion could impose financial penalties."
    It is odd that the right hon. Lady should now be putting her name to an Amendment which seeks to prevent happening under the Bill what we are not trying to do but what she was trying to do two years ago. It is not surprising that people are becoming very confused about the purpose of the Bill and what it contains.
    Hon. Members opposite have quoted more than once this afternoon what happened on Sunday. I remind the Committee of certain advertisements—
    Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. I thought that it was a long-established convention of the House that if an hon. Member attacked another hon. Member he subsequently gave way if the hon. Member thus attacked wanted to defend himself.
    Mr. Waddington: I have every intention of giving way, but if I sat down every time I heard a baaing or bleating noise from the other side I should never be able to complete a sentence. I hope that the Committee will wish me to
    352
    proceed for a little while and then give way at an appropriate moment.
    Mr. William Hamling: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. The hon. Gentleman has attacked a member of the Opposition Front Bench specifically and by name, and now refuses to give way.
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
    Mr. Waddington: I made it clear that I intended to give way in a moment, but I should like to finish the passage with which I am dealing.
    We have continually been told this afternoon about the glorious march in London on Sunday. We have been told time and again by Labour hon. Members, what is not correct, that there is power in the Bill to fine strikers. It is open to us to say that one of the reasons why many people turned up on Sunday was that they were told for weeks and weeks by Labour hon. Members that there was power in the Bill to fine strikers, when we know that there is no such power. Chapter and verse for that is to be found in some of the advertisements sponsored recently by the T.U.C. Only the other day there appeared in the Daily Mirror an advertisement which it may startle some trade unionists to know must have cost the T.U.C. between £2,000 and £3,000. In the middle of that advertisement we find a statement that there is power in the Bill to fine strikers. In fact, there is not.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman accuses the Labour Party of spreading confusion. Is not he guilty of the same offence when he goes up and down the country doing what he did in my constituency of Doncaster only a week or so ago, when he had an audience of 20? He tells audiences and the Press that there is no provision whatsoever in the Bill that could lead to imprisonment, while his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) this afternoon has exposed that as a falsehood by explaining how it can happen.
    Mr. Waddington: I was most grateful for the courtesy of those who did turn up and listen to me in Doncaster. Of the 20 who turned up about 10 were trade unionists, who gave me a most courteous

    353
    hearing and then exposed me to a rigorous cross-examination, and I am glad to say at the end gave me quite a nice ovation. I did not say at any time during that speech that in no circumstances could a man find himself in prison as a result of the provisions of the Bill. If anyone got that impression, I am sorry, but I certainly did not say so and I did not mean to convey that impression.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Then will the hon. Gentleman ask the Doncaster Evening Post to print a correction of its report of his speech, which said that he did say that? May I add that every single one of the trade unionists present at his meeting marched with the demonstration on Sunday.
    Mr. Waddington: I am amazed by that intervention, because no representative of the Doncaster paper was present. We were rather disappointed that no one from the Press was there to report what I said, so I do not know where the information came from which led to that report.
    We all know that under the law of the land in certain cases a court can call upon a person to desist from a course of conduct, and that in the last resort if he does not desist he can land up in prison. I am involved in a constituency case concerning a woman who is complaining bitterly that her next-door neighbour has erected a large shed in his back yard, as a result of which she says that some of the light is being cut out of her back room. She is to take that other person to court. If that court finds that her grievance is genuine and that her right to light has been taken away by her neighbour, it can order him to remove the shed. If he does not, he could find himself in prison for refusing to obey an order of the court.
    I mention that only because the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) said that the ordinary man in the street could not understand the distinction between the civil courts and the criminal courts. I have a great respect for the intelligence of the ordinary individual. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman, whose opinions in this matter I greatly respect, thinks about the case I have mentioned he will agree that any citizen
    354
    reading about it in the newspapers will not say to himself that the man who has refused to remove the shed is a criminal; nobody would say that that man was liable to criminal penalties as a result of refusing to obey a court order.
    Mr. Dan Jones: Surely the hon. Gentleman has enough practical knowledge to realise that once we begin to introduce the law into industrial relations we compound the difficulties?
    Mr. Waddington: There the hon. Gentleman and I may never agree. In fairness, he will concede that at one time he supported his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn when she was Secretary of State. I think that I am right in saying that he did then think that there was room for a legal framework of industrial relations.
    Mr. Dan Jones: That statement has been trotted out repeatedly, and I have said in this Chamber time and time again that at the point when we were informed that our Measure implied legal sanctions I was one of the first to say, "For heavens sake, drop it." I hope that that point is clearly understood. I am as much for industrial peace as any hon. Member opposite—indeed more.
    Mr. Waddington: Perhaps I was being led astray. I was merely disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman when he said that there was no room for the law in industrial relations. We must remember that the law has always played a part in industrial relations. In so far as the Bill extends the scope of the law into industrial relations, it does not create a new type of law, because the law has always played its part.
    If we accept that there should be power in the hands of the courts in certain cases to restrain certain types of conduct in industry then we must, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, provide them with the same power which they have to enforce their orders in other fields of the law. If we were to make an exception in this case, we should be making the Bill unenforceable, but we are now past those parts of the Bill which establish the legal framework and are dealing with those parts which provide for enforcement of that framework. I cannot see how one could have a legal framework for the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill

    355
    different from that which exists throughout the rest of the law for the enforcement of legal obligations.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: I shall not detain the Committee for long. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) made a typically arrogant speech. It is not the first time he has treated the Committee in that way. In view of his attitude, it is surprising that he should be in a Committee dealing with industrial relations, since the Bill introduces new legal procedures. Indeed, the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have been boasting about their proposals and how they introduce new legal or criminal procedures.
    Mr. Waddington: If the hon. Gentleman is now leaving me, perhaps I can intervene.
    Mr. Loughlin: I had not even agreed that I would allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. I will sit down if and when I decide to let him intervene. So many hon. Members have been allowed to intervene that we have had speeches lasting 20 minutes which could well have been got through in about five minutes.It is not right that there should be so many interventions during the Committee stage.
    Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would like him to tell the Committee in what way I was arrogant. I did not intend to be arrogant.
    Mr. Loughlin: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman. All I can suggest to him is that he thinks about Robbie Burns:
    "O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
    To see oursels as others see us!"
    What we are dealing with is industrial relations. What the Committee should be concerned with is the nature of these regulations in relation to industry. In Part IV of the Bill two fines are specifically referred to. Trade union officials and others can be fined under the Bill.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: They are not fines.
    Mr. Loughlin: I cannot quite appreciate myself what the difference is between a fine and compensation in this
    356
    sense. Whether it is termed compensation or anything else, it is a sanction. if I cannot quite see the difference, I am sure that, out of the 9½ million trade unionists, there must be at least 500,000 who will not be able to see the difference either. Once a person is put in gaol, as in the case of the Betteshanger strike—
    Mr. Rose: Throughout the debate it has been said that there is no provision in the Bill with regard to fines. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is absolutely right in saying that, however one terms compensation, in many cases it is a fine. I ask the Committee to look at Clause 55, under which a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine on summary conviction. It is wrong for hon. Members opposite to say that there is no question of a fine. But even accepting that a fine is not specifically laid down, my hon. Friend is right in saying that "compensation" is a euphemism for a fine.
    Mr. Loughlin: I will go further. I draw the Committee's attention to Clause 84, which refers to a fine of £100 in one case and a fine of £400 in another. This is what I was referring to. I refer hon. Members to Part IV to correct their erroneous impression about fines.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
    Mr. Loughlin: No, please.
    Mr. Lewis: They are not new fines. They exist now. They are not new fines.
    Mr. Loughlin: I do not know whether I am in "Alice in Wonderland". All I am saying is that the Bill contains provisions for fines to be incurred.
    Mr. Lewis rose—
    Mr. Loughlin: No. I am not giving way. I have given way on two or three occasions. I want to come back to the Betteshanger case. We can have all our wranglings in this Committee but in the end we have to ask ourselves what effect the Bill will have on industrial relations. If it will not have any effect, it will not have been worth while and there was no purpose in introducing it. If it will have an injurious effect, we should resist it—and by "we" I mean honourable Members on both sides of the Committee.

    357
    I am seeking to show how, if the Amendment is not accepted, there is the possibility of substantial and harmful effects on industrial relations. That is the issue. I have been too long in industry not to want to see harmonious relations.
    Hon. Members may call these fines "compensation" or anything else they like, but on the first occasion that a man goes to gaol for being in breach of these regulations, there will be a worsening of industrial relations not only in the unit in which he was employed but throughout the rest of industry.
    It is claimed that the Bill is necessary because we lose too many days in industry through strikes. We must be very careful about including provisions which will increase the number of days lost. [Laughter.] I do not know whether the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) was listening, but he is giggling. If he wants to make a comment I will give way to him. For all the hilarity, we have to be conversant with what will be the effect of the Bill.
    I do not want someone to go to prison for contempt of court, or in consequence of not being able to pay compensation, and it is therefore doubly important to me that he should not go to prison if the result is that many people come out on strike. This is the nub of the issue, as was clearly stated by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). We believe that it is not only wrong that men should be exposed to the possibility of prison sentences, but that it does no good to industrial relations.
    By resisting the Amendment the Government are clearly telling the country that they are prepared to gaol men because they are in breach of the Bill. We say that that is wrong, whatever may have been said in "In Place of Strife" or anywhere else. This is the difference between us—the Tories want to put people in prison; we do not.
    The Solicitor-General: I want later to devote some time to destroying the grotesquely misleading over-simplification best contained in the last sentence of the speech of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin).
    One is here dealing with matters of importance which need to be expounded with some care. I feel that the Commit-
    358
    tee will support me when I say that it is not appropriate for the Bill or those of us who speak in support of it to be denounced for fraud and things of that kind when we hear the quality, and I choose my words carefully, of the intervention of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) in support of the point being made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West.
    There are certain legitimate things for us to argue about, legitimate things about the scale and so on of the sanctions and remedies which we are proposing. But the hon. Member for Blackley did not help the Committee or anybody else when he intervened in support of his hon. Friend to suggest that Clause 55 contained a reference to the wicked—
    Mr. Rose: No, I did not.
    The Solicitor-General: I leave out the emotional adjective. He referred to the fact that the Bill was proposing fines and said that it would advance the attack on the Bill by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that the Clause contained provision for fines. What for? They are fines upon employers for refusing to disclose procedure agreements to the third parties, fines upon employers for including false information in the procedure agreements when they disclose them and lodge them with the Secretary of State. What is more, that provision advanced by the hon. Member for Blackley in support of the general denunciation of the Bill is taken directly from Clause 28 of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and described by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), or perhaps it was the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), as admirable and superb.
    I do not want to make too much of the debating point, but for heaven's sake let us stick to understandable arguments related to the merits of the case. It is simply misleading the Committtee and the country to suggest that the Bill is criminal because it has criminal penalties in Clause 55, when they are a mirror image of the penalties of that Clause 28. There are genuine matters about which we can argue, but if that is the quality of the arguments being advanced in support of the Opposition's case, no wonder the case is being misunderstood.
    Mr. Rose: Is the Solicitor-General aware that I made two points? One was in answer to one of his hon. Friends who said that the word "fine" did not occur in the Bill. I pointed out that it did. The second and more important point was that for employees instead of the word "fine", the word "compensation" was used, which in this context is a euphemism for "fine". The Solicitor-General has introduced into English law what is an entirely new and alien concept, the concept of unfair industrial practice. Use the word "compensation" as he may, it is still a euphemism for "fine".
    I should like him to tell me anywhere in the English civil law where there is a limit to compensation in the way that he is introducing a limit for the fining of trade unions up to £100,000 in every case when they may be in breach of one of these alien, unfair industrial practices.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: There is no misleading presentation. From beginning to end of the Bill, there is an assessment of awards in favour of anyone who claims to have been affected by an unfair industrial practice, be it worker unfairly dismissed by his employer, be it worker denied by his employer the right to join a trade union, be it any person in any of the situations who makes a claim founded upon compensation for a loss which he can prove. That is the foundation underlying the word "compensation". It is wholly wrong and misleading to suggest that by sleight of hand this is some kind of fine. The Committee and the country must understand precisely what we are talking about.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that as a matter of principle the Amendment is unnecessary, because there is nothing in the Bill which proposes any new remedies against individuals in respect of the failure to work. There is, therefore, no case for introducing any of the exceptions contained in the Amendment.
    If the Amendment were accepted as it stands, the Bill would be moving into different fields, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will appreciate. The words
    360
    "nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached… for failure to do any work…"
    would be invading the existing law whereby a person, who in breach of contract does not perform his work, may do something quite wrong and be liable for damages for breach of contract in the ordinary way. That is a branch of the existing law which is seldom used except in cases where clear damage is legitimately recoverable in the ordinary sense, but which neither the Donovan Report nor the last Government sought to disturb.
    The Amendment is tilting at windmills which are not set up by the Bill. The important point about the Clause has been made by several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)—that it states beyond doubt so that it can never be challenged, that no court in the country shall have the right to make an order of any kind to compel a person to go to work, to stay at work, to return to work.
    This is relevant when Opposition Members begin talking about the Betteshanger case. The whole foundation of the Betteshanger case was the wartime disputes Order which could require people to be sent back to work under the threat of penal sanctions. It is in order to underline the contrast between the ineptitude of that approach and what we are proposing that the Clause is so important. What the Bill makes plain beyond doubt is that there is no provision against anybody for going on strike. No sanction is proposed against anybody for declining to work and this is a sharp distinction from provisions shown not to have worked. It is in sharp distinction with the penalties imposed on people failing to comply with the conciliation pause order in "In Place of Strife".
    Mr. Dan Jones: That is dead. This Bill is alive, there is the difference.
    The Solicitor-General: What I am trying to show, and what is relevant, is that hon. Members opposite became so concerned with tilting at that which they succeeded in killing in the right hon. Lady's Bill that they believe it is still necessary to go on tilting at such things

    361
    now even though they find no place in the Bill. We are not proposing any remedy in respect of individual work-people refraining from work or going on strike. There is nothing there and that is why it is in sharp contrast to Betteshanger and to the proposals in "In Place of Strife".
    Clause 114 is there to make that clear. This goes back to the misapprehensions underlying this and it is important that they should be understood. The hon. Member for Salford, West suggested that the Bill was equating trade unionists with criminals. This is not so. The fact that the civil law is being varied so as to apply in different ways to different people does not equate them with criminals.
    The point has been made by several of my hon. Friends that in a thousand different ways we all have to conform to the obligations of civil law. Any one of us in the last resort, if we persist either in infringing the civil rights of our fellow citizens or persist in inciting others to infringe those rights, can be exposed to civil remedies. This is proposing the application of the same kind of civil remedies. The only astonishing thing is the novelty with which it strikes some hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Dan Jones: Of course we all agree that all citizens must be amenable to law but why force this into industrial relations when what we are seeking to do is to make such industrial relations more stable?
    The Solicitor-General: Because the law is already present in industrial relations. It is the very shape and fabric of our law that has shaped the pattern of our industrial relations, even in terms of the law asserting and enforcing damages in industrial relations now. This question is of central importance to the debate.
    In a series of cases in recent years the courts have ordered trade union leaders in person to refrain from taking certain action. The chronicle is familiar to the Committee—Stratford and Lindley, the Torquay Hotel case. In such cases orders have been made upholding civil rights and saying that any further attempts by those trade union leaders to challenge and incite people to challenge and infringe civil rights will be contrary to the law. This is the strength of the
    362
    point made by the opposite side of the Committee—we are a law-abiding country. When a court makes a declaration or determination of rights experience has shown, even in the industrial area, that that determination is respected. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that there is something wholly revolutionary in introducing a new concept here.
    Mr. Orme: Would not the Solicitor-General admit that what he is setting up is not common civil law but a special law which will be applicable only to trade unionists? Would he not agree that a shop steward who takes part in an official action and is instructed to use his best endeavours, refuses to do so, is fined and refuses to pay can be cast into prison? Does he not think that this will be interpreted by trade unionists as an application of the criminal law?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member makes two points and I will answer the first one first. Of course these institutions are special institutions to handle special problems in industrial relations. This is a central and important part of the case. It is for that reason that the Industrial Relations Court and the Commission and the industrial tribunals are composed in the way we suggest. It is because, if we go back to Donovan and "In Place of Strife" it will be seen that proposals were made there for the establishment of special, tailor-made bodies.
    We believe, and this has been the heart of our case since we started, that if we are to have tribunals and courts determining rights in industrial relations, they must be specially designed to meet the purposes of industrial sophistication and should be manned and established with that end in view. The speciality of the law that we are proposing for industrial relations is a recognition of the case for it and the exclusion of industrial relations problems from the ordinary courts. It is because we do not regard the ordinary courts as the best place for achieving a solution that we have set up this special code of law. It is certainly not designed to make the world more difficult for those concerned with industrial relations. It is designed to give them informal situations, informal courts that can understand their problems with greater sensitivity than the ordinary courts. I will return to the second point made by the hon. Member in a moment.

    363
    If we look at the framework for the future of civil law and its penalties it will be seen that we are seeking to restrict the scope of the criminal law. That is why we propose the repeal of one part of the 1875 Act. We are seeking to ensure, as this Clause does, that individuals cannot be coerced by court orders requiring them to go to work. We are seeking to make it plain that whereas at present injunctions must be sought against trade union officials, in future the remedies will be sought against the organisation not against the individual acting on behalf of it.
    We are not whittling away this principle even when it comes to the national emergency provisions in Clause 125, because there again we make it plain that a national emergency order cannot be made against someone doing no more than taking part in a strike.
    Mr. Heffer: Is that not precisely the point? The hon. and learned Gentleman constantly says that under Clause 114 there will be no orders which will force individuals back, but under the special emergency procedures, particularly in Clause 124(3) it says that an application will be made:
    "where it relates to a strike … and the persons so specified shall, together with the Secretary of State, be the parties to any proceedings on that application."
    The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to mislead the Committee and the country by putting a gloss on this situation and leading them to think that there will be no orders. Yet we find that there will be orders. It is not good enough for him to say this.
    The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that point and I will be dealing with it more fully. If he looks carefully at Clause 124(3) he will see it says:
    "the persons … workers, officials of such organisations or other persons) appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike."
    If we go on to look at Clause 125(3) it will be seen that that makes it plain that the person specified in an order relating to a strike:
    "… shall not include any person who in the opinion of the Industrial Court … would have, no responsibility for the strike … in question beyond that of being included among the persons taking part in it."
    364
    That is precisely the point. The order may not include anyone who has only taken part in the strike. This is the clear purpose of the legislation. It is the organisation, calling or procuring of the strike that matters. The Betteshanger provision involves trying to proceed against individuals taking part in the strike. The conciliation pause provisions in "In Place of Strife" involved trying to proceed against individuals who were taking part in the strike. We have confined ourselves to remedies against organisations or individuals calling, procuring or organising.
    [Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]
    6.0 p.m.
    I come back to the point made by hon. Members opposite—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite keep on saying "shop stewards", as though this is the answer. We have established that strikers or workers taking part in a strike are outside the remedies proposed in the Bill. Shop stewards are outside the remedies proposed in the Bill as long as they are acting as trade union officials within the scope of their authority. Under existing legislation the only way in which one can get a remedy in respect of the inducing of an unfair strike is by seeking an injunction against trade union officials. They too are outside the scope of the Bill as long as they are acting within the scope of their authority.
    Mr. McNamara: The Solicitor-General has admitted that if the unofficial shop stewards committee in Hull docks organises or procures a strike in breach of this section or perhaps some other section of the Bill they are severally and individually liable and, as a consequence of the procedures outlined by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), they could be gaoled.
    The Solicitor-General: In the very narrow category which I have identified—namely, someone who is not merely participating in a strike but is organising or procuring a strike outside the scope of any authority from any registered union —remedies can be sought against such a person or organisation or group of people if the strike is unfair. Even those people are outside the scope of any remedies

    365
    proposed in the Bill for an unofficial strike if they take care to give notice within the terms of the ordinary contract. It is astonishing to denounce such a proposition as tyrannous when that is the limit of the remedy proposed.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Solicitor-General says that certain people will not be caught by the Bill if they give notice. Is he referring to Clause 133? That is a vital Clause, but, unfortunately, as a result of the guillotine, we shall not have a chance to probe it. There are many people of legal standing who believe that Clause 133 does not mean what the Solicitor-General says it means.
    The Solicitor-General: Clause 85, which is the only new remedy in respect of calling strikes without notice, does not create a wrong or a remedy if due notice is given. Clause 133 is designed entirely as a benevolent provision to set beyond doubt the majority judgment of the Court of Appeal in Morgan v. Fry. Clause 133 makes no difference to the legality of the unofficial unregistered organisation or leader calling a strike as long as it or he gives due notice. Clause 133 is intended merely to make plain that the decision in Morgan v. Fry stands.
    The unofficial unregistered organisation is in difficulty only in the circumstances which I have described. It can have made against it, like anybody else in any comparable situation, an order determining the rights of the parties. If it has wrongly called and organised an unfair strike, it can have an order for compensation made against it. If it has wrongly procured or induced an unfair strike, it can have an order to restrain it from continuing to do so made against it.
    In those situations, one can ask how the order for compensation can be enforced and how the order to refrain from unfair action can be enforced. An order for compensation against anyone, be it an employer, an organisation or an individual, can be enforced in the same way as any other civil debt can be enforced. As the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn pointed out in the context of her proposals, once the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act come into force, as they do in a very few months, the ordinary remedy against the individual for compensation
    366
    he is liable to pay will be by way of application to the county court. To quote the right hon. Lady, he will then, when faced with the same question—
    Mrs. Castle: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman think it his duty to explain his Bill in his own terms and not in somebody else's? This is getting grotesque.
    The Solicitor-General: It is grotesque, but the right hon. Lady should not be unduly embarrassed if I choose to explain the point about the way in which compensation can be recovered from individuals in the language, so telling in its lucidity, which the right hon. Lady addressed to her hon. Friends in two debates last year. There is no escaping from the dilemma about this, but the principles of the recovery of compensation as set out in the Bill were supported by 224 right hon. and hon. Members opposite and rejected by 62 of them. The 62 Members opposite are entitled to claim their purity, but the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member—
    Mr. McNamara: Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman vote with us?
    The Solicitor-General: I was not a Member at the time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), in response to the right hon. Lady's speech in support of "In Place of Strife" as a basis for legislation, said that it was all right so far as it went. It is in that context that I quote what the right hon. Lady said. She pointed out that if an order for compensation was made against anyone under her Bill—not, be it noted, an order for a penalty—
    "The choice will, therefore, be with the worker. There are genuine options open to him. He can enter into voluntary arrangements to pay what is due over an appropriate period. He can stipulate that, if he is in default, he would prefer to be subject to the normal process of collection for civil debts, other than attachment".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1186.]
    The right hon. Lady said "other than attachment" because attachment did not then exist in that form. If he refused to pay an order for compensation. the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, foreshadowed by the right hon. Lady and introduced last year, abolishes committal to prison as a remedy for failure to meet the terms of an order for compensation.

    367
    There is therefore no possibility of imprisonment in respect of an award of compensation—
    Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well that I was referring to the Bill which was presented after the normal process of democratic discussion in what was then—[Interruption.] I wish that some hon. Members opposite would allow the same democratic discussion on the question of arms for South Africa.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. The reference to arms for South Africa is completely out of order in this context.
    Mr. Mendelson: I agree, Mr. Jennings. It would be as well if there were the same free discussion among the ranks of right hon. and hon. Members opposite on the supply of arms to South Africa as there was on our Bill. What is not under discussion now are definitions which were never part of the Bill presented to Parliament by the Labour Government. I refer to the provision to which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) referred, namely, Clause 90(3)(c) on page 64 of the Bill which provides for
    "an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action, and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant".
    The heart of the matter is that it does not matter much how at the end the process is enforced—
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. I wish that hon. Members would make brief interventions and not speeches.
    Mr. Mendelson: The Government are trying to remove the established rights of working people and to enforce that removal. That is the argument.
    The Solicitor-General: The argument is being reduced as we go along. I have explained to the Committee that an order for compensation or damages, since the passing of the Administration of Justice Act, cannot be enforced by imprisonment and can be enforced by the ordinary remedies of a civil creditor for civil debt. An award for compensation is what I am talking about now, and one comes back to the attachment of earnings order.
    I take the point made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). It is the only remaining
    368
    point, namely, the extent of the remedy which ought to exist for contempt of court when somebody has failed to comply with an order made by the Industrial Court. That is the narrow area with which we are concerned.
    Let this be plain. Such an order can be made only by the Industrial Court itself. It will be an alternative to an order for the determination of rights, which will often be regarded as sufficient, and respected. It cannot be made by any court within this field but that court, and it will be of the same quality as orders that have been and are still being made even in the sensitive area of industrial relations. It will be an order telling someone not to interfere with the rights defined by Parliament of other citizens. That kind of order being made now in industrial disputes, where a plaintiff is able to steer himself through the maze, is supportable on exactly the same sanctions and is complied with and obeyed. In this country courts of the standing of the Industrial Court deal with this kind of matter expertly and would normally experience little or no difficulty in securing compliance with their orders and decisions. This is what has happened so far.
    Mr. Dan Jones: Will the Solicitor-General help the Committee by telling us precisely when this last happened and under what precise circumstances, and how frequently this has happened?
    The Solicitor-General: There were several cases last year—
    Mr. Jones: That is too vague. Let us have precise details.
    The Solicitor-General: There was at least one case last year where a series of would-be recognition strikes was being called in the road haulage industry and the employer or employers affected by these recognition strikes, threatening shutdown, commenced proceedings which would in the end have led to an injunction in the ordinary court. The trade union leaders gave undertakings to comply with the order that had been granted. In the Johnson Matthey case last year, in a comparable situation, an order was made and complied with last year.
    Mr. Jones: Is this in the ordinary run of industrial procedure?
    The Solicitor-General: Certainly these are happening all the time, particularly and principally in the present state of the law on recognition issues. The point is that the orders are being observed and complied with. There is almost no prospect of such orders being defied When they are defied, no court will move lightly to the possibility of imprisonment for continued and wilful defiance of an order made in this kind of situation.
    Again, as in other situations, an undertaking can be sought. The person against whom the order has been made can be required to justify why he has not complied with the order. He will be given a further opportunity of doing so but if, in the last resort—and this point has been made time without number—someone is determined to continue defying an order made in the situations defined in the Bill, he cannot be kept out of prison. But that is an exceptional "end of the road" situation. There has been no concealment of this. It has been said clearly and openly from the outset.
    I am concerned that the Committee should understand the narrow and unexceptional nature of these proposals. They are an extension over a small and clearly defined field of industrial relations of remedies ordinarily available in every other situation in the country. That is the scale of the matter. What we resent and seek to challenge is the extent to which this defined proposal is being represented, and misrepresented, as a proposal to fine and imprison strikers in the mass or in the round. It is a total misrepresentation.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Rose: One advantage of having a three-line whip for the debate is that we have the presence—and it is always a pleasure to have him—of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, South-East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who appears to be the shadow Solicitor-General on the back benches of the Conservative Party—
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: In the short space of 30 seconds the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has made three factual errors. I am not the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, South-East. My constituency is Hertfordshire, East. Hertfordshire, South-West is a different constituency. I am
    370
    not the shadow Solicitor-General on the back bench or any other bench. We have not got a three-line whip on this Clause. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us a foretaste so quickly in his speech of the standard of accuracy of its contents.
    Mr. Rose: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has entirely underlined the point—
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Undermined!
    Mr. Rose: It is always a pleasure to have the right hon. and learned Gentleman with us because of his legalistic way of taking up points of that nature, which makes me regard him as the shadow Solicitor-General on the back benches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to something which I intended to refer to later in the debate—the position of John Hampden and his refusal to pay a forced loan. It was not a fine or compensation but, although the terms may vary, the facts and the principle remain the same. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, whether or not he is the shadow Solicitor-General, will remember what was said about John Hampden. He will remember these immortal words:
    "Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
    The little tyrant of his fields withstood".
    The "little tyrant of his fields" this time comes from Bexley. Whether it be ship money, compensation or a fine, many people will follow the honourable tradition of refusing to pay if they feel that the law is unjust and bears unjustly on one section of the community. John Hampden went on to be a Member of Parliament and was ultimately killed in the Civil War. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not intentionally trying to stir up a civil war in industry, because this is what we are witnessing.
    The Bill is already having an interesting effect. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East complained about my accuracy, but he told us last week that there was no feeling about the Bill. Then the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) told us about the paltry demonstration in his constituency, as did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). Yet there was

    371
    the largest demonstration in the history of this country on a political issue on this Bill, and that is only the beginning—and it was a very peaceful demonstration at that.
    The people of this country are law-abiding. It does not lie in the mouth of the Solicitor-General to say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) were grotesquely misleading and that he was oversimplifying the situation. All the way through the Bill it is the Solicitor-General who has been grotesquely misleading and over-simplifying. It is the same sort of distorted logic as we get from the Prime Minister, who tells us that we would do better to spend our time debating the Bill than by walking through the Lobbies, quite forgetting that he himself imposed the guillotine on the Bill. It is the same sort of logic as that used by the Minister of State in an article not very long ago when dealing with the extent to which this legislation will affect industrial behaviour. He thought that trade unionists in the country at large accept the provisions as being fair and reasonable. It is because we do not accept these provisions as fair and reasonable that 140,000 people demonstrated on Sunday—which is only the beginning—and this is why these provisions will not work in practice.
    The Solicitor-General has drafted a Clause to provide an alibi. He says that no one will be compelled to do any work or to attend any place for the purpose of doing any work; but he does not say what will happen if they do not. What will happen under Clauses 85 to 87? Clause 87(1)(b) says that it shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person
    "to interfere with the performance by another person of a contract … to which, that other person is a party".
    The Solicitor-General will see that Clause 87 applies to any person who takes action
    "in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".
    That will apply to individuals although there may not be imprisonment en masse. There is an intention to pick off those who are speaking to their fellow trade unionists, whether they be trade union officials or commentators from outside. Those people will be subject to remedies
    372
    which, whether they are termed civil or criminal, are ultimately criminal.
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman who talks so much about accuracy was not accurate when he said that there was no world of quasi-criminal law. Perhaps he should read the Modern Law Review, 1962, Vol. 25, page 181 and look at the quotation about the
    "oft-expressed view that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal or even that all con-tempts of court are criminal in nature".
    Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's accuracy is a little in doubt there. Perhaps he will also look at the decision of Lord Denning, to which I referred earlier, that where a man is sent to prison for contempt of court it must be satisfactorily proved. Lord Denning was saying that contempt of court is an offence of a criminal nature. I do not want to weary the Committee with two pages in a similar vein, but there is adequate authority for saying that this is a quasi-criminal or criminal concept.
    A trade unionist or shop steward or, indeed, one of my hon. Friends who contributes to a strike in terms of finance under Clause 86 will find himself behind bars, and it will not matter whether he is there for criminal or for civil reasons. We all know that today a third of offenders in prison are there for civil debt. This is one of the problems we face. Under Clause 6 if one strikes to avoid the provisions of Clause 5(1)(b) and thereby breaches a fair industrial practice, one does not need to force people to go back to work in so many words by a provision in the Bill. It is enough to fine them for not going to work. This point needs to be underlined.
    If they refuse to obey a procedure agreement made against their will under Clause 39(2)(b), if they have been deemed to have broken an agreement under Clauses 32 to 34, in every one of those cases there will be some kind of coercion. There is no need for a provision to say that they must go back to work rather than strike. They are fined, and, although the Government may use the word "compensation" as much as they like, it is still a fine for being in breach of any one of these things in regard to something that they did not even agree to do.
    The fallacy of the provision is that hon. Members opposite know that they

    373
    may be able to get Jack Jones or Alf Allen or Tom Jackson to the trough of the Industrial Relations Bill, but they cannot be made to drink its waters. They know that when it comes to it there will be many more village Hampdens. They know that one cannot enforce the machinery of industrial relations through fines, compensation or imprisonment, nor can one force a trade union to police the set-up under Clause 34(2).
    For example, a trade union official will be expected to go into work to show that he is doing everything reasonably practicable to get others back to work. That is the logic of the provision, and we have had one example of it. Hon. Members opposite know that they cannot do this. They cannot force people to go back to their place of work. But this is enshrined in the Bill as a monument of virtue, when at the same time they are providing numerous examples of this alien concept of unfair industrial practices and are to fine people who fail to abide by the code. They then come back and say that those people are not being forced to go to work. They are not. They are just being fined or punished for not going to work because they are in breach of one of these Clauses. This is why we have put down this Amendment.
    Let us hear no more of this nonsense about "In Place Of Strife", about which we heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. There was one difference between "In Place Of Strife" and the Consultative Document put forward by the Government. My right hon. Friend consulted on "In Place Of Strife", but on the so-called Consultative Document not only did no consultation take place but within a week the Bill was published. That is the difference. Therefore, let us compare like with like. Let us compare the Bill that was produced by my right hon. Friend with this Bill. Let us not look at a Consultative Document produced by the Government, on which no consultation has taken place.
    The Solicitor-General: Would the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the vigour with which the proposals contained in "In Place of Strife" were first put forward, the urgency with which they were first urged on the country and as they finally emerged 18 months later
    374
    when a Bill first saw the light of day should not be represented as a process of consultation so much as a capitulation, and that this led to the result at the last General Election, which is why we are here now?
    Mr. Rose: The Solicitor-General does not understand that when we on this side of the Committee pursue something, we pursue it with vigour and we argue and debate the matter. If only the Prime Minister would have the same degree of consultation with some of his hon. Friends and would consult the trade union movement about the Bill, we might get something in place of strife instead of the prescription for industrial civil war set out in the Bill. This is why the Bill is a nonsense. We all know of Betteshanger and the Irish case, where the employer had to go to the gaol to pay the fines of his employees, and even provide taxis to take them back. One does not want strikers imprisoned and paying compensation. We want strikers working. That is the fallacy that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not understand. We shall not get them working if we provoke them into actions in the way that this Bill does.
    I ask the Solicitor-General to look at the Payne Report on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts (Cmnd. 3909), which showed that 34 per cent. of civil debtors were maintenance defaulters. If people are willing to default over maintenance, clearly a lot of us will be willing on a matter of principle to default and refuse to pay fines imposed for practices which hitherto have been regarded as fair in industry.
    We see that the ultimate enforcement must be of a criminal nature through contempt; it must be through the attachment of earnings or distraint upon people's property. What good for industrial relations does the hon. and learned Gentleman think it will do if under Clause 86, bailiffs can take away the property of strikers who happen to be striking in sympathy with other strikers? The Solicitor-General has told us that it will be an unfair industrial practice under Clause 85 if an unofficial strike is called even though it is legitimised subsequently by the leadership of the trade union concerned. The people involved in and who induce that

    375
    strike will find themselves at the wrong end of the law, even though it is a perfectly legitimate strike subsequently endorsed by the union leadership.
    The position is, "You pays your fine and you takes your choice. You can either go to gaol and be a Hampden, or you cannot". I believe that trade unionists will not stand for it. They are very stubborn people. The people of this country have always been stubborn when they have seen their fundamental rights being undermined. That is what the Solicitor-General is doing here. I believe that they will refuse to pay fines that they regard as unjust. I should certainly do the same if I came under the inducement provisions which are put into so many parts of the Bill. These are the kinds of provision which one expects to find in a totalitarian country. We do not expect them to be introduced wthin the framework of industrial relations here.
    The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, with his great accuracy, underlined a point which was made by other hon. Members, that if we

    Division No. 185.]

    AYES

    [6.33 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Cronin, John

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Albu, Austen

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Garrett, W. E.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Allen, Scholefield

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Ginsburg, David

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Golding, John

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Ashley, Jack

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Ashton, Joe

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Barnett, Joel

    Deakins, Eric

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Beaney, Alan

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Dempsey, James

    Hardy, Peter

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Doig, Peter

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Booth, Albert

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Bradley, Tom

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Heffer, Eric S.

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

    Driberg, Tom

    Hilton, W. S.

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

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Dunn, James A.

    Horam, John

    Buchan, Norman

    Dunnett, Jack

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Eadie, Alex

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Edelman, Maurice

    Huckfield,Leslie

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Cant, R. B.

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Ellis, Tom

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    English, Michael

    Hunter, Adam

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Evans, Fred

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Janner, Greville

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

    Cohen, Stanley

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Coleman, Donald

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    John, Brynmor

    Concannon, J. D.

    Foley, Maurice

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Foot, Michael

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Ford, Ben

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Forrester, John

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Freeson, Reginald

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

    take away the ultimate sanction there can be no enforcement. That is precisely what we have argued throughout. The Commission on Industrial Relations did not need enforcement. It was based on voluntary co-operation. The purpose of these two Amendments is to expose the fact that, far from voluntary co-operation, the Government are intent upon industrial relations by force of law and by sanction against individuals as well as against trade unions, be they by fines, compensation or imprisonment for debt.
    The Government cannot say that this is not a criminal law. Not only are there those authorities about the quasi-criminal or criminal concept for contempt. There is also the fact that once a trade unionist is in gaol and once his property has been distrained, industrial relations will not be improved. This provision will cause the utmost bitterness amongst ordinary working people.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 256, Noes 290.

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Molloy, William

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Judd, Frank

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Sillars, James

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Silverman, Julius

    Kelley, Richard

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Kerr, Russell

    Moyle, Roland

    Small, William

    Kinnock, Neil

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Lambie, David

    Murray, Ronald King

    Spearing, Nigel

    Lamond, James

    Ogden, Eric

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Latham, Arthur

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stallard, A. W.

    Lawson, George

    O'Malley, Brian

    Steel, David

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Oram, Bert

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Orme, Stanley

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Leonard, Dick

    Oswald, Thomas

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Paget, R. T.

    stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Strang, Gavin

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Lipton, Marcus

    Pardoe, John

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Swain, Thomas

    Loughlin, Charles

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Pendry, Tom

    Tinn, James

    McBride, Neil

    Pentland, Norman

    Tuck, Raphael

    McCartney, Hugh

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Urwin, T. W.

    McElhone, Frank

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Varley, Eric G.

    McGuire, Michael

    Prescott, John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    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

    Rankin, John

    Weitzman, David

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Wellbeloved, James

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Richard, Ivor

    Whitehead, Phillip

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

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Whitlock, William

    Marks, Kenneth

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Marquand, David

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Meacher, Michael

    Roper, John

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Rose, Paul B.

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Mendelson, John

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Millan, Bruce

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

    Mr. William Hamling.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

    Emery, Peter

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Eyre, Reginald

    Astor, John

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Farr, John

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Channon, Paul

    Fell, Anthony

    Awdry, Daniel

    Chapman, Sydney

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Balniel, Lord

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Batsford, Brian

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Foster, Sir John

    Bell, Ronald

    Cockeram, Eric

    Fox, Marcus

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Cooke, Robert

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

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Coombs, Derek

    Fry, Peter

    Benyon, W.

    Cooper, A. E.

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Cordle, John

    Gardner, Edward

    Biffen, John

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Blaker, Peter

    Costain, A. P.

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Critchley, Julian

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Body, Richard

    Crouch, David

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Boscawen, Robert

    Curran, Charles

    Goodhart, Philip

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Goodhew, Victor

    Bowden, Andrew

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Gorst, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gower, Raymond

    Braine, Bernard

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

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Bray, Ronald

    Dean, Paul

    Gray, Hamish

    Brewis, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Green, Alan

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Dixon, Piers

    Grieve, Percy

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Grylls, Michael

    Bryan, Paul

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Gummer, Selwyn

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

    Dykes, Hugh

    Gurden, Harold

    Buck, Antony

    Eden, Sir John

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    378

    379

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mather, Carol

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Maude, Angus

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Scott, Nicholas

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Mawby, Ray

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Sharples, Richard

    Havers, Michael

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

    Hay, John

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Simeons, Charles

    Heseltine, Michael

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hicks, Robert

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

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

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Soref, Harold

    Hiley, Joseph

    Moate, Roger

    Speed, Keith

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

    Molyneaux, James

    Spence, John

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Money, Ernie

    Sproat, Iain

    Holland, Philip

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Stainton, Keith

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hordern, Peter

    More, Jasper

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Hornby, Richard

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt. Hn.Dame Patricia

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Mudd, David

    Stokes, John

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Murton, Oscar

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Sutcliffe, John

    Hunt, John

    Neave, Airey

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

    James, David

    Normanton, Tom

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Nott, John

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Jessel, Toby

    Onslow, Cranley

    Tebbit, Norman

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Temple, John M.

    Jopling, Michael

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Osborn, John

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Thomason, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Tilney, John

    Kilfedder, James

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Percival, Ian

    Trew, Peter

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Kirk, Peter

    Pounder, Rafton

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Waddington, David

    Knox, David

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

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Lambton, Antony

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Lane, David

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wall, Patrick

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Raison, Timothy

    Walters, Dennis

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Warren, Kenneth

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

    Redmond, Robert

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Longden, Gilbert

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Loveridge, John

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    White, Roger (Gravesand)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wiggin, Jerry

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Wilkinson, John

    McLaren, Martin

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    McMaster, Stanley

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Younger, Hn, George

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Maddan, Martin

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Madel, David

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Maginnis, John E.

    Rost, Peter

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Royle, Anthony

    Mr. Walter Clegg.

    Marten, Neil

    Amendment proposed: No. 856, in page 81, line 4, at end insert:
    () No court shall commit a person to prison for breach of any order made in proceedings brought under this Act.—[Mr. Heffer.]

    Division No. 186.]

    AYES

    [6.45 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Bradley, Tom

    Albu, Austen

    Barnett, Joel

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

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Beaney, Alan

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

    Allen, Scholefield

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Buchan, Norman

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bishop, E. S.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Ashley, Jack

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Ashton, Joe

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Booth, Albert

    Cant, R. B.

    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 254, Noes 284.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Palmer, Arthur

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Hunter, Adam

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Cohen, Stanley

    Janner, Greville

    Pendry, Tom

    Coleman, Donald

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pentland, Norman

    Concannon, J. D.

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

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    John, Brynmor

    Prescott, John

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth,C.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Crawshaw, Richard

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

    Probert, Arthur

    Cronin, John

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Dalyell, Tam

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

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Judd, Frank

    Richard, Ivor

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Kerr, Russell

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&Radnor)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)

    Lambie, David

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Lamond, James

    Roper, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Latham, Arthur

    Rose, Paul B.

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lawson, George

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Leadbitter Ted

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Dempsey, James

    Leonard, Dick

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

    Doig, Peter

    Lestor, Miss Joan

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

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sillars, James

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lipton, Marcus

    Silverman, Julius

    Driberg, Tom

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Skinner, Dennis

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Small, William

    Dunn, James A.

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Eadie, Alex

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Edelman, Maurice

    McBride, Neil

    Stallard, A. W.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Steel, David

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McElhone, Frank

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Ellis, Tom

    McGuire, Michael

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    English, Michael

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Evans, Fred

    Mackie, John

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Strang, Gavin

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

    Maclennan, Robert

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Swain, Thomas

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

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

    Foley, Maurice

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

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Foot, Michael

    Marks, Kenneth

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

    Ford, Ben

    Marquand, David

    Tinn, James

    Forrester, John

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Tuck, Raphael

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Urwin, T. W.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Meacher, Michael

    Varley, Eric G.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mendelson, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wallace, George

    Golding, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Watkins, David

    Gourlay, Harry

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Weitzman, David

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Molloy, William

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Whitlock, William

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Moyle, Roland

    William, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Ogden, Eric

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Hattersley, Roy

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    O'Malley, Brian

    Hilton, W. S.

    Oram, Bert

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Oswald, Thomas

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Horam, John

    Paget, R. T.

    Mr. William Hamling.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Balniel, Lord

    Astor, John

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    382

    383

    Batsford, Brian

    Gower, Raymond

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Bell, Ronald

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Moate, Roger

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gray, Hamish

    Molyneaux, James

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Green, Alan

    Money, Ernie

    Benyon, W.

    Grieve, Percy

    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)

    Mudd, David

    Body, Richard

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Murton, Oscar

    Boscawen, Robert

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Neave, Airey

    Bowden, Andrew

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Braine, Bernard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Normanton, Tom

    Bray, Ronald

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nott, John

    Brewis, John

    Havers, Michael

    Onslow, Cranley

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Hay, John

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bruce Gardyne, J.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Osborn, John

    Bryan, Paul

    Hicks, Robert

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Buck, Antony

    Hiley, Joseph

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

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

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    percival, Ian

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

    Holland, Philip

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Carlisle, Mark

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hordern, Peter

    Pounder, Rafton

    Channon, Paul

    Hornby, Richard

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

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

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Churchill, W. S.

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hunt, John

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Raison, Timothy

    Clegg, Walter

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Cockeram, Eric

    James, David

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Cooke, Robert

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Redmond, Robert

    Coombs, Derek

    Jessel, Toby

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Cordle, John

    Jopling, Michael

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kilfedder, James

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Costain, A. P.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Critchley, Julian

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Crouch, David

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Crowder, F. P.

    Kirk, Peter

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Curran, Charles

    Kitson, Timothy

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Knox, David

    Rost, Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Lambton, Antony

    Russell, Sir Ronald

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

    Lane, David

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Dixon, Piers

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Sharples, Richard

    Drayson, G. B.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

    du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward

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

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Longden, Gilbert

    Simeons, Charles

    Eden, Sir John

    Loveridge, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    MacArthur, Ian

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

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Soref, Harold

    Emery, Peter

    McLaren, Martin

    Speed, Keith

    Eyre, Reginald

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Spence, John

    Farr, John

    McMaster, Stanley

    Sproat, Iain

    Fell, Anthony

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Stainton, Keith

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Maddan, Martin

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Madel, David

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Maginnis, John E.

    Stokes, John

    Foster, Sir John

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

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

    Marten, Neil

    Sutcliffe, John

    Fry, Peter

    Mather, Carol

    Tapsell, Peter

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Gardner, Edward

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Mawby, Ray

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Tebbit, Norman

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Temple, John M.

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

    Goodhew, Victor

    Miscampbell, Norman

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

    Gorst, John

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

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    384

    385

    Tilney, John

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Wilkinson, John

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Wall, Patrick

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Trew, Peter

    Walters, Dennis

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    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

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Waddington, David

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. John Fraser: During the course of an intervention in the discussion on the first Amendment to the Clause, the Solicitor-General indicated that he would say something to the Committee about legal aid. I raised the matter on Second Reading, in the course of a point of order, and on the last Amendment, and I have not had an answer. This shows the incredible difficulty in which the Government find themselves, in that they cannot make appropriate announcements to the Committee, about matters which are germane and important to the Bill, because of the Guillotine.
    In advocating that there ought to be legal aid, if legal aid is given in the National Industrial Relations Court we on this side of the Committee do not regard it as in any way mitigating or excusing the existence of that court and the legal apparatus suggested. The main point is that there should be legal aid for a number of other proceedings, such as redundancy payments, applications to tribunals, and claims for damages for unfair dismissals, matters with which we on this side of the Committee agree, and on which we believe that people ought to have the right kind of legal assistance. We advocate legal aid for that purpose and that alone.
    Mr. John Loveridge: I welcome the Clause. It is right that there should not be powers for the court to compel directly a man either to work or not to work. Although there are restrictions on direct legal proceedings by the court itself under the Clause, very large powers are retained where a person is in breach of an agreement and is brought before a court with a view to obtaining compensation. It is important that such major powers should be restricted to the higher court in their application. The Industrial Court has very real powers. It can award substantial damages. It can enforce its orders through contempt pro-
    386
    ceedings, with all that that means as a consequence. It must have the powers to be effective as a court. But the possible damages against individuals could be large, even ruinous. The savings of a man's life could be at risk. There is no limit to the civil damages which might be awarded. In these circumstances I hope that the Government will consider extending the provisions of legal aid, which is available in civil courts, to proceedings before the Industrial Court.
    Big organisations can and should pay their own way, but the small man, a shop steward out on a limb on his own without union support, or a very small employer, should be able to apply for legal aid. What is sauce for the goose should also be sauce for the gander. Any party to a dispute, not only the defendants but the complainants as well, ought to be able to apply for legal aid.
    The belief that there should be provision for legal aid commands widespread support on both sides of the Committee. I first put down a new Clause advocating that on 19th January, and I quickly gained the welcome support of many hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I had no trouble in obtaining signatures because the essential justness and fairness of the proposal was easily seen. The aim was that individuals should not be penalised for lack of funds. Fifty names were put down on 5th February, and I was not surprised—indeed, I was pleased and honoured—when this was supported on 11th February by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who is also asking for the provision of legal aid, though her proposals were on a wider basis than my own.
    There is wide support on both sides for this proposal. I therefore hope that the Government will agree to ask the Lord Chancellor in due course to take the necessary action to secure that legal aid is available before the Industrial Court when the Bill becomes law. Many of us will be grateful and satisfied if the

    387
    Government can see their way to doing this. We do not wish this for a lawyers' paradise. We wish it as a simple Measure to ensure fair play when so much new law is being made.
    The Solicitor-General rose—
    Dame Irene Ward rose—
    The Temporary Chairman: The Solicitor-General—I am sorry. Dame Irene Ward. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) protesting at the fact that I have called the hon. Lady for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)?
    Mr. Harold Walker: No, certainly not, Mr. Jennings. I am protesting at the fact that we have to suffer the imposition of a guillotine and then the Government take up the time which is available.
    The Temporary Chairman: There is no restriction of speech in the Chamber, even under the guillotine.
    Mr. Michael Jopling: Further to that point of order—
    The Temporary Chairman: It was not a point of order. I asked the hon. Member for Doncaster what lie meant.
    7.0 p.m.
    Dame Irene Ward: As I was one of the original signatories to the new Clause dealing with the very important matter of legal aid, I want to give encouragement to the Solicitor-General to accept the argument which has been adduced on both sides. This is an important matter, because I often think that when Government legislation is being considered the small man does not have his case put as adequately as cases are argued by, for instance, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).
    I am interested in protecting the rights of the individual. It is important that adequate legal aid, when it is required, should be available to help the ordinary man through the intricacies of this complicated Bill.
    I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time, but as a speech was made from the other side in support of
    388
    the case for legal aid I thought that for once the Opposition might be pleased to know that both sides agree. [Interruption.] Be quiet! Hon. Members opposite are only wasting the Committee's time, and I shall stay here until I have my say.
    Mrs. Castle: The hon. Lady is wasting our time.
    Dame Irene Ward: I shall not be put out by the right hon. Lady in any circumstances.
    I hope that, in spite of the right hon. Lady's opposition, the Solicitor-General will agree to this. I know full well that the right hon. Lady does not like my speaking, any more than I like her speaking. If out of this controversy the decision is taken that legal aid shall be available in response to the case which has been so admirably argued on both sides, those on the Government front bench will be able to say, "Thank goodness that for once we have agreed. We are under a duty to see that the small man and the small woman have legal protection if they want it".
    Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Mr. Jennings. Can you tell us how the Committee can be protected from the sort of barracking which has been coming from the other side, particularly as hon. Members opposite have made such a fuss about the number of people who took part in demonstrations in London on Sunday and when, until the last two minutes, there have been fewer than 20 Opposition Members present?
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. Barracking is not a monopoly of either side.
    The Solicitor-General: I rise now to answer the point which has been made in this short debate and which was put to me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in the debate on Amendment No. 854.
    It is the Government's intention that legal aid should be available in proceedings before the National Industrial Relations Court. No provisions are necessary in the Bill to secure that, because regulations can be made by the Lord Chancellor under the existing legislation to achieve that end.

    389
    The intention is that legal aid will be available in the National Industrial Relations Court on the same terms and conditions as in other courts, and available, therefore, to individuals and not to trade unions or organisations or bodies corporate, as is the current position. Legal aid in other courts has always been confined to individuals, and the same procedure follows through here. Individuals, be they employees or employers, are less well placed than any corporate body, and qualify on that principle for legal aid before that court.
    The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Loveridge), has also argued that legal aid should be available for industrial tribunals. The position of industrial tribunals is that the principal jurisdictions they will be dealing with will be, first, on behalf of a union member against an organisation or union against which he has a complaint, and in many such cases his case will be put for him by the Registrar. Alternatively, it will be the individual—again, in most cases—making a claim in respect of unfair dismissal, comparable to that which he can now make in respect of redundancy payments.
    The essence of the jurisdiction will be exactly the same, although over a wider field, for the benefit of the individual, as that which is now being exercised by the industrial tribunals. In 1968 the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on the operation of the Legal Aid and Advice Act considered the question whether legal aid should be extended to industrial tribunals and then came to the conclusion that it should not be so extended.
    In the view of the Government the same kind of issues and the same kind of questions will be being handled by industrial tribunals under the extended jurisdiction—claims by individuals against organisations comparable to those already heard by the tribunals.
    The tribunals are meant to, and do in fact, provide a simple informal justice in which the ordinary individual is made to feel and does feel at home, where he is able to represent himself, and often does, save in the cases where he has a trade union or association to represent him.
    390
    That set of considerations has led the Government to the conclusion that in respect of industrial tribunals we should not be justified in departing from the view expressed by the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee in 1968 in respect of these industrial tribunals.
    Mr. Murray: Will the Solicitor-General bear in mind that under Clause 99 power to confer jurisdiction on the industrial tribunals in respect of damages for breach of a contract is contemplated? Is not this a matter in which legal aid would be most desirable? Will he not reconsider the matter?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman takes the point about Clause 99. That power is a power deriving from recommendations of Donovan and included in the last Government's Bill and designed to confer upon tribunals a jurisdiction previously exercisable by county courts. It is not a power which is being implemented by the Bill. It is a power to take power, and the question the hon. and learned Gentleman raises on that is something which would have to be considered when and if that power came to be exercised. The Government have included the provision there, and it is plain that we shall have to see how extensively the jurisdiction of the industrial tribunals is invoked, principally in respect of unfair dismissals as well as redundancy payments, before we can say whether that jurisdiction can be exercised soon or late. The question will then be considered.
    As for the provisions of the Bill on industrial tribunals, the Government do not take the view that it is justifiable to depart from the current principle, but they have acceded to the arguments advanced by several hon. Members in favour of making it plain that legal aid will be available on the usual terms and in the usual way before the National Industrial Relations Court.
    Mr. John Fraser: That reply is extremely disappointing. We want to express our dissatisfaction at the fact that legal aid will not be available at the tribunals. It will be available in the county court for damages for wrongful dismissal, and the damages or compensation in the tribunals would be much higher. That reply is very disappointing to a

    391
    large body of opinion in the country and the Committee.
    The Solicitor-General: The industrial tribunals are being given jurisdiction and new rights, in respect of unfair dismissal and the rest. So we are advancing the frontiers of what people may claim, in the same way as was done in respect of redundancy payments.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Would I be right in assuming that under Clause 100, when there was an appeal from a tribunal to the National Industrial Relations Court, legal aid would then be available?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, legal aid would be available in respect of appeal, in the same way as in respect of initial hearings in the court.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 115

    COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
    Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 857, in page 81, line 5, leave out 'No court other than the Industrial Court' and insert:
    'Only the Industrial Arbitration Board'.
    I intend to be brief, because there are more important Clauses, but it is important that the Committee should appreciate the sort of hypocrisy which surrounds the adaptation of the phrase "Industrial Court" to this new name. An honourable and respected title is being stolen from the present Industrial Court and put on this evil creature which the Government have created.
    The Industrial Court established by the 1919 Act has an honourable tradition. It has worked well and is respected on all sides of industry. It has reached conclusions, and it is a voluntary body. None of its decisions has been compulsory, but, the parties, because they went to arbitration voluntarily, have felt a moral duty to accept them.
    This is the sort of institution which we wanted to have when we thought of improving industrial relations—not of compelling people to accept a decision but
    392
    of persuading them, by its fairness and by the knowledge and experience of those comprising the Court, that it was a just solution.
    The old Industrial Court was made up of people respected on all sides of industry—distinguished employers' representatives and union representatives and independent members—who could bring to the court a wealth of industrial experience and knowledge of practical affairs which will be completely lacking in this new institution, which will be lawyer-dominated and will have on it a lawyer who will not even have to have had experience of industrial affairs.
    Under Clause 88, it seems that the appointment as a judge on this Court will be second-best, because no judge will be appointed unless he so wishes. This option will not be open to those who appear before the court.
    Therefore, to show the deception on the country and the Committee by the transference of this honourable name, to draw attention to the wealth of industrial experience which existed before, and because the decisions of the Industrial Court were morally persuasive, although not binding, and that is the attitude which we want in industrial relations, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
    [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
    7.15 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) confined his speech to a narrow point, and I wish to answer it equally narrowly. The National Industrial Relations Court is described by that name and is not expropriating the name of the Industrial Court. However, obviously, for the avoidance of any possible confusion, the functions of the Industrial Court are continuing by that body, renamed the Industrial Arbitration Board.
    As the hon. Gentleman said, that has been its function. It is an arbitral court. That function will remain, and, more important, the functions of the Industrial Arbitration Board will be more extensive, because it will have the important role of securing that employers recognise unions when they have been obliged to recognise them. It will have the power of determining as an arbitration body

    393
    what terms the employer ought to accept if he refuses to recognise. So all the good work of the Industrial Court as we knew it will be continued.
    The National Industrial Relations Court will develop the same kind of expertise and ability for the purpose of determining disputes, rather than arbitrating them, and will develop as a new authoritative structure alongside, but not in replacement of, the former Industrial Court. I therefore invite the Committee to conclude that there is no necessity to accept the Amendment.
    Mrs. Castle: Of course all the good work of the Industrial Court as we knew it will continue in the Industrial Arbitration Board. The point which we are trying to make is that the good name of the old Industrial Court is being filched by the Government for the bad work of the National Industrial Relations Court. By using this name, by borrowing this term, the Government are hoping to carry over into the new court the kudos, the association with fair play and balanced representation, which attaches to the existing Industrial Court.
    At no time have we had any explanation why the position of the N.I.R.C. has been changed from that of the existing court, not only in respect of its President, who we know will now be a High Court judge, thus changing the whole character of the court, but also in respect of the members who are drawn from what is supposed to be both sides of industry. There is a remarkable contrast here between the constitution of the Industrial Court and that of the new National Industrial Relations Court.
    Why have the Government moved away from the definitions of the present Industrial Court, which lay down that it shall consist of persons to be appointed by the Minister of Labour, some of whom shall be independent, some representing employers and some representing workmen—

    Division No. 187.]

    AYES

    [7.21 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Allen Scholefield

    Bishop, E. S.

    Cant, R. B.

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Booth, Albert

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Ashley, Jack

    Bradley, Tom

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Ashton, Joe

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

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Atkinson, Norman

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

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Barnett, Joel

    Buchan, Norman

    Cohen, Stanley

    Beaney, Alan

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Coleman, Donald

    with, in addition, one or two women? Why has that phraseology been changed? Why are we now told that these two sides are to be nominated by the Government simply on the basis of having special knowledge or experience of industrial relations?
    As a result of the constitution of the present Industrial Court, we have on the employees' panel a weighty representation of the trade union movement. We have men like Mr. Bothwell of the T.S.S.A., Lord Douglass of the Iron and Steel Confederation, Sir Sidney Ford of the N.U.M., Mr. Morton, of the Electircal Power Engineers, Mr. Robinson of the National Union of Boot and Shoe Operatives, and Lord Wright of the Amalgamated Weavers Association.
    Do hon. Members believe that any trade unionist of this standing will serve on this panel of the right hon. Gentleman's Industrial Relations Court? The answer is "No", and the Government know it. It will be a travesty of a court. It will, in fact, be the complete creature of the Government, and I suggest that this is why the composition terminology has been changed.
    It is because the Government know that they will not get representatives of work people of this calibre to serve on the employees' panel that they have given themselves a let-out, leaving themselves free to choose people who the Government say have special knowledge or experience of industrial relations. That might even include the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) simply because, in the Government's view, he has made one speech on this Measure and should be a member. It will be a travesty of a representative court and the country should be aware of it.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made.
    The Committee divided: Ayes 245, Noes 284.

    Concannon, J. D.

    John, Brynmor

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Pendry, Tom

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Perry, Ernest G.

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

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

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Prescott, John

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Judd, Frank

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Probert, Arthur

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Kelley, Richard

    Rankin, John

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Kerr, Russell

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Lambie, David

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Deakins, Eric

    Lamond, James

    Richard, Ivor

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Latham, Arthur

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lawson, George

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Dempsey, James

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

    Doig, Peter

    Leonard, Dick

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Roper, John

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Driberg, Tom

    Lipton, Marcus

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Loughlin, Charles

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

    Eadie, Alex

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Sillars, James

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McBride, Neil

    Silverman, Julius

    Ellis, Tom

    McCartney, Hugh

    Skinner, Dennis

    English, Michael

    McElhone, Frank

    Small, William

    Evans, Fred

    McGuire, Michael

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Spearing, Nigel

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

    Mackie, John

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Foley, Maurice

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Foot, Michael

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Forrester, John

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Strang, Gavin

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Galpern, Sir Myer

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

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Marks, Kenneth

    Swain, Thomas

    Ginsburg, David

    Marquand, David

    Taverne, Dick

    Golding, John

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Meacher, Michael

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

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Tinn, James

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mendelson, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Tuck, Raphael

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Millan, Bruce

    Urwin, T. W.

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Varley, Eric G.

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hardy, Peter

    Molloy, William

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)

    Wallace, George

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Watkins, David

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Weitzman, David

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Hilton, W. S.

    Moyle, Roland

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Horam, John

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Murray, Ronald King

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Ogden, Eric

    Whitlock, William

    Huckfield, Leslie

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Willey. Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Oram, Bert

    Willams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Orme, Stanley

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hunter, Adam

    Oswald, Thomas

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Janner, Greville

    Paget, R. T.

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Palmer, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Mr. William Hamling

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Batsford, Brian

    Blaker, Peter

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Bell, Ronald

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Astor, John

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Body, Richard

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Awdry, Daniel

    Benyon W.

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Bowden, Andrew

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Biffen, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Balniel, Lord

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Brains, Bernard

    396

    397

    Bray, Ronald

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Brewis, John

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Orr, Capt, L. P. S.

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Havers, Michael

    Osborn, John

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hay, John

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Bryan, Paul

    Heseltine, Michael

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

    Hicks, Robert

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Buck, Antony

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Percival, Ian

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hiley, Joseph

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

    Pink, R. Bonner

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

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Carlisle, Mark

    Holland, Philip

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Hooson, Emlyn

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

    Channon, Paul

    Hordern, Peter

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hornby, Richard

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Raison, Timothy

    Churchill,W. S.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hunt, John

    Redmond, Robert

    Clegg, Walter

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Cooke, Robert

    James, David

    Roes-Davies, W. R.

    Coombs, Derek

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Cooper, A. E.

    Jessel, Toby

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Corfield, Rt, Hn. Frederick

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Cormack, Patrick

    Jopling, Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Costain, A. P.

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Critchley, Julian

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Crouch, David

    Kilfedder, James

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Crowder, F. P.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Curran, Charles

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rost, Peter

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Royle, Anthony

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Russell, Sir Ronald

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

    Knox, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Dean, Paul

    Lambton, Antony

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lane, David

    Sharples, Richard

    Dixon, Piers

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Legge-Bourke, Sir John

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Simeons, Charles

    du cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Dykes, Hugh

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

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

    Eden, Sir John

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

    Soref, Harold

    Edward, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Speed, Keith

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Loveridge, John

    Spence, John

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

    MacArthur, Ian

    Sproat, Iain

    Emery, Peter

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Stainton, Keith

    Farr, John

    McLaren, Martin

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fell, Anthony

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Steel, David

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    McMaster, Stanley

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Stokes, John

    Fortescue, Tim

    Maddan, Martin

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Foster, Sir John

    Madel, David

    Sutcliffe, John

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

    Maginnis, John E.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Fry, Peter

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Marten, Neil

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Gardner, Edward

    Mather, Carol

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Mawby, Ray

    Tebbit, Norman

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Marganet

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Tilney, John

    Goodhew, Victor

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

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Gorst, John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Trew, Peter

    Gower, Raymond

    Moate, Roger

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Molyneaux, James

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Gray, Hamish

    Money, Ernie

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Green, Alan

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Waddington, David

    Grimond, Rt. Hn, J.

    More, Jasper

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Grylls, Michael

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Walker, Rt. Hen. Peter (Worcester)

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Gurden, Harold

    Mudd, David

    Wall, Patrick

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Murton, Oscar

    Walters, Dennis

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Neave, Airey

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Normanton, Tom

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Nott, John

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Onslow, Cranley

    398

    399

    Wiggin, Jerry

    worsley, Marcus

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Wilkinson, John

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Wolrige,-Gordon, Patrick

    Younger, Hn. George

    Mr. Reginald Eyre.

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to move Amendment No. 858, in page 81, line 11, leave out paragraph (b).
    We have not had an opportunity to discuss the establishment, composition, powers or duties of the proposed new Industrial Courts, nor the procedures to be followed before those courts. Some of us believe that the new courts are designed to frighten and intimidate the working people. It is unprecedented to set up a new arm of the judiciary without proper discussion and debate, but, owing to the Government's alacrity in pressing the Bill through, that is what we have now done.
    Having established a new arm of the judiciary, without proper discussion, we are now asked under Clause 115 to remove from our established and tested courts matters which have hitherto been dealt with by them, although, fortunately, relatively infrequently. There are trade unions which have agreed to enforceable contracts, and these have been enforceable in the normal courts, but it is now proposed to take that right away.
    We on this side are entirely opposed to bringing the law into industrial relations. Experience shows that the best employee-employer relationships are brought about by good will, mutual respect and a desire to settle differences with the minimum harm to each party concerned. Bringing the law into industrial relations can only cause confusion and resentment. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was entirely right when he said earlier today that a magician was needed to interpret the Bill.
    In its first leading article yesterday, The Times said:
    "Mr. Scanlon has already got himself and other engineering union leaders into a Gilbertian situation with the Engineering Employers' Federation over one aspect of these tactics"—
    that is, the tactics which the unions are pursuing in regard to the Bill.
    "For nearly two years the two sides have been negotiating a new procedure for settling
    400
    disputes in the industry, which both agree is urgently needed. There is no doubt that by now the deal would have been signed were it not for the fact that the union negotiators, led by Mr. Scanlon, are insisting that a specific 'non-legally binding' clause is written in.
    "It is a simple fact that an industry-wide agreement of this kind cannot in any circumstances become legally binding under the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill. This was one of the recommendations from industry which the Government rejected."
    So we have a confusion here. On the one hand, Mr. Scanlon has said one thing, and on the other, The Times, with a great deal of expertise at its back, has said another.
    Clause 32 has some relationship to Clause 115 in that under Clause 115 the court will have to enforce the provisions of Clause 32 relating to collective agreements. Clause 32 appears to make absolutely clear that Mr. Scanlon is right and that a procedure agreement, once signed, is enforceable in the courts.
    This is a matter of prime importance, and we must have an answer from the Solicitor-General: who is right, the trade union leader or The Times? This is the sort of confusion which we are having on the Bill, and Clause 115 only confounds it further.
    Mr. Murray: May I underline what my hon. Friend is saying and point out that under Clause 32(1) every collective agreement shall be conclusively presumed to be intended by the parties to be legally enforceable unless it contains a provision to the contrary. Under subsection (3), a collective agreement is so defined as to cover a procedure agreement, and one which has been negotiated collectively. Undoubtedly, therefore, it seems that my hon. Friend's view of the meaning of the Bill is correct.
    Mr. Stoddart: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. Before I conclude, I wish to repeat—
    Mr. Orme: May I intervene to point out that the engineering employers will not sign that agreement until after the Bill becomes law. We have heard the Solicitor-General say that it cannot be retrospective, so the engineering employers are deliberately witholding their

    401
    signature because they believe that the Bill will apply.
    Mr. Stoddart: Yes, that is a conclusion which the trade unions and the Committee can legitimately draw, and it underlines my point that it is vital that we have this matter clarified by the Solicitor-General today so that the negotiations may proceed on the York agreement.
    We on this side are committed to a voluntary system of collective bargaining, the system which has been tried and tested and not found wanting over a long period. It will be a tragedy if our existing procedures are set aside and confined within new law and new courts. It will do infinite damage to industrial relations as we know them.
    Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) usually speaks with studied moderation and does not use extravagant language, but he used a remarkable phrase today in objecting to paragraph (b) of the Clause. He said—I noted his words—"I believe that the new courts are designed to frighten and intimidate the working people". I hesitate to accuse the hon. Gentleman of saying something which he does not believe, but it is hard to credit that he can really believe that.
    It is a strange world in which we are discussing the Bill. Throughout the country, and in the Committee itself, there is a remarkable campaign of grotesque misrepresentation of the aims of the Bill in general and of this Clause in particular.
    Mr. Stoddart: I have talked to many people not only during my working life but in the past few weeks, when I have addressed trade union audiences of from 500 to 1,500, and I can say that ordinary working people are very frightened of the courts. That is my experience as a working person. They will be even more frightened of the Industrial Relations Court because it has been set up specifically to deal with them. My language, although it was perhaps a little extravagant, nevertheless represented what I truly believe that ordinary working people understand about the Bill and the Clause.
    Mr. Gower: If ordinary working people have those beliefs they must be
    402
    fortified considerably by the activities of those who go among them and give false descriptions of what the Bill is designed to achieve. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is dangerous. He has not said that he does, and he is now trying to tone down his original statement by saying that he has discovered that belief while moving among working people. Does he believe that the court is designed to frighten and intimidate them?
    Mr. Stoddart: I never say things that I do not honestly believe, either in this chamber or anywhere else I hope that the hon. Gentleman will grant me that. Having been engaged in negotiations, I know that I as a lay negotiator would be very frightened and intimated by the thought in the background of negotiations that I could be brought before the Industrial Relations Court and my assets and family perhaps put at risk because of a false move on my part.
    Mr. Gower: If that be the case, the hon. Gentleman is not objecting to the second leg of the Clause, paragraph (b). cannot believe that he will have any misgivings about that in particular, because it would depend entirely on the free choice of the parties in coming to a collective agreement. As he pointed out, they may decide voluntarily to make an agreement binding, or they may elect to make it not binding. Obviously, if the parties to an agreement are to elect to make it binding there will be pretty hard bargaining on both sides and big concessions by one party or the other. In other words, if the parties elect to make an agreement binding and subject to this procedure, there will be a considerable concession by one of the parties.
    The serious nature of the matter arises from our domestic economic problem, which is to fulfil our engagements in the markets of the world. We read today of the reaction of British Ford—[Interruption.]—an hon. Member groaned. British Ford has advised the parent American company not to invest heavily here on a proposed undertaking, but possibly to site it in another country. That shows how vital it is that we should have better machinery to make collective agreements worth while. That is the point—not to make them cruel or intolerable but to make them worth while to

    403
    both parties. It is no use having worth while agreements if there is no machinery for enforcement.
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman made a passing reference to the Ford dispute. As the proposed new factory that we have heard so much about would not be completed and in operation until after the Bill came into effect, does not the hon. Gentleman think, from what the British Ford management has said, that the Bill obviously will play no part but will worsen the situation?
    Mr. Gower: I do not need to make any connection between the two. The only thing that the Ford matter reveals is the chaotic state of our industrial relations in some parts of industry—not all. For a country so dependent on export industries even part of our industry may be vital in this connection.
    It is not worth while having a beneficial agreement unless there is machinery to enforce it. That is why the second part of the Clause is very important if we are to have the sort of improvements that I sincerely hope the majority of people on both sides desire. We do not believe that the Bill or the Court is designed to frighten and intimidate people. They are, we hope, designed to fortify our law and to help—only help, because it cannot be done by this alone—to create something better than we have seen in recent years.
    7.45 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has underlined the justification and motivation for the paragraph which is now being criticised. The Clause is designed to ensure that collective agreements which the parties wish to have enforceable can be enforced at the wish of either party to the agreement. It is not to be overlooked that the high probability is that the parties which will be most anxious to secure the assistance of the court will be the trade unions. In almost every country the overwhelming majority of cases brought before tribunals and courts are those brought by trade unions to establish, assert and have enforced the provisions they have had enshrined in procedure agreements for the protection of themselves and their members when something goes wrong.
    404
    I hope that the simple message put forward by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), denouncing the very idea of bringing law into industrial relations, will not attract notice, attention or support. The one thing that cannot be asserted, despite what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, is that our present voluntary system of industrial relations has "not been found wanting". The letter in today's issue of The Times from the British Ford Motor Company—
    Mr. Orme: Ford has no confidence in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has made his point once, and I will deal with it. The letter in today's issue of The Times from the managing director of the British Ford Motor Company is directed to the declining state of British industrial relations. The managing director sets out the figures as a result of which he says that Ford had to advise the American parent company as it did. It is that declining state that has led Governments of all parties and almost everyone concerned with the future of our country to conclude that something needs to be done, and that is what we are trying to do.
    Mr. Loughlin: Surely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is quite clear? The company has taken a decision not to build a factory that cannot be completed until after the operation of the Bill. The company is American and has had full experience of legislation like this. Therefore, it is an indictment of the Bill that the decision was taken.
    The Solicitor-General: That was an astonishingly naïve and very sad intervention. We have not claimed for the Bill that we are producing something which will be instant or miraculous or complete in its effect. Rome was not built in a day, and the sadly declining condition of our industrial relations will not be remedied or reversed in a day or in a month or in a year. We know that it will be a long haul to get things right. The one thing I am challenging is the bland and complacent proposition that our present system has not been found wanting. It is as one of the remedies for the situation that this paragraph stands in the Clause. It is not a

    405
    frightening or intimidating provision. If it were deleted, the power to give rulings and enforce collective agreements would revert to the ordinary courts instead of remaining with the specially designed sophisticated National Industrial Relations Court to which it is now going.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to reply to the important point about the statement in The Times yesterday. The first leader said:
    "It is a simple fact that an industry-wide agreement of this kind cannot, in any circumstances, become legally binding under the terms of the Industrial Relations Bill."
    Has The Times got it right or wrong?
    The Solicitor-General: I am coming to that. An agreement made now, before the Bill comes into force, is not affected by the Bill. The presumptions contained in Clause 32 about intended enforceability or non-enforceability do not affect them. [Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Members opposite are interested in my answers.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am interested. I was saying that I have been in the Chamber long enough to have heard five hon. and learned Gentlemen giving five different legal opinions, each of them claiming to be right. That is why I was telling my hon. Friends that I could not say that I was going to accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying as being right. So many different legal opinions are being offered to us.
    The Solicitor-General: I have been asked a number of questions and I will answer as best I can.
    The Bill makes no difference to any agreements negotiated and concluded now. The presumptions in Clause 32 have no effect in relation to them. In regard to the present state of the law, under Section 4 of the 1871 Act a collective agreement signed between an employers' association and trade unions is not capable of being enforced now. Such an agreement, if it were arrived at now, would not be capable of having legal force because the law does not recognise that such a thing can have legal force. When the Bill is passed and Section 4 of the 1871 Act is repealed, an agreement between a trade union or federation of unions and an employers' association will attract the presumptions of Clause 32.
    406
    If the parties decided that they wanted it to be legally binding or decided not to exclude the presumptions, then it would be legally binding on the parties. The agreement of the parties, as Clause 32 makes clear, means agreement between an employers' association and a trade union or a federation of trade unions, so The Times had it wrong up to that point. But The Times had it right in that a nationwide or industry-wide agreement cannot be the subject of selective enforceability. Under the provisions of Clause 35 onwards, or by voluntary agreement, the matter could be made binding, which it could not be until after the Bill is through. But selectively enforceable agreements can only be made enforceable unit by unit by unit. That is the present position.
    Mr. Orme: Then the hon. and learned Gentleman can say to the engineering employers that they are waiting in vain and that they might as well sign a new engineering industry agreement if they have any interest in the good industrial relations which the hon. and learned Gentleman purports to support.
    The Solicitor-General: It would not be right for me, without more detailed knowledge of the postures of the parties concerned, to proffer advice on what they should do. What I have said about the existing state of the law is clear. Nothing will presumptively attach to an agreement which is concluded now. Section 4 of the 1871 Act is still in being to stop it being binding in that way.
    I commend this subsection to the Committee on the basis that it will be to the benefit of both sides in any agreement they decide to make binding and ensure that the agreement will be considered and determined and enforced for either side before the National Industrial Relations Court, with its special expertise in the subject.
    Mr. Heifer: I shall not keep the Committee long but I want to get this position clarified. Not only did The Times make this statement. Mr. Vincent Hanna, in the Sunday Times two weeks ago, made the same point. I thought that there was probably nothing in it, and I dismissed it when Mr. Hanna said it. But when The Times repeated the statement yesterday, we became somewhat worried.
    When the Solicitor-General talks in terms of selective enforceability, what

    407
    precisely does he mean? Does he mean that, if the national agreement has a clause stating that it shall not be enforceable, then it cannot be enforceable anywhere in the country except in localities where, as often happens, various regional modifications are made? Does it mean that the agreement will not be enforceable unless a Clause is inserted in the localities as well? This point must be cleared up.
    I have one comment to make on the speech of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). He said that throughout the country there is grotesque misrepresentation of the Bill. I have noticed that, in the past few days, hon. Members opposite have become increasingly defensive about the Bill. That is because the truth about the Bill is now getting across to the people. Hon. Members accuse us of grotesquely misrepresenting the Bill but the truth of the matter is that the people are now beginning to understand precisely what the Bill is all about. It also means that many employers who were previously quite happy to go along with the Bill are realising that it is not the panacea for industrial relations.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: I will give the hon. Gentleman an example of grotesque exaggeration. I attended a protest meeting. They allowed me to have the opening speech and then I listened to speeches by trade union leaders. They explained in detail and with great emotion that the new court would be presided over by a bewigged lawyer and no one else. They knew when they said it that there would be two assessors at the side of the judge—men with real understanding of the people. Was not that a grotesque misrepresentation?
    Mr. Heffer: There may well be an individual trade union official who has not properly understood the Bill, but the fact is that the T.U.C. has issued a very important kit to all trade union officials which explains in detail and without any misrepresentation precisely what the Bill is about. It is quite clear in that kit that the High Court judge who will preside will have assessors with him on the panel. It is not right for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to make statements of
    408
    that kind, because it is not misrepresentation.
    Mr. David Stoddart: The hon. Member for Peterborough said that the trade union leaders were misrepresenting the situation by saying that a High Court judge would preside over the Industrial Relations Court, but surely within the terms of the Bill that is correct.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Heffer: There will be a High Court judge, but the hon. Member for Peterborough was attacking the officials for not saying that there would also be two assessors. The fact is that the major decision or advice will come from a High Court judge, and anyone with experience of the law knows that.
    I did not want to mention Fords, but the issue has been raised. Hon. Members ought not to introduce extraneous matters, but now that the issue has been raised, I must say that there is a contrary point of view. No one will deny that Fords have a good industrial relations setup. Hon. Members may say that there are so many strikes a year, but all industrial relations experts will agree that the set-up there is extremely good. The problem with Fords is that they were affected by the Pilkington dispute in particular. That may be said to prove the whole case, but in fact Pilkingtons have had one strike in about 40 years.
    Fords' decision was taken long before this dispute. It was probably made public now because of the dispute, and to give the impression that it was the result of the strike. It was probably part of the campaign against the present strike which in my opinion is perfectly legitimate and justified.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: My hon. Friend may recall that we have sufficient evidence from Halewood to show that work on engine parts and construction was being transferred to Germany and we were afraid that this decision would be taken.
    Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He and I were on deputations to Ministers in the Labour Government on this subject of work being transferred from Halewood to German factories. Shop stewards came

    409
    to the House to lobby their local Members, shop stewards not only from Halewood, but other parts of Fords' set-up. It is important to get this decision into perspective.
    Captain Walter Elliot rose—
    Mr. Heffer: I will not give way. I am constantly doing so. I think that I give way too much and I do not have a chance to make a speech without being interrupted. Interruptions hold up busines

    Division No. 188.]

    AYES

    [8.04 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Eadie, Alex

    Lamond, James

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Latham, Arthur

    Allen, Scholefield

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, George

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Ellis, Tom

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Ashley, Jack

    English, Michael

    Leonard, Dick

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, Fred

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Atkinson, Norman

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Barnett, Joel

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)'

    Lipton, Marcus

    Beaney, Alan

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Foley, Maurice

    Loughlin, Charles

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Foot, Michael

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Ford, Ben

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Forrester, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    McBride, Neil

    Booth, Albert

    Freeson, Reginald

    McCartney, Hugh

    Bradley Tom

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McGuire, Michael

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

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mackenzie, Gregor

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

    Ginsburg, David

    Mackie, John

    Brown,Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Golding, John

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Buchan, Norman

    Gourlay, Harry

    Maclennan, Robert

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Cant, R. B.

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Marquand, David

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hardy, Peter

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Meacher, Michael

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hattersley, Roy

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Coleman, Donald

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mendelson, John

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hilton, W. S.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Conlan, Bernard

    Horam, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Molloy, William

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hunter, Adam

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Moyle, Roland

    Davidson, Arthur

    Janner, Greville

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Murray, Ronald King

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

    Ogden, Eric

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    John, Brynmor

    O'Malley, Brian

    Deakins, Eric

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Orme, Bert

    Delargy, H. J.

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

    Orme, Stanley

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Dempsey, James

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Paget, R. T.

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Douglas Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Judd, Frank

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Driberg, Tom

    Kelley, Richard

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kerr, Russell

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Dunn, James A.

    Kinnock Neil

    Pendry, Tom

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lamble, David

    Pentland, Norman

    and we are operating under a guillotine and there are many more important Amendments.
    The case for the Amendment has been adequately made by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) and I hope that the Committee will support it.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 283.

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Sillars, James

    Urwin, T. W.

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Silverman, Julius

    Varley, Eric G.

    Prescott, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Small, William

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Probert, Arthur

    Smith, John (Larnarkshire, N.)

    Wallace, George

    Rankin, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Watkins, David

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Weitzman, David

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Richard, Ivor

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Whitehead, Philip

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Whitlock, William

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Strang, Gavin

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Roper, John

    Swain, Thomas

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Taverne, Dick

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

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

    Tinn, James

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Tomney, Frank

    Mr. William Hamling and

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Mr. Joseph Harper.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Curran, Charles

    Heseltine, Michael

    Astor, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hicks, Robert

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Awdry, Daniel

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hiley, Joseph

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

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

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Dean, Paul

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Balniel, Lord

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Holland, Philip

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Dixon, Piers

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Batsford, Brian

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Bell, Ronald

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hordern, Peter

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Hornby, Richard

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Benyon, W.

    Eden, Sir John

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Howell, David

    Biffen, John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Biggs-Davison, John

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

    Hunt, John

    Blaker, Peter

    Emery, Peter

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Body, Richard

    Farr, John

    James, David

    Boscawen, Robert

    Fell, Anthony

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Jessel, Toby

    Bowden, Andrew

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Braine, Bernard

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Jopling, Michael

    Bray, Ronald

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Brewis, John

    Fortescue, Tim

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fry, Peter

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Kilfedder, James

    Bryan, Paul

    Gardner, Edward

    King, Eveleyn (Dorset, S.)

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

    Gibson-Watt, David

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Buck, Antony

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Kitson, Timothy

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

    Goodhart, Philip

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Carlisle, Mark

    Goodhew, Victor

    Knox, David

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Gorst, John

    Lambton, Antony

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Gower, Raymond

    Lane, David

    Channon, Paul

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gray, Hamish

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Green, Alan

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Grieve, Percy

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

    Churchill, W. S.

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Grylls, Michael

    Longden, Gilbert

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Loveridge, John

    Clegg, Walter

    Gurden, Harold

    MacArthur, Ian

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    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-Wilson, Michael

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Maddan, Martin

    Costain, A. P.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Maginnis, John E.

    Critchley, Julian

    Havers, Michael

    Marten, Neil

    Crouch, David

    Hawkins, Paul

    Mather, Carol

    Hay, John

    Maude, Angus

    412

    413

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Sutcliffe, John

    Mawby, Ray

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Tapsell, Peter

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Raison, Timothy

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Tebbit, Norman

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Redmond, Robert

    Temple, John M.

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

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Moate, Roger

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

    Molyneaux, James

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Money, Ernie

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Trew, Peter

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    More, Jasper

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Mudd, David

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Waddington, David

    Murton, Oscar

    Rost, Peter

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Royle, Anthony

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Neave, Airey

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Nicholl, Sir Harmar

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wall, Patrick

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Walters, Dennis

    Normanton, Tom

    Sharples, Richard

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Nott, John

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

    Warren, Kenneth

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Simeons, Charles

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Osborn, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Soref, Harold

    Wilkinson, John

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Spence, John

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Sproat, Iain

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Percival, Ian

    Stainton, Keith

    Worsley, Marcus

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Pounder, Rafton

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W,)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Stokes, John

    Mr. Hugh Rossi and

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

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Mr. Keith Speed.

    Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—

    Division No. 189.]

    AYES

    [8.14 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Eyre, Reginald

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Channon, Paul

    Farr, John

    Astor, John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Fell, Anthony

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Awdry, Daniel

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Balniel, Lord

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Clegg, Walter

    Fry, Peter

    Batsford, Brian

    Cockeram, Eric

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Bell, Ronald

    Cooke, Robert

    Gardner, Edward

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Coombs, Derek

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Benyon, W.

    Cordle, John

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Gorfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Biffen, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Godber, Rt. Hn, J. B.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Costain, A. P.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Blaker, Peter

    Critchley, Julian

    Goodhew, Victor

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Crouch, David

    Gorst, John

    Body, Richard

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gower, Raymond

    Boscawen, Robert

    Curran, Charles

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gray, Hamish

    Bowden, Andrew

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knnteford)

    Green, Alan

    Braine, Bernard

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Grieve, Percy

    Bray, Ronald

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

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Brewis, John

    Dean, Paul

    Grylls, Michael

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Dixon, Piers

    Gurden, Harold

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Bryan, Paul

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    du Cann. Rt. Hn. Edward

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Buck, Antony

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Eden, Sir John

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Carlisle, Mark

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

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Emery, Peter

    Havers, Michael

    The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 247.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Maude, Argus

    Royle, Anthony

    Hay, John

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mawby, Ray

    Scott, Nicholas

    Heseltine, Michael

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Hicks, Robert

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Sharpies, Richard

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

    Hiley, Joseph

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Simeons, Charles

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

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

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Holland, Philip

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Moate, Roger

    Soref, Harold

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Molyneaux, James

    Spence, John

    Hordern, Peter

    Money, Ernie

    Sproat, Iain

    Hornby, Richard

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Stainton, Keith

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    More, Jasper

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Hunt, John

    Mudd, David

    Stokes, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Murton, Oscar

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Sutcliffe, John

    James, David

    Neave, Airey

    Tapsell, Peter

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Jessel, Toby

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Nott, John

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Jopling, Michael

    Onslow, Cranley

    Tebbit, Norman

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally

    Temple, John M.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Orr, Capt, L. P. S.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Osborn, John

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Trew, Peter

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Percival, Ian

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Kirk, Peter

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Pink, R. Bonner

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Pounder, Rafton

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Knox, David

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Waddington, David

    Lambton, Antony

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

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Lane, David

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Walters, Dennis

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Raison, Timothy

    Ward, Dame Irene

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

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Warren, Kenneth

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

    Rawlinon, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Longden, Gilbert

    Redmond, Robert

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Loveridge, John

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wilkinson, John

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    McMaster, Stanley

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Woodhouse, Hn, Christopher

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Worsley, Marcus

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Younger, Hn. George

    Maddan, Martin

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Marten, Neil

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Mr. Keith Speed and

    Mather, Carol

    Rost, Peter

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Cant, R. B.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Deakins, Eric

    Ashley, Jack

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Ashton, Joe

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Atkinson, Norman

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Dempsey, James

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Doig, Peter

    Barnett, Joel

    Cohen, Stanley

    Dormand, J. D.

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Coleman, Donald

    Douglas, Dick (Strlingshire, E.)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Concannon, J. D.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Bishop, E. S.

    Conlan, Bernard

    Driberg, Tom

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Dunn, James A.

    Booth, Albert

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Dunett, Jack

    Bradley, Tom

    Cronin, John

    Eadie, Alex

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

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

    Ellis, Tom

    Buchan, Norman

    Dalyell, Tam

    English, Michael

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Evans, Fred

    416

    417

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Richard, Ivor

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Foley, Maurice

    Loughlin, Charles

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Foot, Michael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

    Ford, Ben

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Forrester, John

    McBride, Neil

    Roper, John

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Rose, Paul B.

    Freeson, Reginald

    McElhone, Frank

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    McGuire, Michael

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mackie, John

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

    Golding, John

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Maclennan, Robert

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Sillars, James

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Silverman, Julius

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Skinner, Dennis

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Small, William

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Marks, Kenneth

    Spearing, Nigel

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Marquand, David

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Hardy, Peter

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Stallard, A. W.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Meacher, Michael

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Mendelson, John

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Hilton, W. S.

    Millan, Bruce

    Strang, Gavin

    Horam, John

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Molloy, William

    Swain, Thomas

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Taverne, Dick

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)

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

    Hunter, Adam

    Moyle, Roland

    Tinn, James

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Tomney, Frank

    Janner, Greville

    Murray, Ronald King

    Tuck, Raphael

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Ogden, Eric

    Urwin, T. W.

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

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Varley, Eric G.

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Wainwright, Edwin

    John, Brynmor

    Oram, Bert

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Orme, Stanley

    Wallace, George

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    Watkins, David

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Weitzman, David

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Paget, R. T.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Judd, Frank

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Whitlock, William

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Kelley, Richard

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Kerr, Russell

    Pendry, Tom

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Pentland, Norman

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Lambie, David

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Lamond, James

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Latham, Arthur

    Prescott, John

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Lawson, George

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Probert, Arthur

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Rankin, John

    Mr. William Hamling and

    Leonard, Dick

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Mr. Joseph Harper.

    Lester, Miss Joan

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 116

    UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE IN BREACH OF CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Murray: This is an enabling Clause dealing with the power of the Supreme Court of England to make rules to cover cases where actions of
    418
    damages are pending and to enable such actions to be assessed in the ordinary courts while procedure is taking place under the Bill in industrial tribunals. Similar procedures are provided for the Court of Session in Scotland. As I have been asked by at least one of my hon. Friends what an "Act of Sederunt" in subsection (2) means, I hasten to say that these formidable words merely refer to the power to make similar rules in the Scottish Supreme Court.
    The importance of this Clause is that it provides us for the first time with the

    419
    opportunity of considering the part which industrial tribunals are to play under the Bill. Because of the guillotine, we have had no opportunity to discuss any Clause or part of a Clause under Part VI of the Bill.
    The industrial tribunals were set up under the Industrial Training Act, 1964, to determine appeals by persons assessed to training levies which were imposed under that Act. Their functions have been extended several times by subsequent Acts. The Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, deals with the problems of entitlement to redundancy which arise when there is a stoppage of work after an employer has given notice to an employee of termination of employment. That is dealt with in Section 40. Section 42 deals with the question of the right to or amount of redundancy payments in the case of certain public employees who, because of the nature of their employment, are not entitled to redundancy payments but are given certain payments as if they are entitled. Disputes under these provisions are sent to the industrial tribunals.
    The Redundancy Payments Act. 1965, extended the jurisdiction of industrial tribunals to deal with cases in which employers failed to provide a written statement of terms of employment under the Contracts of Employment Act, 1963. An employee was given the right to apply to an industrial tribunal to determine what terms should be included if the employer did not comply with his obligation under Section 4 of that Act as amended.
    By the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, industrial tribunals were empowered to determine disputes about the meaning of dock work. Under the Selective Employment Payments Act, 1966, they were given jurisdiction to decide whether a business or part of a business was an establishment within the meaning of the Act, so attracting selective employment payments, and to adjudicate on the amount of any such payment under the Act.
    Those are the limits of the functions which industrial tribunals exercise, although they will exercise further functions under the Equal Pay Act, 1970.
    It is important for the Committee to note that the rôle of industrial tribunals
    420
    in all cases is essentially one of industrial arbitration on an individual employee's rights or an individual employer's rights.
    In giving the industrial tribunals these jurisdictions, the legislature did not entrench in any way on industrial disputes. It did not give to the industrial tribunals any jurisdiction on industrial disputes in the sense in which the Bill deals with them. Nor did it encroach in any way on the ordinary functions of the courts in law. This is changed by the Bill. It would be fair to say that industrial tribunals under the Bill are made into mini-courts on the model of the National Industrial Relations Court. This is done by Clause 89 and Schedule 5, neither of which we have been given an opportunity to discuss. A blank cheque is given in Schedule 5 to the Secretary of State to determine by regulations the precise jurisdiction that these tribunals shall have, and also to make the Secretary of State, if he so chooses, a party to any proceedings, although—to use the language of the Bill—he is on the face of it an extraneous party. This is an important result, and it is deplorable that we have not had an opportunity to discuss the important principle which lies in this transmutation of industrial tribunals from arbitral bodies into mini-courts.
    8.30 p.m.
    The Bill gives industrial tribunals extensive powers. This was referred to in the last debate when the question of legal aid in regard to these tribunals was mentioned. It was noted by the Committee at that point that by Clause 99 the Bill provides for the conferring of jurisdiction for breach of contract on these tribunals. That conferring of jurisdiction has not yet been made. It is merely, as the Solicitor-General pointed out, put in as an enabling power. But when one looks at the rubric to Clause 116, which reads
    "Unfair industrial practice in breach of contract of employment"
    one cannot doubt that this will be associated with an exercise of the enabling power under Clause 99, and that in the not so distant future industrial tribunals, in addition to the functions which I shall mention in a moment, will deal with actions of damages for breach of contract of employment.

    421
    Apart from that enabling provision, the Bill gives to the industrial tribunals power to award compensation under Clause 97(2)(b). It has power to deal with complaints by employees of unfair industrial practices in breach of workers' rights under Clause 5, which, as we have already seen, is very extensive and far-reaching. Industrial tribunals are also given power to deal with unfair dismissal under Clause 20, and that is dealt with in Clause 94. They are also given powers to deal with complaints against employees' or workers' organisations on the grounds of breach of the guiding principles for workers' organisations in regard to membership and participation in activities. That jurisdiction, together with jurisdiction for corresponding breaches in regard to employers' organisations, is given to industrial tribunals under Clause 95. These breaches are far-reaching in their effect, and industrial tribunals are being given considerable jurisdiction, analogous to that of the National Industrial Relations Court.
    Under Clause 96 industrial tribunals are given a similar jurisdiction in regard to complaints by the registrar. Once again it is important to stress that the registrar, who is to play an important role under the Bill, will have power to bring complaints to the industrial tribunal, just as he has power to originate complaints to the National Industrial Relations Court.
    Industrial tribunals are constituted at present under Statutory Instrument—this can be changed, I presume, by Statutory Instrument—and they consist of a legally qualified chairman and two members—one employers' representative and one workers' representative. When considering the albeit limited jurisdiction which is given to industrial tribunals, we must remember that the Bill gives them legal functions which, by adding a crushing burden of legalism, will have the effect of squeezing out all hope of moderation and the climate of arbitration in which industrial relations can prosper. That is what worries me about this provision. We have said repeatedly that the trouble with the National Industrial Relations Court is that it is trying to introduce the heavy hand of the law where a more delicate touch would be appropriate. The same can be said of the industrial tribunals, moderated only by the fact that
    422
    industrial tribunals have been given a lesser rôle to play.
    I conclude by stressing that by giving legal functions to essentially arbitral tribunals one is placing upon a committee of three—one legally qualified chairman, one employers' representative and one workers' representative—an enormous burden of legal interpretation and legal application of the law to industrial problems. This is in complete
    contrast to the functions which industrial tribunals were set up to carry out. They were essentially appointed to deal with disputes of fact of a comparatively minor nature arising in a comparatively non-controversial sphere of industry. This is being changed, and they are being given a controversial rôle, and I regard this as a thoroughly retrograde step.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) suggests that the nature of the tribunals is being transformed. That is not a fair presentation of the rôle of the tribunals under the Bill.
    The essence of the tribunals, as they have grown up over the years, is that they exercise judicial rights and decide legal disputes as to right. They cannot be compared with the Industrial Court, which does straight arbitration as between two claims, because they handle a large number of cases under the Redundancy Payments Act involving the determination of questions of fact and of right. They handle a much smaller number of cases, under the jurisdiction transferred to them from the pension appeals tribunals as well as under a number of other statutes mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman, not many under each but all involving the application of detailed law to the facts of different situations. They are distinguished by the fact that they are dealing with claims by individuals against their employers, leaving on one side the industrial training levy cases and selective employment premium cases.
    When one mentions these in the same breath, it is plain that these tribunals have become sophisticated bodies dealing with a wide range of subjects but principally dealing with claims of right affecting individuals. This is the role they will continue under the provisions of the Bill.

    423
    They are to have transferred to them what will be the largest part of their new jurisdiction —namely, questions of unfair dismissal—as was to have been the case under the Labour Government's Bill. This major addition to their rôle will involve cases of the same quality as redundancy payments cases; individual claims raising individual questions against organisations. The new matter that is being transferred to them beyond what was to have been transferred by the former Government's Bill is in regard to cases in which the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union or workers' organisation is in question. Again, those are cases involving individual claims against an organisation comparable in quality and nature to claims that an individual would make against his employer.
    In the Government's view, this is not a transformation in any dramatic sense of the kind of work the tribunal will have to do. The additional matter that is being transferred to the tribunals which is the subject of Clause 116 is dependent on the exercise of the powers under Clause 99 to transfer actions for breach of contract to the tribunals. That is a reproduction of Clause 79 or possibly Clause 80 of the Labour Government's Bill, which has also a prospective power was recommended by Donovan to give these more local, more informal and more industrially sophisticated three-man tribunals responsibility for deciding cheaply and informally questions which might never be decided at all; namely, as to holiday entitlement, as to the way

    Division No. 190.]

    AYES

    [8.40 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Braine, Bernard

    Cockeram, Eric

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Bray, Ronald

    Cooke, Robert

    Astor, John

    Brewis, John

    Coombs, Derek

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Cooper, A. E.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Cordle, John

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Balniel, Lord

    Bryan, Paul

    Cormack, Patrick

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

    Costain, A. P.

    Batsford, Brian

    Buck, Antony

    Critchley, Julian

    Bell, Ronald

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Crouch, David

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

    Curran, Charles

    Benyon, W.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Biffen, John

    Channon, Paul

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Chapman, Sydney

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

    Blaker, Peter

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Dean, Paul

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Body, Richard

    Churchill, W. S.

    Dixon, Piers

    Boscawen, Robert

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Bowden, Andrew

    Clegg, Walter

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    in which employers fulfil the terms of contracts of employment, and so on. It is right in our view, as in the view of the Labour Government, that power should be taken to transfer those cases to tribunals although the power will not be exercised immediately.
    Clause 116 is the corresponding Clause to Clause 81 of the Labour Government's Bill, enabling the court to make rules as to how these matters should be handled once this jurisdiction is given to the tribunals. The Clause bites on only a small area of jurisdiction. It is only those cases which involve breaches of contract in respect of which jurisdiction has been transferred when the order has been made to industrial tribunals which are effected by this Clause. Whether it be by rule of court or act of sederunt, these consequential changes will be made to allow the tribunals to go on handling, with the expertise that they have built up in their eight years of existence, this kind of case affecting individual claims on individual rights, whether against an employer or against organisations of workers.
    It is for that reason that I invite the Committee to allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill. It is an essential part of the machinery for bringing speedy and informal justice for individuals into these informal tribunals.
    Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 278, Noes 247.

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Eden, Sir John

    Kilfedder, James

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Redmond, Robert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Emery, Peter

    Kirk, Peter

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kitson, Timothy

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Farr, John

    Knox, David

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Fell, Anthony

    Lambton, Antony

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lane, David

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

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

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

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

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

    Rost, Peter

    Fry, Peter

    Longden, Gilbert

    Royle, Anthony

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Loveridge, John

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Gardner, Edward

    MacArthur, Ian

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Sharpies, Richard

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McLaren, Martin

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

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    McMaster, Stanley

    Simeon, Charles

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Goodhart, Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

    Goodhew, Victor

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Soref, Harold

    Gorst, John

    Maddan, Martin

    Speed, Keith

    Gower, Raymond

    Maginnis, John E.

    Spence, John

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Marten, Neil

    Sproat, Iain

    Gray, Hamish

    Maude, Angus

    Stainton, Keith

    Green, Alan

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Grieve, Percy

    Mawby, Ray

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Grylls, Michael

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Stokes, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Mills, Stratton, (Belfast, N.)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Sutcliffe, John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

    Tapsell, Peter

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Moate, Roger

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Molyneaux, James

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Money, Ernie

    Tebbit, Norman

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Temple, John M.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Havers, Michael

    More, Jasper

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hay, John

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Mudd, David

    Trew, Peter

    Heseltine, Michael

    Murton, Oscar

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Hicks, Robert

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Neave, Airey

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Hiley, Joseph

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Waddington, David

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

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Walden, David (Clitheroe)

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Normanton, Tom

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Holland, Philip

    Nott, Jobn

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Onslow, Cranley

    Wall, Patrick

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Onslow, Cranley

    Walters, Dennis

    Hordern, Peter

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hornby, Richard

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Warren, Kenneth

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.DamePatricia

    Osborn, John

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    White, Roger, (Gravesend)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Hunt, John

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Wilkinson, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Percival, Ian

    Wolrige- Gordon, Patrick

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christpher

    James, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Worsley, Marcus

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Jessel, Toby

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Younger, Hn. George

    Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)

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

    Jopling, Michael

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Mr. Tim Fortescue and

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Raison, Timothy

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Booth, Albert

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Barnett, Joel

    Bradley, Tom

    Allen, Scholefield

    Beaney, Alan

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

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Ashley, Jack

    Bishop, E. S.

    Buchan, Norman

    Ashton, Joe

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    426

    427

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Paget, R. T.

    Cant, R. B.

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cladwyn (Anglesey)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Hunter, Adam

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Janner, Greville

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pendry, Tom

    Cohen, Stanley

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

    Pentland, Norman

    Concannon, J. D.

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Conlan, Bernard

    John, Brynmor

    Prantice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Prescott, John

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Cronin, John

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Rankin, John

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Dalyell, Tam

    Judd, Frank

    Richard, Ivor

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Kerr, Russell

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Kinnock, Neil

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

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Lambie, David

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Lamond, James

    Roper, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Latham, Arthur

    Rose, Paul B.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lawson, George

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Dempsey, James

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Doig, Peter

    Leonard, Dick

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

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

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

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Sillars, James

    Driberg, Tom

    Lipton, Marcus

    Silverman, Julius

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Skinner, Dennis

    Dunn, James A.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Small, William

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Eddie, Alex

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McBride, Neil

    Stallard, A. W.

    Ellis, Tom

    McCartney, Hugh

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    English, Michael

    McElhone, Frank

    Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Evans, Fred

    McGuire, Michael

    Strang, Gavin

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

    Mackie, John

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Swain, Thomas

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Taverne, Dick

    Foley, Maurice

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

    Foot, Michael

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Ford, Ben

    MacPherson, Malcolm

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

    Forrester, John

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Tinn, James

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

    Tomney, Frank

    Freeson, Reginald

    Marks, Kenneth

    Tuck, Raphael

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Marquand, David

    Urwin, T. W.

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Valey, Eric G.

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Meacher, Michael

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Ginsburg, David

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Golding, John

    Mendelson, John

    Wallace, George

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mikardo, Ian

    Watkins, David

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Millan, Bruce

    Weitzman, David

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wellbeloved, James

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mine, Edward (Blyth)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Molloy, William

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Whitlock, William

    Handing, William

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Moyle, Roland

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Hardy, Peter

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Ogden, Eric

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hattersley, Roy

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    O'Malley, Brian

    Hilton, W. S.

    Oram, Bert

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Horam, John

    Orme, Stanley

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Oswald, Thomas

    Mr. Donald Coleman.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Clause 116 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    [Mr. E.L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

  Clause 117

    AVOIDANCE OF ENCROACHMENT ON JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL COURT OR OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS.
    Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 859, in page 82, line 19, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
    There ought to be another Amendment to the Clause, to leave out "may" in line 4. It has not been tabled, and I make that point clear in case it appears that there is inconsistency.
    The Clause states that if proceedings are taken in the High Court other than the Industrial Court division,
    "the court may stay the proceedings"
    if they are proceedings in tort, if the act in respect of which a complaint is made could be proceeded with in the Industrial Court.
    The court is given a discretion whether or not it stays the proceedings. That leaves one open to the suspicion that there could be concurrent jurisdiction in two divisions of the High Court in respect of the same act. It may be that the court would exercise its discretion the other way and not stay the proceedings in tort if taken in the Queen's Bench Division. This could mean that a trade union official or member was liable to an action in tort in the Queen's Bench Division and, because the court had not exercised discretion to stay those proceedings, could also be liable to proceedings for unfair industrial practice in the National Industrial Relations Court.
    It is not the purpose of the Amendment to sanction the existence of the Industrial Relations Court, but it is only by putting down the Amendment that we can draw attention to this fact.
    The Clause needs explanation. It says that:
    "Where in any court proceedings in tort are brought against a person in respect of any act done by him or on his behalf, the court may stay the proceedings…"
    The word used is "tort". On the other hand, Clause 119 states:
    "The Industrial Court shall not have any jurisdiction except that which is expressingly conferred on it by or under this Act; and
    430
    accordingly that Court shall not entertain any proceedings in tort."
    It seems clear that again there is an overlap of jurisdiction and that people may be exposed to two actions in two different courts. Whilst Clause 119 says that the Industrial Court cannot entertain an action in tort, Clause 117 says that the High Court may stay an action in tort whenever remedies lie in the Industrial Court. It is clear that there is an overlap. We want some examples from the Government as to what these kinds of action are.
    Another reason for proposing the word "shall" instead of "may" is that it is not beyond the wit of lawyers and judges to invent some new torts. Torts have been invented in the past arising out of the provisions of, say, the Factories Acts. The Factories Acts contain provision that machinery has to be guarded. They do not say that that creates a civil liability between one person and another, but a hybrid known as a statutory tort has been invented, where a Statute has created a criminal offence for the workpeople or the community at large, and the courts have invented a civil wrong after that which gives rise to an action for damages. Therefore, although the Factories Acts make it a criminal offence not to fence machinery, people can properly bring actions in civil courts for failure to fence. According to my understanding, that is what is known as a statutory tort. That is fine.
    The Bill creates all kinds of illegal acts. Some of them are called unfair industrial practices. Some are called things that are void. For instance, the closed shop is made void. Others are called general principles. They all create an aura of legality or illegality about a whole series of activities which are undertaken in industry.
    We have no assurance that there will not be a new tort of conspiracy to commit an unfair industrial practice. It would not be beyond the wit of a lawyer or a judge to invent such a tort. Therefore, under the Clause it would be possible for one set of people to be sued in the National Industrial Relations Court for damages—or compensation, as the Government care to put it—for an unfair industrial practice and for the same set of people to be sued in the Queen's Bench

    431
    Division for damages to commit an unlawful act.
    Although the Government have said from time to time that the provisions of the Bill do not create actions for damages against individual workmen, if the concept of conspiracy, which has been known in the law for some time and which was used in Rookes v. Barnard to cover some extraneous illegal act which was not in itself actionable but which became actionable when latched on to something, is pursued it will be possible for individual workers who have come out on strike to be sued for damages for tort as well as there being proceedings against officials, a trade union or an organisation of workers in the National Industrial Relations Court.
    The Amendment is addressed to that problem. We are against the National Industrial Relations Court, but we must have a hook on which to hang this discussion.
    The Solicitor-General: The argument advanced by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) is obviously one which it is possible within the context of the National Industrial Relations Court to advance perfectly respectably and with anxiety. I take the hon. Gentleman's point to the effect that logically the same Amendment should be made in line 4 of Clause 117.
    The reason "may" is used in each case rather than "shall" is certainly not to leave the ordinary courts with the opportunity of foraging round creating new torts and new remedies in respect of industrial relations matters. The object of the Clause is the
    "avoidance of encroachment on jurisdiction of Industrial Court or of industrial tribunals".
    The idea of it is, together with Clause 118, to keep proceedings which have an industrial relations flavour about them out of the ordinary courts. The important thing is to look at Clause 118, because that is the principal effective excluder of the jurisdiction of the ordinary court. Clause 118(1,a) extends more widely than in relation to contracts of employment. The remaining subsections of that Clause are intended to
    432
    exclude industrial relations torts or proceedings from the ordinary courts. The provisions of Clause 117 are designed for two purposes. They are designed to meet the point the hon. Gentleman has in mind, namely, the possibility of new torts being invented in an industrial relations situation. Therefore, on that view, the hon. Gentleman might argue that "shall" should be there to ensure that any such new torts should be kept within the industrial relations network.
    Mr. John Fraser: No—not invented at all.
    The Solicitor-General: That may be right. I can see the point of that. If a new tort begins to be invented in relation to an industrial relations matter, we are not in favour of encouraging that kind of invention or growth when it can be dealt with in the context of the National Industrial Relations Court, although there may be a difference of view between both sides of the Committee about that. We feel that, if any new grievance is felt, if it can be formulated within the context of an industrial practice, the Industrial Relations Court is the right place to hear it. One would not be unsympathetic to the word "shall", if that were the only object of the exercise.
    9.0 p.m.
    But there is this difficulty, that there will be some borderline cases where it is not clear at the outset whether they have an industrial relations quality or not. To take an obvious example, there have been many cases in the past where the question has turned on whether or not the proceedings relate to a trade dispute. Under these provisions as well, if proceedings are brought by a plaintiff who says, "These are nothing to do with an industrial dispute in the context of this Bill", and the defendant says, "Yes they are', it would not be clear at that point which court they should be in.
    It is therefore sensible, when there could be this overlap of jurisdiction, to allow them to be started in the ordinary court but for that court to have the power, if it became clear that it was an idustrial dispute, because that was a case

    433
    which could be presented as an unfair industrial practice, to stay those proceedings and allow them to be brought, if at all, in the Industrial Relations Court or the industrial tribunal.
    It is because one cannot identify in advance the way in which some such case might be formulated, it is because one wants to be certain that the plaintiff would not fall between two stools and that the defendant would not be sued in two courts at the same time, that the word "may" is included.
    It is possible now, under the rule-making powers of the ordinary High Court, to make rules spelling out more clearly the cases in which a stay should be granted, in other words, to direct the discretion of the court to meet the points which the hon. Member has in mind. But it is not the intention to leave the way open by means of Clause 117 for new inventions of industrial conspiracy which would put the introduction of new actions in respect of industrial relations matters in the ordinary courts. It is designed only to meet these mixed borderline cases.
    Sir Edward Brown: My hon. and learned Friend's interpretation is acceptable to this side, at least for the time being, but when the matter reaches the court, may we be assured that the judge would not interpret the word "may" as giving him the right to go up or go back?
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot of course give that assurance. But I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that rules can be made under the existing rules of the Supreme Court, and it would be my right hon. and noble Friend's intention to make such rules, making it plain that this discretion should be exercised in such a way as to ensure that the ordinary courts do not take jurisdiction in respect of industrial relations matters. But the effective excluder of the ordinary courts from industrial cases is substantially already there in Clause 118. This is designed as a vital check to ensure that any other case which comes around the check can be steered back into the Industrial Relations Court.
    I hope that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) will acknowledge
    434
    that, if one included the word "shall", it might be possible for proceedings to be stayed in the ordinary court as a matter of compulsion, and yet for there to be no remedy in respect of any other court.
    There may be cases which could, at first sight, appear to have an industrial flavour but which might turn out not to be in that category. It might be possible for cases to be presented in one way rather than the other the first time round, and it is because one cannot foresee all these possibilities that one must leave this discretion to the ordinary courts, as provided by the word "may".
    The intention of the Government in this Clause is to ensure that industrial relations cases are not heard in the ordinary courts but in the special Industrial Relations Court which is being established to deal with them.
    Mr. Ian Percival: The law and lawyers having been under fire for several months, one might be permitted a moment to take up a point which was made by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). His criticism is that the courts have in the past invented new torts.
    The Committee should bear in mind that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the adaptation of the law of tort to embrace a tort called "breach of statutory duty", a sphere of the law which has been of enormous benefit to employees, and rightly so, because the courts have said, in effect, "It is all very well to have criminal offences, but that does not help the man who has been injured. We will see that the injured man has a remedy, and not just in negligence. We will say that the basis of the law of tort is that where there is a duty and damage, the damaged person should be recompensed, and we will apply that to the industrial scene."
    I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will remember that here is an instance of where the law was not inventing something for the fun of it but was adapting a philosophy of the common law to provide a remedy for people who would not otherwise have had it. If that is invention, then I hope that the judges of the Queen's Bench Division will go on inventing as hard as they can for as long as they are allowed to do so.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

    Division No. 191.

    AYES

    [9.07 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Albu, Austen

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Meacher, Michael

    Allen, Scholefield

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mendelson, John

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Golding, John

    Mikardo, Ian

    Ashley, Jack

    Gourlay, Harry

    Millan, Bruce

    Ashton, Joe

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Atkinson, Norman

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Molloy, William

    Barnett, Joel

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Beaney, Alan

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hamling, William

    Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Moyle, Roland

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hardy, Peter

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Booth, Albert

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Ogden, Eric

    Bradley, Tom

    Hattersley, Roy

    O'Halloran, Michael

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

    Heffer, Eric S.

    O'Malley, Brian

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

    Hilton, W. S.

    Oram, Bert

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Horam, John

    Orme, Stanley

    Buchan, Norman

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Oswald, Thomas

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Paget, R. T.

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Cant, R. B.

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm,Northfield)

    Hunter, Adam

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(EdgeHill)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Janner, Greville

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pendry, Tom

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

    Pentland, Norman

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Coleman, Donald

    John, Brynmor

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Concannon, J. D.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Prescott, John

    Conlan, Bernard

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

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Rankin, John

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Cronin, John

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

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn, Anthony

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Judd, Frank

    Richard, Ivor

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

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Kerr, Russell

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kinnock, Neil

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

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Lambie, David

    Roper, John

    Davies, G, Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lamond, James

    Rose, Paul B.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydfil)

    Latham, Arthur

    Rose, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Lawson, George

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Deakins, Eric

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick

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

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Leonard, Dick

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

    Dempsey, James

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Doig, Peter

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

    Sillars, James

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Silverman, Julius

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Skinner, Dennis

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Small, William

    Driberg, Tom

    Loughlin, Charles

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Dunn, Jams A.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dunnett, Jack

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Stallard, A. W.

    Eadie, Alex

    McBride, Neil

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    McElhone, Frank

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Ellis, Tom

    McGuire, Michael

    Strang, Gavin

    English, Michael

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Evans, Fred

    Mackie, John

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Swain, Thomas

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

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

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

    Foley, Maurice

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Tinn, James

    Foot, Michael

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Tomney, Frank

    Ford, Ben

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

    Tuck, Raphael

    Forrester, John

    Marquand, David

    Urwin, T. W.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 281.

    Varley, Eric G.

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Whitlock, William

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Wallace, George

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Watkins, David

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Weitzman, David

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Wellbeloved, James

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Mr. Kenneth Marks.

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kitson, Timothy

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Farr, John

    Knox, David

    Astor, John

    Fell, Anthony

    Lambton, Antony

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lane, David

    Awdry, Daniel

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Balniel, Lord

    Fookes, Miss Janet

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

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

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

    Batsford, Brian

    Fry, Peter

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bell, Ronald

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Loveridge, John

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gardner, Edward

    MacArthur, Ian

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Benyon, W.

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Biffen, John

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    McMaster, Stanley

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Blaker, Peter

    Goodhart, Philip

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Goodhew, Victor

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Body, Richard

    Gorst, John

    Maddan, Martin

    Boscawen, Robert

    Gower, Raymond

    Maginnis, John E.

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Marten, Neil

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gray, Hamish

    Mather, Carol

    Braine, Bernard

    Green, Alan

    Maude, Angus

    Bray, Ronald

    Grieve, Percy

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Brewis, John

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mawby, Ray

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Grylls, Michael

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Gurden, Harold

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Buck, Antony

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberd'nshire,W.)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Moate, Roger

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

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Molyneaux, James

    Carlisle, Mark

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Money, Ernie

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Channon, Paul

    Havers, Michael

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hawkins, Paul

    More, Jasper

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Hay, John

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Churchill, W. S.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Mudd, David

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hicks, Robert

    Murton, Oscar

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Clegg, Walter

    Hiley, Joseph

    Neave, Airey

    Cockeram, Eric

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

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Cooke, Robert

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Coombs, Derek

    Holland, Philip

    Normanton, Tom

    Cooper, A. E.

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Nott, John

    Cordle, John

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Onslow, Cranley

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hordern, Peter

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hornby, Richard

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Contain, A. P.

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Osborn, John

    Critchley, Julian

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Crouch, David

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Curran, Charles

    Hunt, John

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Percival, Ian

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    James, David

    Pink, R. Bonner

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

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Dean, Paul

    Jessel, Toby

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Dixon, Piers

    Jopling, Michael

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

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Raison, Timothy

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kilfedder, James

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Eden, Sir John

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Redmond, Robert

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

    Kirk, Peter

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Emery, Peter

    438

    439

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Sproat, Iain

    Waddington, David

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Stainton, Keith

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Wall, Patrick

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Walters, Dennis

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Stokes, John

    Warren, Kenneth

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Sutcliffe, John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Rost, Peter

    Tapsell, Peter

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Royle, Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Wilkinson, John

    Scott, Nicholas

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Tebbit, Norman

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Sharples, Richard

    Temple, John M.

    Woodnutt, Mark

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

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Worsley, Marcus

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Simeons, Charles

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

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

    Trew, Peter

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Soref, Harold

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Mr. Hugh Rossi and

    Speed, Keith

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mr. Tim Fortescue.

    Spence, John

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 861, in page 82, line 35, at end add:
    () Any applicant on an ex-parte motion in the High Court or Court of Session shall give an undertaking that he knows of no circumstances by reason of which the National Industrial Relations Court or an Industrial Tribunal could have jurisdiction over the act for which an injunction or interdict is sought-Furthermore, any ex-parte injunction or interdict may be given in the High Court or Court of Session in any action involving or touching upon any workers' organisation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser has drawn attention to the fact that we are now entering a different field, that of overlapping jurisdiction, in which considerable difficulty may arise for the court and those before it, particularly as the court may well not know all the facts when it is first seized of a case. It may be very difficult to know whether a case should be taken before the High Court, the Industrial Tribunal or the National Industrial Relations Court. This may well lead to a situation in which we have to have a Bill creating a new court, a conflicts court to decide before which court a case should be taken. That occurs in some Continental systems.
    The Amendment arises from this difficulty. The purpose is to ensure that the High Court is satisfied when it deals with a matter that it is not one that should be dealt with by the N.I.R.C. It is in a difficult position, because the limitations on proceedings in tort in the High Court are not, as they are with the N.I.R.C., limited to hearings where both parties are present. Before the High Court there
    440
    may be ex-parte proceedings, with no one to argue that the matter should go to the N.I.R.C.
    The Government have accepted the principle that ex-parte injunctions should not be granted by the N.I.R.C. Therefore, I ask the Solicitor-General at least to undertake to introduce a provision on Report with regard to ex-parte proceedings. The least the Government can do is to accept that if such a provision applies to the N.I.R.C. it is imperative to ensure that an injunction is not granted ex-parte in the High Court if the matter is one that the High Court would subsequently have to send before the N.I.R.C.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that this is not a political point. It is a legal point of some substance in that a matter may well come before the Industrial Tribunal or the N.I.R.C. at a later stage, and this could bear heavily on the funds of a trade union or on a party who is applying for an ex-parte injunction and who may be forced to go as a defendant later before the High Court. I hope that he will look at this matter very carefully and accept the principle of the Amendment. If he does not, we shall divide the Committee. I think that this is one of those matters on which his inflexibility might yield a little and that he can now make some concession to the Committee.
    The Solicitor-General: I am not entirely clear—because the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has not explained it, although I make no criticisms of that—whether the Amendment

    441
    is printed correctly or not. I am not clear about the last sentence, which begins,
    "Furthermore, any ex-parte injunction or interdict may be given …"
    and so on.
    Mr. Rose: Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman. The words should have been, "an ex-parte injunction". Somehow, a "y" has become attached to "an", making it "any".
    The Solicitor-General: I had thought that it might have been meant to be "no" rather than "any" or "an", because that seemed more consistent with the intention of the Amendment, which was designed to limit ex-parte injunctions in industrial matters. But perhaps we can leave that wrapped in obscurity.
    I come now to the objective of the Amendment as the hon. Gentleman explained it, and in particular as set out in the first sentence. The objective of the Government in these provisions is set out in paragraph 22(3) of Schedule 2 and is to prevent ex-parte labour injunctions from being granted and to require reasonable steps to be taken to notify the person against whom the application for an injunction has been made. That is expressly set out to be achieved in the ordinary proceedings in the N.I.R.C. There is no doubt about the objective.
    If, however, one were to accept the Amendment, in the context of proceedings in the ordinary court it would impose a substantial burden on anyone seeking any kind of ex-parte relief in the High Court, and outside the field of industrial relations, if one always had to specify that the claim one was making gave rise to no circumstances which would accord jurisdiction to the N.I.R.C.
    Mr. Rose: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that, in a matter which does not touch upon industrial relations, the person seeking an injunction would have no difficulty whatever. It is only on these matters which are on the periphery, where there is a possibility of conflict of jurisdiction, that an undertaking would have to be given. It would not affect the law generally but only where there was a possibility ultimately of the matter going before the N.I.R.C. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not making a valid point.
    Sir E. Brown: On a point of Order, Mr. Mallalieu. Are we not in a difficulty
    442
    here? The Chairman has selected an Amendment and, therefore, we must debate it, but the Opposition have said that the sense of the Amendment as printed is different from their intention. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr, Rose) said that a "y" had crept in. The word in the Amendment as printed is "any". Would the Chair be prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment for debate?
    The Temporary Chairman: A simple correction is always acceptable. The Amendment seems perfectly well understood by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General at the moment.
    The Solicitor-General: I should not make even that claim. I do not want to take a false point, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) is quite right to say that there is something slightly odd about debating an Amendment when we are not quite clear what the Amendment is and I am not clear whether the word is "any", "an", or "no". But, if my hon. Friends will support me, I am prepared to deal with the remainder of the Amendment, because the intention of the first sentence at least is clear, and it is to the first sentence that the hon. Member for Blackley has so far spoken.
    All I am saying is that to impose a general obligation of this kind across the board in respect of an application for ex-parte relief in the ordinary court would be to impose an additional and unnecessary burden. I appreciate that if it were a case in which someone was seeking an injunction to restrain his wife from taking the children of the family out of the jurisdiction, it would not be difficult to include a pro-forma clause at the end to say that this was a matter not of industrial but of matrimonial relations, on the lines the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    But it seems an unnecessary burden to impose, because if a case were to come before the ordinary High Court and it appeared to have an industrial relations flavour and subsequently turned out to be a case which should not be in the High Court at all, the party which tried to pull a fast one, if I may put it like that, by going into the High Court would find within days or hours that an appearance had been entered and it would cease to be ex parte. The point would be made

    443
    against him that he had sought the wrong kind of relief in the wrong place, and the injunction would be discharged and he would be faced with the prospect of paying the costs of both sides in the ordinary court. So it would be wholly against the interests of a party to seek to proceed in that way.
    Similarly, the High Court would see that the proceedings were ill founded, and if it were such a case that the High Court could not detect that and observe it, the requirement as a matter of form that the plaintiff or applicant should state that it was not an industrial relations case would not prevent him from at least trying to have it from the High Court even when he was not entitled to it. While I am not in any sense out of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, the object is that an industrial relations case should be brought in the Industrial Relations Court, and the provision is that when such cases are brought there should be no ex-parte injunction and reasonable steps should be taken. If anyone tried to get round that either by ignorance or by misconceived guile, launching an industrial relations case in the ordinary court, he would soon find that it was not to his advantage. In other words, he would find himself faced with the prospect of paying costs of either party in the ill-judged and misguided attempt.
    Mr. Gower: Is there not another difficulty? Is it not conceivable that a person would desire to go to the High Court for ex-parte relief and yet that case would ultimately be in the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Court? Could there not be such circumstances as would prohibit or make it impossible for such a person to give such an undertaking?
    The Solicitor-General: The case could arise where it did not appear at the outset as though the case had any industrial relations flavour, and the original application could have been in respect of something like the ordinary contract disputes, but it might later turn out to be an industrial relations matter. The inclusion of a general provision of this kind is unnecessary, because in practice nobody would seek in any case likely to be able to involve the undertaking to take advantage of the alternative remedies. So the Amendment is not necessary in the form in which it has been moved.
    Mr. Rose: Although the Solicitor-General says that this is not needed in this form, he has acknowledged that it is needed because he has said that it would not be to the advantage of a person who did this through ignorance or guile. I am sure that there are employers and trade unions with guile, and certainly a lot of people will be ignorant about the provisions of the overlap of jurisdiction. Under the Bill an organisation of workers is not a corporate body and would not have access unless a provision were included.
    Sir E. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I must come back to this again. My hon. and learned Friend assured me he was only speaking to one part of the Amendment and it was my intention to raise the second part of the Amendment with you since we are debatting an Amendment which is not on the Order Paper. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the second part of the Amendment in a context which he has already admitted is a mistake. Whether it is "an" or "any" should be part of a manuscript Amendment. May we have your assistance on this?
    The Temporary Chairman: It is understood that there has been a misprint and that the word is "an".
    Mr. Rose: I do not think that it is a matter of substance whether it is "an" or "any". The hon. Member is taking a bad point. This could put a defendant in the position of facing an ex-parte injunction in circumstances where it could be to his disadvantage. I ask the Solicitor-General in the circumstances to be a little more forthcoming.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 118

    ACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OF FURTHERANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
    Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 866, in page 82, line 37, leave out 'in tort'.
    The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient if we also discuss Amendment No. 867, in page

    445
    83, line 3, leave out 'in tort'. Amendment No. 868, in line 9, leave out 'in tort', and Amendment No. 869, in line 12, leave out 'in tort'.
    Mr. Rose: The first, second and third of these Amendments have the intention of reinstating in substance protection of a type similar to that extended by Section 3 of the 1906 Trade Disputes Act. Earlier we debated rather exhaustively Clauses 85 and 87. This Amendment underlines what has happened during the passage of the Bill, namely, that we have by back-door stealth, brought about the destruction of such protection as remained under the 1906 Act simply by the introduction of this alien new concept of an unfair industrial practice and the provisions of Clauses 85 and 87.
    These provisions virtually take away the right to strike in a large number of cases, for example, the secondary boycott and the sympathy strike, where the original strike was called without the sanction of the union even if it was subsequently endorsed by the union. At the same time as this new concept has been introduced, the Solicitor-General says that he is keeping the law of tort as an additional weapon in his armoury against the trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and I have drawn attention to the problems which will arise as a result of overlapping jurisdiction as between torts, on the one hand, and unfair industrial practices, on the other.
    Clauses 6 and 85 deal with individuals inducing a breach and virtually take away protection from those individuals, be they trade union leaders, people commenting on television or political commentators. Because the Solicitor-General refused to answer this question at about a minute to midnight last Wednesday, there is a strong suspicion that Clause 87 overrules Thompson v. Deakin. The decision in Rookes v. Barnard has been reinstated through Clause 6 and Clauses 85 to 87 and the Trade Disputes Act, 1965, has been swept away.
    The purpose of the Amendment is merely to underline that by this backdoor method we have not only the refusal of the protection offered by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, but additional hazards for the trade union
    446
    movement for those involved in trade disputes. By leaving out the words "in tort", those facing an action would face an action only in one court and for one offence, whereas by retaining both concepts the Solicitor-General has the trade union movement both ways: either it goes before the court as defendants because of an unfair industrial action, or it goes before the other court because it is guilty, or allegedly guilty, by reason of a tort.
    We wish to extend the protection which can be given under the Clause in only a very modest way to get back to something like the position of 1906. We do not think that this is a particularly large or difficult demand to meet. This is a very modest Amendment to reinstate a certain degree of protection, in tort, bearing in mind that under Clauses 85 to 87 an intolerable burden has been imposed upon the trade union movement by virtually outlawing in a large area of industrial action the right to strike.
    The Solicitor-General: There may be a misunderstanding about the object of the Amendment, but the intention of Clause 118, including the words which the Amendment seeks to leave out, is to preserve the exclusion from the ordinary courts of actions which were excluded from them by Section 3 of the 1906 Act and other statutory provisions. The intention is to make it clear that proceedings in respect of industrial relations complaints about unfair industrial practices can be brought only before the Industrial Relations Court. That is the object of the exercise. The Bill identifies a number of unfair industrial practices and provides remedies for them which are to be granted and considered in the Industrial Relations Court. The object of the exercise is to give the Industrial Relations Court exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.
    The purpose of Clause 118 is not to expose people concerned with industrial relations to an alternative or additional liability in tort but expressly to provide that matters which could be actionable in the Industrial Relations Court shall not be actionable in tort in the ordinary courts. It is to make plain that the exclusion of the ordinary courts is to be effective over a wider field than it has

    447
    been under the 1906 Act up to now. That is why, for example, Clause 118(1)(a) drops the familiar words "of employment" from Section 3 of the 1906 Act.
    The Clause as now formulated achieves the object of protecting people concerned with industrial relations from proceedings in the ordinary courts rather further than has been the case up to now, and preserves our intention, with which there is disagreement on the other side of the Committee, to give to Industrial Courts exclusive jurisdiction in respect of these industrial matters.
    Mr. Orme: This is reversing 64 years of law which has stood since the 1906 Act, arising out of the Taff Vale judgment. Will cases such as the Taff Vale case be taken to the Industrial Court and not to the ordinary court?
    The Solicitor-General: The Taff Vale judgment involved two concepts. One was the basis of liability and the other was the extent to which the trade union could be found liable. Possible liability is dealt with by the extent to which a trade union can be liable in respect of compensation up to the limit specified in Clause 103. Speaking from instant memory, I think that the exact foundation of liability in the Taff Vale case was in respect of inducing breaches of contracts of employment.
    Mr. Orme: Yes.
    The Solicitor-General: To reverse that aspect, it would have been necessary to repeal, lock, stock and barrel, Section 3 of the 1906 Act. We have not done that. What we have done is to preserve the extent of Section 3 of the 1906 Act in the ordinary courts but, to a limited extent, to repeal it in the Industrial Relations Court. To make plain the nature of the limit, it is still open to a registered union or its officials acting on its behalf to induce breaches of contract of employment, just as they could under Section 3 of the 1906 Act. It is only the unregistered, unofficial organisation which has had withdrawn from it the Section 3 privileges. In accordance with the recommendations of the Donovan Commission, these Clauses are preserving the exclusion of industrial relations cases from the ordinary court.
    Mr. John Mendelson: The Solicitor-General should add, should he not, that, to the extent that the Bill is shot through with other provisions removing the protection of Section 3 of the 1906 Act, he is effectively abolishing the protection of Section 3 over a wide range of industrial practice?
    The Solicitor-General: Not so. I am redefining the extent of the immunities conferred by it, as advertised in "Fair Deal at Work" three years ago. I am certainly identifying some unfair practices in respect of which the inducing of industrial action is unfair. To that extent for specific purposes it is being done. In the context of this Clause the protection of the ordinary court remains, and it is the Industrial Court which will be seized of the new jurisdiction.
    It is unnecessary to contemplate acceptance of this group of Amendments, although it has been useful for the Committee to have this explanation of the object of the exercise.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The Committee proceeded to a Division:—
    The Temporary Chairman: Lock the doors.
    Mr. William Rodgers: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Can you, in the first place, assure us that the doors were closed six minutes after the Division was called? In the second place, will you take note of the fact that a number of hon. Members were seeking to enter the Chamber but were prevented by an exodus of other hon. Members? In the circumstances, will you consider calling the Division again?
    The Temporary Chairman: The correct time of six minutes was allowed. I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Rodgers: You say that you have taken note of what I have said. What significance are we to attach to that? May we be assured that, in future Divisions, the entrance to the Chamber will not be blocked? Or are we to take it that you now propose to call the Division again?
    The Temporary Chairman: Since the full time for the Division was allowed, it is not for me to take any further action.
    Mr. Rodgers: Will you be good enough to say in what circumstances action will be taken to ensure that hon. Members leaving the Chamber do not prevent other hon. Members entering in order to vote? With the greatest respect, it is not satisfactory simply to say that you have taken note of my point. What action will be taken to enable hon. Members to record their votes?
    The Temporary Chairman: The rules governing Divisions will of course be

    Division No. 192.]

    AYES

    [9.44 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Driberg, Tom

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

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

    Ashley, Jack

    Dunn, James A.

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Ashton, Joe

    Dunnett, Jack

    Judd, Frank

    Atkinson, Norman

    Eadie, Alex

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Kelley, Richard

    Barnett, Joel

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Kerr, Russell

    Beaney, Alan

    Ellis, Tom

    Kinnock, Neil

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    English, Michael

    Lambie, David

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Evans, Fred

    Latham, Arthur

    Bishop, E. S.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Lawson, George

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Booth, Albert

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Leonard, Dick

    Bradley, Tom

    Foley, Maurice

    Lestor, Miss Joan

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

    Ford, Ben

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

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

    Forrester, John

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Buchan, Norman

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Loughlin, Charles

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Cant, R. B.

    Golding, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Carmichael, Neil

    Gourlay, Harry

    McBride, Neil

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    McElhone, Frank

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    McGuire, Michael

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mackie, John

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Coleman, Donald

    Hamling, William

    Maclennan, Robert

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hardy, Peter

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Harper, Joseph

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

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

    Cronin, John

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Marquand, David

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Hilton, W. S.

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Horam, John

    Mayhew, Christopher

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

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Meacher, Michael

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Mendelson, John

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Millan, Bruce

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Hunter, Adam

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Molloy, William

    Deakins, Eric

    Janner, Greville

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Dempsey, James

    John, Brynmor

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Doig, Peter

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Moyle, Roland

    Dormand, J. D.

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

    Malley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    observed. That should enable hon. Members to record their votes correctly.
    Mr. Rodgers: Will you confirm that there are precedents for Divisions being cancelled and called again in cases where hon. Members are prevented from voting because the entrance to the Chamber is blocked by an exodus of other hon. Members? That being the case, will you ensure by your action that we are not prevented from entering the Chamber in the course of the next Division?
    The Temporary Chairman: I shall of course do my best to see that no hon. Member is obstructed wilfully.
    The Committee having divided: Ayes 240, Noes 286.

    Murray, Ronald King

    Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Ogden, Eric

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

    O'Halloran, Michael

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

    Tinn, James

    O'Malley, Brian

    Roper, John

    Tomney, Frank

    Oram, Bert

    Rose, Paul B.

    Tuck, Raphael

    Orme, Stanley

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Urwin, T. W.

    Oswald, Thomas

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Paget, R. T.

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

    Wallace, George

    Palmer, Arthur

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

    Watkins, David

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Weitzman, David

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Sillars, James

    Wellbeloved, James

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Silverman, Julius

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Skinner, Dennis

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Small, William

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Pendry, Tom

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Whitlock, William

    Pentland, Norman

    Spearing, Nigel

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Stallard, A. W.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Prescott, John

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Probert, Arthur

    Strang, Gavin

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Rankin, John

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Swain, Thomas

    Mr Kenneth Marks and

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Curran, Charles

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Astor, John

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Havers, Michael

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Hawkins, Paul

    Awdry, Daniel

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

    Heseltine, Michael

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Dean, Paul

    Hicks, Robert

    Balniel, Lord

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Dixon, Piers

    Hiley, Joseph

    Batsford, Brian

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

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

    Bell, Ronald

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Holland, Phillip

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Benyon, W.

    Eden, Sir John

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hordern, Peter

    Biffen, John

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hornby, Richard

    Biggs-Davison, John

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

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Blaker, Peter

    Emery, Peter

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Body, Richard

    Farr, John

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Fell, Anthony

    Hunt, John

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bowden, Andrew

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Braine, Bernard

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    James, David

    Bray, Ronald

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Brewis, John

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Jessel, Toby

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Fox, Marcus

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Fry, Peter

    Jopling, Michael

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Bryan, Paul

    Gardner, Edward

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Buck, Antony

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Kilfedder, James

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Goodhart, Philip

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Goodhew, Victor

    Kirk, Peter

    Channon, Paul

    Gorst, John

    Kitson, Timothy

    Chapman, Sydney

    Gower, Raymond

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Knox, David

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Gray, Hamish

    Lambton, Antony

    Churchill, W. S.

    Green, Alan

    Lane, David

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Grieve, Percy

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Griffiths. Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Clegg, Walter

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Grylls, Micha

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

    Cooke, Robert

    Gummer, Selwyn

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

    Coombs, Derek

    Gurden, Harold

    Longden, Gilbert

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Loveridge, John

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Costain, A. P.

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    McLaren, Martin

    Critchley, Julian

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Crouch, David

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    McMaster, Stanley

    452

    453

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Percival, Ian

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForcest)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Stokes, John

    Maddan, Martin

    Pounder, Rafton

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Madel, David

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Sutcliffe, John

    Maginnis, John E.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Marten, Neil

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Mather, Carol

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maude, Angus

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Tebbit, Norman

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Raison, Timothy

    Temple, John M.

    Mawby, Ray

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Redmond, Robert

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Trew, Peter

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Moate, Roger

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Waddington, David

    Molyneaux, James

    Ridadale, Julian

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Money, Ernie

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Wall, Patrick

    More, Jasper

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Walters, Dennis

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Rost, Peter

    Warren, Kenneth

    Mudd, David

    Royle, Anthony

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Murton, Oscar

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Neave, Airey

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Sharples, Richard

    Wilkinson, John

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Normanton, Tom

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Nott, John

    Simeons, Charles

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Onslow, Cranley

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Soref, Harold

    Younger, Hn. George

    Osborn, John

    Spence, John

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Sproat, Iain

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Stainton, Keith

    Mr. Tim Fortescue and

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Mr. Keith Speed.

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move Amendment No. 862, in page 82, line 38, leave out `only'.
    Many hon. Members who are not trained in the legal profession may think that missing out one word does not mean a great deal. But, after the debates about "may", "shall" and "will" and the connotations which they can have in a Bill of this nature, one wonders how important a single word can be. Certainly the word "only" takes on a tremendous significance.
    I tread with some trepidation into this legal sphere, particularly as I am surrounded by many lawyers on both sides. I have spent considerable time listening to the Solicitor-General say that in many cases it is difficult to give a proper answer to the situation and the court will decide. I wonder in that situation whether we may reach the position in Australia where the Solicitor-General, introducing similar laws, was eventually promoted to the court as a judge and had to interpret and define what was meant.
    454
    I enjoy one advantage, because I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the Merchant Shipping Acts and the relevance of the Clause to merchant seamen.
    Clause 118 deals with Section 3 of the 1906 Act and also rectifies the 1965 Act which was brought in to deal with the situation brought about by the Rookes v. Barnard decision.
    As I understand, and as was pointed out on an earlier Clause, certain difficulties will arise regarding actions in tort out of the mere narrowing of the definition from "trade dispute" to "industrial dispute". I think that other hon. Members may wish to develop that point in regard to the trade unions ashore concerning their activities and liability for actions in tort for what has been considered to this day a normal industrial practice. For example, in the Torquay hotel case the definition of "trade dispute" and "industrial dispute" came clearly to the fore.

    455
    The point which I wish to develop concerns the word "only" in Clause 118 which states:
    "An act done by a person in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—

    (a) that it induces another person to break a contract or

    (b) that it consists in his threatening that a contract … will be broken".

    It is important to draw to the attention of the Committee that there is a separate penal provision in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, in which certain acts ranging from wilful disobedience to certain lawful commands to being absent without leave at the time of sailing can constitute criminal offences.
    Section 31 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which deals with being absent without leave at the time of sailing, is pertinent to this point about the word "only" in that if a man who has signed on a ship and signed separate articles, that being his contract of employment, fails to join the ship when it sails, he will be absent without leave and in breach of his contract. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, he will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £100.
    One can imagine the industrial problems which can arise in that situation. For example, if seamen in the course of their employment on a ship find that the captain wishes to dismiss a man in a situation where they feel that something wrong has been done and they do not wish to sail on the ship, but the captain wants to put to sea within 24 hours so that they are not able to give sufficient notice to end their contracts and they walk off, yet the reason is sufficiently strong for the trade union official to say, "Yes, I think you are right to come off the vessel", he will be inducing a breach of contract. In inducing a breach of contract that official, like most other trade union officials in this situation, will be covered, except that he also induces the men to commit a criminal offence—the offence laid down in the Merchant Shipping Act to which I have just referred. This is where the protection becomes important. The Clause states:
    "… shall not be actionable in tort on the ground only—
    (a) that it induces another person to break a contract, or …"
    threatening that contract.
    456
    In this case I am led to believe that the very inducing a person to commit a criminal act in breach of contract would also lead to the possibility of an action in tort against the official and the men concerned, and the trade union.
    Clause 117 refers to
    "Avoidance of encroachment on jurisdiction of Industrial Court or of industrial tribunals"
    in such matters, but it would offer no protection in this case because the act itself is a criminal act and would be dealt with by another court.
    10.0 p.m.
    To make my point I refer to other Clauses. Clause 85 is clearly designed to offer protection to the trade union official or those acting on behalf of the union who induce others to breach their contract. This would not be guaranteed to the seaman, again, because of the suggestion that he would be getting them to commit an unlawful act. Therefore, the third parties would have an action in damages against the owners, against the union, and possibly against the officials and the men also. In inducing a breach of contract they commit an unlawful act.
    The Cunard v. Stacey case is one of a number in law where this has been brought up. I do not have the necessary confidence in the law to develop the points arising out of that. I seek the Solicitor-General's views on this matter. Does this mean that the trade union official performing his normal industrial function would be made liable to an action in tort against which other trade union officials in their normal affairs are protected?
    Other difficulties would arise if this interpretation were accepted, especially regarding Clause 87 and extraneous parties. I do not feel able to develop that legal point. I hope that the Solicitor-General will give guidance as to the role of the trade union official, in regard to shipping, where he commits not only an inducement to breach a contract but also a criminal act.
    [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
    The Solicitor-General: The point has been raised again in a narow compass by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) obviously in the context of the particular difficulties which

    457
    he visualises in the merchant shipping industry, because the inclusion of the word "only" from every other point of view—and as I shall show, from his point of view—repeats the corresponding provisions in existing statute law.
    The provisions of the 1871 Act, Section 2, are reproduced in Clause 122(a). The provisions of Section 3 of that Act are reproduced in Clause 122(b). The provisions of the 1906 Act, Section 1, are reproduced in Clause 118(3), and those of the 1906 Act, Section 3, first limb, in Clause 118(1) and of the 1906 Act, Section 3, second limb, Clause 118(2).
    There is no change in the substantial provision against the background of which the Merchant Navy's problems have to be considered. The particular part relevant to its problems arises in the context of the Cunard v. Stacey case to some extent from the 1875 Act and to some extent from uncertainty about the effect of that on their position.
    As the hon. Gentleman will know better than I, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970, made changes in that. Indeed, the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), replied to the Standing Committee debate on this Clause in relation to the corresponding provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1970. The effect of the 1970 Act provisions was twofold. They are in Section 42. The effect was to make plain that, notwithstanding any agreement, a merchant seaman can give 48 hours' notice of termination of his contract; so he is able to terminate his contract on that notice, provided that the ship is securely moored in a safe berth in the United Kingdom.
    The beneficial effects of that were extended by saying that the 1875 Act would apply to seamen, contrary to the original exception from the 1875 Act. So to that extent the doubts raised by Cunard v. Stacey were removed by the 1970 Act.
    The Bill does nothing to disturb that balance. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were not altogether happy that the last Government had gone as far as they would have liked in the context of the 1970 Act. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman, again with others, has suggested that this would be an opportunity for us to march further down the road away from the 1896 Act.
    458
    However, as the 1970 Act has been on the Statute Book for only a few months—indeed, I am not sure that all of it has been in force for even that long—we do not consider that this is the time or place in which to begin disturbing the uneasy settlement which the hon. Member for Doncaster defended in Standing Committee on the 1970 Bill.
    The point about which the hon. Gentleman is anxious is whether anything has been done in the Bill to disturb that balance adversely.
    Mr. Prescott: I appreciate fully that the Bill does not change the position under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, the previous Merchant Shipping Acts, or the 1970 Act. My case is that a trade union official, be he an official of the seamen's union or an official of a trade union ashore, should have the right to call upon people in a dispute situation to come out on strike, which would be an inducement of a breach of contract. By so doing he would render himself liable to an action in tort for damages, something which would not apply to any other trade union official in a similar situation. The Consultative Documents says that the Government wish to remove the aspect of criminality from industrial relations. Indeed, they do this, by means of a later Clause, in respect of gas and electricity workers and the 1875 Act. Is it fair to leave an official of the seamen's union who is performing his normal trade union function liable to a action in court?
    The Solicitor-General: The fact that the criminal law is involved to the extent specified in the 1970 Act is something which was the subject of an uneasy compromise last year, and we do not propose to alter that balance. The criminal nature of the provisions in the 1970 Act are those which represent an advance from the 1894 Act. That is a different argument, not in the context of this debate.
    The hon. Gentleman raises the separate point that, because merchant seamen can in certain circumstances commit a criminal offence under the 1970 Act by breaking their contracts of employment or by doing other things, therefore the trade union organiser of merchant seamen is unusually exposed to a certain type of action because he would be inducing,

    459
    not breaches of contract of employment, but the commission of criminal offences.
    It is doubtful whether that gives rise to a separate cause of action in conspiracy against such an official. Cunard v. Stacey was only an interim decision. It was given in circumstances when the 1875 Act plainly did not apply to seamen; and, if anything, it is even less likely that a decision would be given adverse to the trade union official now than it was then. This Bill does not change that provision. We have not thought it right to do so. I am not prepared to tell the hon. Gentleman that we will take this opportunity to change that part of the law specially designed to affect merchant seamen.
    Mr. Prescott: Except that the Government have said that the Bill is to strengthen trade unionism. This is a classical example of how they can do it.
    The Solicitor-General: We are doing great things in the Bill, but we are not necessarily undertaking to redress, restore or rewrite all the positions of balance so recently reached by the previous Administration on this topic. I know that the general application of the criminal law to the contracts of merchant seamen has been long debated and will continue to be debated, but this is not for this Bill.
    The narrower point of the hazards has been diminished by the 1970 Act and has not been increased by this Bill. It is right for the hon. Gentleman to ventilate again the case he has ventilated so often before, but it is not necessary to change this Bill to deal with that case.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is not part of my hon. Friend's case the fact that a trade union official dealing with merchant seamen will be exposed under the Bill to a further sanction—a liability to actions in tort? This means that it is a double-ended weapon. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman look into this to see whether some assistance could be given?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The Bill does not expose the union official dealing with seamen to actions in tort any more than he is already. It is maintaining the
    460
    immunity from such actions to the existing extent. There is no change on that. It is doubtful whether there is any special liability to an action for the tort of conspiracy for those organising merchant seamen, even as the law stands.
    The Bill does not change that—
    Mr. Prescott: It is not improving it.
    The Solicitor-General: No, we are improving many things but we have not taken that on board, and this does not seem to be the right time or place to do it.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I hope that the Solicitor-General was not taking refuge in what I said when the Merchant Shipping Bill was going through the House in 1970. I would remind him of two things that I said on Report dealing with the penal provisions of the Bill. The first was the important principle that no Government can govern without the consent of those to whom their laws apply, and that, if it was the wish of the industry to pursue the path being proposed to the House by my hon. Friends, we, the then Government, would be all too ready sympathetically to respond.
    The second important point which we expressed then—I do not want to rely too much on memory here or to over-commit myself—was that we gave in that situation, which is changed by this Bill, a pledge to the National Union of Seamen to review the situation in a short time to see whether the new machinery being created in the industry necessitated the perpetuation of the penal provisions.
    10.15 p.m.
    Mr. McNamara: I rise simply to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) because it was my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I, when we pressed the then Government on the question of penal sanctions, were given the impression that this matter would be reviewed in about two years' time. As about one year has passed and as the then Opposition did not dissent from what was said, we are looking forward to the time when the present Government will review the situation.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

    Division No. 193.]

    AYES

    [10.15 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Albu, Austen

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mendelson, John

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mikardo, Ian

    Allen, Scholefield

    Golding, John

    Millan, Bruce

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Ashley, Jack

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Molloy, William

    Ashton, Joe

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Barnett, Joel

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Beaney, Alan

    Hamling, William

    Moyle, Roland

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hardy, Peter

    Murray, Ronald King

    Bishop, E. S.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Ogden, Eric

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Hattersley, Roy

    O'Malley, Brian

    Booth, Albert

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Oram, Bert

    Bradley, Tom

    Hilton, W. S.

    Orme, Stanley

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

    Horam, John

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F' bury)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Paget, R. T.

    Buchan, Norman

    Hughes, Rt.Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hunter, Adam

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Cant, R. B.

    Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Carmichael, Neil

    Janner, Greville

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pendry, Tom

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

    Pentland, Norman

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    John, Brynmor

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Prescott, John

    Cohen, Stanley

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

    Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rankin, John

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Judd, Frank

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Richard, Ivor

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

    Kelley, Richard

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kerr, Russell

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

    Kinnock, Neil

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Lambie, David

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

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Latham, Arthur

    Rogers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lawson, George

    Roper, John

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Rose, Paul B.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Deakins, Eric

    Leonard, Dick

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Delargy, Hn. J.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    Dempsey, James

    Lipton, Marcus

    Sillars, James

    Doig, Peter

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Silverman, Julius

    Dormand, J. D.

    Loughlin, Charles

    Skinner, Dennis

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Small, William

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Driberg, Tom

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spearing, Nigel

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    McBride, Neil

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dunn, James A.

    McCartney, Hugh

    Stallard, A. W.

    Dunnett, James

    McElhone, Frank

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Eadie, Alex

    McGuire, Michael

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Mackie, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Ellis, Tom

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    English, Michael

    Maclennan, Robert

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Evans, Fred

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Swain, Thomas

    Fernyhough, E.

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Tavern, Dick

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

    MacPherson, Malcolm

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

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

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

    Foley, Maurice

    Marks, Kenneth

    Tinn, James

    Ford, Benn

    Marquand, David

    Tomney, Frank

    Forrester, John

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Tuck, Raphael

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Mayhew, Christopher

    Urwin, T. W.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Meacher, Michael

    Variey, Eric G.

    The Committee divided: Ayes 247, Noes 276.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Wallace, George

    Whitlock, William

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Watkins, David

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Weitzman, David

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Wellbeloved, James

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Mr. Donald Coleman and

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Mr. Joseph Harper.

    NOES

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Fortescue, Tim

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Astor, John

    Fox, Marcus

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

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fry, Peter

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

    Awdry, Daniel

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Gardner, Edward

    Loveridge, John

    Balniel, Lord

    Gibson-Watt, David

    MacArthur, Ian

    Batsford, Brian

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Bell, Ronald

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    McLaren, Martin

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Goodhart, Philip

    McMaster, Stanley

    Benyon, W.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Gorst, John

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Biffen, John

    Gower, Raymond

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Blaker, Peter

    Gray, Hamish

    Madel, David

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Green, Alan

    Maginnis, John E.

    Body, Richard

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Boscawen, Robert

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Marten, Neil

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Grylls, Michael

    Mather, Carol

    Bowden, Andrew

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Maude, Angus

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Gurden, Harold

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Braine, Bernard

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Mawby, Ray

    Bray, Ronald

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Brewis, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Bryan, Paul

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

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

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

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Buck, Antony

    Havers, Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hawkins, Paul

    Molyneaux, James

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hay, John

    Money, Ernie

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Heseltine, Michael

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Channon, Paul

    Hicks, Robert

    More, Jasper

    Chapman, Sydney

    Higgins, Terenece L.

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Churchill, W. S.

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

    Mudd, David

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Murton, Oscar

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Holland, Philip

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Cockeram, Eric

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Neave, Airey

    Cooke, Robert

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Coombs, Derek

    Hordern, Peter

    Normanton, Tom

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hornby, Richard

    Nott, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Onslow, Cranley

    Costain, A. P.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Critchley, Julian

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Crouch, David

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Osborn, John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hunt, John

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Curran, Charles

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    James, David

    Percival, Ian

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

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Dean, Paul

    Jessel, Toby

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Dighy, Simon Wingfield

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Pounder, Rafton

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Jopling, Michael

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Eden, Sir John

    Kilfedder, James

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Raison, Timothy

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Redmond, Robert

    Emery, Peter

    Kirk, Peter

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Farr, John

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Fell, Anthony

    Knox, David

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lambton, Antony

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Lane, David

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    464

    465

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Walder David (Clitheroe)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Walker Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Stokes, John

    Walker-Smith Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Wall, Patrick

    Rost, Peter

    Sutcliffe, John

    Walters, Dennis

    Royle, Anthony

    Tapsell, Peter

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Warren, Kenneth

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Sharples, Richard

    Tebbit, Norman

    Wiggin, Jerry

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

    Temple, John M.

    Wilkinson, John

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Simeons, Charles

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Tilney, John

    Woodnutt, Mark

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

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Worsley, Marcus

    Soref, Harold

    Trew, Peter

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Speed, Keith

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Younger, Hn. George

    Spence, John

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Sproat, Ian

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stainton, Keith

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Mr. Bernard Wetherill and

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Waddington, David

    Mr. Walter Clegg.

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    [MISS HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
    Mr. James A. Dunn: I beg to move Amendment No. 864, in page 82, line 39, after 'break', insert:
    or otherwise interfere with'.
    The Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take at the same time Amendment No. 865, in line 41, after 'broken', insert:
    or otherwise interfered with'.
    Mr. Dunn: The Clause, like Clause 117, has its problems for those who are not specialists in legal jargon, who can find the going very difficult.
    I wish to bring to the notice of the Solicitor-General and his colleagues certain points and to ask for special consideration to be given to the issues I shall raise now. My remarks will relate to both Amendments.
    The Clause says that any intervention in an industrial dispute will be in violation of some of its principles. Many problems flow from that. Any interruption, any intervention, any sympathetic support could be classified as tort.
    Dealing with Amendment No. 866, the Solicitor-General indicated with some clarity that the provisions of the Clause still make such tort actionable under certain circumstances. I take it that this would cover words, whether written or oral, or any action that could be classified as inducing, persuading or causing in any manner not only a breach of contract but an interruption of the contract acts which, while not specifically being interpreted as breaking the contract or interrupting it temporarily, constitute an offence by the very fact that persuasion is used.
    I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not mean that this provision should be incorporated in the Bill. I have known him for some time. I often disagree with him, but I never doubt that his wish for good law has always been sacrosanct to him and that he would not wish to leave any dubiety resulting from words for which he may be held to be responsible.
    468
    I recall some of the things said about Clause 86, when we were trying to consider sympathetic action, secondary sympathetic action, embargoes, picketing and even protests. There was a clear answer from the hon. and learned Gentleman then that secondary actions were an offence unless the trade union concerned had decided to take action which could be classified as not unfair. But if the trade union or group of workers took any action which was not sanctioned by, or at the direction of, a registered trade union, they would be in default under the Bill.
    10.30 p.m.
    Under Clause 118, any expression of opinion in relation to secondary action, any boycott, any picketing, any combined action or even any individual action could be interpreted as sympathy and support. In these circumstances, I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the matter again. My judgment is based upon the Torquay hotel decision by Lord Denning. The advice given to me by people who know more about the matter than I is that anyone in breach in the way I have indicated would be held responsible under the law of tort. I know that this is not the intention and the Amendment would clarify the situation.
    The Solicitor-General: I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. James A. Dunn) for the way in which he moved the Amendment. He has identified a point on which there may be room for reconsideration. The same point is made by Professor Wedderburn in his book, "The Worker and the Law", when he draws attention to the potential for extension of the law of tort deriving from Lord Denning's judgment.
    The objective of Clause 118 is to exclude from the ordinary court proceedings in respect of inducing breach of contract or comparable things in the context of a trade dispute. If there are to be any remedies in respect of such matters, they are to be found under this Bill, under Clauses 85 to 87. That is where the Government intend the remedies to arise. We do not intend a fresh crop of unforeseeable remedies to arise in the ordinary courts in the law of tort, and that is what Clause 118 is designed to prevent.

    469
    In so far as it reproduces Section 3 of the 1906 Act, it would have been all right for that purpose, but the hon. Gentleman suggests—and this is the extent to which his point has force—that it may no longer be all right if interference with the performance of the provisions of a contract is to be the foundation of a new series of actions in the ordinary courts.
    The Amendment might not present the right way of preventing a growth of that kind, but the hon. Gentleman has identified a problem which the Government want to look at again, the intention being to ensure that the Clause is a secure frontier in the ordinary courts in that the remedies, right or wrong, which the Goernment are putting forward in respect of unfair industrial actions should arise in the N.I.R.C. only.
    In view of my statement that we shall look at the wording again with these two Amendments in mind but without any commitment to accepting any particular form of words in trying to improve the Clause to meet the point which could arise from the Torquay judgment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that his Amendment need not be pressed to a Division.
    Mr. Dunn: I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance. I would like the matter to be looked at again.
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 870, in page 83, line 1, leave out: 'For the avoidance of doubt'.
    The Deputy Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we also discuss Amendment No. 871, in page 83, line 4, after 'business', insert 'contract'.
    Mr. Rose: As the Solicitor-General has understood the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) about "otherwise interfered with", I hope that he will also understand the problem posed here by the words "for the avoidance of doubt" because of recent decision in Stratford v. Lindley and Rookes v. Barnard.
    As we want to make progress tonight, I will not now go into detail, but the Solicitor-General will know that there
    470
    are 33 pages in the latest text book on the law in this regard. There is much doubt about the state of the law with regard to Section 3 and the protection offered. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to undertake that by Report he will have considered the implications of these two cases. I say no more than that now in view of his response to my hon. Friend.
    The Solicitor-General: I cannot adopt such an immediately forthcoming attitude to these Amendments because, so far as I have been able to analyse their effect, they would go beyond merely preventing the development of new heads of tort liability and would go further than would be justified. The hon. Member has moved the Amendment very briefly and I make no complaint of that. but he has not fully expounded the effect and I may not fully appreciate it. I shall certainly look at it, but I cannot show anything like the same kind of implied willingness to make any change on these lines, because the argument may not be as valid as the hon. Member thinks.
    Certainly I will consider his suggestion, but at the moment I do not think that it is likely to lead to any change in the position. However, he may feel satisfied that he has drawn my attention to it and it will deserve scrutiny on that ground alone.
    Mr. Rose: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I have drawn his attention to the matter. I am sure that he will look at the decisions and some of the dicta in these two cases and draw certain conclusions about the uncertainty in the law. As the Report stage will give us an opportunity to debate the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 119

    NO PROCEEDINGS IN TORT BEFORE INDUSTRIAL COURT
    Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 251.

    Division No. 194.]

    AYES

    [10.35 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Bankston Ash)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Astor, John

    Gorst, John

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Gower, Raymond

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Gray, Hamish

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

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Green, Alan

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Balniel, Lord

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Moate, Roger

    Batsford, Brian

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Molyneaux, James

    Bell, Ronald

    Grylls, Michael

    Money, Ernie

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Gurden, Harold

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Benyon, W.

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    More, Jasper

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Biffen, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mudd, David

    Blaker, Peter

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Murton, Oscar

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Body, Richard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Neave, Airey

    Boscawen, Robert

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Havers, Michael

    Normanton, Tom

    Bowden, Andrew

    Hawkins, Paul

    Nott, John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Hay, John

    Onslow, Cranley

    Braine, Bernard

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Bray, Ronald

    Heseltine, Michael

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Brewis, John

    Hicks, Robert

    Osborn, John

    Blocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hiley, Joseph

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Percival, Ian

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

    Holland, Philip

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Buck, Antony

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hordern, Peter

    Pounder, Rafton

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hornby, Richard

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Channon, Paul

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hunt, John

    Raison, Timothy

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Redmond, Robert

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    James, David

    Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

    Clegg, Walter

    Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Jessel, Toby

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Cooke, Robert

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Coombs, Derek

    Jopling, Michael

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Cooper, A. E.

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Costain, A. P.

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

    Critchley, Julian

    Kilfedder, James

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Crouch, David

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Crowder, F. P.

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Curran, Charles

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kirk, Peter

    Rost, Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kitson, Timothy

    Royle, Anthony

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

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Dean, Paul

    Knox, David

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lambton, Antony

    Scott, Nicholas

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Lane, David

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Drayson, G. B.

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Sharpies, Richard

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

    Dykes, Hugh

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Eden, Sir John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Simeons, Charles

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

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

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

    Longden, Gilbert

    Soref, Harold

    Emery, Peter

    Loveridge, John

    Speed, Keith

    Farr, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Spence, John

    Fell, Anthony

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Sproat, Iain

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    McLaren, Martin

    Stainton, Keith

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Fortescue, Tim

    Maddan, Martin

    Stokes, John

    Fox, Marcus

    Madel, David

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

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

    Maginnis, John E.

    Sutcliffe, John

    Fry, Peter

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Tapsell, Peter

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Marten, Neil

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Gardner, Edward

    Mather, Carol

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maude, Angus

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Tebbit, Norman

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mawby, Ray

    Temple, John M.

    472

    473

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Wilkinson, John

    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

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Mr Reginald Eyre and

    Waddington, David

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Mr Victor Goodhew.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    McBride, Neil

    Albu, Austen

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

    McCartney, Hugh

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McElhone, Frank

    Allen, Scholefield

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McGuire, Michael

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Foley, Maurice

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Ashley, Jack

    Foot, Michael

    Mackie, John

    Ashton, Joe

    Ford, Ben

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Atkinson, Norman

    Forrester, John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Barnes, Michael

    Freeson, Reginald

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Barnett, Joel

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Beaney, Alan

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

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

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Ginsburg, David

    Marks, Kenneth

    Bishop, E. S.

    Golding, John

    Marquand, David

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Meacher, Michael

    Booth, Albert

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Bradley, Tom

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mendelson, John

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

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mikardo, Ian

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

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Millan, Bruce

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Buchan, Norman

    Hamling, William

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Molloy, William

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hardy, Peter

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Campbell, I.(Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Cant, R. B.

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Moyle, Roland

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Hilton, W. S.

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Horam, John

    Murray, Ronald King

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Ogden, Eric

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Cohen, Stanley

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Coleman, Donald

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Oram, Bert

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Orme, Stanley

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hunter, Adam

    Oswald, Thomas

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Janner, Greville

    Palmer, Arthur

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

    John, Brynmor

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

    Pendry, Tom

    Davidson, Arthur

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

    Prescott, John

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Jones,Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Judd, Frank

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Deakins, Eric

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Probert, Arthur

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Kelley, Richard

    Rankin, John

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kerr, Russell

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Dell, Rt. Hn, Edmund

    Kinnock, Neil

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Dempsey, James

    Lambie, David

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Doig, Peter

    Latham, Arthur

    Richard, Ivor

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lawson, George

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Driberg, Tom

    Leonard, Dick

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

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Dunn, James A.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Roper, John

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Eadie, Alex

    Lipton, Marcus

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Shore, Rt, Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Ellis, Tom

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    English, Michael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

    Evans, Fred

    Mabon, Dr. J, Dickson

    Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

    474

    475

    Sillars, James

    Taverne, Dick

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Silverman, Julius

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

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Whitehead, Philip

    Smail, William

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

    Whitlock, William

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Tinn, James

    Willey Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Spearing, Nigel

    Tomney, Frank

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Tuck, Raphael

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Urwin, T. W.

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Strang, Gavin

    Wallace, George

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Watkins, David

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Weitzman, David

    Mr Joseph Harper and

    Swain, Thomas

    Wellbeloved, James

    Mr Ernest Armstrong.

    Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 120

    GAS, WATER AND ELECTRICITY WORKERS
    Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. McNamara: One of the Government's arguments in support of the Bill is that this Clause is one of the great liberating Clauses which suddenly lifts from the shoulders of people in the electricity supply, gas and water industries some of the penalties which they have borne as a result of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
    It used to be argued that everybody except workers in these key industries, public utilities, were able to go on strike. One can only assume that the power workers' go-slow and other industrial actions have shown the foolishness of this provision in that it could not stop effective industrial action, and the Government, therefore, have lifted the burden from these workpeople.
    Although the Government have withdrawn Section 4 of the 1875 Act, they have not withdrawn Section 5, which is equally damaging, in that it creates a special offence where the general law already creates an offence, so that a person can be liable under the ordinary law of the land and also liable under Section 5 within the scope of being a trade unionist and breaking a contract. Section 5 states:
    "Where any person wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others …"
    a number of combinations of serious offences result from that action.
    The gravamen of our argument is that if we are repealing Section 4 we should
    476
    repeal also Section 5, because much of what is contained in Section 5 will already be covered in the emergency procedures laid down in the Bill. If the Government are claiming to lift the burden, they should lift the whole burden and leave the person open only to the law of the land.
    Let us see how far the Government's claim to lift the burden from workers is fulfilled. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) spoke about the problems facing the trade union officials dealing with the Merchant Marine and the National Union of Seamen. I should like to look at the ordinary trawlerman on a trawler sailing out of Hull or any other fishing port, and to deal with the problem which engaged the last Parliament on the Merchant Shipping Bill.
    Although the Government say that they are lifting from the shoulders of workpeople many of the penalties of going on strike, they are not lifting the penalties from the important group of workpeople organised by my trade union. For example, under the law as it stands, a person on breaking his contract of service could be "done" by his skipper, "done" by the industry, and "done" under the Merchant Shipping Act, and in the end "done" under the Industrial Relations Bill. By "done" I mean that he may be subject to a variety of penalties, all for the same act.
    I urge the Solicitor-General to look seriously at the broad offence of this Clause, to take the logic of the Clause right through and abolish Section 5 of the 1875 Act, and to do away with all penal Clauses so far as they affect trawler-men and seamen. There would then be no distinction between the way in which trawlermen and seamen on the one hand and ordinary workers on the other hand are treated.
    The Solicitor-General: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) into the territory of the Merchant Shipping Act, primarily because I suspect it would be out of order to do so on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, but also because that legislation was considered last year.
    The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said on 11th March, 1970, that the surviving provisions
    "… run parallel with the situation in most other countries. It is my understanding that, when the Bill has been enacted"—
    he was referring to the Merchant Shipping Bill—
    "our provisions will probably be more liberal than those of almost any other country, and certainly less rigorous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11 th March, 1970; Vol. 797, c. 1420.]
    Mr. McNamara: I am aware that my hon. Friend said that, but that was not accepted by me or by my trade union. As to whether they are more liberal or less liberal, I would say that they are still illiberal.
    The Solicitor-General: I appreciate that, but they were so described by the hon. Member for Doncaster a little under 12 months ago. The present Government have also renewed the undertaking to see how the provisions work after a period of years, and in the context of that Act so recently on the Statute Book the matter has been taken as far as it can be.
    Mr. Harold Walker: We must get this right, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to do me an injustice or to distort the situation. He no doubt has accurately quoted me, but I hope he will turn his eyes to the latter part of that speech where I made it clear that, in spite of all I had said in defence of the then Government's position, none the less we would be sympathetic as a Government to the views of the industry if it wanted to go along the road then suggested by a number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
    The Solicitor-General: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is accurately summarising the effect of what he said. That was the position as it emerged on 11 th March last year. I believe I am right in saying
    478
    —this is taking me outside not only the rules of order on this Clause, but outside the extent of my detailed knowledge—that the Act is not yet in force in all respects.
    Mr. Harold Walker: There are no regulations.
    The Solicitor-General: No regulations have been made under it and it is not yet in force. Therefore, it is a little early to press for a review of that which was brought in only last year.
    Mr. McNamara: I did not accept it then and I do not now.
    The Solicitor-General: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman did not accept it then and does not now; he has made that clear. I think I have followed the matter far enough in the context of this debate.
    The general proposition on this Clause is to reduce as far as possible the impact of the criminal law in industrial relations. The Donovan Commission, on balance, inclined against the repeal of Sections 4 and 5 of the 1875 Act because it thought they had a marginal deterrent effect. The Government feel that it is only in the special and rather more serious case in regard to Section 5 of the 1875 Act that there is any case for not disturbing that one area of the criminal law. There is no special reason in the more complex and sophisticated conditions of modern society for protection of the gas, electricity and water industries as provided in Section 4, but it is felt that Section 5 should survive, which is where any person
    "… wilfully … breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to endanger human life, or cause serious bodily injury, or to expose valuable property … to destruction or serious injury …".
    To that extent we accept the Donovan Commission's recommendations that that should remain on the Statute Book. I make plain that that does not apply only to somebody working under a contract of employment or only to the trade union or trade union members. It applies to anyone who wilfully or maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring. Anyone, employed or not, can avoid the risk of prosecution under Section 5 by giving due notice to determine his contract.

    479
    We have moved further than the Donovan Commission suggested, and, I think, as far as is right and sensible within the context of the 1875 Act and this Bill, to reduce the impact of the criminal law as we believe that it would be right to do.
    11 p.m.
    Mrs. Castle: None the less, it is important to place on record that, contrary to the impression that the Government have been anxious to give in their somewhat generalised public statements, they are not removing the criminal law entirely from any consideration of industrial relations. As Donovan points out, Section 5 of the 1875 Act, which the Government are not repealing, imposes criminal liability over a wider area than Section 4. Persons who are not covered by Section 4, as Donovan points out, might well be within Section 5, and the Report takes instances from Citrine's "Trade Union Law" suggesting that people who might be covered by Section 5 include drivers, signal men, pilots, surgeons, hospital staff, sewage workers, haulage contractors, and so on. This wide and far-reaching Section is being retained by the Government and, therefore, the Government are retaining criminal liability in their Bill.
    Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Lady did not reach the sentence in the Donovan Report which might be said to underline so much of what has been said by my right hon. and hon. Friends about the framework of law that we are seeking to set up without continually drawing attention to the sanctions involved. The right hon. Lady referred to what Donovan said about the criminal law which has been in existence since 1875. However, the Report goes on:
    "So far as we are aware, however, there has not yet been a prosecution for an offence under this section."
    Mrs. Castle: I am aware of that, but, broadly speaking, that could apply to Section 4 as well. We have had an interesting example recently where Section 4, which the Government are making such a virtue of repealing, might well have been considered to apply. I refer to the recent power workers' go-slow. As the Report of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry makes clear, the employers in that case claimed that the
    480
    employees were in breach of their rules and, therefore, in breach of their contract of employment. Although a criminal action lay against the power workers and although there was a great outcry against the inconvenience and harm being caused by the go-slow, there was never any suggestion that the employers should apply Section 4. They did not apply it because they knew that what they wanted was not a criminal action but a settlement.
    The Government are making a great virtue out of very little, and the principle that I have suggested remains intact, namely, that the Government are retaining an element of criminal liability in this Clause.
    The Solicitor-General: But it is right to acknowledge that neither the Donovan Commission nor, I understand, the right hon. Lady proposed to alter either Section 4 or Section 5. We are retaining a very limited half of existing criminal liability for cases where serious injury is threatened, and we accept that Section 4 should go. The reality of the matter is that we have decided on withdrawal to the full extent that we think right.
    Mrs. Castle: In other words, the hon. and learned Gentleman retains criminal liability where he thinks that it might be of use. That is the simple matter of principle involved.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 121

    PEACEFUL PICKETING
    Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move Amendment No. 873, in page 83, line 37, leave out:
    'not being a place where he resides'.
    We come now to a Clause which, I think, signals the introduction of a significant change in the law concerning picketing. The words which we seek to have deleted make unlawful a concept which has been legal for certainly the whole of this century. This is a major, far-reaching and inexplicable change which the Government are seeking to introduce. Therefore, the onus for explaining it—we have not so far had one word of explanation—rests with the Government. It is for them to justify this change and

    481
    to tell us what new circumstances have arisen which require it.
    Picketing has undergone changes in practice in recent years which are contrary to the direction implied in the proposed change in the law. I am prepared to acknowledge that in one or two exceptional instances picketing has been practised with perhaps an excess of robustness. But generally picketing has been practised with perhaps an excess of robustness in recent years than when the 1906 Act laid down what has now been the foundation of the law concerning peaceful picketing for more than half a century.
    It is for the Solicitor-General to explain what new circumstances have arisen to justify this deliberate change in the law, which is not inconsistent with the general approach of the Bill, which is designed to weaken the strength of organised workers and to blunt the edge of the only weapon which they have in industrial relations—the strike weapon. It is a change, moreover, which defies—indeed, reverses—the express and deliberate will of Parliament exemplified in the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, which specifically included provisions which the Solicitor-General is now seeking to wipe out after a lengthy and exhaustive assessment of the practice in circumstances in which picketing was conducted with more vigour than today.
    Furthermore, it is a change in the law which, despite all that the Solicitor-General, the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and their roving band of propagandists up and down the country have been proclaiming—
    Mr. McNamara: Peripatetic prophets.
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend describes them as "peripatetic prophets". I am not sure that "prophets" is appropriate. Perhaps "pharisees" would be more relevant. They have made a great virtue of arguing that their proposals are consistent with, not to say based upon, the Royal Commission's recommendations. But time and again we have pointed out that the contrary is the case. In the light of earlier discussions today when we were accused of confusing the public and trade unionists, it strikes me as an extraordinary charge in view of the difficulty which the Solicitor-General has had in reconciling
    482
    so many of his proposals with the Royal Commission's recommendations.
    We find here yet another defiance of the views of the Royal Commission. Paragraph 877 of the Report states:
    "The majority of members consider that the Commission has had no evidence of abuse of the right to picket sufficient to justify such a restriction."
    It is important to point out here that the restriction referred to is precisely that which the Solicitor-General has put in the Bill, and which we seek to reject. The Commission sat for three years and had evidence submitted to it from a great range of organisations and from literally scores of individuals, all of whom are deeply involved in the day-to-day practice of industrial relations. None of them could find any evidence on which to base what the hon. and learned Gentleman has put in. It seems that he has found out what the Royal Commission could not discover. We shall look forward to seeing how he has triumphed over the labours of the Commission.
    But, in order to be fair to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it should be said that four members out of the 12 came to a contrary view, and felt that picketing should not be allowed at a person's home when that place was not also his place of work. It is interesting to read their reasons for coming to that conclusion. They said:
    "They consider that in such cases it is quite unnecessary: information can be peaceably communicated or sought by post."
    In the context of the current industrial relations situation those words have a rather ironic ring about them, to put it at its most moderate. I could not help wondering, when I understood that the reason for the Secretary of State's absence was that he was having discussions with the General Secretary of the Union of Postal Workers, if those discussions should bear fruit, as we all hope they will, and the General Secretary feels it necessary to communicate to his members the agreement reached so that the members might form some view of the agreement, just what would have happened had this Bill been an Act of Parliament. The answer is that such an action would, under the Solicitor-General's proposal, be an offence.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that four

    483
    members of the Royal Commission dissented from the majority view. One of them was Lord Donovan himself.
    Mr. Walker: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to elevate Lord Donovan into something more than I understood him to be—primus inter pares. If it is suggested that Lord Donovan's views should be held to be paramount, the Government should rewrite the Bill. Hon. Members opposite like to select pieces from the Report when it suits them, but do not hesitate to ignore completely the views of Lord Donovan when the contrary is the case.
    Mr. Michael Grylls: Instead of being selective himself, would the hon. Gentleman read the next two sentences in that quotation?
    Mr. Walker: If hon. Members opposite want to keep throwing clay ducks in the air, I am willing to keep potting away with either barrel. Paragraph 876 reads:
    "The liberty to picket a person's home involves the risk of threats to his family which are quite unjustifiable, and may cause much distress."
    The important point is that that sentence speaks of the risk involved, but so far as I am aware, nowhere in the Report or in the evidence submitted—and I have probably gone through the evidence as thoroughly as any hon. Member here—is there anything to tell us that people have in recent years been exposed to that kind of situation.
    11.15 a.m.
    The Solicitor-General may cite an example, but I cannot think of any example. I can think of examples of robust picketing in areas other than a person's home, but that is not what the Solicitor-General is tilting at. It is not in that area of the law relating to picketing that the Solicitor-General proposes to bring about changes. It is that part of the law that Parliament deliberately wrote into the 1906 Act, at a time when picketing was conducted in a much more violent fashion than anything we have seen in recent years and when Parliament, having carefully considered the practice, deliberately removed the restrictions in this area of the law on picketing that had been written into the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act, 1875.
    484
    The Government are not only reversing the decision of Parliament taken in 1906, but they are making the position of the law more restrictive—not only more restrictive than it was pre-1906 but even more restrictive than it was pre-1875. We are driven to the conclusion that this provision, like so many other features of the Bill, is designed deliberately to diminish the power of the worker and his organisations and to blunt—to put it at its best—the only weapons available to workers. This makes a mockery of the Government's declared intention that the Bill is designed to strengthen the unions. This is yet another onerous restriction against the unions which we shall vote against, unless we can be given a justification for this dramatic and far-reaching change in the law.
    Mr. Percival: Such huffing and puffing does nothing to enhance the future of the cause which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) seeks to advocate. The hon. Gentleman used two phrases that stuck in my mind. One was that the inclusion of the words
    "not being a place where he resides"
    was designed to weaken trade unions. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that this provision was designed to diminish the power of the workers.
    Heavens above, does the great trade union movement need to be able to besiege a man in his own home? Are not there some moments when a man can live his own life free, not only of interference from the Government, but free also of interference from his own union if he does not want it? This question should be seen in its true proportions.
    Under the Clause a union is free to picket in all the ways in which it has picketed in the past
    "at or near—

    (a) a place where a person works…

    (b) any other place where a person happens to be".

    The only place where a union cannot picket is at
    "a place where he resides".
    I beg the Committee to come down to earth and realise that some things may be legitimate for a man's protection and that it is nonsense in this context to describe this as a Measure designed to weaken trade unions.
    Mr. John Page: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) discussed paragraph 876 of the Donovan Report, in which Lord Donovan, Lord Robens and two others—that is, a third of the members of the Commission—thought that the picketing of people's homes should not be allowed. The hon. Gentleman made a meal of the business of information being communicated peaceably. Nothing in the Bill would stop a person leaving a letter or speaking to someone in his home, but "picketing" has a continuing atmosphere. I should have thought that, if a picket could get to someone's home, so could a fellow worker with a message. So that part of his argument falls.
    The hon. Gentleman also said that there had been no change of circumstances in recent years. I should have thought that hon. Members would agree that there has been a change of circumstance in the amount of increasing violence which is generally evident in the life of our country. That is another reason why the Amendment should be opposed.
    In paragraph 876, the Commission said:
    "No doubt such threats are a breach of the law, but the victims are unlikely in most cases to bring proceedings."
    Mr. Murray: The hon. Gentleman has just made a very serious charge about increasing violence in the industrial field. Can he now substantiate this charge?
    Mr. Page: I specifically said that there is increasing violence in the country as a whole—
    Mr. Orme: Do not blame the unions.
    Mr. Page: I think that people are more nervous nowadays about opening their front doors after dark than they were 60 years ago—
    Mr. Alex Eadie: What has this to do with the unions?
    Mr. Page: That picketing of a person's home means that individual colleagues of a worker can station themselves outside his home. That is what picketing means—[Interruption.]—
    Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: They really do not like it, do they?
    Mr. Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman give away?
    Mr. Page: No. I have quoted where the Donovan Report said that victims are unlikely in most cases to bring proceedings—
    Mr. Orme: Can I give an instance?
    Mr. Page: All of us dislike having our wives and families involved in political difficulties. It is one of the hardships which a Member's family has to accept—[Interruption.] I believe that, by exactly the same coin—
    Mr. Orme: What is he talking about?
    Mr. Page:—it is wrong for people's wives and families to be involved in the same kind of industrial problems. So I hope that the Committee will oppose the Amendment.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Would the hon. Gentleman address his final remarks not to the point about violence—he and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) have still to give examples of that—but to the fact that the Bill not merely restricts violence, which is already restricted by the law, but prevents anyone going to another's home
    "… in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute… for the purpose of peacefully obtaining… or peacefully communicating information…"
    In other words, it is not just the violence but the peaceful action which is prevented.
    Mr. Page: If I had not already sat down, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it was he himself who referred to the fact that there was less robustness nowadays in picketing of this kind. At this time of growing violence in general, people's homes and families should be left out of it.
    Mr. Percival: As reference has been made to me, I wish to make it clear that I did not make violence a part of my argument. Without violence, it is an intrusion of privacy which should not be allowed, and I therefore cannot believe it necessary for this great movement to have this power.
    Mr. Nicholas Scott: The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) did not provide

    487
    one example or argument in favour of retaining this right. Why should the trade unions regard it as essential in 1971 to have the right to picket a man's home? While there is not much danger from the possibility of violent picketing, the privacy argument carries much weight, and even in terms of the simple communication of information, the language used in a picket line for communicating information may be acceptable on the shop floor, but might be frightening in the context of a man's home, which may be occupied by his wife and family. [Interruption.] It is not only the language that might be frightening to them. It is also the atmosphere in which it might be used. If hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that this would be an onerous restriction on trade unions in 1971, the burden of proof must rest very much on them to show why this power is necessary.
    Mr. Orme: Although hon. Gentlemen opposite have indulged in emotive talk on this subject, they have not given one example of the type of provocation to which the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) referred. Donovan examined this matter in depth and firmly stated that the law did not need changing.
    Hon. Gentleman opposite have asked us to give examples, and I will give an example of a court case which arose from picketing. I refer to the now famous Roberts Arundel dispute. In that case the people who had to make restitution to the pickets were the Stockport police. Compensation was paid by the police for violence carried out on certain strikers, who proved their case at common law and were awarded damages against the police. [Interruption.] It was at their place of work. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk generally about violence in our society. I am talking about violence arising out of an industrial dispute.
    Mr. Heffer: For the record, in the Roberts Arundel dispute the men were beaten up at the police station.
    Mr. Orme: In other words, they were taken into custody, and then the violence occurred.
    There is little evidence of violence taking place during picketing. I agree
    488
    that sometimes tempers run high. Frequently employers act in a provocative way; for example, by declaring that the premises are open for employees who wish to come to work, by encouraging employees to work and by erecting provocative notices. We remember what happened recently at Pilkingtons, but there was no violence or picketing involving people's homes.
    [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
    11.30 p.m.
    It cannot be right to put this provision into the Bill, in face of Donovan and in face of the evidence of the way that picketing actually takes place in this country. Work places can be so much spread about nowadays, with employment in so many different establishments, that all sorts of difficult conditions can arise. But we have seen, for example, how picketing has been done in the Post Office dispute recently, when workers expressed, as is their right, their fundamental disagreement with others who wanted to go into work.
    Hon. Members opposite talk about a person's right to be free to do this, that and the other. Trade unionists also have rights, particularly when, as in the Post Office dispute, they are in an overwhelming majority. In fact, there has been no violence during this dispute.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Post Office workers—we saw it on television—were picketing girl telephonists who wanted to go back. That was men against women.
    Mr. Orme: There is equality in our society, as is evidenced by the presence of some hon. Ladies on the hon. Gentleman's own side of the Committee tonight. My understanding is that women today are quite able to stand up for themselves. But the important fact is that there was no violence. That is what must be acknowledged.
    History shows that there has been very little violence in this country. In other countries where there are rigid laws governing trade disputes, such as the United States and Australia, there is far more violence. The Solicitor-General's desire to alter the law as it now stands only shows that he does not understand the basic philosophy behind what trade

    489
    unionists do when picketing in an industrial dispute, and why they publicly exercise their right to display the fact that they are in dispute, encouraging other workers not to go into the place of employment.
    In many instances they are people of great courage who do this sort of thing. [Laughter.] One or two hon. Members laugh at that. In 1970, to take part in an industrial dispute, putting one's job in jeopardy, takes a great deal of courage.
    Mr. Percival: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am certainly not laughing at anything he says. I appreciate that a person may feel strongly on these matters and that it may require courage to picket around or near the place of work. That I understand. But I do not understand why it should be necessary to reserve the right to do it at a man's residence. The hon. Gentleman has not directed his argument to that.
    Mr. Orme: I have directed my argument to that. I am showing that, if we start circumscribing the limits of where one may or may not picket, that in itself will be provocative, and the more so since hon. Members opposite have produced no evidence to show that picketing at homes has given rise to the sort of conduct towards wives and families which they allege takes place.
    Mr. McNamara: Would my hon. Friend consider this situation? The employer invites to his home prospective strike-breakers, wines and dines them, puts them on a motor coach, and then drives them through a picket line at a furious speed and on board a ship. The home has been used as a centre to gather the men together and exhort them to break the strike. That is a clear example of a home being used for strikebreaking, and it happened in the Hull fishermen's strike last year. All the evidence is on the record.
    Mr. Orme: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That underlines the danger of defining the methods of picketing. The action proposed in the Clause heightens the danger and does not lessen it. The present law fully protects people against unlawful picketing and violence. Nobody is excluded from it, and nobody justifies violence. Therefore, why should
    490
    the Solicitor-General want to change the law? Why should he want to circumscribe it? We can only be driven to the conclusion that this is fundamentally a narrowing of the lines of demarcation and that it opens the way to the basic attack on picketing itself which could take place later.
    The Solicitor-General has a case to answer, because his hon. Friends have not answered it tonight.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I was rather surprised at the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) should press the matter so hard. He said that there was very little violence in picketing. There is some violence in it sometimes. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) mentioned the Pilkington case, where there was some violence, and we have seen it from time to time. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Salford, West said it in his speech, and he can read it tomorrow. Whether he said it or not, it is true; it has happened. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Doncaster, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, would have been on the side of those who want to maintain the privacy of the home.
    If I have any criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General it is that he has widened picketing too far, because the Clause says that it can take place anywhere except at the home. It can take place in the supermarket, or when a man is shopping in the High Street, or going down town to a sporting event. Is the hon. Member for Doncaster saying that the great trade union movement wants to picket a home? That means that a congregation of working men outside the home might be provoked by the wife inside it, and there might be an argument that became so heated that the children were concerned about what was going on. Is that what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want?
    It should be pinned on Labour Members that time after time when, whatever differences we might have on the Bill, we are debating matters on which there should be agreement, they are on the side of the extremists and we are on the side of moderate opinion.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends must not misrepresent my speech as they are doing.

    491
    First, I made the general point that the climate of picketing had changed, not in such a way as to justify the proposed change in the law but in the very opposite direction. I then pointed out—and this was the theme of my speech—not that there was violent picketing of people's homes but that the Solicitor-General is preventing the peaceful communication of information, the peaceful persuasion not to work. That is the point. Hon. Members should address themselves to my example of the postman knocking at his mate's door to tell him that there was a meeting next day. That would be an offence under the Bill.
    Mr. Sidney Bidwell: I hope that we can take a serious look at what is proposed here and that we will not follow the intemperate attitude of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis). One of the features of British industrial life compared with that of most other countries is that it is relatively a peaceful situation. Violence is rare and an oddity. The massive peaceful march on Sunday demonstrated this characteristic of British Trade unions.
    I want the Solicitor-General to direct his attention to the wording of Clause 121. In theory, it gives freedom to peaceful picketing, not only to persuade people not to go to work but also to persuade them to go to work. I ask him to consider the wording of subsection (1) and to tell us how one is peacefully to persuade someone to go to work without going to his home on occasion or without seeking him out if he is not in the betting shop or the pub. The Bill, in theory at any rate, is supposed to protect the rights of the employers as well as the workers. It is supposed to cut all ways. In certain circumstances, there may be a difference of opinion amongst the workers themselves; some may seek to persuade their fellows not to go to work while others may try to persuade them to do so. That is the theory of the Clause.
    In normal circumstances, it is not desirable to go to people's homes for such purposes. The Committee should pay attention to the wording of the 1906 Act, which made it possible for peaceful picketing to go so far as visiting a person's home. There is no accurate definition of the word "picket". It is broadly described in the 1906 Act and is broadly
    492
    described in this Bill. The picture we have of a picket is a striker, usually furnished with an arm band to distinguish him from other workers—one sees pickets nowadays outside the major post offices and other centres where Post Office employees normally work—and seeking peacefully to persuade his fellow workers not to go to work.
    But the 1906 Act—indeed, the legislation right back to the repeal of the Combination Acts in 1825—never said that a picket had to wear an arm band or that he in any way had to distinguish himself from any other member of the community. Obviously, many circumstances must arise where the lines of communication must be extended from the factory gate. The 1906 Act already provides that it must be done in a peaceful manner, that there must be no molestation and no violence. If there is violence, other proceedings can take place under the law. Now, one may take a picket to court and try to prove that he was in some way offending against the provisions of this Bill.
    11.45 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General has this evening, as we quaintly say at this time of night, proved on other Clauses that he is more amenable and reasonable than I thought he was when we started discussing this massive Bill. He says that he wants to be fair and that he wants good trade unionism. This is the occasion when he can prove that he does. If we are to have properly and lawfully conducted strikes, which the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he wants in certain circumstances, when the trade union is registered and when it has gone through the whole gamut of the law and so on, if unions are to be strengthened by being able to strike without falling foul of the law, let him consider these proposals very carefully.
    From time to time we have snippets in the Press about homes being visited when there is a strike and when certain undesirable things occur. But if these events were not rare, they would not make news and be reported in the newspapers. There is thus no need for the hon. and learned Gentleman to clutter up his courts, even more than they will be cluttered, with instances of people stepping over the line. In Tory lawyer debating circles it has long been an old wives' tale that such

    493
    things are not rare, but workers must have freedom to band together with colleagues and withdraw their labour when an employer is unreasonable.
    We know that the picketing of homes has been a shuttlecock in the history of industrial relations, that sometimes it has been allowed and sometimes not. But one may have heard that one's brother is a blackleg in a strike and one may have been so horrified that one has gone peacefully to persuade him over a cup of coffee not to be a blackleg, and I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to address himself to that situation.
    Mr. Gower: The debate has demonstrated that, far from being the progressive party which they profess to be, the Opposition are looking further and further back into history, and in the context of today most of their arguments are inapposite.
    The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the Government were wrong to specify the places at which picketing could properly take place. There is no attempt to do that. All we have done is make one narrow exception. We have said that picketing may take place anywhere except in a person's home, and that is not rigidly specifying the law.
    When people lived in terraced houses or streets near to each other—
    Hon. Members: They still do.
    Mr. Gower: In my constituency, when people lived almost entirely in those conditions, it was rather different. Today they live in flats, great tower blocks, tenements and even in caravans. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but—
    Mr. Tom King: I am most impressed by the housing conditions in Wales which I had not realised were so extensive. Would my hon. Friend agree that the main burden of hon. Members' arguments was that the Donovan Commission's Report made exhaustive studies about picketing? Could he tell me how exhaustive these were? I cannot find them in the Report. The Commission studied it but the Report appears to consist of a review of the previous law on the subject and a few reports submitted by individuals, including the T.U.C. and
    494
    the Society of Labour Lawyers. Surely the point—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Gower: The point I was making is that today people live in very varied kinds of homes. I should have thought that the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) was even more pertinent today than in years gone by.
    Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member will have heard the example I gave to my hon. Friend about a situation which occurred in 1970 when a home was used by strike breakers for a meeting and for them then to go forward to break a picket line. By pure chance the television cameras had also been invited and accompanied these strike breakers through the picket line. The only other place that could possibly have been used for picketing was in the Humber, around the actual place where the men's place of work was, or on the north-west coast of Iceland. How are we to deal with that situation?
    Mr. Gower: The point I was making is that people live under very disparate conditions. What is important is that people are much more mobile, there are many more opportunities for things to be carried out in various places. Far from imposing a rigid pattern, this provision leaves the maximum opportunity for picketing and says only that a man's home should be excluded.
    Mr. James Sillars: I could talk on this for a great deal longer than the few minutes we have left—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I must say that I expected a statement from the Leader of the House earlier—in view of the Prime Minister's statement that he would like to continue the discussion on the Bill—to the effect that the guillotine had been lifted. The Prime Minister would find great difficulty in this respect, because he has the most appalling Division record.
    Mr. McNamara: In fairness to the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend would surely agree that this was a fait accompli with which he was faced when he returned from the Singapore Conference. It was decided when he was in foreign parts.
    Mr. Sillars: That is one part of the right hon. Gentleman's memoirs to which

    495
    I will look forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand my accent, I cannot make any apology for that, because I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what the disc jockey for commercial radio says.
    I listened carefully to hon. Members opposite talking about the importance of people having privacy in their own homes. One hon. Gentleman opposite almost brought tears to my eyes when he talked about the wife and children. He does not need to convince me of the problems when an outside agency invades the privacy of the home. As a local authority member and as a Member of Parliament, I have been involved in eviction from tied houses, so I do not need to be persuaded on the point. I should be the last to defend the invasion of the privacy of the home of anyone, whether he was on strike or a strike-breaker.
    But I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have some sympathy for the person involved in a strike, such as the postman who has to go back to the privacy of his home and meet his wife and children in almost a state of destitution. [Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members opposite pooh-poohing this question of destitution among postmen. They have put a lot of political cash on the hope that they will manage to starve the postmen out in the next 24 or 48 hours or even in the next seven days. They well know the position of postmen whose union did not have a strike fund before the strike started.
    The reason that I am speaking is that I wish to answer the hon. Member fcr Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). I do not mind answering him, because he has taken part in almost all our discussions in Committee and he is entitled to a reply. He gave a good reason, from his point of view, for opposing our Amendment. He said that it lay with us to prove that it could be necessary for people peacefully to picket the home of an individual. I should like to quote one of the most recent outstanding examples north of the Border.
    It concerns the B.S.R. dispute at East Kilbride. In the dispute there was an exceptional employer in just about every sense of the word. People interested in
    496
    Northern Ireland affairs know that better than anyone else. This employer decided to break the strike by recruiting blacklegs from a very wide area and by driving them through the picket lines in closed vans and closed buses at a fair rate of knots. Some of the people on picket duty were injured by motor vehicles. It was impossible for the people on strike peacefully to communicate a point of view to the people engaged in strike breaking.
    There was violence at the work gates, but it was not caused by the strike breakers. It occurred because of the manner in which the strike breakers were being conveyed through the picket lines. The only place at which the strikers could put their point of view to the strike breakers was at the strike breakers' homes. That was the only place where they could persuade them that what they were doing was not in the interest of the working community of Lanarkshire and was not in their own personal interest. All those on strike knew that when they had won their battle, as they would, and the strike was settled, the strike breakers would be sacked by the employer.
    Mr. Scott: Whoever created it, I can think of no worse atmosphere than the one which the hon. Gentleman has described for picketing to take place, namely, at people's homes where wives and children were living.
    Mr. Sillars: The atmosphere was not chosen by the strikers. It was dictated by the methods used to break through the picket lines. The hon. Gentleman should think of the situation of the work-people involved in the strike. The ability to picket those going to the work gate is an important psychological sanction, one of the few weapons we have in keeping essential unity during a strike. Removal of this sanction does not enhance the position of the worker on strike, and it may well be that this is the purpose of the Solicitor-General—
    It being Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, pursuant of the Order of the House of 25th January.
    Committee report Progress: to sit again this day.

  TELEVISION PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS (LEVY PAYMENTS)
  12.1 a.m.
  The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway):I beg to move,
  That the Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.
  The purpose of the Order is to reduce by half the amount of the levy payments due from the I.T.V. programme companies, so that, if the earnings of the companies stayed at the present level, the yield of the levy would fall from £20 million to £10 million in a full year. The draft Order requires the approval of both Houses of Parliament. If, as I hope, that can be secured, I intend to bring the Order into operation at the earliest practicable date after approval.
  The House might like me to recall briefly the background to the levy payable by the companies. When they first started, the original I.T.V. companies incurred heavy losses. But it was not long before these losses were overcome, and the industry soon began to yield considerable profits, to the point where the return on their investment became excessive. The first attempt to tackle that problem was made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the 1961 Budget, in which was introduced a television advertisement duty at a flat rate of 10 per cent., which was increased in 1962 to 11 per cent. That system turned out to be unsatisfactory. Charged at a flat rate, the duty bore excessively harshly on the smaller regional companies, but it still left the largest companies with very big profits.
  To deal with this situation, the Television Act, 1963, introduced the new system of additional rental payments which at once became known as the levy. At that point there were to be two kinds of rental payments. The first kind was to be made by the companies to the Authority of amounts to be decided by the Authority so as to give it enough money altogether to construct and operate transmitters and carry out its other functions. In addition to rental payments there were to be other rental payments which were not to form part of the revenues of the Authority but were to be paid over as soon
  498
  as possible after receipt into the Consolidated Fund. These payments were to be calculated for each company on a sliding scale. In the scale originally provided in the Act, no additional payments were due on the first £1½ million of a company's advertising receipts, with the effect that the smallest companies did not have to pay any levy. The Act empowered the Minister to vary the scale by Order—such as the draft Order that is now before the House.
  After consolidation in the Television Act, 1964, the new provisions came into force in July, 1964. The scale laid down by the Act remained in operation for nearly five years, but in the 1969 Budget the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) announced that the Government had decided to introduce a new scale with the effect of increasing the yield of the levy by £3 million in a full year. However, there were—and the then Opposition drew attention to this—great increases in I.T.V's costs resulting from the new structure of programme companies with the new contracts awarded by the I.T.A. in 1968. There were also as a result of those changes new companies which had not had the opportunities to make the profits that the old companies had made. There were also increased costs resulting from the move into colour television.
  Largely, as a result of these factors, in March, 1970, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), announced the decision, which took effect from April, 1970, to introduce a new scale, the effect of which would be to reduce the yield of levy by £6 million in a full year. At the same time he announced that the costs and revenue of the I.T.V. companies were being referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
  The N.B.P.I.'s report was published in October of last year. The Board's report did not directly comment on the level of the levy, since the terms of the reference to the Board had expressly precluded that, but the report highlighted the financial position of the industry and, as soon as it was received by the Government, I embarked on discussions with the Independent Television Authority.
  The main findings of the report were as follows. Because of declining revenue,

  499
  rising costs, and the levy, contractors had held back their expenditure on programmes and at the same time had substantially reduced their profits. The Board's projections of costs and revenues into the middle 1970s, on whatever basis they were made, suggested a continually worsening position. The Board saw some scope for improving revenue prospects by improved sales of advertising time and by more effective use of resources, but the Board considered that these measures by themselves would be unlikely to raise significantly the industry's rate of return on capital over the next few years. Finally, the Board suggested that some reduction in the number of television companies should be considered. In effect, it was suggesting that a modification of the regional pattern of I.T.V. should at least be considered.
  The I.T.A. tells me that its contractors have been carefully studying the Board's recommendations for improved financial performance and that those recommendations have been followed up vigorously by the companies. The Authority, too, as the House will know, has agreed to some sharing of facilities between the companies. There have been one or two joint operations launched by the companies, particularly on the sales side.
  The Authority, which is responsible for the programme company structure of independent television, has after consideration decided against reduction in the number of I.T.V. companies. This is a matter wholly for the Authority to decide. I am bound to say that I do not think it would be right for radical changes in the structure of the system to be made as a crisis measure in the middle of the contract period. The N.B.P.I. itself stressed that one of the needs of the I.T.V. system at the moment was for a period of certainty and to change programme structure in the middle of the contract period obviously would introduce considerable uncertainty. But this is a matter wholly for the Authority to decide.
  The I.T.A. forcibly represented to me that, with all the improvements in the system which would be pursued, a very substantial reduction in the burden of levy on the companies was nevertheless essential. There were two particular factors which the I.T.A. brought out. The first was that if it were to keep pace
  500
  with the programme of constructing U.H.F. television stations, undertaken as an integrated plan by the I.T.A. and the B.B.C., the I.T.A. needed to increase its rentals from a total £8 million to a total £11½ million. The second was that, with the existing burden of levy, the quality of the programme service provided by I.T.V. would be more and more at risk.
  We have decided, as the draft Order provides, to halve the yield of the levy. This will provide the system with enough income to allow the I.T.A. to introduce the increased rentals, and, in distributing among the different contractors the new rentals, the I.T.A. is reducing the cost for some of the companies, notably the smallest companies not directly liable to pay the levy. Of the remaining £6½ million made free, some will be needed to improve the rate of return on capital earned by the industry. The N.B.P.I. concluded that, for the industry as a whole, a substantial improvement was necessary to support a sound financial structure, and some of the companies, of course, had been facing the prospect of losses.
  The I.T.A. has assured me also that this reduction —
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that this Order will give the industry a sound financial structure? Surely the whole set-up is wrong, and this Order merely tinkers with it. Should not it go back to making payments based on profits after the deduction of expenses based on a proper formula? I hope that my right hon. Friend does not think that this Order will result in a sound structure. We started wrongly, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite compounded the wrong. I hope that my right hon. Friend will put it right.
  Mr. Chataway: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have ambitions in that direction, and I was about to come to the point which interests him most. I agree that, however looked at, the levy is not an ideal system.
  I was telling the House that the I.T.A. had also assured me that this reduction in the levy should also make possible improvements in the quality of the programmes put out by the contracting companies and should enable I.T.N., which is jointly owned by all the contracting

  501
  companies, also to enjoy some additional resources.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: We are grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the I.T.A. has assured him that this reduction in the levy will lead to an improvement in programmes. However, he will remember that, when the levy was reduced at the beginning of last year, the same assurances were given by the I.T.A. and the programme companies. Will he now say whether in his view that assurance has been fulfilled?
  Mr. Chataway: If that reduction last year, which followed closely upon an increase in the levy, had not been made, I have no doubt that there would have been a very serious reduction in the quality of programme standards of the I.T.V. companies. There are few people who have been involved with the I.T.V. companies over the last few years who will not be aware of the very serious effect that declining advertising revenue coupled with a very high rate of levy has had upon the companies. I think that the Report of the inquiry by the National Board for Prices and Incomes which was set up immediately after the reduction in the levy to which the hon. Gentleman has referred bears out the very substantial pressures that there have been on the companies and the fact that, in consequence, programme expenditure has declined. But I have considerable faith in the chairman and members of the I.T.A., who I am sure command considerable respect on both sides of the House. It would be odd if they did not, since most of them were appointed during the previous Government's period in office.
  Mr. John Gorst: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if more money is left in the hands of the contractors, they will be encouraged to experiment with new types of programmes and take more risks which, in the tighter situation which existed before, was difficult for them?
  Mr. Chataway: That is the point. The new Director-General of the I.T.A. has urged this upon the companies already. In the straitened circumstances of the last few years the I.T.V. companies have been able to take fewer risks; they have had to ensure greater successes, perhaps more than they ought to have done.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Minister agree that, despite the assurance which he has received from the Authority, if capital control in some of the companies goes into the hands of people who have proved in other spheres that they can make more profit by lowering standards they will think that they are able to do it again? Or is the Minister insisting on strong measures being taken by the Authority to prevent such a development?
  Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman knows that the I.T.V. system is constructed in such a way that there are considerable incentives not only to maximise audiences by taking account of what people want to watch, but to cater for minorities. Those companies which do not do so know that they face some risk of losing their contracts at the end of the contract period. The system is constructed not only to provide programmes which appeal to majorities, but to minorities. The hon. Gentleman need not feel that there will be inadequate incentive to produce programmes which will appeal to him.
  It is my intention that the levy at this scale should last at least until July, 1972, which is the end of the next full levy year. For the longer period, I share my hon. Friend's view. I am doubtful about the present way that the levy is charged. As a charge on revenue, not profits, it continues at times when companies are much less readily able to pay it, because of rising costs and static or declining income. When that happens, profits fall and expenditure which can be cut is cut. That usually means that expenditure on programmes is cut.
  We can change the sliding scale on the strength of the best assessment we can make of the profits of the different sizes of companies. This was how the scale was fixed in the 1963 Act and no doubt how the scales were fixed, or were intended to be fixed, in 1969 and 1970. But this, as I think many hon. Members will agree, is an uncertain instrument.
  In 1963, when the levy was introduced, the idea of a levy directly related to profits was rejected, because it was felt that it was liable to encourage excessively lavish spending and would be likely to offer greater opportunities for avoidance. There may have been a good deal in that in the high profit situation which obtained

  503
  at that time. But now, when the danger of excessive profits is, to say the least, remote, the Government have decided to have another look, in conjunction with the Authority, at the possibility of devising a new system which could operate more fairly, if a new system can be found. Obviously there are one or two other alternatives simply to that of an excess profits tax. I cannot promise that a new system will be found in this period, but we have decided to look at the possibility, and I believe that the majority would think that right.
  If we are conferring in this system a monopoly, as in some senses we are, it is right that if very large profits are produced the State should have some share in them. But we want to try to devise a system which, while fair in that direction to the community and to the companies, also ensures that when things are not going so well programme standards and expenditure are maintained. I do not think that anyone would believe that we have as yet arrived at the best system.
  As I indicated to the House the other day, there has been real concern about the financing of both broadcasting organisations. I was able then to announce changes in the B.B.C. licence fees which would yield the Corporation an extra £16 million in a full year. Most hon. Members on both sides—though I realise, not all—now accept the value of competition in television, and believe that there is value in an alternative commercial system. The changes proposed in the Order will, I believe, help to put that system upon a sound financial footing once more, and on that ground I commend the Order to the House.
  12.20 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: The right hon. Gentleman quoted from paragraph 150 of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and said that it showed a continuously worsening situation in regard to N.B.P.I. projections of costs and incomes into the 'seventies. He did not, unfortunately, read the remainder of the paragraph, which states:
  "… though without the levy profits would on average remain high in relation to profits in industry generally."
  504
  So perhaps that Report did not produce quite the picture of gloom which the Minister gave us in respect of the television companies.
  Certain things seemed to me to be lacking in what the right hon. Gentleman said. The first was in connection with advertising receipts and profits, and projections of advertising rates in future. My information is that net advertising revenue for Independent Television has declined fairly considerably in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. I am told, for example, that net advertising revenue for the year to 29th July, 1968, was £94,930,000; to the same date in 1969 it went up to £98,623,000, and then it dropped somewhat in 1970 to £92,737,000. In 1970 we had the £6 million levy reduction introduced by the previous Government.
  If the Minister came here tonight to tell us that the state of the programme companies is such that the levy has to be reduced by another £10 million, I should have thought that the first thing he would do was to give us the projection of either his Ministry or of the I.T.A. of the likely decline in advertising revenue in the year to 29th July, 1971. We also want to know, and these are legitimate requests, what the levy is likely to be on the basis of the projected advertising rates. Presumably the £10 million reduction he asks for is based on some figures, and is not just a sum plucked from the air. I shall have something to say later about the way in which the Minister proposes that the reduction shall be made, but quite apart from the way in which the companies are or are not to benefit from the reduction, I hope that the overall amount by which he thinks it right to reduce the levy is based on some concrete figures. If so, I should like to have them. Further, can the Minister tell us what was the net advertising revenue after levy in 1968, 1969 and 1970; and his projection of net advertising revenue after levy in 1971?
  Finally, perhaps the crucial figure the House will want to have before it can decide whether a reduction of as much as £10 million can be sanctioned—this is an enormous figure—is the estimated profit figure of the programme companies, before tax, in the year 1971 and onwards. After all, the Minister has told us that this levy is to remain in existence at its current rate until July, 1972.

  505
  Armed with that figure the House might be able to form some judgment as to whether the overall figure the Minister is asking by way of reduction, namely, £10 million, is correct. I am staggered that the Minister did not think fit to give us these figures in moving the Order.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why does the hon. Gentleman pretend that he wants somebody to give him an estimate? As one of his distinguished predecessors said, "Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?" Has not the hon. Gentleman seen the balance sheets of the programme companies? Has he not noticed the trend revealed therein? All this is public knowledge. Why is the hon. Gentleman pretending that we do not have the information, when it is clear for us to see and form conclusions on?
  Mr. Richard: That is an interesting question. It is the Minister, not the Opposition that is asking the House to reduce the levy by £10 million. In this situation the Opposition are entitled to ask the Minister for the figures upon which he has formed his judgment. If he has figures upon which he has formed his judgment, he should let us have them. The balance sheets of the companies will tell us the past profit figures. I know of no balance sheet which has yet been published which will give us the estimated profits of these companies for 1972, 1973 and 1974, and those are the figures upon which the Minister must form his judgment.
  Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman started by quoting part of a paragraph from the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which he said had not been quoted. The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that since the publication of that Report a strike prevented transmission in colour, and that increased the costs of the contractors. Those increased costs, together with increased wage packets, must be met.
  Mr. Richard: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. May I through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, throw the hon. Gentleman's point over to the Minister. If the situation has worsened since the publication of the Report, what is the Minister's estimate of the amendment by which it has worsened? If we knew that, we could form a judgment as to whether the overall figure of £10 million
  506
  is correct. This is a serious matter. The Minister treated it in a somewhat flippant manner. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All that the Minister did was to give us a potted history of the levy over the past five or six years, read half a paragraph from the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and then say, "In my judgment, it means that the companies should get a reduction of £10 million". The right hon. Gentleman treated the House in a cavalier fashion, and it was unworthy of him.
  It is a serious matter for the Minister to ask the House to approve a reduction in the levy by £10 million so shortly after he has announced an increase in the licence fee for the whole country. This means, as I said to the Minister last week, that both broadcasting authorities are in serious difficulties. Neither of the proposals that the Minister made can be more than a palliative. To that extent I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). It means also that we shall want to debate in full the question of radio and television financing.
  If Parliament is asked to sanction a reduction of £10 million in the levy, the Minister must justify it up to the hilt.
  Also interesting is the way in which the Minister proposes to reduce the levy. If the object of this reduction was to aid those companies in the greatest financial difficulty, presumably those with the smallest income, which make the smallest profits, I would have expected a rather more subtle and helpful method of doing it than merely an overall reduction of 50 per cent.
  It is interesting to compare the rates sanctioned in 1970 with those sanctioned under the Order. In 1970, for example, the rate of levy for a company whose advertising receipts were less than £2 million was nil. In the Order, the Minister not being able to halve nil, it remains nil. So for those companies at the bottom of the ladder the Order gives no financial help at all.
  For those companies whose receipts are up to £6 million, the rate in 1970 was 20 per cent. and under the Order it is 10 per cent., a straight 50 per cent. reduction. For those companies with receipts up to £9 million, the rate was 35 per cent. reduced now to 17½ per cent. For those

  507
  with receipts of £12 million, it was 40 per cent., reduced to 20 per cent. For those with receipts of £16 million, it was 45 per cent., reduced now to 22½ per cent., and for those with receipts of over £16 million, it has been reduced from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent.
  It is clear that it is the companies which are better off and most capable of paying the levy which will benefit the most from the way in which the Minister has chosen to try to reduce it. It is rather like halving the income tax and then saying, "Look how well I am doing for those who pay the least." It is a fallacious argument. If what the Minister wants to do is genuinely to aid those companies at the bottom of the ladder, this is not the way to do it.
  I have two questions about what is to happen to the £10 million. It is important to realise, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that £3½ million of it goes to the I.T.A. I am not certain what the I.T.A. will do with it. The Minister said something about possibly improving I.T.N., but I should like to hear more about that.
  It is also perhaps apposite to consider in this context the position of London Weekend Television. I do not want to deal with it at great length, because that would be out of order on this Order, but I think that it is in order to ask whether or not the recent events in London Weekend Television justify us in giving that company the reduction in the levy which it would get if the Order were approved. To say the least, the recent affairs of London Weekend Television have been unfortunate. If Mr. Murdoch is to acquire it, and if he is to be relieved of this portion of the levy, certain questions arise which should be aired and answered—and the place for that is this House.
  First, what should be the I.T.A.'s attitude to a change of shareholding of this sort? Second, should its attitude be any different from what it would have been if Mr. Murdoch had been making a fresh application for a totally new franchise? Should the I.T.A. now call in the franchise of London Weekend, as it has the power to do under the Act, in which case the Order would be meaningless so far as London Weekend was concerned, although it would come
  508
  to have some relevance if a merger were sanctioned? Indeed, should the I.T.A. try to encourage a merger, or should it be content with a possible Murdoch acquisition?
  We on this side would say that it is now very important that the I.T.A. should treat the Murdoch shareholding as though it was a fresh application for a vacant franchise—
  Mr. Gorst: On a point of order. Is it in order in this debate for the hon. Member to smear the company concerned in this fashion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Nothing that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) has said so far has been out of order. It has been the practice of the Chair on similar occasions to allow a fairly wide debate on the matter. To go into the merits of the Television Act would, of course, not be in order.
  Mr. Gorst: Further to my point of order. Are the merits of individual contractors under that Act in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing that has been said so far has been out of order.
  Mr. Richard: I cannot recall saying anything about the merits or otherwise of Mr. Murdoch's application. I have merely pointed out that, given the present situation in London Weekend Television, we believe it to be important that the Independent Television Authority should now treat the present situation in London Weekend as if it were a fresh application for a franchise that was vacant. In other words, given the fact that there is genuine public unease and disquiet over the present position, I know of no other way by which the matter can be fairly and openly resolved.
  Similar assurances should now be sought from Mr. Murdoch and the acquiring company as would be sought if it were a fresh application for a vacant franchise. Schedules should now be deposited with the I.T.A. as if this were a fresh application. The principle underlying this point is simply that if the provisions of the Act can be evaded merely by one company acquiring a share in another which at present has a franchise,

  509
  then it makes nonsense of the safeguards which were built into the Statute and of the whole system.
  As a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak in this debate, I will comment only briefly on the future of the levy. It is important to recognise that this has not proved to be the most satisfactory system by which the public can share in the use by the television authorities of what is obviously a public asset.
  The levy has, to say the least, been haphazard. At times when the companies have been seen to be doing well, the levy has gone up. When they have been seen to be doing badly, it has gone down. If their revenue has gone up, up has gone the levy, but if it has gone down, we have been faced, as we are tonight, with an application for a reduction of as much as the enormous sum of £10 million.
  Of far more importance than perpetuating the existing system is the need to devise a method which, while giving to the public a direct say in the way in which these public assets are used, nevertheless gives a greater degree of permanence and certainty than is given by the present system.
  The Minister said that he was thinking along certain lines with an open mind. What are those lines, and in what direction is he thinking with an open mind? The House is being asked to relinquish £10 million worth of the system. It is time that the Minister answered these questions.
  12.38 a.m.
  Mr. David James: I understand that the House has had a number of late nights recently. I will, therefore, be brief, and I will certainly not speak for 1 hour 45 minutes.
  While I am prepared to give a qualified welcome to this proposal—on the ground that half a loaf is better than no bread—I object in principle to the levy which we are discussing and I note that my right hon. Friend is considering the matter.
  At least I can claim some historical continuity in what I am doing, for my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmer Nicholls), whom I am glad to see in his place, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down,
  510
  South (Captain Orr), who I regret is not here tonight, and myself are the only three surviving hon. Members of the Committee in 1963 who voted against this form of taxation on three separate occasions upstairs in Committee Room No. 10.
  It is nice to be back in the game and to be able to continue the argument. Our reasons are simple. We of course accept—there can be no argument about this —the proposition advanced in paragraph 1 of the White Paper, Cmnd. 4524, which said that the levy was
  "designed to reflect the fact that the state had conferred upon them"
  —that is, the commercial television companies
  "the sole right to operate a commercial television service within a given area".
  I accept that at the time that the Bill was going through in 1963, it was intended to deal with what, in the current phrase, were regarded as companies in a position to coin their own money. But that situation has markedly weakened now. With the improvements in techniques such as transmission of colour programmes by land line, Telstar and so on, it is possible that, in a couple of years, the monopoly position which gave rise to the levy will no longer effectively exist. Nevertheless, we accept that fact of history as the common ground from which this entire rather sad story started.
  The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough and I hammered home, or tried to hammer home, without success, in 1963 is brought out in paragraph 141 of the P.I.B. Report:
  "… the form of the levy … as prescribed by the Television Act, is related to advertising revenue. The basic defect of this method of assessing the levy is that it pays no regard to surplus or profit".
  That has been our case for seven years, and it remains our case today. A company which is producing first-class programmes may, in fact, be running into a loss situation.
  Perhaps I should make clear at this point that I have no interest, commercial or otherwise, in this matter, save that I was an employee of the film industry for two years, and I have a strong emotional affinity, so to speak, with such people as the artistes, and, more particularly, the camera men, the lighting men, and all the technicians who are part of this industry, and I know the

  511
  rate of unemployment which they have to face.
  Mr. Richard: Selective quotation from that Report seems to be the vogue on the benches opposite. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not read the sentence in the next paragraph:
  "We conclude that it is difficult to find a method of assessing the levy which is clearly better than relating it to advertising revenue".
  Mr. James: If I had wanted to emulate the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who spoke yesterday for an hour and 45 minutes, I need not have been so selective in my quotations. I am trying to condense my argument. The consideration which I put to my right hon. Friend is that, while, reluctantly, I must accept what he has proposed as a make-shift solution, my whole case on the levy is that it is utterly wrong in principle and always has been. We accept the crumb of bread which he has offered as only an interim measure.
  As we predicted seven years ago, there is no possibility under the present system of offsetting rising costs save for the Minister periodically to come to the House and involve us in a debate after midnight at a time when the House is hard pressed. It leads to a lack of funds for programmes. This is common ground between both sides of the House. It is common knowledge that the quality of programmes has fallen as a result of this ill-conceived levy. It has led to a high rate of unemployment.
  I did my utmost when the Bill was in Committee in 1963 to persuade the trade union leaders involved to appreciate that it was a wicked old Tory who was arguing on the side of full employment for their members, for N.A.T.T.K.E. and the others. The present system has led to widespread unemployment in the television industry. Indeed, the entire impact of the levy was arbitrary and militated against creative television.
  I am not prepared to accept the sort of "old rope" which is put about that these companies are not worth consideration because they have diversified into bingo halls and so on. So they have, but they have diversified into other fields only in order to fund the programmes which they wanted to put out. Incidentally, some of the series of programmes
  512
  have gained for this country enormous Prestige in the United States.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The process of diversification began in the early 1960s, when some of these companies were earning about a 60 per cent. return on equity.
  Mr. James: I certainly accept that. I admitted that a monopoly situation probably imposed on the State the duty to impose an additional levy. All I am saying is that the process was accelerated by the arbitrary nature of a levy on gross profit as opposed to net revenue.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman about diversification by independent television companies, whether financially they are doing well or badly. All companies, of whatever kind, should have the right to diversify. But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that therefore it is folly of the Government to attempt to prevent the National Coal Board, for example, from diversifying?
  Mr. James: The hon. Gentleman has brought in a very well-known argument rather ingeniously by the short hairs. I do not propose to pursue that in relation to television companies. Perhaps he would like to raise it on the Industrial Relations Bill or in some other way.
  I hope that the House, having listened to some rather long speeches recently, will not confuse brevity with levity, and will accept that a number of us, perhaps on both sides, believe that historically my hon. Friend and I were right in believing that the levy was a death blow to creative television production. While I will always go for half a loaf rather than no bread, my earnest hope is that my right hon. Friend, come 1972, will produce a very much fairer system based, if such a levy is still necessary under the new technology we are to have in three years' time, on net profit and not on gross receipts.
  12.47 a.m.
  Mr. Philip Whitehead: I prefer to give perhaps 1½ cheers and if necessary one vote to the Order. This is a palliative measure; it can be no more. It is tinkering with the system. We accept that the system is starved of funds and that the levy must be reduced.

  513
  I begin by declaring a past interest, in that I worked for three years for Thames Television, the largest of the independent contractors, during precisely that period during which the difficulties to which the Minister referred became apparent. I joined Rediffusion Television at the period when it lost its contract and was faced with all the problems of the merger, and then when the down-turn in television advertising revenue came Thames Television had the burden of the additional levy foolishly imposed by the previous Chancellor. This accentuated the problems of the companies.
  The Minister asked the House to make certain assumptions, which many of us on this side could not make. First, he said that we all believed in competition. and should therefore see that the alternative system, the commercial system, was in reasonable strength. Many of us believe that there are different forms of competition. The Minister's various statements about commercial radio have always assumed that competition must be between a commercial system and a public service system. But there can be competition between alternative public
  service systems. The misgivings expressed on this side of the House tonight very largely come from what we see as the relative failure of the public service element built into the commercial system in the Acts of 1954 and 1964.
  The Minister brushed aside again the merger recommendations of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, at paragraphs 140 and 155. He said that we should not consider mergers because they would be a grave disruption in the middle of the contract period. A much more serious disruption, and much less in the public interest, would be that permanent deterioration in programme quality which I think we shall get from unprofitable contractors who, because of the logic of profit maximisation, cannot put on, and are not prepared to put on, the kind of programme which the public have every reason to expect and which the Independent Television Authority should be compelling them to give us. Having said that, I want to quote what the Minister said in introducing this proposal to the House on 15th February. He said:
  "… these reductions … are also designed to enable the companies to improve the quality of their programmes and those of Independent
  514
  Television News. The Authority has assured me that it is its intention to use this opportunity to secure such an improvement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1211–2.]
  It is our contention that, although the right hon. Gentleman clearly cannot instruct the Authority, and should resist those who tell him that he should be some sort of commissar of communications, he must be aware that the Authority is not a perfect organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone and his head prefect, Mr. Bryan Young, have not so far shown in the instructions they have been able to give to the companies that the companies can be forced to live up to their assurances.
  It was on this point that my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) made a comment which the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) thought was out of order. I think that the hon. Member is not the first person in the House to say which commercial promises should be investigated and which should not. The sad case of London Weekend Television more than any other case history in commercial television shows what value we can place on assurances given by programme companies and contractors to the Authority. I remind the House of what was said in the tender put up to the Authority by the L.W.T. consortium in 1967. The tender said that its philosophy was a simple one, namely,
  "… that while the stability and financial and business expertise of a potential programme company was obviously a paramount consideration for all concerned, nevertheless that it was a television company that was being planned and that there was no reason why people who knew about television, cared about television, and did television should not have an effective voice in the running of that company…"
  Where have all the flowers gone? Gone to grave yards, everyone. Not a single person named in that submission remains with L.W.T., with the one exception of the Chairman, Mr. Aidan Crawley, a suitable figurehead, perhaps, to nail to any ship but not a particularly good figurehead to steer that company or any other into a safe harbour. Indeed, he is nailed to a very dubious privateer now.
  I was a member of the delegation which went to the Authority on 25th September, 1969, to impress upon it that the sackings which had then taken place of Mr.

  515
  Michael Peacock and others imposed upon the Authority a duty to invoke Section 11(4) of the Television Act. The Authority said that it could not do so because the change in the body corporate had been purely of programme people and not a change in the financial holdings.
  There has now been a change in the financial holdings. Mr. Rupert Murdoch now holds 8½ per cent. of the voting shares and 35 per cent. of the non-voting shares. The Authority, in my view, therefore ought to be acting in this matter. It should be acting to ensure that Mr. Murdoch gives a full account of the kind of programme schedules he wishes to propose, and of his proposed production staff. He himself is de facto programme controller, although he carefully avoids the name, of course. He has not given the assurances for which the Authority should be asking. Instead, he is taking off for Australia when the Authority is to meet on Thursday to examine the control of the company.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: There is a precedent. In the case of Scottish Television there was such an interview when the Thomson Organisation divested itself of some of its shares.
  Mr. Whitehead: I was coming to that. The holdings of the Thomson organisation were reduced to 25 per cent. in 1968 for precisely the reason that it was felt by the then I.T.A. Chairman, Lord Hill of Luton, that Section 12 of the Television Act—which refers to the interest of newspaper proprietors and the way it might be harmful to the public interest—should be invoked. The holdings of the Thomson Organisation were, of course, reduced.
  What those of us on this side of the House would say to the Minister before we go into the Lobby—if we have to do so—to vote for the Order is that the assurances which the Independent Television Authority is able to give about programme quality cannot be seen separately from the behaviour of the Authority in the recent past. We think that the Authority should now be asking various questions about this holding which are relevant to the kind of assurances which the Minister has sought. Would Mr. Murdoch have got this contract in 1967–68? My submission is that he would not. Secondly, is there not actual
  516
  evidence from the newspapers which he operates, and more particularly from the three television channels which he operates in Australia, that the kinds of programme which he will put on are not the balanced programmes which the earlier Sections of the Television Act require?
  The Sunday Press has had great fun with Mr. Murdoch about the world record which he holds for the number of old movies which he has been able to cram into his schedules in Australia. The least the Authority could do in this case is to require from Mr. Murdoch that the potential schedules are stated publicly and shown to the Authority, and and that a full statement should be submitted to the Authority before Mr. Murdoch is allowed to retain either financial control or programme control of this company.
  Mr. Christopher Mayhew: Would not my hon. Friend go a little further and say that, in the light of his very public record, Mr. Murdoch is plainly not well qualified to take up this franchise?
  Mr. Whitehead: I would not go quite as far as that. I would say that there was a prima facie reason for believing that Mr. Murdoch might not be so qualified and that therefore a public examination of the programmes he proposes to put on is needed and justified.
  The Authority ought therefore to institute, and I hope that the Minister will urge it to institute, a full examination of the viability of this contract altogether and whether a 2½-day contract for the London area is viable. Plainly, the P.I.B. Report felt that it was not and more or less said so in paragraphs 140 and 155. If the Authority still feels that a 2½-day contract for the London area is viable, it should call in this contract and make Mr. Murdoch and anyone else who wishes to bid for the contract submit a public application to the Authority. I hope that the Minister will urge this course of action upon the Authority when it meets on Thursday.
  If it decides that such a contract for the London area is not viable, it has a different course of action, which is to invite public bids once again from those other television companies in the area

  517
  which might themselves effect a merger with London Weekend Television.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not the Authority already have power to ask for the schedule of programmes in advance, and therefore presumably Mr. Murdoch would in fact have to submit such a schedule? Is it not true that programes may not be televised without approval of the complete programme schedule by the Authority? Is not that contained in the company's licence?
  Mr. Whitehead: It is true that no programme may be televised without the approval of the Authority, but it is equally true that neither the personnel of London Weekend Television, nor the financial holdings nor the programming policy of the company have been properly scrutinised, but merely rubber stamped on the excuse of financial expediency. The best that people in the Authority have been able to say about the arrival of Mr. Rupert Murdoch is that they needed the money and therefore had no alternative.
  My submission is that as the Minister is now saying that the money is available and that the levy will not bear too hardly, he should equally say that these conditions do not apply and that the Authority should look with much greater scrutiny at London Weekend Television. If this is not done, the I.T.A. will have lost all credibility as a watch-dog organisation, and the Television Act of 1964 will be seen to be unworkable. And that will be a sad day for commercial television.
  1.0 a.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I should like to pick up what has been said about the Independent Television Authority. As far as I am concerned it has lost its reputation for a rather different reason. As the Minister knows, I have for some time, together with the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) and others who are concerned about the programmes on Anglia Television, been pursuing with him and Lord Aylestone, Chairman of the I.T.A., the behaviour of the Authority over the future of Belmont Tower.
  I can never trust anything that the I.T.A. says again until it puts this matter right. I have in my hand a letter written
  518
  by Lord Hill, when he was Chairman of the I.T.A. It is dated 2nd August, 1967 and was written to Mr. Aubrey Buxton of Anglia Television. It says:
  "Dear Aubrey, It was good of you to write so swiftly and so generously. Thank you. To save time my secretary left a message at your office (in your absence) on the Belmont issue. The Authority decided last Thursday that Belmont stays with Anglia in U.H.F. Yours, Charles."
  That letter, I should have thought on any reading, meant that Belmont Tower was to stay with Anglia Television as long as Anglia Television existed. There were no conditions attached whatever. Yet Lord Aylestone has now decided that in 1972, at the end of the present contract, Belmont Tower should no longer be used by Anglia. From this moment onwards I do not believe a word that the I.T.A. says, or anything said by any of its officials on its behalf. Unless Lord Aylestone rectifies this, I regard the I.T.A. as quite untrustworthy and I am saying this quite deliberately and with careful thought.
  What disturbs me about this, although I am in favour of what my right hon. Friend is doing, is that the I.T.A. will get even as much as one penny out of this. I hope that my right hon. Friend realises how deeply all of us feel about this. He wrote to the right hon. Member for Grimsby on 14th January. I will not read that letter now, but we are by no means prepared to let the matter drop. It is outrageous that the I.T.A. should get even one penny from programme producers.
  1.3 p.m.
  Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said about the treatment of Anglia Television by the I.T.A. Anglia Television is one of the outstanding organisations in this country and I agree that the I.T.A. has behaved outrageously.
  I wish to raise another point. It is not the first Parliament in which I have protested that the Government of the day have not organised business in such a way that important matters like this do not come before the House at this time in the morning. Whatever the Government in power, in my experience they have always behaved outrageously in such

  519
  arrangements. The present Government are even worse than the others and that is saying a lot. I ask the Minister to draw these few comments to the attention of the Leader of the House. I do not believe that such an important matter should be considered at this time.
  1.5 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I suppose that my right hon. Friend can take comfort from the fact that all these irrelevancies—important though they may be—
  Sir G. de Freitas rose—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I have only just started. They are irrelevancies and I have no doubt that that is some comfort to my right hon. Friend because it means that there is not a great deal of criticism of what he is suggesting in this Order. I think that what he is suggesting is inevitable.
  Mr. Whitehead: In what sense can a discussion of the way in which previous assurances about programme quality have not been kept be irrelevant to a debate which the Minister opened by referring to such assurances?
  Sir H. Nicholls: I cannot suggest that the hon. Gentleman was out of order because he was allowed to continue with his speech by the occupant of the Chair, but he did not connect what he said about what is happening to London Weekend Television with anything to do with this Order. But that is not my point. I am sure that the amount of time taken up by the Opposition on other things is some confirmation that what is behind the Order is well based and should be approved. I think that we accept that without question.
  I take it that the House will accept the Order because it is inevitable. In view of the balance sheets, the general trend and the falling off in advertising revenue and all the effects which flow from that, it is obvious that something must be done. What gives me the greatest pleasure is the fact that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richards) accept that the present way of extracting the levy is fundamentally wrong. It has been made clear that at the earliest possible moment, 1972, the matter will be looked at with
  520
  a view to making a base which is fair and which can be worked and which will not have to be varied every time there is a change in the advertising turnover of the company.
  Both Front Benches, although they are occupied by different people now, are to blame for the situation. When the business of basing the levy on turnover was introduced, the Postmaster-General, representing the Conservative Government, had to rely on the wholehearted support of the Labour Opposition to get the proposal through against the feelings of hon. Members on the then Government side.
  It was said that the reason that the levy could not be based on profits, which is the only way of doing it, was that there was a chance that the companies would "cook their books" as regards the expenses they put in and deliberately make it appear that there were no profits on which to base the levy. The point we made then, and which I make now, is that there are years of experience to show what the legitimate expenses should be. It is easy and indeed desirable for the companies to produce a formula which will show the amount of their income which should be spent on their productions. I hope that the promise which my right hon. Friend has given to look at this matter again means that any contribution they make to have this facility handed to them will be based on their profits and not on the turnover, which bears no relation to the expenses of running the programmes.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that Lord Thomson did not help very much with his statement at that time?
  Sir H. Nicholls: Certainly. It was a wild and silly statement and it was not true. In the early days of television the companies lost a lot of money. Many of them almost dropped out of existence. Lord Thomson, who is a flamboyant and shrewd character, used words which were taken up and used in a way which did much damage.
  I was worried by something which the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said. He suggested that the Opposition's view about competition had changed. He said that competition between commercial and semi-Government

  521
  organisations is not what they have in mind. During the detailed discussion in Committee, the then spokesman for the Labour Opposition made it clear that they accepted competition. They started by saying that if they get back to power they would rule it out. I believe that on the strength of the words on the record my right hon. Friend was right to say that he understood that both sides of the House accepted competition. All that is in the past.
  This tinkering about can do nothing but harm. It affects the continuation of the companies, as has been shown in the London troubles, and it interferes with the quality of the programmes. We should be thinking of the future. We should give the Order speedy approval and keep the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to their promise to place the future of independent television on a safer and more sensible basis.
  1.10 a.m.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I should first declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists. I take very seriously the necessity for the continued employment of journalists, and I believe that that is relevant to the Order.
  With all the shortcomings of independent television to which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) referred, it is right that this grant of money should be made, though it ill becomes the present Government of all Governments to hand out £10 million to a lame duck, and it ill becomes the Minister to quote in aid the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which his Government are busy abolishing.
  Mr. David James: I want to question the word "grant". Why do hon. Gentlemen opposite always regard the remission of taxation as a grant? It is a return to the owners of their own money.
  Mr. Kaufman: That is so only if one believes that there should be no taxation or any kind. At the moment there is taxation, and the State has a right to decide how the money it has taken in tax should be dispensed. Having back £10 million is a grant to those who receive it.
  522
  It is right that this money should be given to the independent television companies. I hope, since it is happening in this makeshift and inefficient way, the independent television companies will use the money wisely. Current affairs programmes are needed on independent television. I say this because of my grave fears about the employment situation of journalists and also because current affairs programmes are necessary for civic education and are very popular. The radio programmes "World at One" and "Any Questions" are the most keenly listened to of any radio programmes, just as "This Week" is one of the most popular television programmes. Current affairs programmes are good viewing, popular viewing and provide necessary employment for journalists, opportunities for which are contracting.
  The loss of advertising revenue has meant fewer and thinner newspapers, and there are likely to be fewer newspapers still. If the stories circulating in Fleet Street are true, from next Monday we shall have one fewer national newspaper, fewer employment opportunities and fewer voices to speak. Television, as a lasting medium, should therefore step in to redress the balance.
  Hon. Members have referred to London Weekend Television and Mr. Rupert Murdoch. As one who has known him for a considerable time in various vicissitudes, I do not totally share the views which others hold of him. Although he is a rumbustious person who can introduce his fair share of vulgarity and irresponsibility into those areas of communication which he controls, he has saved the Sun newspaper and sent its circulation up to two million. He has done that partly by methods of which many of us would disapprove, but he is nevertheless maintaining a serious newspaper which comments on and covers politics in a responsible way within the acres of nude flesh which surround it. I would go further and say that, despite the various vulgarities included in the News of the World, Mr. Murdoch has improved that newspaper, too.
  It is obvious that he will run London Weekend Television on entirely different lines than were planned. I deplore this because, although some of us did not approve of independent television and wish that it did not exist, the original

  523
  promises for London Weekend Television were that it would be something one could swallow without being nauseated. But that set-up has gone, and if Mr. Murdoch had never stepped into the picture that set up would still not exist. It has got away with breaking promises.
  Mr. Murdoch. with all his idiosyncratic characteristics, is a man who, nevertheless, takes some serious interest in the issues of the day, as is shown by the fact that he has gone to Australia to launch a serious Sunday companion to the serious daily paper he runs there. He now has, under this levy remission, another £880,000 for London Weekend Television.
  I appeal to him to confound the people who have suspicions, which may not be ill-founded, about what he will do with the company and to use this money to introduce into London Weekend Television popular, serious, current affairs programmes of a kind which would restore the name of that company. That would justify Mr. Murdoch's regime and would even justify the hypocritical inconsistencies of the Government in paying out £10 million to private industry when they have said that that is something they are not willing to do.
  1.17 a.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I will not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) in what he said about Mr. Murdoch, except perhaps to say this: I agree that Mr. Murdoch may have preserved the Sun, but when my hon. Friend said that Mr. Murdoch had preserved the Sun as a newspaper that seemed to be going a little too far. He may have kept it going as a daily magazine, but whether as a newspaper seems to be open to question.
  If I may break new ground by referring to the Order which is before us, in my view it is a document which, as one whose general interest in television is supplemented by a particular interest on behalf of the performers in it, I must accept, but it is a hamfisted and I hope, a temporary measure. One of the reasons I think it is wrong is that it does not ensure that the companies which most need the money will be those to get it. In general, the effect in all probability will be that those companies which need the money the least will get the most. This is almost certain to be the case under this method.
  524
  The second criticism is that it is not certain that any part of the money will be used to improve the programmes. Therefore, the proposal I put forward, among others, which seems to be becoming popular, was that we should try to have a half-way house between the present method of deducting the levy from gross revenue and the other alternative, which is merely additional taxation on profits—in other words, that we should take the certified programme expenditure and charge the levy after that point. The effect of the latter would be to encourage the maximum expenditure on programmes. If it were certified in that way it would make sure that programme companies were not allowed to get away with anything they should not get away with.
  As I have said, I regard this as a temporary measure. I do not share the admiration of my hon. Friend for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for the 1964 Act. The Act was very properly criticised by the Pilkington Committee, which opposed the franchise system with its virtual necessity to develop elsewhere because of the possible loss of the franchise. This has nothing to do with improving programmes. Diversification is merely a financial insurance against the possibility of losing the franchise. The franchise system is a bad one.
  The Pilkington Committee was right to say that the Independent Television Authority should be the recipient of advertising revenue, leaving the programme contractors to do their job, and that anything short of that would be a measure of a palliative character. Some better palliative than this Order is urgently necessary, and, if the House approves it, I hope that it will do so only in the sense of saying to the Minister, "We accept what you are doing on the undertaking that you will do something better before long."
  1.21 a.m.
  Mr. Chataway: I am grateful to those hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate. It has been an occasion for highlighting a number of concerns about the independent television system, and it has produced a degree of unanimity about the Order and a fair consensus of opinion about the way in which the House would like to see the levy changed.

  525
  I must stress again that I am not in a position to guarantee that we shall find an acceptable substitute for the present levy system. I accept that it does not work well and has the disadvantages that a number of hon. Members have mentioned. There are difficulties about an excess profits tax and about the interesting variant produced by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins). However, I can assure the House that, before the end of the next full levy year, we shall explore every alternative, and I hope then to be in a position to suggest a satisfactary alternative system.
  Mr. Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman says that he will examine every alternative. Will that include the admirable suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins)? Can we be assured that a reorganisation on the basis recommended by the Pilkington Committee will not be excluded?
  Mr. Chataway: No. I am not suggesting that, in the next 18 months, we shall overturn the entire I.T.V. system. That would be a strange undertaking to give. My undertaking relates solely to the levy and its operation, and not to the structure of independent television as a whole.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) took the opportunity, quite fairly, to raise the matter of the Belmont transmitter, about which he and the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) feel strongly, as do quite a number of other hon. Members. I am sure that the I.T.A. will take note of what has been said, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow my hon. Friend along that path in the few minutes at my disposal.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) suggested that it might be that, in the very near future, the commercial monopoly that the independent television companies have at the moment in their areas will be broken as a result of technological developments that he mentioned. The N.B.P.I. Report points to this possibility. However, I regard it as a longer-term possibility. I do not think that casettes, multi-channel wires or direct reception from satellites are likely to be develop-
  526
  ments within the next few years which will totally alter the nature of broadcasting in this country. But I agree with my hon. Friend about the longer term, and I agree that, before we consider the structure of broadcasting in the post-1976 period, we must seriously consider all these issues—and preferably as near to the point as possible when information is available.
  The hon. Members for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and for Putney, and one or two others, expressed concern on behalf of the smaller, weaker companies in the I.T.V. system. The hon. Member for Barons Court suggested that there would be no financial joy for them. The reduction in the levy will be of value indirectly to those companies, because there is a system of cross-subsidisation which works in I.T.V. The I.T.A. has said that, as a result of the reduction of the levy, if it is approved by Parliament, it will be able to reduce the rentals to the smaller companies and at the same time impose a larger burden upon the bigger and more prosperous companies.
  Another way in which the smaller companies will be helped is in the sums which they will pay for programmes which they get on the network. The charges made for programmes received on the network are related to revenue after the levy. Therefore, the larger companies will be paying more and the smaller companies will proportionately be paying less. This is a measure which should be of value to the small as well as to the large companies.
  The hon. Member for Barons Court asked about the £3½ million rental increase of the I.T.A. and what it was principally intended to do. It is in part to meet increased costs to continue existing work, but also to continue the U.H.F. developments and the introduction of colour to enable the I.T.A., which has dropped behind the B.B.C., to catch up. It has always been intended that the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. should, so far as possible, march in step in these developments. The I.T.A. has taken the view that it is necessary to have this substantial increase in its rental if it is to catch up in these respects.
  A number of hon. Members have expressed concern about developments over London Weekend Television. The hon.

  527
  Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said, quite fairly, that he hoped that I would resist invitations to set myself up as any kind of commissar of communications. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall certainly resist any blandishments of that kind. In doing so it will be necessary for me to make it absolutely clear that it is not me who determines whether there should be mergers during the course of contracts; and it is not me, or it should not be me, who determines whether changes in the shareholdings in individual companies constitute such a fundamental change in their nature as to warrant the withdrawal of a contract or any other measure. These clearly are matters which lie within the jurisdiction of the Independent Television Authority.
  The I.T.A. has powers under Section 11(4) of the Television Act which are relevant to this matter. The House may know that the Authority has said that, in respect of the events which have been mentioned, it will be considering these powers when it meets later this week. The Authority has informed me that it will be keeping the company's programme schedules under careful review, but that it has taken no decisions in the matter as yet. These are the responsibilities of the I.T.A. and not matters in which it would be acceptable for the Government to intervene. However, it is proper that views on these issues should be expressed in this House, and the I.T.A. will take note of them.

  Division No. 195.]

  AYES

  [1.31 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Green, Alan

  Money, Ernie

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Grylls, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Bray, Ronald

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  James, David

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Percival, Ian

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Raison, Timothy

  Clegg, Walter

  Knox, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Cooke, Robert

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Fortescue, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Speed, Keith

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mather, Carol

  Spence, John

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gower, Raymond

  Moate, Roger

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  The hon. Member for Barons Court also asked about the profits of the companies and what effect these would have. Table 5 on page 19 of the Report of the N.B.P.I. gives a good deal of the information which the hon. Gentleman was seeking; but it might help the House if I give some additional information. The N.B.P.I. gave two estimates for 1971 —a low and a high revenue forecast—and it produced for the years thereafter two separate patterns: one based on a pessimistic forecast of what would happen and the other based on a more optimistic forecast.
  In fact, the I.T.A. now believes that the revenue of the I.T.V. companies for 1971 will be somewhat below the low revenue forecast of the N.B.P.I. I cannot, therefore, hold out the expectation that the reduction in the levy which I am proposing will be sufficient to increase the rate of return on capital to the 13½ per cent. after tax which the N.B.P.I. suggested would be a reasonable rate of return for the television companies. As 1 say, I cannot pretend that the proposed reduction will necessarily be large enough to produce the rate of return which it was suggested over the period of the contract would be right for the companies. Nevertheless, this reduction will enable—
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business).
  The House divided: Ayes 85, Noes 1.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Waddington, David

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Warren, Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tilney, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Worsley, Marcus

  NOES

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn, Sir Geoffrey

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Michael Cocks and

  Mr. James Wellbeloved.

  Resolved,
  That the Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.

  ROYAL NORTHERN HOSPITAL, HOLLOWAY
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
  1.40 a.m.
  Mr. Michael O'Halloran: I am grateful to be able to bring to the attention of the House the very serious position of the Royal Northern Hospital in Islington, the fact that no definite plans exist for its rebuilding, and the fact that there is a grave shortage of beds. This sense of grievance is not confined to one part of the community but is deeply felt by the medical staff and, most important, by prospective patients.
  Since 1947, suggestions which have been made for a major increase in the number of beds on the hospital site have been rejected on the grounds that the Inner London Authority is well provided with hospital beds and that this applies in the Holloway and Islington areas because of the proximity of the Whittington Hospital. In 1948, that hospital had 2,000 beds. Now, it has 990. In the newly planned Whittington Hospital, there will be 920 beds, of which 150 will be for psychiatric patients. If an accident service is planned on that site, 200 beds will have to be allocated for this special problem, thus leaving an overall number of 570 beds, which will make a further reduction from the present 990 to 420.
  Examination of a map of the area surrounding the Royal Northern Hospital shows that it is very well placed in relation to traffic routes and that transport
  530
  facilities are excellent. It will also be seen that, apart from teaching hospitals, there are no hospitals between the Royal Northern and the City in the south or between the Royal Northern and the West End in the south-east and east. There are no hospitals except the Metropolitan and the Prince of Wales, Tottenham, both of which are comparatively small, and I understand that their viability is at present under consideration.
  The Royal Northern stands in an island site and all the properties and land there belong to the Department of Health and Social Security, so no compulsory purchase orders would be needed to acquire land for expansion. The hospital now provides services equal to, and in some cases greater than, those associated with hospitals of 500 beds or more. It is evident that, if the number of beds on the Holloway site were appreciably increased, the cost per patient would go down. The trouble is, there are now 265 general beds available at the hospital.
  On 2nd February, 1968, Mr. Kenneth Robinson, then Minister of Health, wrote to my predecessor, the late G. W. Reynolds, saying that there was an urgent need for more beds to enable the hospital to fulfil its responsibilities to the National Health Service. He then suggested increasing the number of general beds available by closing the maternity department and decreasing the number of private beds, so that the resulting increase was only 17 beds.
  It should be noted that, in the years 1964–67, the income from the private beds was £362,000 and the overall spending on allocations for the whole group was £293,624, so that the private wing of the Royal Northern financed the overall spending on the general beds not only in this hospital but in the whole group.

  531
  Future plans for the Islington area were discussed in detail at the Department of Health and Social Security in January this year "as part of a discussion about a geriatric research centre". The Department officials eventually acknowledged verbally that by 1981, after the Royal Free Hospital, University College Hospital and Whittington developments were under way, there would be 60,000 or 80,000 requiring hospital services for whom no provision has been made by those three hospitals under the direction of the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board. In other words, about 400 additional general beds would be required, so that if the new Royal Free, University College and Whittington Hospitals were not increased in size, the Royal Northern would still be needed, and there seems no possibility of altering the plans for these three new hospitals.
  The Royal Northern is almost unique in having a very large number of outpatients but a very small number of inpatient beds. The out-patient and casualty service of this hospital is out of all proportion to its present size, and this shows another planning problem for the future in that without the Royal Northern, as things are even now, Whittington Hospital will have to take about 280,000 casualty out-patient attendances yearly, and this has not yet been planned for in the new hospital.
  In 1958 the Royal Northern had 72,991 out-patient attendances. In 1965 it had 95,000. For the quarter ending 31st December, 1970, it had 37,979 outpatient attendances. In the casualty department in 1958 it had 44,418, and in 1965, 50,312. The total number of admissions to the Royal Northern of all types increased from 5,075 in 1951 to 7,572 in 1966. The average duration of stay in the five hospitals within the Board's area from 1965 to 1968 was: New End, 17·9 days; Whittington, 15·9 days; Central Middlesex, 14·3 days; Paddington General, 14·2 days; and the Royal Northern, 11·2 days.
  The major problem facing us in the next 20 years is the solution to the problem of the care of the aged, the chronically sick who need permanent hospital care, and the geriatrics who need hospital help but who can, with imagination and skill, be incorporated back into society. The problem regarding the
  532
  Royal Northern is now under review by the Department of Health, but the Hospital Group Management Committee has for the last nine years repeatedly, without the slightest success, asked the regional boards to tackle this problem.
  In the last 10 years improvements to the Royal Northern Hospital have been a new out-patients department with X-ray and full casualty and accident services, four new operating theatres, a new nurses' home and an intensive care unit, and this will be completed this year.
  The City of London Maternity Hospital is at present sited in Hanley Road, about half a mile from the Royal Northern. It is the second largest maternity hospital in London, having over 100 beds. Both the Hospital Medical Committee and the Management Committee have agreed that the City of London Maternity Hospital should be redeveloped on the Royal Northern site.
  I feel it advisable that a maternity hospital should have at its disposal all the disciplines and ancillary services of a general hospital. There is at present an acute shortage of maternity beds in this area of North-West London and I am informed that, owing to the shortage of beds and facilities at the Royal Northern, patients for pregnancy termination have to be put on the waiting list.
  The Royal Northern Hospital has served the people of Islington and the neighbouring area from 1856 and I suggest that there is a viable case for the future development of this hospital on these grounds: the ratio of beds to the population; the present move of the Royal Free from Grays Inn Road to Hampstead; the need for a local accident service; the need for a regional geriatric service for this part of London; the necessity of establishing the City of London Maternity Hospital on the island site of the Royal Northern; the ability to recruit staff and to continue to give post-graduate training; and the continuation of a hospital which has shown itself to be one of the best in London.
  Rumours have been circulating among the medical staff of the hospital and statements have appeared in local newspapers to the effect that the Royal Northern is to be phased out. I hope that the Minister will say tonight that the Royal Northern Hospital will continue to serve the people of Islington.
  1.50 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): I am glad that the House has the opportunity from time to time to discuss problems which are not directly concerned with the great national or international questions of the moment but with the more local issues—often the saner issues —which touch intimately the affairs of most of us at some time or other during our lives—and, in this case, touch a large block of people, both the users of the hospital and those who work in it, very intimately and particularly.
  Tonight, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) has given us the opportunity to take time to consider the place of the Royal Northern Hospital, both in the present and in the future, in the life of the staff and the people it serves. I know that this busy acute hospital of 270 beds is held in the highest regard in the locality which it has served since its foundation as long ago as 1856, and I realise that its extremely hard working, efficient and competent staff who serve it both devotedly and loyally, having the best interests of the hospital at heart, are, naturally, concerned to know its future place in the scheme of things in that part of London.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the body with overall responsibility for the planning of hospital services in this area, which includes Islington and Camden, is the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board. In the Hospital Plan, Cmnd. 1604 of 1962 and in the Hospital Building Programme, Cmnd. 3000, published by the last Government in May 1966, that Board provided for the future development of the Royal Northern Hospital, and it told me recently that its present intention remains in accordance with those proposals, which were that it should be redeveloped on its existing site. The first stage of the redevelopment comprising out-patient, accident and diagnostic X-ray departments was completed in 1963, and this was followed in 1969 by a new nurses' home.
  The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the future of an individual hospital cannot be planned in a vacuum and that the planning authority must pay regard to such factors as population trends, the rôle of other hospitals in the
  534
  locality, and the pattern of teaching hospital services. While, therefore, in the Board's view, there is no reasonable doubt about the continuing acute rôle of the Royal Northern Hospital, it has not come to any final zconclusion about its future size, which would need to be related, obviously, to the future population of the area.
  For this and other reasons, the Board has not found it possible to include the full further redevelopment of the hospital in the current capital building programme which extends up to 1978. In the short term, however, the transfer of the radiotherapy department to the Royal Free Hospital has enabled the Board, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, to arrange a necessary addition of about 20 acute beds to the hospital.
  In assessing what the future size of the Royal Northern Hospital might be, the Board will need to have regard to the factor of population, as I said, and to the future rôle of the teaching hospitals. The population of the area around the Royal Northern Hospital is declining in contrast to other areas in the region where the build-up of population has created heavy pressure on hospital services leading to the need to augment them as rapidly as possible.
  Into the area pattern must be slotted developments in the teaching hospital field and the likely service effects on these must be taken into account. The main developments are the building of the new Royal Free Hospital at Hampstead and the assumption of the district function by University College Hospital.
  In recent years it has become apparent that if the country is to train the doctors needed not only to maintain but to improve medical services, medical schools in association with hospitals must expand to be able to accept more students and the hospitals concerned must have access to a population big enough to provide experience in the treatment of illness for students under the guidance of experienced consultants. In order to achieve this aim, and to make the best use of available resources, it has been found desirable in many cases for teaching hospitals to add to their teaching function that of hospitals serving a local community. In this way they assume responsibility for serving a district, meeting

  535
  all hospital needs and not merely specialist interests, and in turn come to be regarded as the district general hospital.
  In North London, it is hoped that the Royal Free Hospital and the University College Hospital might assume the responsibilities of district hospitals and thus together serve a population of some 270,000. There would remain in the London Boroughs of Islington, Camden and Haringey a population of 230,000–250,000 which would continue to be served by the North London Group of hospitals including the Royal Northern Hospital.
  Another factor which makes it difficult for the Board to finalise its planning in this area is the effect of forthcoming proposals on reorganisation of the health services. As the hon. Member knows the Government have announced their intention to unify the three parts of the National Health Service outside local government. The reshaped National Health Service will come into operation on 1st April, 1974, the date set for the coming into operation of the new local authorities promised in the White Paper of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment called "Local Government in England".
  The hon. Gentleman in particular will also know that we are by no means satisfied that the proposals for the administrative structure of the National Health Service set out in the previous Administration's two Green Papers, particularly the second, would create an efficient structure for a unified service. We are therefore studying carefully the comments made on that Green Paper and hope to issue shortly our own proposals for the reorganisation of the service. It is our intention to provide an efficient and effective management structure in order to provide the comprehensive care and treatment to which the public rightly looks.
  However, these planning uncertainties have, as I have said, led to the Board's being unable to include the full redevelopment of the Royal Northern Hospital in its current building programme but the programme is a flexible one. For example the medical staff's proposal for a geriatric research centre is under active consideration. More should not therefore be read into this exclusion for the current programme than that develop-
  536
  ments elsewhere merit in the Board's view a higher priority, at least for the present.
  I think that the hon. Member will appreciate from what I have already said that there is absolutely no prospect of any change in the general rôle of the Royal Northern Hospital in the immediate future. My hope and expectation is that it will continue its excellent and devoted service to the people of the area for years to come.
  Mr. O'Halloran: I have here a paper from the Royal Northern dated 31st December, 1970, when it had 1,057 people on the waiting list for beds. Some of them had been waiting for three years to have operations. What will happen to them?
  Mr. Alison: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. This merely serves to underline my point that the general rôle of the Royal Northern Hospital for the immediate future is certainly secure. The picture he has presented of an extensive waiting list demonstrates the essential rôle it is fulfilling now. It is my hope and expectation that it will continue this service and live to discharge its long waiting list for years to come. However, with the best will in the world, the hon. Member would not expect me to forecast the future with any certainty for more than 10 to 15 years ahead, particularly in the context of London, with its fluctuating population and the introduction of "district" responsibilities to teaching hospitals. But for the future, numbered certainly in years, I am confident that its rôle is secure, and I believe that that is the Board's view.
  Even if at some time in the unknown future a change of circumstances, however unlikely it may appear at the moment, led to a review of the rôle of the Royal Northern, the hon. Member can be assured that the closure or change of use of any hospital is a matter for decision by my right hon. Friend, and that, before he makes a decision on a proposal of this kind, he satisfies himself scrupulously not only that the proposal is sound but also that the regional board making it has undertaken proper local consultation before recommending it to him.
  The task of securing local understanding and acceptance of a proposal to alter

  537
  the rôle of a hospital is a difficult, indeed delicate one, and guidance has been issued to regional boards on the handling of proposals they make to my right hon. Friend. Over the years, as the hospital building programme has developed and new or developed hospitals have replaced those which have become redundant, considerable experience of the task has been gained, and the latest guidance, which was issued by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, reflects that experience. I think that it might be helpful if I were to outline here the essence of that guidance.
  I make this point to the hon. Gentleman not to suggest that we regard any proposal to change the status of the hospital to be imminent—we have no knowledge of any such proposal—but to underline that there is an enormous amount of carefully staged discussion before any proposal even comes to be considered by my right hon. Friend, so many safeguards are built in.
  The procedure commended to boards has a number of essential features. Boards are advised to follow a plan designed so that the local community can understand the reasons for any proposal and also the new arrangements that would be brought into operation if the proposal were to be accepted by my right hon. Friend—in short, to ensure that informed public discussion is possible. They are urged to undertake local consultations with representatives of the bodies most concerned, particularly the local authorities, the general practitioners and the staff. And before finally making up its mind on a proposal, the board must, of course, give proper consideration to reasonable opinion expressed during
  538
  the course of the consultations. Of course, the staff of the hospital would have ample opportunity to make their views known to the board if any proposal were envisaged long before it came to the Secretary of State. The board then makes its recommendations to my right hon. Friend, together with a full report on the proposal and on the consultations and, as I have already said, the final decision then rests with him, and with him alone.
  So the hon. Member will see that, even if in due course, the North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board were to propose that, in future, the Royal Northern should fulfil a different rôle, there would be no hasty or unpublicised action on the proposal. The opportunity would be provided for local interests to examine and comment on it and the final decision whether to accept it be taken in the light of all the comments made. I make this point merely to show that there are many stages to be gone through long before any proposal reaches my right hon. Friend. I have no reason to believe that any proposal is imminent in this case, however.
  I hope that I have said enough to reassure local residents, the staff of the hospital and the hon. Gentleman that, in the light of present day circumstances, and subject to planning considerations not apparent now but which may become so in the future, the Royal Northern Hospital has a promising future and so features and continues to feature in the Board's proposals for the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four Minutes past Two o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Tobacco Smoking (Hazards)
  Tobacco Smoking (Hazards)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
  Voluntary Social Work
  Voluntary Social Work
  Drug-taking
  Drug-taking
  Industrial Disputes (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  Industrial Disputes (Supplementary Benefit Payments)
  Deaths (Persons Living Alone)
  Deaths (Persons Living Alone)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Ear, Nose and Throat Operations (Birmingham)
  Ear, Nose and Throat Operations (Birmingham)
  Wives' Earnings (Limits)
  Wives' Earnings (Limits)
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Family Planning Clinics
  Family Planning Clinics
  National Insurance Scheme (Reconstruction)
  National Insurance Scheme (Reconstruction)
  Supplementary Benefits (Strikers and Prisoners)
  Supplementary Benefits (Strikers and Prisoners)
  Children (Cooked Lunches)
  Children (Cooked Lunches)
  National Health Service (Finance)
  National Health Service (Finance)
  Dental Services
  Dental Services
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Nurses' Uniforms
  Nurses' Uniforms
  National Health Service (Costs)
  National Health Service (Costs)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Means-Tested Benefits
  Means-Tested Benefits
  Maternity Facilities (Medway Area)
  Maternity Facilities (Medway Area)
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Pensioners' Luncheon Clubs
  Pensioners' Luncheon Clubs
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Non-Urgent Operations (Waiting Time)
  Non-Urgent Operations (Waiting Time)
  Supplementary Benefits (Fuel Allowance)
  Supplementary Benefits (Fuel Allowance)
  Hospitals (Parking Facilities)
  Hospitals (Parking Facilities)
  Nurses' Examinations
  Nurses' Examinations
  Cot Deaths
  Cot Deaths
  Operations (Leicester)
  Operations (Leicester)
  Foster Parents (National Register)
  Foster Parents (National Register)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Television (Effects on Eyesight)
  Television (Effects on Eyesight)
  Hospitals (Capital Building Programmes)
  Hospitals (Capital Building Programmes)
  Battersea, Putney and Tooting (Hospitals)
  Battersea, Putney and Tooting (Hospitals)
  Hospitals (Oldham)
  Hospitals (Oldham)
  Bootle General Hospital (Physiotherapists)
  Bootle General Hospital (Physiotherapists)
  Battersea, Putney and Tooting (Hospitals)
  Battersea, Putney and Tooting (Hospitals)
  Homelessness (London)
  Homelessness (London)
  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry (Private Patients)
  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry (Private Patients)
  Disabled Drivers (Grant)
  Disabled Drivers (Grant)
  Abortion Act, 1967
  Abortion Act, 1967
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Edgware General Hospital
  Edgware General Hospital
  Possum
  Possum
  Social Security (Approaches to Charities)
  Social Security (Approaches to Charities)
  Dental Service and Fluoridation
  Dental Service and Fluoridation
  Poverty
  Poverty
  Welfare Milk
  Welfare Milk
  National Insurance Stamps
  National Insurance Stamps
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Wage-Stopped Households
  Wage-Stopped Households
  Doctors (Political and Industrial Prejudice)
  Doctors (Political and Industrial Prejudice)
  Mental Disorders (Financial Assistance)
  Mental Disorders (Financial Assistance)
  Four-week Rule
  Four-week Rule
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Economic Problems (Overseas Countries)
  Economic Problems (Overseas Countries)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Pinnock Finance Company (Great Britain) Limited
  Pinnock Finance Company (Great Britain) Limited
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Nationalised Industries and Private Consultants (Overseas Work)
  Nationalised Industries and Private Consultants (Overseas Work)
  Bloodstock (Exports)
  Bloodstock (Exports)
  Coal Industry (Redundant Workers)
  Coal Industry (Redundant Workers)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Women's National Commission
  Women's National Commission
  DURHAM
  DURHAM
  CIVIL SERVANTS AND SERVICE PERSONNEL (PUBLIC STATEMENTS)
  CIVIL SERVANTS AND SERVICE PERSONNEL (PUBLIC STATEMENTS)
  SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
  SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
  PRESIDENT OF CYPRUS (VISIT)
  PRESIDENT OF CYPRUS (VISIT)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  PENSIONS
  PENSIONS
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (REPORTING)
  INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (REPORTING)
  PRIME MINISTER (PUBLIC SPEECHES)
  PRIME MINISTER (PUBLIC SPEECHES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Prices
  Prices
  QUARTER SESSIONS
  QUARTER SESSIONS
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Re-usable Space Vehicles and Shuttles
  Re-usable Space Vehicles and Shuttles
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited
  Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited
EMPLOYMENT
  Chorley
  Chorley
  Wilberforce Inquiry (Cost)
  Wilberforce Inquiry (Cost)
  Work Vouchers (Bradford-Shipley)
  Work Vouchers (Bradford-Shipley)
  Special Development Areas, Scotland
  Special Development Areas, Scotland
  Unemployment (Cornwall)
  Unemployment (Cornwall)
  Pontefract, Castleford and Featherstone
  Pontefract, Castleford and Featherstone
  Yorkshire Coalfield
  Yorkshire Coalfield
  Industrial Training Boards (Review)
  Industrial Training Boards (Review)
  Vacant Dwellings
  Vacant Dwellings
  Inner London (Housing Overspill)
  Inner London (Housing Overspill)
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Rates
  Rates
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  World Population Control
  World Population Control
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Tobacco
  Tobacco
  Licensing Laws (Erroll Committee)
  Licensing Laws (Erroll Committee)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Mail
  Mail
SCOTLAND
  New Towns (Unemployment)
  New Towns (Unemployment)
  New Towns (School Population)
  New Towns (School Population)
  Limestone Deposits (The Minches)
  Limestone Deposits (The Minches)
  Livingston New Town
  Livingston New Town
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Muirkirk (Industrial Development)
  Muirkirk (Industrial Development)
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Teachers(Recruitment)
  Teachers(Recruitment)
  Housing
  Housing
WALES
  Agriculture (Annual Price Review)
  Agriculture (Annual Price Review)
  Housing (Newport)
  Housing (Newport)

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

BRUCELLOSIS TESTS
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether—

(a) the Rose Bengal test for brucellosis in conjunction with the antigen used by Dr. Nicoletti has been compared in the field with the serum agglutination test, the milk ring test and the complement fixation test for simplicity, speed of result and reliability; and

(b) they realise that, if the new test meets these requirements, it will warrant a complete reassessment of the whole brucellosis eradication scheme as at present administered.]

LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there are two forms of the Rose Bengal test for brucellosis. One is the card version described by Dr. Nicoletti in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 1967 as being specially suitable in ranching conditions which, as your Lordships well know, are not commonly found in Britain. The other is the plate version, developed at our own Central Veterinary Laboratory, which takes a little longer because the blood sample must be left for a few hours to coagulate. The Ministry has conducted special field and laboratory experiments to compare the reliability, simplicity, and expense of the two forms of the test. The experiments showed the plate technique to be simpler, cheaper and, above all, significantly more reliable.
Following these experiments the Ministry introduced the Rose Bengal plate test as the universal screening test under the new Brucellosis Scheme and its use for
922
screening in the official scheme, instead of the milk ring test, has since helped to improve and speed up the whole machinery of official testing.
The Government's considered veterinary advice is, first, that in British conditions the Rose Bengal plate test is the best available screening device; and secondly that "positives" to this or any form of Rose Bengal test need to be submitted to the more sophisticated serum agglutination and complement fixation tests. That advice was borne out by the results of the experiments I have described, and has since been further substantiated by working experience of the new incentives scheme.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very full Answer. I believe that there are quicker ways of dealing with these cases, and I myself am in the unfortunate position that I had a routine test of a herd taken last Tuesday and up to now there has been no reply whatsoever. It is most unsatisfactory from the point of view of the breeders that—
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a speech. Could he not ask a question?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I appologise for interrupting my noble friend Lord Rowallan. In view of the length of the Answer by my noble friend Lord Denham, I was letting him run on. But I think it would be helpful if he could put his point in the form of a question.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for once again transgressing the rules of the House. I will try to do better in future. Will the Government agree to some acceleration of the results of these tests, because it is most unsatisfactory for breeders not to know for a very considerable time the results of tests?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are quite aware of the importance of accelerating these tests as quickly as possible. Everything is being done in that respect that can be done.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I ask the honourable gentleman—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I presume that the one embraces the other.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why re-infection is taking place in those areas where eradication was pioneered? Would he not say that this is due in part to ineffective tests?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that that supplementary is rather wide of the original Question.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, "tests" are mentioned in the Question.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that the matter of re-infection in a certain area is a little wide of the original Question. Her Majesty's Government are keeping a close watch on what is happening. As I said to my noble friend, they are taking every step they think possible to accelerate the eradication of brucellosis.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask why a reactor to the brucellosis test is not killed straight away but has to be isolated for three weeks?
LORD DENHAM: Because, my Lords, there is no possible way of deciding which cow is a reactor and which is not. The Rose Bengal test is not one hundred per cent certain. It is pretty certain that a cow which actually has brucellosis will be positive to the Rose Bengal test; but it is not certain the other way round. Until more research is done it is impossible to say which cow definitely is a reactor.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I am not satisfied with that answer. If a cow is a reactor, it is a reactor. Why not kill it straight-away? Surely it is much better to kill a cow which is a reactor than to allow the chance of the disease being spread by a cowman to the rest of the herd?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if you did that throughout the country you would be killing a lot of healthy cows.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the United States they kill doubtful reactors? If the
924
United States feel that this is necessary and effective, why do we not follow suit?
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, as the improved Rose Bengal plate test can now be done on the farm, and the answer made available in ten minutes, would the Government consider asking the general veterinary practitioners to carry out the tests and so considerably expedite the elimination of the disease?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the improved Rose Bengal plate test cannot at the moment be done on the farm. It is done in the laboratory.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us another enjoyable five minutes by re-reading his Answer to the original Question?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, but but perhaps I could read it to the noble Lord privately later.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question: why not follow the lead of the United States?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that in the United States of America all possible reactors are slaughtered straight away; but the position in other countries is, of course, carefully studied the whole time.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I be allowed to draw the attention of the Government to the firm which manufactures a kit with which a test can be completed in ten minutes?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government know about this firm; in fact, to a certain extent they gave advice on the process.

TRI-SERVICE MANPOWER STATISTICS
2.43 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can explain the item in the December quarter Tri-Service Manpower Statistics which says "'Males include female medical and dental

925
officers"; and whether they can allay any public disquiet to which this official statement may give rise.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord's question calls to mind one of our distinguished predecessors who referred to "Lies, damn lies and statistics", and I fear that the substance of the Question is caused by the last of these three options, although the noble Lord might argue that an attribution to one of the former two would appear to be more appropriate. However, my inquiries have shown that the explanation is that female medical and dental officers are recruited direct into the medical and dental corps of the Services, and not via any of the Women's Services. Thus, for simplicity, therefore (though possibly not for punctilious clarification), the statistics to which the noble Lord has referred include these good ladies, alongside their male colleagues, but featured, nevertheless, in the male strength of the Services. I feel sure that any public disquiet which might be induced by this somewhat clinical method of presentation can easily be dispelled by the distinguished medical service which these ladies so excellently give.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very informative reply. May I ask him this question? Does he not think that, as the first chapter of Genesis tells us "male and female created He them", it is wrong for any Government to try to move Amendments to the pages of Holy Writ? Does not the noble Earl also think that as women are recognised to be the superior sex it is insulting to them that they should be down-graded to the level of men, merely for the sake of rounding off the statistics?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government have, of course, a holy respect for Holy Writ. Unfortunately, they are not dictated to by the Book of Genesis but rather by the Interpretation Act 1889 which, if I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to it, says in Section 1(a):
"Words importing the masculine gender shall include females."
I think, my Lords, that, roughly translated, that might mean that the male embraces the female.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, now that the noble Earl has given us to
926
understand that male and female have been brought together, may I ask whether they are paid identical rates of pay?
EARL FERRERS: In certain circumstances, my Lords, but not in all.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain briefly what are those circumstances?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that, in fact, is another question which I should be delighted to answer and which I could answer, if the noble Lord wishes to delay the House.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, this is very important as these are professional people. As I understand there is no question at all that they would be paid equal pay, is the noble Earl suggesting that he is not sure about a matter of important principle?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the conditions of service of female medical doctors and dentists are different in each of the different Services.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Earl really must do his homework. There is no question about this matter, and I hope he will write to me to-morrow to reassure me. This matter was settled many years ago when the noble Earl was a little boy.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am quite sure that a lot happened when I was a little boy about which the noble Baroness would know far more than I do. If I may reassure her on the point about which she is so agitated, may I say that these people are members of the Medical Corps, or branches of the Services, and they enjoy the same rates of pay, opportunities for promotion and other conditions of service as do men—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Ah, my Lords, that is better.
EARL FERRERS: —but there are exceptions.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that women medical officers are quite glad to render their medical duties without distinction of sex?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I hope so.

ABORTION ACT 1967
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Aberdare will be making a Statement on the working of the 1967 Abortion Act.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to revise the law of England and Wales as to offences of damage to property, and to repeal or amend as respects the United Kingdom certain enactments relating to such offences; and for connected purposes. I beg to move That this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LAND REGISTRATION AND LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Land Registration Acts 1925 to 1966; to amend the Land Charges Act 1925 and related enactments; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: THE ROSKILL REPORT
2.50 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by Lord Molson, That this House do take note of the Report of the Commission on the Third London Airport.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, it is both a privilege and, I feel, a certain responsibility to be asked to resume the second day of this historic debate and to try to continue the really high standard set by other speakers yesterday. If one were asked why one wanted to take part in a debate with over fifty other speakers when so much must be repetitious, the answer that I would give would be the same. I believe, as every other speaker would give: it is because one cars about the issue; it is because one cares about one's heritage; it is because, I firmly believe, we are trustees of our heritage to those who follow us, our children and our grandchildren; and it is because, I believe, that this issue is the most important planning decision facing any Government in this century. Although I care as passionately as others for the protection of our environment, I also care that any decisions should be in the best interests of the progress of the civil air transport industry in this country, and I believe that both these interests can be met.
I should like at the outset, as other speakers did yesterday, to pay my short tribute to the Roskill Commission and to all those involved with the Commission's long and arduous work over the last two and a half years. The immense value of this Report must be that it focuses, with great clarity, all the problems, emotional and economic, technical and non-technical, that face the decision of such a major investment. It is indeed a remarkably constructive Report, even if, as in my case, one disagrees with its conclusions. I should also like to pay a tribute to all the voluntary bodies who

929
have striven so hard, at great financial cost, to present their cases to the Commission in the most constructive and favourable light. If one were to single out but one of these, it would be for me the Wing Airport Resistance Association. I am told that it started with seven members; its membership to-day is over 60,000, and it has raised something in the region of £55,000 for its fighting fund: and even to-day I heard on the wireless that its influence is present in the form of some fresh pancakes.
The debate yesterday followed a pattern which I believe will be followed to-day and in another place when their opportunity occurs. It was that no single speaker spoke out in support of Roskill's first choice—Cublington. The argument against Cublington on evironmental grounds appears so strong, with the powerful support of Professor Buchanan in his minority recommendations, with the eloquent words of my noble friend Lord Molson and other noble Lords yesterday, and with the signatures of no fewer than 220 Members of Parliament in the form of a Motion, that I feel it is unnecessary to try to add anything besides stating my total support for the anti-Cublington view.
If Parliament is to have its influence, as my noble friend the Leader of the House stated yesterday that the Government intend it to have, I believe a decision to reject wholly the Cublington site can be in little doubt. The influence of Parliament, and indeed this House, was seen clearly three years ago over the issue of Stansted: and I should like to pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, who played a particularly prominent part on that occasion. I have confidence that the Government will again give similar weight to any influence Parliament may give over Cublington.
If one is correct in assuming that Cublington, by popular consent, is totally unacceptable, it is, I believe, vitally important in the interests and the future of the civil air transport industry in this country, which one must recall plays such a prominent part in our foreign earnings, not to allow a rebound effect to pressure a decision on Roskill's second choice—Foulness. Although it must be very tempting to solve the problem of the Third London Airport by deciding on Foulness because local
930
authorities in the area would actually welcome it, it would, I believe, be wholly Wrong not to pay particular attention to the cautionary words in the Report:
"The Third London Airport must be able to succeed as an airport."
The viability of Foulness is a matter, I believe, of grave doubt. I feel that the Commission amply show this in their Report. We know that the airlines do not want it; we know that it would be very expensive to develop; and there is evidence which raises some concern on its safety factor caused by migrating birds. I personally accept the Commission's strong caveat on Foulness. It would, in my view, prove a monumental white elephant, a national investment blunder of very damaging consequences, and most of all a serious disaster for the future of civil air transport.
Having said that, I would add that in my view neither of the other two short-listed inland sites mentioned by the Commission is satisfactory. I say this because I do not consider that any inland site can harmonise in any area to acceptable standards of environment for those who live in that area. If one were asked: but if one rejects all four short-listed sites of the Roskill Report, and if one accepts that there will be a need in the next 10 to 15 years for a third London Airport, albeit a two runway airport initially, how does one overcome the serious problem both of planning blight on the existing proposed sites, and of the intolerable build-up of noise level around Heathrow and Gatwick?—my answer would be as follows. In the first case, that of blight, which is a matter that I come across quite frequently in my professional life, I accept, in the interests of all those affected, that the Government must make an early decision on whether to choose or not to choose, to go ahead or not to go ahead on one of the Roskill four sites. If they choose not to go ahead on any of these sites, as I hope they will, it must be their duty to lift the blight from the three inland sites by a firm assurance that these sites have been finally rejected.
Turning to the second question, the intolerable build-up of noise level around Heathrow and Gatwick, it is, I believe, a sad myth to think that any immediate relief can be given—indeed for the next

931
ten years—by any decision of any Government to build a third London airport. But there are, in my view, certain positive steps that could be taken to alleviate the position. The first would be to arrange, by international agreement, a strict noise certification scheme to be introduced by, say, 1980. After that date those aircraft operating above certain noise levels would be banned from British airports. In the meantime, it would, I believe, be possible to introduce more generous compensation schemes, either to soundproof houses or even assist people to move from areas worst affected. The problem of noise is under constant study by the Government, but it is, I believe, interesting to note that, out of all noise complaints made to the British Airports Authority over the past few years, 85 per cent. of them arise from either the Boeing 707 or the DC 8.
The second positive step which I believe could alleviate the problem of noise would be to apply a very stringent policy to planning around airports. I have two recent examples of planning which show, I believe, a degree of irresponsibility by planners to both people's environment and indeed to the airport use. The first is a case at Hounslow, when consent was given for some 200 houses to be built, in an area where already the noise level is 55 N.N.I. The second is at Gatwick, where again consent has been given for houses which would, if a second runway is built, come within a noise level of 65 N.N.I. I believe that both these cases show at best a serious lack of grasp by planners, or worse, an attempt to frustrate the growth of these airports. I hope that the Government may perhaps take note of these two cases and consider whether any future steps can be taken to avoid any damaging repetition. If I may turn briefly to Gatwick, it would, I believe, be of interest to know the views of the Government on a second runway. Is it a fact that a second runway will be required before a third London airport could be operating and, if so, how soon will the runway be necessary?
My Lords, my purpose in taking part to-day was not only for the protection of Cublington but also in the long-term interests of the civil air transport industry in this country. Although the Roskill Commission Report is immensely valuable,
932
I do not believe it has thrown up the right answers—I do not believe its terms of reference were wide enough—and I believe a national airports policy is fundamental to the problem. There is still time, in my view, to reconsider this issue before the need of the airport overtakes us, and to allow technology in the form of STOL, VTOL, QTOL, and tracked hovercraft to see if their influence may play a part.
My Lords, it must be better, in the interests of our environment, of our national resources and of our civil air transport industry, not to be bulldozed into a decision from a narrow choice of four alternative sites, all of which, I consider, for one reason or another, are unacceptable.
3.4 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, reintroduced the subject of civil air transport, for I am certain that this problem is one of the air transport system as a whole, and not simply of a third London airport. The last time that I spoke on the third London airport it was to put the then Government's case for Stansted. Some opposing Peers were kind enough to say that I put the case very well, but certainly—and I see the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his place—there was powerful opposition. I mean no disrespect to my opponents of that day when I say that their opposition, in my view, was largely negative. With one or two exceptions, notably my noble friend Lord Leatherland and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, it was much the same yesterday in the arguments against the recommendations of the Roskill Commission. I heard almost all the speeches; only in the speech of my noble friend Lord Greenwood, a speech which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, rightly described as "civilised", was there a genuine effort to weigh the evidence that had been presented to the Roskill Commission.
I have previously paid my tribute to the quite superb way in which the Roskill Commission went about their task. No one who reads the Report without preconceived prejudices could possibly criticise the integrity of their approach, and yet organisations of one kind or another—including, as my noble friend

933
Lord Greenwood said, something over 200 Members of Parliament in another place, contested in quite vociferous terms the Roskill recommendation before even the full Report had been published. That alone leads me to doubt the objective validity of some of the aniti-Cublington, pro-Foulness spokesmen.
When the last Administration agreed to review the Stansted proposal I was myself predisposed to opt for Foulness. The idea of adding to the effective area of our Islands was greatly attractive. However, the Report, and the controversy it has stimulated, has proven conclusively to my satisfaction that it would be a grave mistake to put such an enormous amount of our national resources into the construction of a major airport in this isolated area at the end of the Estuary. Of course environmental conditions must be considered, but surely other factors must also be taken into account. The economics of the project must be considered. The purpose of the airport cannot be ignored. I can well see that a society may decide to place the beauty and quiet of the countryside above all else; but that is not an argument for wasting hundreds of millions of pounds in an enterprise whose purpose in bound to be frustrated if the potential users reject it. No air transport operator has indicated that they want to, or willingly will use Foulness. The Commission themselves conclude, after giving maximum weight to the factors leading to other conclusions, that there would be between 11 and 12 million passenger journeys fewer in the one year of 1991 if Foulness is chosen instead of any of the other inland sites.
As they say in Chapter 10, paragraph 32, these calculations are consistent with common sense. Simply to state that a businessman will be ready to drive out to Foulness from Central London in order to go to Paris or Brussels is to expose the absurdity of the proposition. The Commission are delightfully restrained in their description of Foulness as a site. They say in Chapter 10, paragraph 10:
"Foulness is not well placed in relation to main centre; of population and access to it is constrained by the sea and by the Thames Estuary."
G. K. Chesterton would have made much more fun out of this.
"That night we went to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head"
934
would be quite a sober journey compared with the day we went to Paris by way of Maplin Sands.
I sense that some people are so aware of the environmental advantage of having nothing but sea to the one side of the proposed airport that they do not face up to the severe economic disadvantage that this factor poses. Only my noble friend Lord Greenwood mentioned the fact that the sea sets certain safety problems. It will be necessary to have additional fire and rescue equipment waterborne, not an impossible requirement but still a factor to be taken into account. It is interesting, too, to see the way in which different parties in this matter treated the safety factor set by the sea birds. Those who would have the responsibility for operating there, notably B.E.A., and some foreign airlines, call attention to the danger from bird strikes at Foulness; but the three county council groups confidently dismissed any increase in the danger factor from this source. I admired the light touch with which the Commission commented that
"the efforts of witnesses called by the three county council groups to persuade us that this risk (i.e., of bird strikes) could be entirely eliminated by means of an extraordinary battery of bird scaring weapons were not successful."
I should myself have thought that noise factors were quite serious enough without adding to them a battery of bird-scaring weapons.
It is illuminating, too, to consider how the importance of agricultural lard has figured in the competing arguments. Apparently both the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association urged the importance of this factor when they put the case for a coastal site. They suggested, as I reminded my noble friend Lord Leatherland yesterday, that Professor Wibberley should be invited to give evidence on this point. He was appointed as a consultant, and after careful study expressed the view that Cublington would cause the least loss to agriculture of the four sites in terms of present and future production. As the Commission drily commented:
"His conclusions may not have been those which the National Farmers' Union or the Country Landowners' Association expected."
Nor, they might have added, those of my noble friend Lord Leatherland.

935
We heard much yesterday about the charm of Cublington, but only my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale was prepared to consider the amenities of the Essex coast. Yet to many people the opportunities for physical and spiritual refreshment are much greater between the estuaries of the Essex coast than in the Vale of Aylesbury. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, spoke movingly about Stewkley Church, but, as the Commission have put it, we cannot be absolutely certain that our descendants would commend our judgment the more for preserving Stewkley Church rather than the Essex coastline and for preventing the extinction of the dark-bellied Brent Goose.
There is just one other factor about which I feel quite strongly. We speak a good deal about the nuisance or hardship caused to people displaced by the airport, or subjected to noise if they remain in the area, but what about the equally cruel hardship caused to those displaced by a roadway, or doomed to live within the noise shadow of a motorway? We have only to think of the terrible human suffering caused to those who were left living alongside the M.4 extension to realise how important this factor is. More people will be affected this way if the necessary access roads are driven out to Foulness.
I have been concerned so far to try to redress the balance between the skilful and highly professional propaganda put out by those primarily concerned to ward off the threat, as they see it, to Cublington. For my part, I agree with the Commission and with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe: there is no ideal site. I fully understand the natural instinct to fight off a threat to one's home. But if the nation needs a new four-runway airport it would be quite wrong to set aside the recommendation which the Roskill Commission made after such painstaking investigations. Having said that, I have to agree that the Commission were working to a given directive, which, as my right honourable friends who established the Commission have said, has been overtaken by events.
Since that directive there have been two important developments. First, the Commission themselves have shown that the need for the first runway of the new
936
airport will not now arise until 1980, and the need for the third and fourth runways they put at the years 1995 and 2002. Secondly, the techniques and technology of aviation have developed, are developing, and could develop at an increasing pace. Contemporary avionics and computerised air traffic control make possible a better use of air space, and we can now talk much more confidently about the prospect of short take-off aircraft. Also, of quite decisive significance in this context is the near availability of quieter engines. And as I said at the outset, I agree with the noble Earl that we have to consider the aircraft industry and the air transport industry as a whole, I have to declare an interest.
The problem, therefore, has to be considered against the two new factors: first, that we have four or five more years before the first of the new runways will be needed; secondly, that we can have more advanced technology at our disposal if we choose to develop it. Roskill refers, in Chapter 5, to evidence that V/STOL, aircraft could be in service by 1985, though, it is added, less sophisticated aircraft could be available earlier. Since that evidence was given, there has been a good deal of re-thinking of this matter. The date was correct so far as VTOL is concerned, but authoritative thinking now has moved from the consideration of vertical aircraft as the next step to the so-called less sophisticated machines—the short take-off—and this, I am suggesting to your Lordships, makes a very considerable difference in timing.
The choice now, I suggest, is not between one of these four major four-runway airports but between Cublington and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said QTOL. By QTOL, a term which both he and I took from this week's Flight International, I mean an aeroplane with quieter take-off and landing, due to the fact that it is powered by quieter engines and leaves and returns to earthbound people within a shorter distance. These possibilities, I am convinced, need to be considered as a matter of urgency before we commit something between £500 million and £800 million worth of our national resources to building a new four-runway airport. Roskill himself says that the availability of these new aircraft possibilities would be a matter of money.

937
It will in fact be a matter for the Government to decide how they propose national resources will be allocated.
So far in air transport we have striven to secure economy of time and money by increased aircraft speed and size. In my view, we are now at the point when these objectives must be obtained by quite different techniques. Increased aircraft speed on journeys over 1,000 miles is still the most important way to save journey time. Moreover, a human body ought not to be dehydrated in a pressurised cabin for more than two or three hours at a stretch. But on the shorter journeys of up to 600 or 700 miles time must now be saved by more economic use of both ground and air space. When I speak of journeys of up to 600 or 700 miles, I am speaking of more than half the total number of aircraft movements within the London area. On journeys of this distance we can now save more time by cutting down taxi-ing, eliminating delays on the ground, and enabling the aircraft to get into the air and on to course much more quickly than by any additional increase in aircraft speed. Incidentally, a spokesman of one major American airline asserted a few weeks ago at a BALPA symposium that the cost to his company of non-productive flying was no less than one million dollars a day.
My Lords, this Report before us carefully compares journey times of 10 minutes more or less as between one aircraft site and another, but, as my noble friend Lord Royle said, if a passenger can be saved a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes waiting at the airport, then clearly this in even more important. If we can eliminate some of the miles of taxi-ing to the end of the runway—usually about one and half to two miles—and another four or five miles speeding along the runway and climbing on to course before beginning the real journey to a given destination, then again we have a potential economy in both time and money. If we define "access time" not as the time taken to travel between Central London and the entrance to a given airport but as the time taken from my chair at home to my seat in an aircraft, then immediately we shall seek savings of time in a very different way.
My Lords, you may ask: how practical is all this? Do all these considerations really offer an alternative to turning the
938
bulldozers loose in the Vale of Aylesbury? In my view the answer is Yes. The most authoritative advice I have suggests that between 1978 and 1982 we could have 100-seat aircraft operating economically on routes of up to 600 or so miles, which would need something like 2,000 to 4,000 feet of concrete runway, and which would pollute by noise an area only about one-twentieth of that affected by the quietest projected conventional aircraft. Expressing this in a different way, if we take the 35 N.N.I. contour (which is the threshold of nuisance as defined by the Wilson Committee), then at a QTOL port of the future the affected area would be two to four square miles, as against 195 square miles within the present contour around Heathrow.
I have said that the new aircraft could operate economically. By that I mean that the seat-mile costs would be within 5 to 10 per cent. of that currently achieved. My understanding of the feeling of this House, and of the country generally, is that some penalty for a reduction in the noise nuisance and an improvement in the environment would be not only tolerated but welcomed. This 5 to 10 per cent. penalty is not excessive, and may even be less if lower landing charges are taken fully into account. I make this reference in the context of the Commission's estimate that landing charges will need to be doubled if the cost of a new airport is to be funded within 30 years. There are other advantages. Smaller aircraft would encourage a trend once more to higher frequency of services—again a time-saver for businessmen. Also, improved frequency has advantages in processing passengers.
A QTOL strip alongside the two runways at Heathrow would enable an aircraft going South to turn round and pass over an airspace now the least used in England; namely that immediately above Heathrow airport. By the time it crossed over the airport at 8,000 feet the noise nuisance would be negligible.
Sceptical individuals among us will ask if it is possible to have all this before we reach the present deadline as laid down by Mr. Justice Roskill's Commission. As I see it, my Lords, the requirement would be for a strip at Heathrow, another strip at Gatwick and a third strip at, possibly, Poplar Docks; and these

939
could be in full operation by the early 1980s. One can also envisage that if the economic planning needs of Essex lead to the kind of seaport which the Essex County Council would be prepared to encourage, then a QTOL strip there might well complement that seaport for specialist air traffic.
But could we have a reasonable margin of capacity? Could we be certain that the new type of aircraft would be ready before we pass saturation point at the present so-called conventional airports? A number of possibilities are open to us which would ensure an adequate margin of capacity. If, for example, the runway at Thurleigh was used for all the training flights now operating from Stansted then, without placing an intolerable burden upon the Stansted area, we could accommodate there a good proportion of the present charter flights. It may be necessary to insist that the orginal plans for a second conventional runway at Gatwick be carried out. It may also be advisable to build a new runway or use another existing runway elsewhere, out of the London area, to accommodate nonscheduled flights. Without the geographical restrictions placed upon the Commission—because we should be planning for the holiday traffic and without the decisive need to be so near to London—an appropriate site, possibly on the South Coast, could be more readily identified.
My Lords, I will now sum up. Foulness, which some see as a solution without tears would, in fact, be a gross misuse of public funds. It would cost more; it would be less accessible; it would not be economically used, and it would not be without important environmental penalties. The new factors which have emerged are the setting back of the airport capacity deadline and the bringing forward of new aircraft developments. If we use the time saved by the one for the exploitation of the other, then QTOL, instead of Cublington, becomes a practical proposition.
This will entail the operational readiness by 1980 of a new era of aircraft. It will also mean the continued refinement of avionics and ground control equipment to ensure precise and safe air control and navigational requirements. It
940
will mean the provision of short strips, 2,000 to 4,000 feet long, at Heathrow, Gatwick and, conceivably, at Poplar Docks. Later I envisage other regions of the United Kingdom being served similarly with air communications which they now lack. To give a built-in margin of capacity, to provide against possible delays in the readiness of the new aircraft, we shall need two new long runways. These could be the second runways at Gatwick, as originally planned, and the utilisation of Thurleigh for training purposes. Also for consideration would be a new airport, away from London, on the South Coast, with no noise nuisance, with a surface journey en route from London to required destinations, which could be used for holiday traffic.
My Lords, the case I have tried to make is not one for procrastination. I do not offer opportunity to avoid important and probably painful decisions. Intense and urgent study will be needed if the new possibilities are to be exploited. But I do say, quite confidently, that the possibilities are practicable if we choose to put in the necessary effort to make them so. I have referred to my interest in one aircraft company but, as I see it, this must mean an effort by an entire industry and, it may well be, on a European scale. Given this approach, and with the necessary early and thorough study, a more hopeful solution can be found than that to which the Roskill Commission were bound to turn. But I emphasise that the study must be both early and thorough.
LORD VIVIAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, sits down (and I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who it to follow), may I intervene and ask one question? Early in his most interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said—and I do not wish to misquote him in any way—that no air authority had recommended the use of Foulness. May I remind him that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, in his interesting speech yesterday, raised the point—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick will agree—that the British Airports Authority and B.E.A. both say that Cublington is the least acceptable site.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what both those organisations said was that

941
they would use Cublington if required; they would not use Foulness.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am sure that the House has listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I certainly did. I do not think anyone could accuse him of an entirely negative approach. My memories of our debates over Stansted were revived by yesterday's debate, and his speech to-day has revived them more vividly for me; and, as has so often been the case, I have, rather to my surprise, found in his speech more parts that I agreed with than disagreed with. The first part of his speech was, I am afraid, entirely negative: it was just that Foulness would not do. The second part was constructive, and I do not propose to try to comment upon that part because I have not the technical knowledge or expertise which would justify me in doing so. But the conclusion to be drawn, if I understood him correctly, from the second part of his speech was this: do not decide on a four-runway London airport now. I shall come back in due course to both those topics on which the noble Lord addressed the House.
He characterised our opposition to Stansted as a negative opposition. So, my Lords, in one sense, it was. It was saying to the then Government, of which the noble Lord was so distinguished a member, "No; do not go on with Stansted". But it was not entirely negative. It was constructive, because we pressed for the appointment of a Commission, and the Government in their wisdom—and I have always admired them for it—changed their attitude and took that course.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to emphasise, as no doubt he takes it already, that I did not mean the term "negative" to be offensive; I simply meant that they did not point to another airport.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I think it would have been very wrong for us, with the information then available, to reach any conclusion or to point to any other airport. The difference between the Stansted debate and the present debate
942
is surely this. On the earlier occasion we were having to say, "No" to a course that was pretty firmly contemplated—I will not put it higher than that. Now we have to express our opinions on the issue, primarily, whether the new airport should be at Cublington. I say "primarily", for that is not the only issue. But we are not asking the Government to think again. They have rightly said that they will want to hear the views expressed in this House and in another place before reaching a decision. I welcome that statement, and I think it is right. So all we are asking the Government to do is to think hard and think long before reaching a conclusion.
I had hoped when the Roskill Commission were appointed—perhaps it was too much to hope—that their final recommendation would not be very controversial; and I am sorry that it is. I hoped that the result of their labours for two and a half years would be generally acceptable; and no-one could fail to be impressed by the massive investigation they undertook. It was certainly a far more complex matter than I, for one, ever envisaged; and whether or not one agrees with the Commission's conclusion they certainly deserve our thanks for providing us with so much information which should enable us and the Government to reach a right and better informed judgment on the matter than we otherwise would.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to criticism of the integrity of the Commission. I myself have not seen and do not recollect any criticisms of the integrity of the Commission. When one has to consider the judgment of some body or court of appeal one may come to the conclusion—and one sometimes has to—that that decision was wrong. But expressing that view involves no criticism of the integrity; and although I am hound to come to some criticisms of the Roskill Commission I should be the last person to want it thought that I was in any sense criticising the integrity of anyone.
The Commission's recommendation of Cublington (and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is the first person who has spoken partially in favour of it, by inference, in rejecting Foulness) is certainly not one that should be lightly rejected. It certainly should not be

943
rejected for emotional reasons—and deep emotions are raised here, as they were over Stansted. Nor should it be rejected on account of pressures or demonstrations exercised by one side or the other. I would say that it should be rejected only if, after the exercise of calm and dispassionate judgment, it is clear that on the information now available their conclusion is wrong. They recognised—and I think they were right to do so—and I quote from paragraph 3.6:
"that if our final recommendation were to command respect and acceptance it had not only to be as right as the best methods could make it but the reasons leading to our judgment had to be as objective and as explicit as we could make them. Only by this approach would there be any hope of persuading informed opinion that our conclusion should be accepted whatever its degree of popularity."
That the Commission used the best methods I would certainly not question, but whether the best methods have produced the right result depends on the data to which those methods were applied, and I would think that a cost/benefit analysis fed with the wrong information could go just as wrong as a computer when not given the right material. I have to confess—and it gives me no pleasure to do so—that I am not in the least persuaded by the Report that the majority of the Commission have reached the right conclusion. In fact, study of the Report—and I have studied it as closely as I can in the time I have had available—has satisfied me that their conclusion is wrong: that if there is to be another airport the last place it should be is Cublington; that if it went there it would be a national disaster of the first magnitude. Indeed, reading the Report has led me to doubt whether there is any need for a third London airport or for another four-runway airport of that size at all.
My Lords, I shall not myself be affected if one is built at any one of the four sites in question. I speak for no one, no group or body of persons, and it is only because I felt, exercising the best judgment that I could, that the final decision of the Commission was hopelessly and terribly wrong that I added my name to the list of speakers.
The Commission appear to have thought, and many of those who have spoken in this debate appear to have
944
thought, that the Commission's task was to find a site for a third London Airport; and I stress the word "London". There are many references to that in the Report. The Commission begin Chapter 4 by saying that they had decided to search for sites which might "prove suitable for a four runway third London airport"; and Chapter 5 begins with the words:
"Our terms of reference require us to investigate the timing of the need for a third London airport with four runways."
My Lords, their terms of reference did no such thing; they never mentioned a third London Airport at all.
I know that great care was taken in drafting the terms of reference. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, made reference to the part I played. He was in error in one respect; I was not at that time sitting on the Cross-Benches. The omission of mention in the terms of reference to a third London airport was not inadvertent or accidental; of that I am sure. It is odd and unusual for a Report of a Commission or Committee not to state its terms of reference, and this Report does not. May I remind your Lordships of them. They appear in Hansard and were as follows:
"To inquire into the timing of the need for a four-runway airport to cater for the growth of traffic at existing airports serving the London area…".
That is not the same as saying, "a third London airport".
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, for the Record would the noble and learned Viscount mention the date and column?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord will see the date and column in a footnote to the Report of the Roskill Commission; I think it was May 20, 1968. The terms of reference continued:
"to consider the various alternative sites, and to recommend which site should be selected."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/5/68, col. 479.]
When those terms of reference were announced to this House, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, rightly said in answer to a Question that the Commission had no geographical limitations. With those terms of reference, I should have thought that the first thing one had to ascertain would be: where was the anticipated growth of traffic likely to come from. I should have thought that to be the first

945
task. If it was to come mainly from London and the South-East, then there is not much difference in the result; one could then still speak of a site for a third London airport. But if that was not the case, the gloss on the terms of reference assumes some significance. It may well be that the population of London and the South-East is more air-minded at the moment than are the population of the Midlands and the North. But it seems to me not to follow that that pattern will continue. It may well be the case that the potential growth of air traffic in the North and Midlands is far greater than in the South-East and in London. If that be so, then that points not to another London airport, but to increased facilities for flying in the North and the Midlands.
But the Commission thought they had to find a third London airport. If you start with that assumption, you do not consider whether it is right that it should be a London one—that is assumed. But into the balance in deciding which is to be the site for a third London airport they have thrown the convenience of those living in the North, and that is one of their major reasons for choosing Cublington. So far as I can see, no consideration is given to the inconvenience that the people in the North will suffer and their expense in coming to the London area to fly. I fear that the Commission started their investigation on the wrong foot, and I fear that their interpretation of their terms of reference has affected not only their thinking but also their conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said that he thought that the terms of reference were too narrow. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also said something to that effect. But they admit, I am sure, that they share some responsibility for that; and I may have had some responsibility for that, too. But I do not feel that there is any need for those responsible to don any form of white shirt on account of the terms of reference, for in truth and in fact those terms were pretty wide—in my view, far wider than they have been interpreted by the Commission. It is true that they were not asked to investigate a national airports policy. I think it was thought at that moment that time would not permit of that exercise;
946
now we know that perhaps it would have done.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for one moment? Is it not true that the British Airports Authority at the time were asking effectively for a third London airport because of the growth of traffic at Heathrow and Gatwick?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, that is perfectly true. That is why they wanted Stansted. But they did not go into the question of where the growth in the future was likely to come from. What is also true is that they were saying it had to be done in a far speedier time than the Report of the Commission in fact proved to be the case. What are we told about this traffic—We are told that the greater part of the anticipated traffic is estimated to be for leisure purposes: that in about 25 years' time nearly 60 per cent. of the forecast is expected to be accounted for by British non-business traffic and nearly 15 per cent. by British business traffic—75 per cent. British traffic.
I should have thought that one had only to look at the map published last week in connection with local government to have real doubts about whether the growth of traffic will come mainly from London and the South-East—unless the efforts to stop the drift South are unsuccessful; and perhaps no single thing could accelerate that drift more than another London airport. That map shows metropolitan counties in Yorkshire and Lancashire far exceeding the size of Greater London; and in addition to that, there is the Birmingham area. None of those four sites would be rightly placed for the population of those areas, and if the growth does or may come from there it would be quite wrong to build a third London airport.
I was interested to see that in his brilliantly written Minority Report Professor Buchanan said that he thought that a case could be developed for not putting the so-called London airport in the South-East at all, but for locating it in the central regions. I think that a strong case could be made out for that suggestion; and I think, too, that this debate has already shown that I am not alone in thinking that. That case has

947
not been considered, and I think it certainly should be before any one of those four sites is finally selected, otherwise we may make a very great error.
I have sought to show that the Commission were wrong in believing that they had to find a site for a third London airport. They believed that a third London airport was essential in the national interest. If an airport is essential in the national interest, I am wholly unconvinced that it should be a London airport. Nor am I convinced, particularly after hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, that another airport is necessary at all. As I understand it, air traffic is mainly of two kinds, scheduled and charter flights. It would be of great convenience for those in the North and Midlands who wish to take charter flights, who wish to fly for leisure purposes, to be able to do so without coming to the London area; and I believe that there is a lot of unused capacity at local airports.
There are the facilities. Should they not be used? It would of course mean more noise in those localities; but surely it would be possible to encourage flights from those places to a degree which does not involve such an intolerable amount of noise as you get at Heathrow, and as you are bound to get from a four-runway airport where air traffic is concentrated. I suggest that that is another matter that should be gone into before a final decision is made.
Does time permit of this? After the estimates of time put forward at the time of Stansted, one feels some doubts about the reliability of the present estimates. But even if they are right, surely the delay would be better than coming to the wrong conclusion. If there is to be a third London airport, then in my view the choice lies between Cublington and Foulness, and I want now to address myself to that. For an airport in either place a heavy price has to be paid, and one has to make up one's mind whether that price is worth paying to provide greater facilities for flying, which will be used to the extent of 75 per cent. by the British people, and 60 per cent. for leisure purposes.
It is argued that unless we have another London airport we shall be in danger of losing our position as a great centre of
948
world air transport. Is not this just keeping up with the Joneses with a vengeance? And do we keep up by, at great cost, providing extra facilities mainly for British people—and mainly for their leisure? I must confess that I am rather tired of this sort of argument, which one heard so much when Concorde was being considered.
I fear that in a number of respects the scales have been wrongly weighted in favour of Cublington and against Foulness. I hope I shall not weary the House if I give a few instances leading to that conclusion, instances in which I think the wrong data were used in the cost/benefit analysis and which I think go a long way to invalidate the Commission's conclusions. The Commission say:
"The noise maps for the four sites show that Foulness is superior to the inland sites from the noise point of view."
The affected land at Foulness—that is to say, the land within the 35 N.N.I. contour—would be 98 square miles, which is contrasted with the figure of 342 square miles at Cublington. The area of land affected by noise by Foulness, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Molson, would be reduced if the runways were moved slightly to the East of where the Commission placed them. Your Lordships can see where that would be in the last map in the Report of the Commission. That small change was rejected by the Commission, I think I am right in saying, on account of the additional passenger user costs involved.
One would have thought that the difference in the area of land affected by noise would have told heavily in favour of Foulness as being the right site, but in the Commission's assessment this noise factor in favour of Foulness is discounted by the assumption that if the airport goes to Foulness the noise at Luton will increase. My Lords, why should that be assumed? I can see no reason for it, and I can see a number of reasons why it should not be allowed to do so, even if there is no third London Airport. In their Table 12.1, the Summary cost/benefit analysis, £11 million has been debited to Foulness for Luton noise costs, and that cancels out the debit to Cublington in respect of noise on site. However, it does not stop there. They have also added to the costs of Foulness £18 million for the extension of Luton, an

949
extension of a municipal airport which, if our planning laws are what they should be, should, I think, never be permitted. In addition, that £18 million is £5 million more than the amount included in the Cublington costs for noise off site.
Surely that is quite illogical and wrong, as illogical as if you were contrasting the size of, say, Edinburgh and Liverpool and you included in the population of Liverpool the population of Manchester and also the cost of housing developments at Manchester. It would be just as illogical if you were seeking to contrast the weight of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—I am sorry he is not here—and myself, and you added to the weight of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, on the ground that if one spoke on the Common Market the other is bound to speak in the opposite sense—and if you threw in, in addition, the cost of a new suit of clothes for the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. Surely what you have to do is to contrast the noise at Foulness with that caused at Cublington. I think this is one instance of wrong data being included in the cost/benefit analysis.
My noble friend Lord Molson thought that a third London airport was necessary to prevent increased noise at the existing airports. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe asked us to consider what deferment would mean for the sufferers at Heathrow. Surely the existing airports are going to be used to their full capacity, and the Commission were only asked to provide a site for the growth of traffic that was likely to occur in excess of what Heathrow and the other airports could take. Is that not right? For if it is, a third London airport is not a relief for suffering, and deferment does not mean anything for the present sufferers at Heathrow. I think a strong case can be made out for saying that experience at Heathrow has shown that Heathrow is the wrong place for an airport. I was interested to see my noble friend Lord Bledisloe express that view yesterday. I must say that I should regard it as a strong argument for a four-runway airport at Foulness if that were to replace Heathrow; but the proposal is for an airport to take the traffic that cannot be taken at Heathrow and Gatwick.
950
As has been said already, but I should like to remind the House, the major item of cost that counts against Foulness is the passenger user costs amounting to £207 million to £267 million. I understand that the original calculation was that it would cost something of the order of four shillings—or I suppose I should say 20p per person per trip more to travel to Foulness than to Cublington. If you multiply that by the number of passengers who are expected to travel throughout the years, you get a very high figure indeed. I believe that has been done. I should be interested to know what the total was for each place before one was deducted from the other, but the difference is represented by those figures. I myself do not think that passengers would value their time as the Commission suggests, or that they would object to paying a little more per journey to Foulness. The Commission say that there is a considerable number, especially those living in the North-West of London, for whom the difference in time and money is considerable. So the argument runs that the airport should be at Cublington to save money and time for the people living in the North-West of London, who would be the first people willing to pay more to avoid an airport's being there.
Surely far too much weight has been put on the passenger user costs in the cost/benefit analysis, and far too little to the noise differential between Foulness and Cublington. If you omit the £18 million for the extension of Luton, the passenger user costs and the freight user costs, to which similar observations apply, the actual construction and running costs of Foulness are cheaper than those of Cublington by over £40 million, if the Ministry of Defence are right about Brize Norton, and by something of the order of £15 million to £20 million if they are not.
Here I want to ask a question of Her Majesty's Government in relation to Brize Norton. I think it is an important one and one that can be answered. It is imply this; do the Government accept the Commission's criticisms of the Ministry of Defence's case about Brize Norton, one of our two main air support bases? I have no doubt that millions have been spent on it. Only Foulness involves no redeployment of our fighter bases, and it

951
appears to be the Ministry's view that an airport at Cublington would mean that Brize Norton would have to shut and a new aerodrome be created to take its place on a green field site. If no equally good green field site can be found, then, to quote the language of the Ministry, there would be a—
"considerable degradation of operational capability."
The Commission did not accept that. They firmly believed that Air Support Command is unlikely to move from Brize Norton, and that it is even more unlikely that it would be replaced on a green field site.
Their thinking about this seems to have been much influenced by the fact that at the time of Stansted the Ministry put up a great fight for the artillery range at Shoeburyness and now have abandoned that. I do not myself think it is right on that account to reject the case put forward by the Ministry about Brize Norton, and I should therefore like to know whether the Government accept or reject the Commission's criticisms. If the Ministry's case was not exaggerated, it just does not suffice to add to the costs attributable to Cublington £29 million for the building of a new airport and to disregard, as appears to be the case, the value of the existing airfield which will be useless for its present purpose; and to ignore the loss of operational capacity. If it was not exaggerated, then very great weight should be attached to it, for we should not reduce our defences to provide an airfield for passengers, 60 per cent. of whom will be travelling for pleasure.
There is another matter in the Report which has puzzled me greatly, and that is the Commission's evaluation of the loss of agricultural land. Thirteen square miles will be wanted for the site at Cublington; none for the site at Foulness. Land will also be required at each site for the urban development which always accompanies an airport, and land at Foulness will be wanted only for that. Is it the case that no land has been added to the 13 square miles at Cublington for urban development? I rather think it is. There is a major growth area nearby—Milton Keynes. But Milton Keynes was never intended to be an adjunct to an airport, and if it is to be used as one, does it not mean the abandonment in whole, or in part, of the
952
purpose for which Milton Keynes was designed and intended? If Milton Keynes was already established and occupied, would there not have to be further land development on account of the airport? If there would, I understand that it would be of the order of 65 square miles, making a total land usage at Cublington of some 78 square miles.
Of course if you omit from the evaluation all land usage for urban development at Cublington, the land used at Foulness will exceed that at Cublington. But if you do not omit it, then I understand that the land used at Cublington will exceed that used at Foulness by some 20 square miles. On that basis, surely it could not be said that the land loss at Foulness exceeded in value that at Cublington; that it exceeded the loss from 20 square miles. So the accuracy of the evaluation made by the Commission would seem to depend on whether or not there was an addition for urban development at Cublington; and, if there was not, upon the assumption that Milton Keynes can be taken over for the purposes of the airport. I think that that matter should be looked into again.
The Commission's consultant believed that Cublington would cause least loss to agriculture. The N.F.U., who certainly speak with authority on this subject, took an entirely contrary view. Nevertheless, despite the evidence of the N.F.U., the Commission accepted the views of the consultant and rejected those of the N.F.U. One criticism that I hope can justifiably be made of the Commission is an undue readiness to accept the views of their consultants and experts where there was a conflict of evidence, in preference to the views of other persons who could speak with authority and knowledge.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I interrupt? Will the noble and learned Viscount agree that it was, in fact, the N.F.U. and the Country Landowners' Association who recommended that Professor Wibberley's views should be taken into account?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord and I both recommended, finally, the appointment of this Commission, but we do not necessarily have to accept the Commission's

953
conclusion as right. I should have thought that great weight ought to be attached to the opinion of the N.F.U., particularly when the consultant expressed the view that loss of agricultural land would not be permanent and had to be regarded only as something which would happen for 50 years, because within that time new methods of food production not dependent upon agricultural land would be found; therefore, that point could be ignored.
But whether or not that be right about production in the future, it still means that that land will be lost. That is the question that I was getting at; and I must say that I am not satisfied by the Commission's approach to that question. The Commission thought it was a relatively small factor—"relatively small" were their words. But relative to what? Relative to the addition of a few pence per person per trip, which is built up to £207 million as a maximum and which tips the scales against Foulness? I do not regard the loss of a big area of land from agriculture as something which is a light factor in this balance of assessment. I hope that that will be looked into again, for I do not think the Commission have attached nearly enough importance to it.
What is the position? Foulness is the easiest site for air traffic control. The proximity of Heathrow and Cublington would create difficult problems for air traffic controllers. Fog and snow would be less a problem at Foulness than at any inland site, and Cublington is the worst of the four for fog and snow. The Commission have made all those statements, and yet they have chosen Cublington. Foulness on its own would cause least noise nuisance. It is right on planning grounds. Why then have the majority of the Commission decided on Cublington?
My Lords, I suggest that there are the following four reasons: first, incorrect evaluation of the facts—of that I have already given instances; secondly, too much reliance on their cost/benefit analysis; thirdly, their doubts as to the viability of Foulness to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick referred; and, fourthly, the fact that they regard its relative inaccessibility as "by far the greatest disadvantage of Foulness". It may be that the Commission attached most importance
954
to those last two reasons, which are to some extent interconnected.
Why did they do that? I do not think anyone can dispute that there is really not much in it, so far as accessibility from London is concerned, between Foulness and Cublington. If the growth of traffic from London and the South-East requires another airport, either of them would do and either of them would be viable. But the Commission's doubts as to the viability of Foulness compared to Cublington, and their observation that the greatest disadvantage of Foulness is its relative inaccessibility, are due to their belief that Cublington would attract more passengers from the North and Midlands than Foulness—and in saying that they may be right.
But neither site is in the right place for the North or the Midlands, and the Commission themselves, as I have sought to show, interpreted their terms of reference as meaning that they had to find a site for a third London Airport; that is to say, one serving London and the South-East. That being so, it seems to me illogical to tip the scales, and to tip them so heavily, against Foulness, not on the ground that it will not do for London and the South-East, but on the ground that more people may be tempted to travel from the North to Cublington than to Foulness.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, had doubts as to the viability of Foulness without passengers from the North. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what he said—perhaps I am to this extent—but, at any rate, he thought that operators would not go there.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not a question of passengers from the North. I do not believe that anyone would willingly drive to Foulness from the North in order to go to Paris.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I cannot see, bearing in mind that the difference is estimated to be only about 12 minutes extra, why anyone should mind driving to Foulness any more than driving to Cublington or to Heathrow. Personally, of the three, and knowing the Cublington area a little, though having no interest there, I consider that it would not be difficult to drive to Cublington and I do not think it would be difficult to

955
drive to Foulness; and probably, in a short time, both would be easier than driving to Heathrow. But, be that as it may, if these doubts as to the viability of Foulness as a third London Airport, on the basis of a 12-minutes extra road journey or five minutes extra on the train, have any real validity, do they not cast doubt on the need for a London airport to cater for London and the South-East? I should have thought they did. If Foulness would not be viable, does it not follow that such an airport for London and the South-East would not be required? I should have thought that that was the case.
My Lords, may I, in conclusion, say this? The regional planning factors and the value of preserving the countryside have not been reflected in the cost/benefit analysis. The Commission found no practical way of doing so. But they are very real and weighty factors. I propose to say no more about them, because I could not add anything to what has already been so well said, and particularly by Professor Buchanan. I find it hard to understand how anyone who has read his report can think that the nation should pay the price it would have to pay to have an airport at Cublington. For the reasons I have given, I think Cublington should be rejected. If it is, the suffering at Heathrow and Gatwick will not increase in consequence, as I assume it is the policy that those airports will be used to the extent of their present capacity. I myself should like to see Heathrow closed and a fine four-runway airport built at Foulness to take its place. That would relieve the suffering. But that may not be practicable, though the value of Heathrow might go a considerable way to meet the cost of Foulness. But, my Lords, that is not the plan; nor was it a matter for the Commission. I doubt the need for a third London airport at all, but if there must be one then Foulness is, and in my opinion always has been, the obvious place for it.
I hope that after the expression of views in this House the Government will not delay long before they say that Cublington will not do and so relieve the anxiety of many, many people. I should like them to defer a decision as to Foulness until they have gone into the other matters to which I have referred,
956
and into the matters to which Lord Beswick has drawn attention. I should like them to say, "No" in relation to Cublington; to say, "No" in relation to Nuthampstead and Thurleigh; but (though I regard it as unfortunate) to leave Foulness in suspense while these other matters are considered. I hope the Government may think it right to take that course, but I think I should say that, should they decide in favour of Cublington, I feel so strongly that that decision is wrong that I will do all I can to prevent its implementation.

ABORTION ACT 1967: REVIEW OF OPERATION
4.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I apologise for interrupting this interesting debate, but with your Lordships' permission I should like now to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made in another place. It is as follows:
"The Government have now studied the working of the 1967 Abortion Act. Our conclusion is that while the Act has operated to the benefit of many people there is cause for real concern about the way in which certain of its provisions are working in practice. We therefore propose to appoint a Committee of Inquiry to review the operation of the Act, on the basis that the main conditions for legal abortion remain unaltered. I will if I may circulate the full terms of reference in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The essential point is that the Inquiry will be concerned with the way the Act is working and not with the principles that underlie it. It will be open to the Committee not only to recommend changes in the law but also to suggest interim changes in the regulations under the present Act, should they find this necessary. The honourable Mrs. Justice Lane has accepted our invitation to preside over the Inquiry, and in choosing other members we shall be looking for people with the right kind of knowledge and experience who are not already committed on the subject.

957
"The Government believe that family planning can often improve the quality of domestic life: it can prevent the unhappiness that unwanted pregnancies can cause and reduce the need for abortion. The Government propose to encourage the growth of local authority family planning, including domiciliary, services, particularly in areas of special need. Provision has therefore been made in the rate-support grant for expenditure in England and Wales to treble by 1972–73. The rate of growth in subsequent years has yet to be settled. Advice will remain free to all, and so will equipment to those requiring it on medical grounds. Local authorities may waive charges for equipment in other cases. Hospital authorities are also being asked to increase provision for family planning. No change is proposed in the arrangements for the provision of family planning and advice and equipment by general practitioners."
The Committee's full terms of reference are:
"To review the operation of the Abortion Act 1967, and, on the basis that the conditions for legal abortion contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 1 of the Act remain unaltered, to make recommendations."
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for repeating this long-awaited Statement. I am glad that the announcement to set up an Inquiry to review the workings of the Abortion Act has been linked to that of the development of family planning services for it is now widely recognised on all sides that the problems of unwanted pregnancies can be properly dealt with only by a comprehensive birth control service within the National Health Service. As I understood the Statement—and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm this—this is to be a genuinely independent fact-finding Inquiry which will make any recommendations needed to correct the present weaknesses, failures or abuses in the Act, rather than an Inquiry concerned with its fundamental principles. I also welcome that part of the Statement which indicates that, under the
958
chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Lane, the Committee of Inquiry will consist of people who have not been publicly associated with the abortion controversy.
I welcome, too, the decision of the Government to expand the family planning services, but regret that this appears to be confined only to the local authority services, and then only on medical grounds rather than on medical and social grounds. All noble Lords would agree, I think, that the old distinction between medical and social grounds is now becoming increasingly blurred. I particularly regret the decision of the Government to limit the increase solely to the local authority services, in view of the report of the Central Health Services Council's Advisory Sub-Committee on the Development of the Maternity Services, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will remember, recommended quite recently that a free family planning service should be an integral part of our maternity services throughout the country.
Just one last question, my Lords, if I may. I see that hospital authorities are also being asked to increase their provision for family planning. May I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, whether additional resources are to be made available for this service, particularly as the Sub-Committee on the Development of Maternity Services, under the chairmanship of no less a distinguished member of the medical profession than Sir John Peel, recommended that the hospitals should be the focal point of our family planning services of the future in view of the increasing number of births that are now taking place in them?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Lord's Statement, may I ask him whether he will bear this point in mind? He mentioned the importance of providing more equipment. I believe that the provision of equipment and new clinics should be accompanied by widespread propaganda. The highly intelligent family, of course, know or learn about birth control quite easily. The ones we wish to reach are those people who, because they are shy, or for cultural reasons, or even for religious reasons, are reluctant to go to a birth control clinic. What needs doing, I think, is to condition these people into the right way of thinking. Then, of

959
course, the equipment will be used. There are family planning clinics and other places where birth control is taught which at present are under-used, and the Government are not going to succeed if they simply say, "We will provide equipment and clinics", without also arranging lectures of all kinds in the most appropriate places by people who are carefully chosen and who will be able to persuade families to use the equipment mentioned by the Minister.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to consider one point? Could not family planning—I prefer to use the words "birth control"—be part of the medical students' curriculum? That would mean that all doctors would know about it and would be able to tell their patients about it.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the three noble Baronesses who have commented on this Statement and for the way in which it has been generally received. May I first confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that the abortion inquiry is indeed an independent fact-finding inquiry into the working of the Act and not into the principles which underlie it. It is true that we are hoping to develop the local authority services by the additional money to be given under the rate-support grant; but this is not purely for a family planning on medical grounds only; it is also for family planning on social grounds. The local authorities are able to give advice and provide equipment on social grounds and the only distinction is that when they are given on social grounds the person concerned is expected to pay for the equipment but not for the advice. As the Statement mentioned, we are also encouraging hospital authorities to give more family planning advice. We have already made extra funds available to them for general purposes, and we should expect them to find the necessary funds from that.
May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, how very much we agree with what she has said? We do not expect to confine ourselves only to local authority clinics as the answer to this problem. A circular will be sent to local authorities, and we hope that they will pay great attention to increasing their
960
domiciliary services for the people such as those she had in mind in order to persuade them to make use of the facilities that exist. We shall also work through the urban programme which should give extra money—a 75 per cent. grant—in those areas where perhaps this sort of advice is very much needed. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that I will certainly bear in mind the very important point that she made.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask three questions arising from the Statement? First, can the noble Lord give us an assurance that the selection of Committee members will be based on the widest possible spectrum without discrimination against any section of medical or ethical opinion? Secondly, will the Committee be willing and able to take evidence from all quarters without any kind of discrimination? Thirdly, will it be able to recommend any amendment of the Abortion Act?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, those selected as members of the Committee will be completely independent: the whole object is to get people who are not committed one way or the other. They will be completely free to take what evidence they want. They will be able to recommend alterations to the Act but not to those parts of the Act which contain the underlying principles. If I might quickly read the Committee's terms of reference, they are:
"To review the operation of the Abortion Act 1967, and, on the basis that the conditions for legal abortion contained in naragranhs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 1 of the Act remain unaltered, to make recommendations."
The subsections referred to are those that contain the principles behind the Act. If there are any legislative changes which the Committee think should be made, they can make recommendations.

THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: THE ROSKILL REPORT
4.25 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I rise to make one point only, but I think it is relevant. It was touched on very briefly in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but not, I believe, in the

961
speeches of any other noble Lords who spoke yesterday, though I must confess that I did not hear them all. It relates to communications with the proposed third London Airport, if there ever is one—and I must say, having heard all the speeches this afternoon, that I doubt whether there will be—and, notably, communications with Foulness. For if it can be shown that the rail connection with Foulness (that is, its connection with London) can be reduced from the 44 minutes given in the Report to 23 minutes, then surely a great many of the objections to it—its remoteness from London, that it is situated on the wrong side of London, its inability to attract traffic, and so on—would obviously disappear, or at any rate would become less convincing. Foulness might still be more expensive but it would be more viable. And a good many of the arguments deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would no longer be applicable.
Such a connection can be made. It can be made by 1980, or even, I believe, by 1978. There is in existence a company, entirely financed by the Government through the National Research Development Corporation, known as Tracked Hovercraft Ltd., which is working on what the public know better as "hover-trains". These vehicles, as is generally known, are propelled on a cushion of air over elevated concrete rails. The same principle is employed as in the trackless hovercraft—in the great future of which I myself have never altogether believed, although, admittedly, the trackless hovercraft is useful in certain definite circumstances. But the hover-trains, as I remember pointing out some eight years ago, have a real future. They may even conceivably eliminate air traffic between centres up to 500 miles apart, thus adding to the amenities or (shall l say?) diminishing the horrors of our urban existence.
Experiments have been proceeding for many years in Britain, France and America. In America they have even reached the point when the hover-train will be put into operation, although admittedly for a short period, starting from Dulles Airport to the outskirts of Washington; and in Los Angeles from the airport to San Fernando. A great feature of the hover-train is that it can, in absolute silence, attain very great speeds, 250 m.p.h. at least, at much less
962
cost than would be involved in the construction of a modern motorway and at a cost comparable with the construction of double-tracked railway lines. There is no reason why they should not run across built-up areas if necessary, just as the road to London Airport or the Westway were pushed through built-up areas, but at much less inconvenience to the inhabitants. In fact, in the case of the tracked hovercraft this could be done with scarcely any inconvenience, given the fact that the hover-train is a silent thing on stilts and is not pushed through the middle of houses as, in the case of a roadway.
Scheme for linking Foulness, with, for instance, King's Cross by this means and by various alternative routes were actually laid before the Roskill Commission. One paragraph on page 105 was devoted to their rejection of them, apparently on the advice of a firm known as Livesey and Henderson. This firm suggested that:
"… there was little prospect of such means of transport providing a marked advantage on routes to the four sites".
That is a highly questionable statement.
"The routes would have to traverse built-up areas for part of the way."
Of course they would; but why not? I have already said that they would be much more acceptable than the Westway or the Hammersmith Flyover, which were built when it was necessary to build them. The Re-port goes on:
"If the vehicles could not maintain their speeds over curves of a radius similar to that of existing conventional rail tracks, either the advantages of high speed would be lost for a large part of the journey or considerable problems of construction would arise."
But Tracked Hovercraft submitted a blue print—and there is no reason to doubt its accuracy—in accordance with which, and allowing for the necessary curves, their vehicles would get from Foulness to King's Cross in twenty-three minutes as opposed to forty-four minutes by conventional rail. Lastly, my Lords, these, as I think, "weasel words" were inserted in the Report:
"The consultants suggested that both the French acrotrain and tracked hovercraft could be in operation by 1990."
That is true enough; but Tracked Hovercraft also told the Commission that in their view this form of transport would

963
probably be in operation by about 1978; and this particular and, as one would have thought, rather vital piece of evidence appears to have been suppressed altogether.
My Lords, let us now, for a moment, consider the plight of a passenger arriving at Foulness from America in, say, 1980, having travelled in a Concorde—or, indeed, arriving at Cublington, if, by some dreadful mischance, the appalling decision is taken to rape the Vale of Aylesbury. After a journey of three hours or less from New York, he would have to proceed to Central London, either by road or rail. If by road, he would, after a few miles get mixed up with local traffic, and almost certainly, if he came from the East, in a half-hour traffic jam in the City. I do not know how many cars will be on the roads by 1980; but I have no doubt whatever that to travel by road to Trafalgar Square from either airport would take the traveller anything from an hour and a half to two hours, depending on the time of his arrival.
If he preferred—as he very well might—to go by rail, the chances are that, even with the new engines of British Rail, he would be lucky if he actually arrived at King's Cross within the hour. And, as often as not, as we know, suburban traffic would get in the way, obliging trains to leave the airport at not much more than half-hour intervals. Presumably a completely new track would therefore have to be built, and the cost would be quite as great as that of providing a hovercraft or hover-train track—probably greater. In any case, even if a special track were built, the journey would take about 20 minutes longer than if the passenger travelled by hover-train. In the best circumstances, therefore, the journey from the airport to Central London, with allowances made for baggage collection, customs and so on, would at least compare with the time of the journey from New York to London. The old, old story.
Consider for a moment, my Lords, what would happen if the traveller arrived at Foulness and took a hover-train. A lovely electric machine would leave every two minutes on a shuttle service and he would be whisked in silence into Central London in 23 minutes. I may add that there would be practically no maintenance
964
costs, because travelling on a cushion of air would involve no maintenance. If the passenger wanted to go on to Heathrow, for instance, with perhaps one stop in the West End, the additional time required would be—shall we say?—another 10 minutes. It seems to me that it is quite extraordinary that a Commission, who were supposed to be thinking in terms of ten years ahead at least, should have neglected such possibilities.
Perhaps being unduly influenced by a cost/effectiveness study that certainly did not take this into account, the Commission became rather prejudiced against Foulness as such; and were therefore, it may be, psychologically indisposed to consider any arguments for it. Or perhaps they were just tired by their monumental efforts and rather reluctant to think in other than purely conventional terms. But, my Lords, all who are capable of any imagination should surely come to the conclusion that when all the best technicians of the Western world are devoting themselves, as they now are, to the perfection of the hover-train, it will fairly shortly become a reality; I think there is no doubt about that. The electric motor, without which it cannot function properly—though it is functioning now, of course, to some extent—will, therefore, in all probability he perfected and the other technological difficulties will be ironed out. The whole contraption will then be noiseless and swift; and, unlike so many modern inventions, it will not pollute the atmosphere. So I earnestly trust, my Lords, that when the Government take their final decision they will at least take into consideration, as solid arguments favouring Foulness (that is to say, if there is to be a third London Airport at all), the great advantages presented by the hover-train.
4.36 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, your Lordships have certainly already given us plenty of very valuable food for thought. The Department of the Environment, in which I serve, has wide and complex responsibilities, but two very simple aims; first, the conservation and enhancement of the best in our environment; and secondly, the clearance or the improvement of the worst. I need not stress to your Lordships how relevant are these aims to the issues now before

965
us. Conservation of the best is not, of course, something we seek solely for the benefit of those who already enjoy the best; some of those who thought that we would be their champions are already bitter in their disappointment on that score.
My Lords—and I say this confident of your support—our aim, in encouraging the conservation of the best in town and country, is to ensure that the enjoyment of it may be ever more widely shared and of more general benefit. But, important as is that aim, it does not come first in our priorities. Our first priority—again I say this confident of your Lordships' support—is towards those whose environment is worst; towards those whose lives are lived in an environment rotten with dirt, decay, mess or noise. To have broad general aims like these does not imply any disregard of economic factors; rather the contrary, it implies a full concern, as full as anybody's, for our prosperity; but a particular interest in seeing that the prosperity which we are able to generate makes its contribution where it is most needed; where the environment is most impoverished and most damaged.
When it comes to airports, an important environmental factor with which the Department of the Environment is concerned, and for which my right honourable friend has general responsibility, is surely noise. Luton has long been in the news on account of noise, and at Gatwick there has just been an inquiry into the extension of its existing single runway; and a decision on that is pending. Only a few weeks ago my right honourable friend rejected a proposal to extend the runway at Yeadon, the airport serving Leeds and Bradford, in order to check the growth of noise there. When it comes to the airports to serve London, the worst environmental factor with which we are concerned—many noble Lords have mentioned it—is the noise now affecting 700,000 households, 2½ million people, living in the shadow of Heathrow, affecting at this moment four times as many people as would be affected if all the four new sites we are considering were put into full service altogether.
I have no hesitation in supposing that your Lordships will agree that one consideration, among many others, in building
966
a third London airport, and in deciding when to bring the first runway of a third London airport into service, should be that of relieving the plight of those 700,000 households which are already daily drenched in the whine of jets at Heathrow. The fact that others may be more articulate about the mere threats to them should not for one moment be allowed to obscure this most important consideration. I was intrigued, as many of your Lordships evidently have been, at the method adopted by the Commission in assessing the value of the occasional inconvenience to be put up with by air passengers, many of them travelling on holiday, and in contrasting that with the continual annoyance of Heathrow jets endured in London by 700,000 households every day.
So that on top of all the other aviation arguments for a third London airport we see added the need, first to check, and then to curb the growth of noise from Heathrow. Meanwhile, I am sure it would be right to acknowledge with gratitude the restrictions and restraints that airlines and pilots are accepting now to ensure that the noise, and particularly the noise at night, at Heathrow is not worse than it is, and to make it plain that our Department is as wholehearted as anyone in supporting the search for a site where airlines can operate as freely as possible, both by day and by night; which can come into service as quickly as possible to make life easier for airlines and pilots; which can bring relief from noise at Heathrow, and which offers the opportunities of restraining further physical development at Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. I recognise, of course, that these considerations have to be balanced with others, but I set them forward as being of paramount environmental importance.
In this connection, it is good to see and to acknowledge the importance that the Commission attached to noise: so much so that at Chapter 7, paragraph 13, they acknowledge that right from the start, and even during daylight hours, the use of full power on take-off could not, even at the site of their own choice, Cublington, be permitted. One is glad to see that accepted by pilots and by B.O.A.C. Your Lordships in this connection may care to compare the impression that you received from reading

967
Chapter 7, paragraph 13, where this restriction is said to be readily acceptable to Cublington, with the impression from reading Chapter 7, paragraph 19, where similar restrictions are described as unpopular with pilots at Heathrow and as involving a reduction in payload and/or full capacity. In this connection, I should perhaps draw your Lordships' attention to one further point on noise. At the end of Chapter 7 the noise contours and the other figures in Table 7.5 on, from which they are derived for the various sites, are not, as they stand, precisely comparable, for, as is explained in Chapter 7, paragraph 13, they are based upon operations with restricted power on take-off at Cublington, but on operations with full power on take-off at Foulness.
I should like to turn now to the question of the possible deferment of the decision, and to deal with the line taken by the noble Lords, Lord Greenwood and Lord Beswick, following their right honourable friend Mr. Crosland, in suggesting that there would be merits in deferring the decision on the Third London Airport and in waiting for STOL and VTOL. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will deal with the aviation aspects of that proposal and the expectations to be derived from it. But I would ask this of noble Lords. Are they ready to face the implications of such a decision on those who live now under the noise shadow of the existing London airports, and particularly Heathrow? Are they saying that we just have to leave them to dream the kind of dreams dreamed in Kew Gardens by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding—whose effective and telling maiden speech we listened to with such pleasure yesterday? For, in the light of the forecast of the traffic demands in the London area—only the London area—even in the relatively short term, is not deferment of action on a third London airport bound to lead to increasing pressures to make far greater use of the existing London Airports?
LORD BESWICK: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, what he has just said in the sort of challenge that he has put up only has relevance if he envisages having the first runway of the new airport in operation before 1980. Unless he is proposing to bring that forward
968
—and no one so far has suggested this—there will be no relief for the people in London.
LORD SANDFORD: As my noble friend was saying at the outset of this debate, the Commission took three decisions, and they were unanimous about the first two. One was that they recommended that the first runway of the new Third London Airport should be brought into service in 1980. The second one on which they were unanimous was that the planning of that should be carried forward without delay.
LORD BESWICK: Will the noble Lord be good enough to answer my question? He cannot press the argument or the challenge that he has just pressed unless he is prepared to say that the first runway of the new London Airport should be brought into operation before 1980: and that is something that no one has as yet said.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree that the Commission have recommended 1980 as the date by which it should be brought into service, but the Government will have to consider carefully all three recommendations of the Commission. They are not committed to accepting any one of them. The whole object of advancing the planning of the Third London Airport was so that there was room for manoeuvre on the actual date at which an airport could be brought into operation.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, now that the noble Lord has dealt with that question, would he be good enough to answer a question from me? Is the tenor of his argument this: that Heathrow will not be allowed to use its full capacity because of the noise consequences, and that a new airport is necessary to relieve those consequences? If that is so, that is an entirely different case from that put up at the time that this Commission was appointed, and an entirely different case from that considered by the Commission. I am not saying—indeed I did not say—that in my view it would be a good thing if Heathrow were closed down. But that is a different thing altogether.
LORD SANDFORD: The noble and learned Viscount is reading too much into my remarks if he reads that. Everything

969
that I am saying now—everything that all three spokesmen from this Bench are saying—must be understood in the light of the fact that the Government have to take their own decisions after very careful consideration of all that has been put before them both by the Commission and by Members of this House and the other place. What I am saying is that, from the point of view of the Department in which I serve, this consideration—that is to say, the noise now affecting 2¼ million people around Heathrow—is of considerable importance. I am not of course saying that it is decisive or that it will be decisive in the last analysis.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Is the noble Lord saying that possibly Heathrow will not be allowed to be used to its full capacity?
LORD SANDFORD: I am not even saying that. What I am saying is that this proposal that the decision should be deferred is bound to lead to increasing pressure to make for greater use of the existing London airports, and that includes increasing noise at Luton, no prospect of relief at Heathrow, mounting pressure for a second runway at Gatwick and increased use of Stansted. I should have thought that all of those were undesirable on environmental grounds.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry to interrupt again, but the noble Lord is being so negative about what I said. I did not say that anything should be deferred. I went out of my way to say that a decision was urgent, and the noble Lord should not think that he can just dismiss all that by saying that they have to decide as between one of the four prospective sites. That is an entirely wrong conception of what I was trying to suggest.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am relieved to hear that the noble Lord agrees that the decision is urgent and will have to be taken soon. But if it is to wait for consideration of such possibilities as VTOL and STOL, on which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will touch more fully at the end of the debate, it cannot be taken as urgently as we believe it will have to be taken.
Before leaving the general subject of noise I should like to turn to the question of compensation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and the noble Lord,
970
Lord Silkin, referred yesterday. I can assure the House that, contrary to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, this is not a matter which the Government would think it right to overlook, or to put on one side—far from it. If, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, there was dust on the files when he left, there is certainly none now. The files have been added to considerably.
The Government, in accordance with their Election promise, are at the moment reviewing the whole issue of compensation for this kind of nuisance, and the review is covering all aspects of blight and injurious affection. I can assure the House that the Roskill recommendations on compensation, and indeed other possible solutions of the problem, will be looked at most carefully in the course of this review and in coming to a decision.
I turn now to planning and planning control, and its bearing on this. As the head of the Department which is responsible for planning, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is glad to note the Commission's acknowledgment of the need not only to give full weight, as they have done in Chapter 5, to planning considerations, both regional and local, in selecting the best site, but also to note that they acknowledge the need to use planning controls, in one way or another, to guide the secondary pressures that will arise whichever site is chosen.
The Commission conclude in their chapter on planning that any one of the four sites can be fitted into the broad strategy proposed for the South-East by the Joint Planning Team. This may well be so, in the sense that the proposed strategy is sufficiently flexible to be adapted to any decision on the third London Airport. I note that the Commission say that in their view, the balance of advantage on planning grounds favours Foulness. But I must stress that each site would create further problems, and I would emphasise the need for planning control to solve them.
In the case of Cublington and Thurleigh the risk is seen to be over-heating—too many jobs being sought by too few people. The British Airports Authority are quoted as saying (this is in paragraph 6.15) that this danger can be

971
effectively averted by planning controls: and so it would. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, said just now, plans for Milton Keynes would certainly need drastic modification as well. In the case of Nuthampstead the conflict with the proposed regional strategy was worse than other sites, but not insuperable.
In the case of Foulness I think I should specifically refer to the proposals for a joint airport-seaport development mentioned by, among others, the noble Lords Lord Leatherland, Lord Simon and Lord Lauderdale. The Government have indeed received details of these proposals and will give them careful thought. At this stage, I would make only two points. First, in the planning context, both the majority of the Commission and Professor Buchanan identified difficulties if a major industrial development were to be involved—and, as we heard yesterday, so do Essex County Council. Whatever may be said now about the nature and scale of such development, the Government would need to look very hard at the planning implications, both economic and environmental. And in relation to cost-sharing I need hardly say that advantages would derive only from a situation where the infrastructure was genuinely shared rather than duplicated, and where the projects associated with the airport were viable in their own right.
The main point is that planning restraints are available and can, and indeed will, have to be firmly applied to control all the consequences once the final site is chosen. They may be needed to restrict overcrowding in South Essex: to curb over-employment in Buckinghamshire; to reduce loss of agricultural land around Nuthampstead, or, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, suggested, to stop the build-up of excessive noise from Luton. But there is no doubt at all that several of those planning controls will have to be used. The Commission and the British Airports Authority do a useful service in recognising throughout Chapter 6, and specifically at paragraph 6.15, that careful planning is needed, not only to fit the site in the right place, but also to guide and to control consequential developments of all kinds thereafter.
My Lords, I turn now, briefly, to the cost/benefit analysis, and the assump-
972
tions underlying it—not, of course, that I shall attempt any detailed critique of it. This has already been done by several noble Lords already. I want rather to salute the Commission for their courageous—indeed adventurous—pioneering effort far beyond anything done before in this field. The Department of the Environment use cost/benefit analysis quite extensively, though in a much simpler form, to give some help to those whose responsibility it is to carry out and to control the highway programme. While agreeing with the Commission that such an analysis has its value, I think that from our experience, we would endorse still more strongly the view which the Commission themselves express at the end of their chapter on that subject that the cost/benefit analysis would never include everything that is relevant to their decision. Indeed, the whole of Chapter 12 is interlaced with warnings about the precariousness of conclusions based upon an analysis as adventurous as this one was. For this reason, perhaps above all others, while we should be grateful to the research team for their painstaking efforts, we should also thank the Commission for the honest and modest opinion they expressed in Chapter 12 as to the weight to be given to the evidence produced by this analysis.
My Lords, we three on this Front Bench are here in this debate primarily to listen. All that remains for me to do now, on behalf of my right honourable friend and my noble friends, is to thank all the noble Lords who have spoken, and who will speak later in this debate, for giving Her Majesty's Government the benefit of their most valuable opinions upon this immensely important issue, and in helping the Government with their immensely important decision.
4.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF ESSEX: My Lords, I shall not detain you long, and before I begin my speech I must declare an interest. I was born and have spent most of my life, and since the war farmed, in the Cublington area. I think that will explain how I come to be a traitor, so to speak, to the county whose name I bear. Many noble Lords have spoken at length on the Commission, and I am not going to attempt to follow them. What I want to do is confine myself to the points in the Commission's Report which I feel

973
have been overlooked, and also to the things which are important to us in the Cublington area and in our fight for the land we like. We in this area have lived for over two years with this threat of an airport. Everyone knows how detrimental and upsetting it is when one does not know from one year to the next what is going to happen. Only this morning in Cublington a very old lady came up to me and said, "What chance is there of my being able to stay in my cottage?".
I personally never believed that the Roskill Commission could choose the Cublington site. In the Report they describe the land as undulating. I know it pretty well and I would call at any rate some of it hilly; and quite hilly at that. Building the airport would entail the most stupendous earth-moving operation ever accomplished. If one motors through the site one comes to the South-West end of it in the valley running down from Stewkley towards Cublington. There is planning permission for a reservoir up to 150 feet deep, with the villages well above the water level. This is to enable the Buckinghamshire Water Board to supply water for the New Town of Milton Keynes, as we have been short of water in North Buckinghamshire. If the aerodrome comes, there is no explanation of what is going to replace that reservoir. That gives an illustration of the levels in that site.
There is also a wireless station there covering more than 100 acres which belongs to the Government. This has never been mentioned in the Report or in any other way whatever, but it comes in the area just at the end of a proposed runway. The whole of the area of the proposed airport is excellent farmland, and I should say has been so for centuries. Some noble Lords, I have noticed, have rather criticised it and said that it is second-class land. I am not in agreement with that. We have the finest grazing country in England, and what is now being seen is a result of the last war, when we gave up all our fertility to feed the nation.
In this area is a very famous farm called Creslow. It was a monastery at one time and had the largest field in England before the barley barons started their work. This field originally fattened cattle for the Court of Queen Elizabeth I. My Lords, the whole of that is to go
974
under concrete. Does it seem sense? I believe that the Commission considered Cublington in the first place because of the presence of the war-time aerodrome at Wing. The aerodrome itself will lie between runways C and D on the new projected ground. This will contribute nothing to the new airport. The aerodrome is a very poor one anyway, having a big dip in the middle, and I believe that the Wellingtons and Dakotas of those days had great difficulty in getting in. It is also, as I know because I live quite close, quite a foggy area. It had a thick fog this morning.
The most important question I have, one which worries me most, has been given little attention in the Report. What is to happen to the people and communities of the villages—the doomed villages? There are three doomed villages—three for complete annihilation—and six for partial annihilation. What is to happen to the people? They get about as much notice in the Roskill Report as the geese on the Foulness mud flats. These villages have been from time immemorial inhabited by people connected with farming. They have always been isolated, with no railway anywhere near and only a limited bus service in recent years. In consequence, over the centuries they have become very close and interrelated communities indeed. Many of these people own their own houses—I am referring especially to Stewkley, the biggest village of them all. Some have acquired land which they farm as small holdings. These holdings have been handed down for generations; and although some may not be of a high standard, they are, my Lords, their homes. They have had them for centuries and they are rooted there.
The people in these villages to a great extent make their own amusements. Their village halls are fully booked all the year round. If the whole thing is broken up, where can they go? These people do not wish to sell their houses, at however inflated a price; they do not want to move. The old ones will be quite lost without their friends and relations all round them, and it would be absolute cruelty to force them, at the age of 70 or 80, into a strange town and a strange community. There is an attempt at the end of the Roskill Report to find a formula for compensating these people

975
for their homes and land, both freehold and leasehold. But I am afraid that this is not a question of money. In many cases compensation is not an answer where people have lived in their homes for generations and have had the property handed down. They do not even know what their house is worth; they have never had a valuation, except, I imagine, when the rating officer has come round. They are going to lose everything in the villages. They are going to be like sheep on a moor, completely homeless. Your Lordships have all heard about the famous Norman Church at Stewkley. Cublington's Church, although not so fine, was moved from the valley, stone by stone, after the Black Death, by the devoted parishioners of those days.
I personally do not consider a third London Airport to be really necessary. More use could be made of several airports that are not now used to anything like capacity—Speke, Manchester, and some others. On the other hand, if it is absolutely necessary to have a new airport, I should like the following conditions to apply. It should be built on level ground which does not require any movement of people, the splitting up of communities or the wholesale destruction of buildings and farmland and where noise is not made a burden to so many. It must be some estuary site.
Cublington is programmed to be fully completed by 2002. It is more than probable that we shall have short take-off and landing, or even VTOL, by then. It was only thirty years ago when we had Hurricanes, and were very glad of them, and not a single jet plane at all; and now look what we have. So surely we can accomplish VTOL within another thirty years. When VTOL comes in, what will our descendants do with 13 square miles of concrete? What will they think of us for wasting all their valuable land, when there will be more mouths to feed? The land will be absolutely irrecoverable. If the airport comes to Cublington it will be the biggest operation of wholesale destruction and suffering which has ever happened in peace time. Even the Germans could scarcely do more when we were fighting for our existence—and all, as a gentleman in
976
Stewkley said to me, for a slightly faster route to the Costa Brava.
My Lords, unless one lives in this area one cannot appreciate the anxiety and the uncertainty which exist. The people there are always doing something to raise money and funds, and to-day we had a pancake race run over two courses of eight miles around the doomed villages. I have actually brought up here two pancakes to-day to present to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to show the people's gratitude to him for putting down this Motion that has led to this debate. My Lords, I have no more to say, except to repeat that the building of an airport at Cublington would be, in the words of Professor Buchanan, in his admirable and balanced Note of Dissent, "an environmental disaster".
5.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before I come to the subject of this debate, I should like, if I may, to offer my warm congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Essex, who has just addressed your Lordships. A maiden speech in this House is always something of an ordeal and I thought he surmounted it admirably. I am sure that we were all moved by his personal championship of the people among whom his life is spent, and I felt too that it gave a special reality to the issues with which we are all faced. I hope that now he has come here and spoken to us and broken the ice, he will take the opportunity of coming to do so again.
My Lords, I must confess that I intervene in this debate, for however short a time, with very great diffidence; for I have an uncomfortable feeling, like the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who spoke at the beginning of the debate this afternoon, that every conceivable point of any substance on this subject, on whatever side, has already been made many times. If, then, I "weigh in" once more it is on the old established political principle that no two people say exactly the same thing in exactly the same way. Moreover, one of the most important results which the Government hoped to get out of this debate was to discover the balance of opinion in this most experienced House on this most difficult subject.
I have, however, one special reason for speaking, and indeed I suppose I

977
ought really to declare an interest, though it is not a very direct one and though it would be quite improper for me to appear as a spokesman for anyone but myself. I am the chairman of a Trust which is concerned with the affairs of Waddesdon Manor, where, as your Lordships will know, increasing numbers of people go every year for rest and refreshment and for the enjoyment of beautiful things in beautiful surroundings. Under the Cublington scheme, if that were approved (as I hope it will not be) I understand that Waddesdon would come into the area of "intolerable noise"—that is the expression which was given to that particular situation—and that is a danger against which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, so rightly warned us in his extremely impressive maiden speech. But, my Lords, though I feel that this is something which I ought to disclose to your Lordships, it is not in fact my only—or even my main—reason for opposing the recommendations made by the Commission.
My own objections to the recommendations of the Report, as is the case, I understand, with many other Members of this House, are on far wider grounds, and these grounds are that it gives far too little consideration to aspects of the problem which ought surely to have weighed heavily with any responsible body in coming to their conclusions. It would no doubt be very unfair to suggest that Mr Justice Roskill and his colleagues have been entirely to blame for this. Indeed, as others have already said, I think we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the Roskill Commission for the thoroughness with which they tackled what must have been for them a singularly unenviable task. As has already been said a great many times, the fault lies partly, or even mainly, with the terms of reference within which they were asked to work, and if they took the extremely limited view of their responsibilities which they clearly did, one can well see how they came to the conclusions at which they arrived.
But, my Lords, we here in Parliament, who are, I suppose, the trustees of the nation as a whole, surely cannot take so narrow a view of our responsibilities. There ought to have been first the question brought before us as to whether this vast airport which is to be created—the
978
largest, I understand, in the world—should be properly placed to fit in with the requirements of London only or with the requirements of the country as a whole. That is an aspect which has just been dealt with very fully by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and I expect others felt as I did, as I listened to him, that there was a great deal in what he said.
But, my Lords, what did Mr. Justice Roskill and his colleagues say about this particular aspect? In the Press statement with which they announced the completion of their task they said:
"It was no part of our task to devise such a plan"—
that is, a plan for the whole country—
"and we have resolutely resisted any attempt to do so".
No doubt that was a perfectly proper statement to make, taking the view that they did of their functions: but by what they said, in that one sentence—unless the Government are willing to re-open the whole question and go back to square one, which I believe has certain attractions to my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhome—the Commission have killed stone dead any of the wider aspects which many of us believe ought to have come within their considerations. I wish indeed, as my noble and learned friend has suggested, that we could go back to square one: but I am afraid it is impossible, in view of the urgency of providing a further airport, about which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has just spoken, and no one who listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can have any doubt of how great that urgency is. I feel, therefore, that however much we should like to go back and have a national re-examination of the whole position, yet, faced with the situation which exists to-day, we really must go forward with what the Commission have recommended and decide what we feel about that—whether we are in favour of it or against it.
And now, my Lords, I should like to say a word about the "amenity" aspect, although actually I am afraid that "amenity" is rather too limited a word to use. What about the destruction of so many thousands of acres of fertile agricultural land, of so many beautiful and historic monuments of the past within the Cublington area, of the only unspoilt

979
stretch of real country, as Professor Buchanan has said in his most moving Minority Report, between London and Birmingham? What about the obliteration of so many villages, some with history stretching back into the mists of the past? What do Mr. Justice Roskill and his colleagues say about that?
May I quote again from page ii of the Press Notice which was issued by the Commission? They say:
"We are fully alive to the destruction and hardship which a new airport would cause but conservation"—
and I would ask your Lordships' particular attention to these words—
"does not consist only of a defensive strategy to preserve the past. It consists also of the provision of increased opportunities to satisfy future needs and where possible to put right the mistakes of the past."
That was, I must confess, the only thing I found really shocking in the Report. How does one in fact put right the mistakes of the past—I use their own words—by erasing every feature of fresh unspoiled countryside over an area equal to that of the whole of central London and creating what is called a "noise umbrella" over an area of 350 square miles? I found that rather a terrifying commentary upon the spirit in which the Commission approached their task, and I feel there must be many among us here this afternoon who greatly prefer the more humane approach of Professor Buchanan.
So much—for I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House—for Cublington. And now a word about Foulness, which is apparently the only other favourite in this competition. Paragraph 15 of the shortened version of the Report—to which I have already referred and which provides so admirable a synopsis of the whole—although in the end it comes down against Foulness, sets down, I thought very fairly, as I think Lord Silkin said yesterday to your Lordships, what is to be said in its favour. Foulness, has, the Report says, first,
"the operational advantage of any site at sea level of being little affected by cloud";
secondly,
"it is relatively economical in its demand for additional controlled air space";
thirdly,
"it would close fewest public scientific establishments and cause virtually no interference
980
to the operations of private manufacturers' airfields";
and, finally—and to me much the most important—
"If regard be had only to loss of homes, of countryside and to amenity, to loss or damage to churches, country houses or other historic buildings and to disruption of community life, there could be no doubt that an airport at Foulness would cause less loss and damage than an airport at either Cublington or Thurleigh."
And it adds that though land would have to be taken to house the staff of the airport at Foulness—which I may say in passing is equally true of Cublington—Foulness
"involves no encroachment by the airport site itself or to land and no demolition of houses."
Those are very substantial advantages. I should almost have thought them conclusive. There are, however, if one is to be fair—the Report says—some serious drawbacks to Foulness. The Ministry of Defence, we are told, might well require Foulness for its own purposes, and that would be a matter which we must all recognise as extremely important. But I am told that it now seems improbable that it will be needed for those purposes. If that is not finally decided, perhaps we may be told in the reply of the Government at the end of the debate. Then there is the destruction of wild life and coastline, which, the Report says, many people will regard as just as important as the destruction of historic churches and villages. No doubt that must be taken into account, though it will, I expect, not be regarded by all of us as quite overriding the other considerations that have already been mentioned.
Then, too, there is the question of accessibility, to which the Commission attach such great importance. I will not take up the time of your Lordships, towards the end of this long debate, over the elaborate comparative figures of passengers assumed to be likely to use (a) Foulness and (b) Cublington in the years 1991 and 2000, except to say that I do not see how figures can be stated with quite such accuracy and quite such confidence for periods so far ahead when the types of planes used may be completely different from those which are in use to-day.
And, of course, and very naturally, there is the question of comparative cost.

981
Here, the Commission seem to assume that if the Government paid the whole cost of establishing the airport at Foulness that cost would be considerably greater than at Cublington; and I can well believe that is true. No doubt, as the Report very fairly points out, this could be reduced by the infusion of private capital, of which the offer, as we know, has already been made. But it appears that the Commissioners do not favour this, and feel that in such a situation the risk would ultimately fall on the airport authority which had built the airport, and that would mean ultimately the taxpayer. And they add that if private capital could be provided for Foulness why could it not be provided for Cublington? The answer to that, presumably, is that the special aim of the company concerned, as we were told by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, yesterday, is to use part of the land reclaimed for an ancillary scheme of docks; and docks can hardly be erected at Cublington. Moreover, if the alternative of factories were adopted, the amenity results would be likely to be even more disastrous than under the present proposals of the Commission. It is, however, by no means my purpose to weigh in in support of the Commission's scheme; I know far too little about it. But for the reasons I have just stated I cannot feel that the financial arguments against Foulness in the Report are necessarily conclusive, though I fully recognise that the initial cost of Foulness is likely to be more, and possibly considerably more, than the cost of Cublington. But, on the other hand, as was pointed out by Lord Silkin yesterday, the cost of compensation at Cublington is likely to be far greater than it would be in the case of Foulness.
Finally, there is the factor of noise, to which I, like the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, attach a very high degree of importance. In all the inland sites, as I understand it, noise is likely to be one of the most dominant considerations, as is already the case, as we already know to our sorrow, at Heathrow. But at Foulness there will be hardly any noise problem at all, and I cannot but think that that is a very strong argument in its favour. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, shakes his head, but that is what
982
I understand, from the experts I have consulted, to be the case: the noise will be largely over the sea.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I beg the noble Marquess's pardon; I am sorry I shook my head. He was disturbing me in that he was making the argument as though this were only an issue between placing the airport at Foulness or placing it at Cublington. I thought my noble friend Lord Beswick showed absolutely clearly this afternoon that there is a better way of dealing with this, a wider issue to be considered, and it might even mean putting the airport at neither place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I listened with the greatest care to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said, and it sounded to me as one of the largest gambles I have ever heard; it depended entirely on new types of plane and a change in the whole character of air travel. He may be right, but he may be wrong, and this is an urgent problem; this is not a problem to be waited over in case some—
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Take it away from Hatfield Palace.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Anyway, those are my views. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is entitled to his views, and very likely he knows more about it than I do; but as I listened to the debate I felt it was a gamble that we were not justified in taking.
I do not propose to keep your Lordships any longer. Indeed, I must apologise for having spoken for so long. May I therefore just say in conclusion that my inclination on balance, like Professor Buchanan's, on such information as is at my disposal—apart from all other reasons—is that since we are constantly told that England is rapidly becoming too small for the increasing population that wishes to live here, and since Cublington will make that worse, whereas Foulness will make it better, at any rate to the extent of the land that will be reclaimed from the sea, my inclination is to come down on the side of Foulness: and if the Government do come to that conclusion, our descendants—and, after all, this is very mach a long-term problem—will, I believe, thank us.
5.32 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, I want to focus attention on two short passages from Professor Buchanan's Note of Dissent, and I think I can assure the noble Marquess who has just spoken that they concern an aspect of the problem which has not been dealt with so far in the course of this debate. I have copied them out. The first passage occurs on page 157, in paragraph 43, and is as follows:
"… the location of the airport at Foulness could … make a powerful contribution to one of the biggest social problems of the country, namely that of East London … from the moment when the growth provoked by the industrial revolution started in earnest, and when, as a consequence, the wealthier people began to move out from the deteriorating residential environment of the innermost areas, there was a marked tendency for these people to move westwards rather than eastwards. The process resulted, by the beginning of the present century, in a metropolis with a marked polarity: the West End and the East End …"
The second passage occurs on page 158, in paragraph 45, where Professor Buchanan says:
"One of the reasons … why so little has been done for the eastern side of London has been the difficulty of persuading entrepreneurs to move in that direction. But the third London airport, in a sense a captive industry, seems to me to provide a unique opportunity to introduce a new type of activity into the area. It is difficult to think of anything else with the same potential tor building up a new range of activities and giving new life and hope to the whole of the eastern corridor."
He goes on to refer to this as
"a major new influence at the end of the corridor which will initiate a regenerative process reaching right back to the heart of London where the East End butts against the City."
May I ask your Lordships to move in imagination from Foulness, through East London and the City, to the West End—in fact to Kensington? Kensington, one of the not very many preponderantly residential areas of Inner London, is about to suffer the fate of Bloomsbury and Mayfair—not, as in the one case through the incursion of offices, and, in the case of Bloomsbury, through the immense proliferation of London University which has destroyed its squares, but through the proliferation of hotels. At the moment, in that area of West London a running battle is being fought between the amenity societies and the groups of
984
organised residents, on the one hand, and the hotel developers, on the other. Not many people would regard our Borough Council, I think, as a progressive body, and it is certainly not a body which is impervious to the claims of those who see a profitable enterprise as a desirable aspect of Conservative policy. But even our Borough Council has said, in the case of hotels in certain Darts of the borough, "Enough is enough! Enough and no further."
At this very moment the question is being fought out between an hotel development company and our Borough Council as to whether a new mammoth hotel shall be built at the corner of a conservation area fronting Kensington Gardens. That fight is still sub judice because the Borough Council's refusal to grant planning permission was challenged by the hotel developer, who appealed; and I think the matter is now in the hands of the Ministry. Personally, if I were a devout Catholic, I should feel inclined at this moment to go round to Westminster Cathedral and burn the biggest and most expensive candle as a prayer for the victory of the Borough Council in this respect.
One reason, though not the main reason, for this gigantic invasion of hotels is the growing pressure of tourists on the London area. Nearly all tourists want to come to England, and nearly all tourists who come to England want to come to London, very naturally. Already hotel accommodation is not adequate to meet their needs; and if it is not adequate now it will be even less adequate in years to come. That was one of the arguments put forward by the hotel development company which is now fighting over the site of a very good residential block in which a large number of people live and wish to go on living. But, of course, one reason why the progress of this hotel incursion has been to some extent assisted is that the hotels have been subsidised so far by the late lamented Government to the tune of £1,000 per bedroom. That has helped matters; and that subsidy, I am sure, was granted by the Government as an instrument of national policy for negotiating hotel development in the interests of the tourist industry and, I presume, in the interests of the balance of payments—which was probably a very worthy motive. But if national policy

985
can be used to encourage the proliferation of hotels on behalf of the balance of payments, it could be used by the present Government to encourage, not necessarily the proliferation of hotels but the location of hotels, in order to secure some future development of the East side of London and the City, as envisaged in that passage I have quoted from Professor Buchanan's Note of Dissent.
He really holds before us a vision of what he describes as:
"a regenerative process reaching right back to the heart of London where the East End butts against the City."
It is a vision and a long-term vision. Probably I shall not live to see it—I hardly think it possible—but the Prophet Joel has told us that young men have visions. He has also told us that the old have dreams; and my dream is a dream of this great City of London as a place where the citizens of this country wish to live and bring up their families, play in its parks, shop in its shops, gossip on its doorsteps; a City which will appear more worth while for tourists to visit because it will have personality and it will be the London that we know and have always loved. If it becomes nothing more than a tourist centre—well, those who have visited Bermuda will know what a tourist centre can become; and if they have visited it once they will not want to go there again.
Of course one has a price to pay for that vision. It is a price which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale when he spoke of the charm of Foulness Island, of its wide skies and its marshes. That has not escaped Professor Buchanan, who in his Note of Dissent says that:
"An area of remarkable fascination for its remoteness and loneliness would go."
I fear that it would. I personally think that one aspect of its charm is the fact that one can, within a short drive of London, visit Foulness, come back through East London, through the City, through the West End to one's own familiar urban environment, and can feel as though one had sojourned in a foreign land; strange, in some ways almost unearthly, with a ghost village in the middle of it. The trouble is that if many people enjoy that fascination I shall not be able to.
5.42 p.m.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, we are now three-quarters of the way through this long debate. I think I have heard most of the speeches. I have heard the impassioned speeches against the choice of Cublington and I agree with all that has been said. I was much moved by what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Essex, who knows that country better probably than most of us. I have heard also many noble Lords speaking in favour of the alternative of Foulness. But I am against Foulness. I belong to what seems to be the growing minority of noble Lords who believe that at the present time there need not be a third London Airport. If, later on, we decide to have another major airport in the London area or elsewhere, it would be a very different airport from any one which we could plan now. It would, I think, be something far more acceptable than the ones which are pictured in the Report which we are debating to-day.
My views are very much the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick; I think that he has mentioned all the important things that I intended to mention. But in some respects my point of view is just a little different from his. Put quite simply, my view is that if the Government accept the recommendation of siting an airport at Cublington or at Foulness, we are in grave danger, when two runways are in operation, of finding ourselves crying that all this has been unnecessary; that all this desecration, were it Cublington, or all this construction, were it Foulness, has been unnecessary because we are now going to have STOL machines and VTOL machines. Worse than this, I have an awful feeling that perhaps they would not even be our VTOL or STOL machines because, on account of the great expense of Cublington or of Foulness, the Government would not have found it possible to give adequate support to the research and development which is so essential to the creation of this new, and in my view vital, form of aviation. So we should be buying German, French or American STOL or VTOL machines in order to keep up with the operational Joneses.
This is not to be contemplated. As I have pleaded before in this House, we must maintain the lead which we now have in short and vertical take-off and

987
landing. We must engage in the necessary research and development as soon as possible to reach this great next step forward in aeronautical progress. Perhaps, as I have said before, we should have partners—in fact I would advocate this. Let us invite our European friends to join with us in this great technological step forward. If we do not, they will go it alone. I want us to have our stake in the future, and now is the time to make the arrangements while we have so much more to contribute than anyone else. It will be a far, far better thing to spend the money which might have gone in creating a Cublington or a Foulness, in making them both unnecessary.
I agree with most of Professor Buchanan's reasons for not going to Cublington but, as I say, I disagree about going to Foulness. In fact, if I were told that there was jolly well going to be a third London Airport, I would still object to Foulness: first, because all the dark-bellied Brent geese, which Lord Beswick referred to so touchingly, may decide not to migrate—and one remembers the Heathrow hares, a quite determined lot who have never migrated. It seems to me highly probable that if some of the geese decided to stay around there would be a danger of a disaster of the first magnitude. I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, both mentioned the possibility of strikes. But this would be a bird strike on the grand scale, and if any large aeroplane inhaled a Brent goose up the engine intake the result would be appalling.
I have a second reason for not going to Foulness, despite the new gloze put upon it by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, when he spoke of these admirable devices, the hover-train and the various hover devices which are competitive with it. Despite what that might do, from all the investigations I have been able to make, I do not believe that the British Airports Authority would make Foulness pay. The problem is not one of the difference in time, the few minutes occupied in getting from Cublington or from Foulness to London; it is the position of these sites in relation to the rest of the country. I do not think that adding a seaport is likely to make the airport pay; nor do I gather, from a communication which I
988
think many of us have received from the Essex County Council, that the quite splendid schemes which were outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, yesterday would in fact be allowed to come to pass. So for me Foulness is out.
My belief is that if we start a forthright programme of STOL and VTOL development now—and I really mean now—we can hold out by putting another runway at Gatwick, by increasing the Stansted traffic and by moving the training activities at present at Stansted, and some at Gatwick, to another airfield. From the point of view of the people around Stansted and Gatwick, the noise situation need be little changed. This may surprise some noble Lords. I think that some may find that hard to take. But I ask them to bear with me for a few moments. I strongly suggest that it is better to develop sensibly and rationally at an existing source of noise than to create a new one.
I do not say that we could prevent ourselves creating a new source of noise from time to time, but there is a peculiarity about this noise problem which has not so far been mentioned in the debate. This nuisance is assessed in the Roskill Report, and by most people who are concerned with it, in terms of something called N.N.I. This is not, as many people think, the Noise Nuisance Index; it is the Noise and Number Index. It was invented by that highly distinguished body which, in 1963, under the chairmanship of Sir Alan Wilson, produced the Report on the Problem of Noise. The Wilson Committee had done some very serious and interesting research before producing the formula which gives the numbers which are used in the Roskill Report. For the many mathematically minded noble Lords in this House, I should explain that the formula is that the N.N.I. number equals the average peak noise load in p.n.dB., plus 15 log N minus 80, where N is the frequency of the occurrence of the noise. Noble Lords who have appreciated the niceties of that formula will realise that it has a peculiar consequence. It means that if you already have a high frequency of occurrence of noise, the increase of frequency will be less and less noticed the more and more the frequency increases. In other words, where it is bad, you cannot make it much worse.

989
Furthermore, and here I should like noble Lords who have not studied thoroughly the beginning of Chapter 7 of the Roskill Report to look at this with very great care, there is held out in those opening paragraphs the hope, and it is more than a hope, that engines can become a great deal quieter; just the ordinary engines of ordinary aeroplanes. One of the greatest living authorities, Dr. Hooker, who has designed or been responsible for the design of more successful jet propulsion engines than any other living man, gave evidence to the Committee and said that he thought that the noise-level in p.n.dB.—that is, the perceived noise decibel which takes into account the note as well as its loudness—could in the next couple of decades be brought down 15 units—15 p.n.dB. That is a very great deal indeed. Moreover, a consequence of the formula which Wilson pointed out in his Report is that quadrupling the frequency of occurrence is equal to 9 p.n.dB., and at the rate at which Dr. Hooker believes we shall improve we could bring down noise 9 p.n.dB at the same time as we were quadrupling the number of movements. This may seem very complicated to noble Lords, but I believe that when they read Hansard to-morrow they will find they will understand quite easily that this means that if we plan properly, we can contain the noise nuisance.
Perhaps suggesting at this stage, when we have become so used in the past few years to the notion of a third airport, that there need be no third London airport, may seem strange and almost rash, but I have not come to this conclusion—and I am sure neither did the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—without thinking about it deeply and talking about it to a great number of people. Noble Lords will say, "Well, so did the Roskill Commission"; but they were concerned with the problem of where to put the airport, and not whether there should be one. They were also concerned with the timing of the need. They concluded (and here I think they were absolutely right) that the first runway must be available in 1980. Very well, my Lords, in the solution which I have adumbrated, and with which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, agrees, we could have the second runway at Gatwick ready by 1980. I believe, from what I have been saying on the subject
990
of noise, that by then we could have kept the noise in hand, and the people around Gatwick would be no worse off than they are to-day. We should before then have made the changes I have proposed for making Stansted's existing runway more productive; containing the noise nuisance there, too, in the way I have suggested. We can later, when we have this noise business taped, get more movements out of Luton and Southend.
I believe that this plan would have the support of the British Airports Authority, and I am sure that B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. would prefer to extend their operations at existing airports rather than start new ones at a new site. I believe—and I believe this very sincerely—that the operators can hold out until the early 1980s, by which time, if we make the right moves, we can have the first STOL aeroplanes at work and begin to develop a network requiring different and less obnoxious facilities. I listened carefully to what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said on this subject. He thought that STOL and VTOL are a gamble. Well, they are a gamble, but I think they are a better bet than investing the money in Cublingtort or Foulness.
But this, my Lords, means a positive policy, and a policy with a note of urgency in it. The Roskill Commission propose the positive policy of creating desolation and an airport at and about Cublington. I propose instead a positive policy of developing STOL and VTOL for short-haul services, which account for two-thirds of the movements through London's airports, and, by judicious adjustments to our present facilities, squeezing more and more out of them until, say, 1982, when the relief from STOL and possibly the beginning of VTOL should be evident. I propose, further, a policy of noise-containment for conventional aircraft. We should examine progress in, say, 1977 or 1978, to see whether any course adjustment is required. If it is, then we should have time to modify the programme to provide conceivably more conventional facilities in, say, 1985, if, as I think is extremely unlikely, they appear to be needed. But if they are needed, then we should have to consider the views which were expressed yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, which I thought imaginative and deserving of the closest consideration. In this

991
examination we could also assess what would be wanted in STOL/VTOL facilities, and the possible airport demands of the Concorde replacement with its vertical take-off engines.
This policy has merits other than just preventing the desecration of our country or giving ourselves the task of building an East-Coast white elephant; it has positive gains for the convenience and comfort of everyone which the old-fashioned aeroplane of to-day, trundling as it does for miles on the ground, flying in low and flying out low over square miles of country, can never give. I reviewed the merits of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing in this House last April, and I am not going to make that speech again, but I will recall to your Lordships that I pointed out the enormous reduction in noise nuisance that it can provide. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, mentioned this. The area within the 35 N.N.I. boundary—the no-nuisance boundary—is reduced in some calculations to less than one hundredth, and that is, I think, the order of it. Safety can be greater even than that achieved by conventional aeroplanes. Economy, so long as we do not saddle the new operations with overheads appropriate only to convenional aircraft, will be satisfactory.
This development is bound to come. We must not be discouraged by any recent event from going ahead with it. On the contrary, here is a major task for a revitalised Rolls-Royce. In the interests of our future prosperity, we must not leave the development to others. What would be very sensible is collaboration with those others, the countries interested in and affected by this new, quite inevitable development. This collaboration might be through a merging of interests and facilities in a single European company, as I suggested in my speech at the dinner last September of the Society of British Aerospace Companies.
To conclude, my Lords, I plead that the Government should reject Cublington, reject Thurleigh, reject Foulness; that they should spend a little—and "little" is, I know, a relative term—on getting more out of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and Southend. I plead that they should invest what would have been spent on a third airport first, on immediate developments in the field of engine quietness;
992
and, secondly, on VTOL and STOL, supporting the investment already made in the Rolls-Royce jet engines in the Harrier and in the Dornier DO.31. We must invest to bring the future nearer and not to perpetuate obsolescence.
6.1 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, because of his very great knowledge about this subject. But as my conclusions are the same as his I am emboldened to advance them, even though my arguments may not stand up to Government investigation. Is a third London Airport needed? If it is, then presumably Foulness, because of its coastal situation, would be preferable to any inland alternative. Therefore, with many others, I should like to record my opposition to Cublington.
The argument about the necessity for a new airport hinges on various facts and figures which may be disputed. These are the Roskill suggestions under the heading, "Airport capacity by 1980". We see that by 1980 Heathrow will probably have 312,000 aircraft movements, Gatwick 110,000 and Luton and Stansted 54,000, making a total of 476,000. Roskill then estimates that between 335,000 and 428,000 aircraft will be coming into the area by 1975, and between 421,000 and 589,000 by 1981; hence the need for a third airport with at least one runway by 1980. But, technically, the capacity of existing airports is much higher. I understand that B.E.A., in their figures presented to the Inquiry but not published, put it as follows: Heathrow, 328,000; Gatwick, 212,000, with two runways; Stansted, 54,000, and Luton, 54,000, making a total of 648,000 aircraft movements—considerably in excess of the Roskill figures. This, on Roskill's own estimates of 427,000 to 721,000 by 1985, makes a third airport unnecessary before 1985.
But I have heard it suggested by some very well-informed observers that the following figures would be technically possible: Heathrow, with three runways, 380,000: Gatwick, 212,000, which is the B.E.A. figure that I have already mentioned; Stansted, 150,000, which I am told would be possible even to-day; Luton, 54,000; Southend, 20,000; and

993
Lydd, 12,000, making a grand total of 800,000-plus. So it is possible to argue that the potential capacity of existing airports is between 30 and 100 per cent. greater than Roskill suggested. Apparently at this present moment—not in 1980—Kennedy Airport. New York, manages 400,000, and O'Hare Airport. Chicago, 700,000. Why, then, should Heathrow's limit be 312,000 in 1980? The Jumbos have already led airlines to cut the number of flights out of Heathrow, and this check to growth could continue for some time. In addition, a Channel Tunnel could well cut the increase of traffic, particularly tourist traffic.
It can be argued that if the estimates are five or ten years out, it does not really matter. But in fact an error in estimation could prove vital for two reasons. First of all, the rise in provincial traffic will gradually generate pressure for more provincial air services. This has already happened in America, where the number of gateways into the United States is increasing the whole time. That is why I did not find myself in agreement with the views of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, at the beginning of the debate, when he said that the provincial centres could not help to provide some of the required capacity. If VTOL and STOL aircraft are taken into consideration—and how can I put it better than it was put by the last speaker?—then a third airport commissioned in 1980 could become redundant in our lifetime.
There is also the further point of noise. The area around Heathrow and Gatwick is already ruined—and I am not saying this with any lack of compassion; I am merely stating a fact. Nor must one forget the stacking areas. Coming from the North, we used to talk about being stacked near Watford. Now the term has become much more refined: we talk about being "held" for 20 minutes above the Bovingdon Beacon. That is made to sound as though one were admiring the view from Ivinghoe Beacon. But while we are being held, doubtless with a great many other planes, the Chilterns are being drowned by a dull roar. Must we have more stacking areas for a new airport? At least if the coastal site were selected, the planes could be stacked over the sea. I hope that the Government
994
will think long and seriously before they spoil another part of England, instead of increasing the capacity of existing airports.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He is rather ignoring the fact that it is alleged that increasing the capacity at Gatwick will spoil the whole interior of West Sussex.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, I fully appreciate that, and I said that I was not lacking in compassion. I was merely expressing facts and figures which I believed to be correct and which I feel must be taken into consideration before a final decision is made.
I was very tempted to take part in the discussion—I shall not call it an altercation—between the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Having in my time been on a Front Bench myself. I took compassion on Lord Sandford, and decided that I would hold my fire. Nevertheless, I should like to add a few words about the discussion which took place at that time on the noise at Heathrow. My Lords, what is unacceptable noise at Heathrow? Is the present noise unacceptable?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS:Yes.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: If it is, then all I can say is that it is going to be very much worse by the time the first runway on this new airport, assuming that we have one, is laid down and ready for use. In my humble opinion, it is misleading to suggest that the noise will lessen. It will increase during the next ten years, and certainly until the first runway of the third airport opens. I would go so far as to say that the noise at Heathrow will continue to increase over the next two Elections. Therefore it is, as I say, misleading to say that we must get on with the new airport at once and then the unfortunate people at Gatwick and at Heathrow will be relieved. They will not be relieved for ten years, and even then the noise will probably stay at the level which exists in ten years' time.
I think this must be said, because it would be wrong, I think, for the Government to suggest that by making a quick

995
decision and by announcing that they are going to have a new airport, they will ensure that the unfortunate people at the existing airports are put in a much better position. As I see it, they will not be in a much better position for a very long time to come; and by then, I hope, the forecast of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, will have materialised. I hope that the new forms of aircraft, the short take-off aircraft, will perhaps make it unnecessary to have this third airport at all. Again I want to stress, perhaps because I come from a region, that in my view careful attention must be given to the development of the provincial airports, which will be able to provide the same service as is being provided to-day in America by Miami, which last year opened up a very large new service for B.O.A.C., and all the other provincial airports in America.
6.13 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, it is a very great privilege to follow my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine, and I do so with great diffidence. I regret that I am not able to follow him in his expert knowledge of the flight paths over London, but I should like to retrace our steps to the afternoon of May 20, 1968, when the terms of reference for the Roskill Commission were announced. On that afternoon my noble friend Lord Aberdeen and Temair asked a very important question which has strict relevance to-day. He said:
"My Lords is there any hope that during the next two years research will be able to produce an aircraft which is silent and capable of vertical take-off?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 292, col. 486.]
This afternoon my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, have added a completely new dimension to this debate by telling us of the near availability of STOL and VTOL, and they referred to an article, which I regret I have not myself read, on QTOL. In a sense, I find it impossible to follow my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, through this door into an entirely new world of these developments, so I am going to confine myself to the Report itself and to comment as one not well versed in aircraft but one who has attempted to follow it; and I hope that it is as an amateur reading these Reports that some of my remarks will be received.
996
I feel—and I share the views of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—that one of the most basic preliminaries to the Report was the terms of reference, and they were missing from the second page of the Report. It is something so fundamental that as I searched both the Index and the additional Index I could hardly believe it possible that the terms of reference should be quoted nowhere. My Lords, we are extremely fortunate in being able to refer to the terms of reference in our Library, but anybody purchasing this extremely expensive Report would have difficulty, if he were not able to do so, in referring back. Again and again in reading the Report I wanted to consult those terms of reference and to consult also the remarks made both in your Lordships' House and in another place, especially the introductory Statement by the President of the Board of Trade on that day.
A further suggestion I should like to make to the Government concerns the matter of setting out these terms of reference in future—and I feel this might be taken as a broad hint for later Reports over a wide field. It is that we should revert to a former custom, adopted years ago, when these Reports began with an open letter addressed to the Minister responsible for setting up the Commission. In that letter it was stated what had been carried out; and, furthermore, it gave opportunity for full acknowledgment of the work of the Commission and an opportunity to thank the staff and all those who had taken part in it. In this case we have to wait until page 147 before the very eminent staff appointed are thanked. I feel it is a pity that this acknowledgment should be buried in the final paragraph and that the thanks which are undoubtedly due to Mr. John Caines and his staff should be postponed until then.
A further difficulty I had was in the matter of transcripts of evidence; and I think that this subject is also very important. In order to consult them, we had to visit the Civil Aviation Library, where I regret to say the mediæval principle of the chained Bible still applies. Serious research' is inhibited by this method, because we had to copy out by hand those statements which we wished, as there are no facilities for photocopying on the premises. As it happens, I very

997
much wanted to see the Document 5153, the evidence of Mr. Lumb on noise limits, and I had difficulty in doing so.
I wish to address attention to three factors. They are all technical ones. First of all, there is the question of the safety factor in relation to bird strike, to which several of your Lordships have made reference this afternoon. I share the anxiety which has been expressed for the dark-bellied Brent geese, and I have been in touch with the Ministry of Defence on the matter of ridding airfields, be they military or civil, of the problem of wild life, especially that of birds. I was very interested to hear that between 1946 and 1948 the R.A.F. undertook a control experiment, and at the conclusion it was found that the falcon units needed had to be on a permanent basis and that it was not considered feasible from an economic point of view. However, it was most encouraging to learn that the United States Air Force, which maintains no fewer than six airfields in the United Kingdom, have had falcon sections in permanent residence since July 1 of last year. The two falconers have between eight to ten falcons operating on each airfield, and it is claimed that the United States Air Force are delighted with the results. I suggest, my Lords, that this is one glimmer, at least, of hope for the future of the Foulness site; and it might possibly pre-empt that terrible consequence foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, of an aircraft swallowing a Brent goose.
I should like to refer also to the question of corrosion. Because this is a highly technical subject, I do not feel myself qualified to do more than to draw attention to it; but I feel that it is very important when considering the operation of the Foulness airfield. To those who have had experience of operating aircraft or have had any knowledge of the difficulties of maintaining and managing aircraft near the sea—be it at Gibraltar, to which reference was made in regard to the problem of maintenance, or elsewhere—the question of salt-laden air and its effect on aircraft, particularly the highly-sensitive aircraft which we have to-day, is a very important matter.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the question of noise. Though this subject has been referred to almost ad nauseam, I should like to raise a point
998
which has not been mentioned hitherto. I would draw attention to Figure 7.5 in the Report. This shows the day noise contours, year 1995, for Cublington. Alone on Figure 7.5 in very small print it has the words "Restricted take-off. 2-Runway at maximum capacity". Most unfortunately, this indicates at once to those who are involved in this matter that aircraft are therefore going to be obliged to take off below maximum power. This inevitably creates a danger. It is a safety factor which must be taken into the reckoning and it must be remembered that if this restricted take-off is applied to Cublington, it will almost certainly rule it out straight away as far as the advisability of that site is concerned. The Report mentions this fact but does not dwell on it. I should like also to draw your Lordships' attention to a further technical matter which, if not the most significant, has not been mentioned by other noble Lords. This is in Appendix 12, headed "Airport Construction—Aggregates". The question of winning sand and gravel from the sea is going to be one of the economic advantages of Foulness and it will enable a total saving of £18 million to be achieved. That is one of the desirable advantages of Foulness. There is, however, the technical problem of whether the sand and gravel so won is going to be of the best possible specification; but I see no reason to doubt that it should be.
In conclusion, may I say that at the time when the Roskill Commission was set up and at the time it reported the question of the Countryside Act had not entered into consideration. I should like to refer your Lordships to Section 37 of that Act. That is the declaratory section, and it says:
"In the exercise of their functions under this Act and the Act of 1949 it shall be the duty of every Minister, and of the Commission, The Natural Environment Research Council and local authorities to have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and to the economic and social interests of rural areas".
Finally, I would make a special plea which was made in a book to which we referred in our last debate on December 11, 1967, The Stansted Black Book by J. W. S. Brancker. Mr. Brancker, who was employed as expert adviser, said:
"In spite of being in the business for more than thirty-five years, I do not believe that air transport has the right to inconvenience

999
the public at large without limitation; it exists to serve people and not to annoy them."
6.25 p.m.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, this subject has received tremendous attention not only during these past two days, as well it should, but also in a wide public debate which has been going on in almost continuous session during the Commission's deliberations, before the issue of the Report proper and after its publication. Many points have been made, many arguments produced, in evidence, in the Press; and now we have this debate, and there will be another one shortly in another place. I found, when I got down to it, that the Report made very good reading and was most instructive, especially to those whom it touches most. I should like to pay a sincere tribute to all the work done by the Commission, even though I may not agree with their conclusions. I think we have all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Molson, very much, not only for initiating the debate and giving us a chance to discuss it but for putting his case so well. I think we shall all agree that we have had some excellent contributory speeches.
It is all a question of an airport's effect on different people: on the people who live around it—and we have every sympathy with those who do now live around them; upon travelling people who use it—and I am afraid that they have not very much concern for those who live there; on the people who will live and work on it and whom nobody seems to have considered very much up to now—and at this moment it is the people around Wing and Cublington who are most affected and feel most strongly about the disturbances and elimination to which they may be subjected.
Finally, it affects the people—that is, all of us—who have to pay for a new airport. This would be so even if short or vertical take-off were closer or more promising; and I must admit a sense of great disappointment at the Commission's conclusion, in paragraph 5.20, that:
"… from the evidence … we cannot base our recommendation on the assumption that STOL or VTOL will bring about an absolute reduction in the pressure on conventional airport …"
This aspect has been dealt with extremely well by my noble friend Lord Kings
1000
Norton, whose thoughtful and helpful speech I think was about the best we have in this debate. I felt that he was most helpful to those of us who do not know so much about these matters, and I entirely welcome what he said: that there should be as great expenditure as possible on hastening this achievement.
We have not heard so much in this debate about Thurleigh. Here I must declare an interest; but I do not think the matter should be allowed to go by default. I have lived all my life close to it—in fact, four miles from the end of the runway, as it now is—and I think that few have paid visits to it. The Commission Report in Paragraph 13.52 says that
"… Thurleigh is to be preferred—perhaps only marginally—to Cublington."
I would assure your Lordships, if you have not already gathered it from the Report, that Thurleigh is surrounded by countryside, by villages, by old churches, just like Cublington, which I also know quite well. I appreciate very much what the noble Earl, Lord Essex, said, and I should like to compliment him on his excellent maiden speech.
In addition, Thurleigh has the costly Royal Aircraft Establishment, which is important to research and defence. It also has a huge runway which is used for training air crews on the new planes. So there is already at Thurleigh a succession of large aircraft taking off and landing. People do not like it, and they know how much worse it could be if, by any mischance, Thurleigh were chosen as the other site. There are many other reasons why Thurleigh was not chosen, but lest it should be thought that people in the area are less concerned and are taking the attitude, "I am all right Jack," I would reassure your Lordships. They may be less prone to demonstrations but they are completely opposed to any inland site, especially at Cublington or Thurleigh. It is to be hoped that with the more general outcry against Cublington, no one will be tempted to consider Thurleigh as an easier, if more costly and less unpopular bet, and switch over the sites as a compromise. I believe that such a decision would be as disastrous as the present choice.
It is the reputation of Heathrow which has generated great hostility towards having an airport on anyone's doorstep.

1001
The reduction of noise, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, was welcome. I forget the exact percentage by which he said that it would be brought down, but it is the shifting of some of that noise to a different area; the spreading of the nuisance caused by airports, that we are considering. I would rather see smaller units capable of making use of unused capacity and servicing more restricted areas. We have good examples in Luton and Stansted, despite the nuisance caused there. But I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, about that. I agree that these smaller airports would not be as viable as one huge complex.
The Commission dealt most carefully with the subject of extending facilities by the extension of runways and the provision of extra runways. But they say decisively that anything that can be done in this direction would not delay the necessity for a third London Airport for more than a year or two. I thought it rather a pity that my noble Leader Lord Jellicoe said that it was not possible to take the time to frame a national airports policy. With all the valuable work that has been done already I should have thought that it was possible; and that we could make some additions to the information that we have in this Report. For it is significant that the Commission say that there is no ideal site for London's third airport, and that so many noble Lords have already said, "So why have one?"
Whichever site is chosen, there will be great repercussions on existing airports; for example, at Luton. I go a long way with what Professor Buchanan said in his plea for the preservation of the second Green Belt round London—the first one has been considerably dented in places—and about what he calls an open background. It is the conservation of that which makes England what it is that we have very much at heart. Despite what was said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, I do not think that this is entirely emotional. I think that the enjoyment of the countryside by our own people and our foreign visitors is an important and economic matter.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting
1002
him, I would say that I did not wish to suggest that that was an emotional matter.
LORD LUKE: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. We are putting Milton Keynes in this open background and many existing villages wilt be swallowed. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, this will need replanning. The siting of a vast new airport practically next door would create a complex which would affect, and disturb with its noise, an enormous area and great numbers of people.
I would say a few words in conclusion about Foulness with its wide open spaces. I appreciated the eulogies of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and I am sorry that he is not now in the Chamber. I have not walked around Foulness as he has, but I do not think that he has walked around Thurleigh, and so we are equal. Foulness seems to be the popular choice of all who do not live there; and even those who do seem to welcome the thought of development in that area, as witness the South-East Planning Council. So much has already been said, and I will not go over the same ground, but I should like to make this paint. I was impressed by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about accessibility, though the cost of communication with London would be great. But I should think that, with a fresh start and modern development, passengers would reach London, or anywhere else, in pretty quick time—especially if they travelled on the air cushion that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke about.
I should like to hear something from the Government about the warning regarding international airlines using, or not using, an airport at Foulness. This matter was dealt with by the Commission; it is an important aspect which should receive further consideration. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to hurry up and to relieve the people at the inland sites of their anxieties, especially those at Cublington; not to hurry too much, but rather to give great and further thought to what is required; perhaps the extension of existing sites and the taking up of unused capacity in other parts of the country.
6.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, at this stage of the debate I have only two points to make, and I hope that I may succeed in making them within a period of five minutes as I think that an ample ration for anyone speaking so late in the debate as this. The first point refers to Gatwick. This airport was originally started as an auxiliary or overflow airport for Heathrow; and it was never considered to be an international airport. Various Ministers of Civil Aviation, of both political Parties, the British Airports Authority and others have time and again given assurances on that point. Nevertheless, Gatwick has continued to expand and, time and again those assurances have proved to be worthless.
I am not for a moment suggesting that those assurances were not given sincerely, but the speed of development of civil aviation during the last ten or fifteen years has been such that any forecasts have proved illusory. In the last few weeks there has been an Inquiry sitting to consider the extension of one of the runways at Gatwick. We have not yet received the Report, but I have little doubt that the extension will be allowed, in spite of a great deal of evidence given which, again I have little doubt, will prove in a few years to have been—I will not say false, but at any rate inaccurate. Is it surprising, my Lords, that in the circumstances a campaign is already being mounted in the whole of Sussex to oppose not the extension of the existing runway—I think that battle has probably been lost—but the building of a second runway? I venture to say that if it is decided to build that second runway the campaign mounted against it will make the present campaign by Cublington look like a mere ripple on the ocean. I therefore hope that the authorities will be warned.
My second point is one that has been made by practically all noble Lords who have spoken, and that is the problem of noise. I regard this as cardinal to the whole debate. I cannot help feeling that we may be looking at the problem from the wrong point of view. If an aeroplane can be made that makes practically no noise, nearly all the problems will have been solved. It is true that we should need the land—although if we are going
1004
to have the vertical take-off aircraft, we may not even need a great deal of that. Why should this not be done? I am certain that the aircraft manufacturers could do it. If they can put a man on the moon, surely they can make an aeroplane engine that does not make much noise. The trouble is that to develop it will be a very expensive business; and, of course, the big, international airlines, who are nearly all in financial difficulties, do not want to do it. If pressure is put on them to do it, they will probably say that it is not safe and will put up every sort of objection.
I believe that the airport authorities should get together and say to these airlines that their planes will not be allowed to land on the airports unless they produce the planes that meet with the airport authorities' requirements. Naturally, the airlines would have to be given a little time to develop the plane, but penalties could be imposed in the meantime; and if, within three years, five years or whatever period was fixed, certain airlines were not making any progress, then they could be fined by raising landing charges for their planes to such a degree that it would not be worth their while. It would only be necessary to get one big airline to do this, and the others would follow suit rather than lose traffic.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may interrupt my noble friend, he will realise that a great many aeroplanes come to this country from abroad, and therefore this kind of thing could be done only by international agreement.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I thank my noble friend. I thought I had made that clear; it is exactly what I said. Agreement must be reached between the airport authorities, and this must take some doing. But I am sure that this is the way to attack the problem, rather than to go on looking for a site in this country which really does not exist.
6.43 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, bearing in mind the length of the debate and that there are something like nine speakers to follow me, I feel that it is only courteous to be brief, and I shall endeavour to do so. Speaking as a Buckinghamshire man, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for raising this discussion on the Report of the Roskill

1005
Commission. As will be appreciated after what so many noble Lords have said, to-day and yesterday, this matter has now become of great concern to those who live in Buckinghamshire and neighbouring counties. I personally was glad to hear that no decision will be made on the recommendation of the Report until it has been debated in another place. But let no one be in any doubt that uncertainty is causing tremendous distress.
I, for one, am not surprised at, and fully understand, the feelings and bitter disappointment of those whose homes and very livelihood could be destroyed by such a choice. At times like this emotions are naturally very strong. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who in a Question on January 28 referred to rather strong feelings expressed too soon (I am putting it roughly) by people living in that area, now realises that this was a mistake. I personally feel that they have good reason; I can understand the reason, and I hope that to-day the noble Lord does, too.
I am personally not fully convinced of the immediate wisdom of constructing a third airport, over three times the size of Heathrow, in the South of England so close to Heathrow. This is a view held, I understand, by a number of jet pilots. Airspace over the United Kingdom is far too crowded, and spreading the load like this does not seem to me to solve the problem. If we are to add to the numbers of aircraft stacked, as they are now at various levels in the sky waiting to land, there is a very real potential danger here inland. The Southern half of the country (I have no particular vested interest in this, but I live in the South) seems to me to be littered with airports of all shapes and sizes; the sky is full of helicopters and jets.
If it is absolutely necessary for us to be saddled with another huge British airport, with four runways (and that is really what it amounts to, an airport with four runways, possibly near London), we might be wise to consider a site further North, with excellent rail services from the North to London. This is an opinion held by many people, and I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, who referred to the possibility of having an airport in South Yorkshire. If the airport has to feed London itself, then we have to forgive that. But at the moment I
1006
am not fully convinced of the need for a third London Airport three times the size of Heathrow.
We live on a small island. It is not easy to find space for all the roads and motorways that we need so badly; for houses for people, and for airports. The time is rapidly approaching when we must seriously consider cutting our coat according to our cloth, unless we wish to have our land disappear under a veritable sea of bricks, mortar, concrete and tarmac. The United States, for example, are in a comparatively different position: they have all the space on the ground and in the air. Land development for their great freeways and flyover crossings and airports does not cause quite such a headache. They are a large country; we are a small one. When I think that it will cost over £500 million to build this airport (I believe that is one estimate, and it will probably cost a great deal more), I think of the various problems that we are faced with to-day in which some financial support is needed. I wonder whether we have our priorities in the right order.
There is the further thought that, with the rapid development of the aircraft industry, the time may not be too far distant when vertical take-off aircraft will make long runways redundant. This kind of future development cannot be ignored. I am sorry to be repetitious here—I know that this has been said by many noble Lords earlier. But it is important to refer to it.
Of course everyone will respect and appreciate the hard work and industry of Mr. Justice Roskill and his Commission over some two and a half years or more, but one cannot be expected to wait so long in silence when the most beautiful countryside of Buckinghamshire is threatened with permanent devastation on such a scale. The shock of what many thought might just be an unpleasant rumour having turned into reality has indeed been great in the county.
A week or so ago, on a Sunday afternoon, I motored slowly through the villages in North Buckinghamshire destined at the moment for destruction or to be made uninhabitable through noise. I do not know how many noble Lords have taken the opportunity to visit the villages, of North Buckinghamshire and in the Vale of Aylesbury, but I suggest that a

1007
Sunday drive out there is well worth the journey. A couple of bottles of beer and a few ham sandwiches in a pub in the Vale of Aylesbury is a very pleasant way of spending a Sunday afternoon.
The community is largely a rural and farming one, closely knit together, living where their parents and grandparents have lived for centuries. Buckinghamshire is a great historical county, the cradle of English history. What distinguishes it above all others is its association with famous men and famous deeds: the immortal memory of John Hampden, a martyr of liberty, for instance. In every corner of Buckinghamshire there is something to recall that it was in critical days the home of freedom-loving enthusiasts. Is it to be wondered, then, that this threat to the county should stir up a hornet's nest of fury?
The villages of Cublington, Soulbury, Dunton, Stewkley, Stoke Hammond, Whitchurch, Aston Abbotts, Wing, to name a few, have now only one defensive weapon, their voice, and it is a strong voice. Demonstrations invariably lead to violence, but the demonstrations in Buckinghamshire have been peaceful because they are receiving the united support of almost everyone. Professor Colin Buchanan, distinguished by his planning expertise, has plainly stated that the choice of Cublington would be a grievous blow to conservation policies and an environmental disaster. There must be many a pub in the villages I have mentioned whose toast to-day is: "Buchanan for North Bucks". Frankly, I do not know whether I would go along with that because I am not sure of his political affiliations.
Part of the Roskill Commission's proposals, on the advice of its expert consultants, was, I believe, that an airport city to house many thousands, including airport workers, should be built about two miles from the airport site. This would be joined to the already planned New Town of Milton Keynes, designed to house an eventual population of 250,000. No wonder that the Buckinghamshire County Council, of which I am a member and chairman of its main spending committee, is deeply concerned with the effect that an airport city would have on the county. The necessary network of new roads would have to be
1008
built, and others widened to serve the airport and its city—27,000 acres for the airport city, a similar acreage for Milton Keynes. This would mean that 50,000 acres of Buckinghamshire countryside would be swallowed up in one great gulp.
I feel that it would be wrong not to emphasise the effect of noise on education and other services. This is already a problem near Heathrow. Interruption from aircraft noise makes speech inaudible and has a devastating effect on the life of a school. The teacher's task is markedly more difficult and more exhausting. Oral methods of teaching lie at the root of much of the work being done during the school day. Interruptions break the continuity of the lesson and the concentration of the children. Problems of this kind will arise in all fields of study, lectures and learning through the medium of television, radio or film.
There are many schools in North Buckinghamshire, some big comprehensive schools already built and others planned for 1,400 pupils, together with a college of education and further education colleges. If the third London Airport is sited at Cublington, a noise zone will be created stretching from Thame on the borders of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire at its South-West end, to Bedford at its North-East end—a distance of around forty miles. There are already some 29,000 households living in the noise zone proposed by Roskill. Naturally, a large area like this contains hospitals, old people's homes and other places particularly vulnerable to noise. Something like 127 schools would be affected so badly that sound insulation work would have to be carried out to keep the noise at a tolerable level. The estimated cost of this work, on 1969 prices, is something like £3·7 million—nearly £4 million. In terms of £536 million to build the airport, that is not much, but nevertheless it is a lot of money for the county to find, not to improve schools, but merely to keep down the noise level.
The alternative to all this must be Foulness on the coast, where general disturbance and human misery is kept to a minimum, or, as I have suggested, in the North of England where an airport might not be so unwelcome. It has been said that too much emphasis has been laid on

1009
the human, emotional side of the problem, but I think this is most important, and that is why I have rather stressed it. These are people, my Lords, human beings whom it is proposed should be uprooted from their homes and planted elsewhere. This is going to hurt. They are not just statistics in some report. I think that the concluding paragraphs of the Buckinghamshire County Council's Memorandum, paragraphs 56 to 59, concerning environment conservation and the permanent destruction of a large slice of one of England's most beautiful counties for the sake of an airport when there is an easily recognised alternative site are well worth reading.
6.55 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I shall not detain you for long at this hour. You must be very weary after a positive torrent of eloquence on this subject. I should like to congratulate the Government on the way that they are dealing with this matter. It is absolutely right, before reaching a decision, that they should hear as many opinions and voices as possible. I am sure that they must have benefited from the extremely informed debate that this House has had up to now and will, I am sure, benefit additionally from the debate in another place. I sympathise with the Government in the difficulty they have in reaching what is a most recalcitrant decision. I am sure that with the advantages that they will enjoy of hearing an opinion on all sides they will not make the egregious error of accepting the recommendations in this Report.
In making what appears to be a highly critical comment, I am not all that critical of the Report. In many ways it is a very good Report. Lawyers will be acquainted with the occasional phenomenon of reading at considerable length a judgment from a very learned judge which appears, as you read it, to point inexorably towards a particular conclusion, and discovering at the end that the judge has arrived at the quite opposite conclusion. Reading this particular Report, one arrives almost inexorably at the conclusion that the proper site for this airport is Foulness. That appears to be imminent throughout the document. If I had not known of the conclusion that had been arrived at in the document, I would not have realised in reading the Report that they were going to recommend Cublington. Two reasons
1010
only are given for this in the Report. One is that Foulness is less accessible. The second is that it will be more costly.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord glossed over the reference to the fact that the air operators would not use it.
LORD GOODMAN: I am much obliged for the intervention, but that is caught up within my reference that it is less accessible and that it presents aviational difficulties. I certainly was not convinced, nor were the Commission convinced; because their major reasons for this recommendation were expressed to be that Foulness was less accessible, that fewer people would use it; and they gave an estimate of the number of journeys less that would be made over a period of years. And secondly they said that it would be more costly.
As to the second of these reasons, I do not think that this is an appropriate matter to come within the recommendations. I believe it quite proper for the Commission to point out that the airport will cost another £50 million, £60 million, £70 million, or whatever it is, but that is purely a Governmental concern. I do not think that one should ask the Commission to reach a decision on that particular ground. They cannot know the economic considerations and priorities in relation to Governmental expenditure which determine whether one should spend one or another sum of money. They are absolutely right in drawing attention to the matter, and there it ought to end. I was wholly unconvinced on the aspect of expenditure.
On the aspect of accessibility I am—and I think it is my only claim to speak in this debate—a regular air traveller. I am sure that the House will be appalled to hear that your Lordships were almost deprived of the possible benefits of further orations from me when, the other day, the undercarriage of an aeroplane in which I was travelling mutinously failed to descend. I am sure that you will be immediately relieved that my presence here to-night demonstrates that this was not an irremedial disaster. The fact remains that I travel very frequently by air—I need to do so.
My conclusion is, I believe, shared by a great many air passengers: that unless you are making a very short journey it

1011
is really irrelevant whether you travel half an hour or an hour to the airport. I would say that as between travelling five minutes and half an hour, certainly that has a relevance in relation to one's journey; but if one is setting off for somewhere at a remote distance it is not all that important to the traveller that he should arrive at the airport within a matter of a few extra or less minutes. I think that much too much importance has been attached to this consideration. There has been in this Report a nicety and solicitude extended for travellers in relation to air travel which is extended to no other branch of humanity in relation to any other facilities provided by Government. It is absolutely staggering that so much concern should be paid to the question of whether a few minutes more or less should be expended on travelling to a place from which you are going to some remote part.
Although I believe this to be a good and careful Report, it is, unhappily, a Report by gentlemen who certainly started with some rather unfortunate preconceptions. If I may read a paragraph which I think sets the tone of the whole document, and conveys the spirit in which they set about the inquiry, it is this rather astonishing observation which appears in The Historical Background:
"The hostile jibe during the second world war that this country was no more than an aircraft carrier should in the last thirty years of the present century be a source not only of pride but of economic and political strength."
I do not know which of your Lordships will share with me a total repugnance to that sentence. I do not feel proud of the notion that this country will in the next thirty years become an aircraft carrier. It is no part of my aspiration, and I doubt very much whether it is part of the aspiration of anyone here who is in the same frame of mind.
However, this document starts with an imperative. The imperative is that we must find a third London Airport and every other consideration must go by the board. The source of that is the terms of reference, which, as was rightly observed by the noble Lord speaking from the Government Benches, do not appear anywhere in the document. Nowhere in this document does one find argued the most cogent of the considerations that
1012
is relevant, which is whether the cost, in aesthetic terms, in environmental terms, in terms of the despoiling of an area, is in fact excessive in terms of the aviational benefits to be received. One would have thought that at least half of this massive document would be devoted to that particular debate, but there is not a word on the subject—or barely a word on the subject. There is a footnote which says that some other body, some other subcommittee, had considered how imperative it was that we should have these additional aviational facilities and they obviously outweighed every other consideration.
If we are going to inflict on a section of our fellow countrymen what it is not an exaggeration to describe as the absolute Dantesque horror of planting a new aerodrome in the area in which they live, surely we ought to weigh most carefully whether corresponding benefits have been achieved. I do not believe that we have done any such thing. I believe that this document points very firmly to Foulness. I believe that if Foulness is not the solution, there can be no other solution.
This is the second debate we have had on this subject. We debated Stansted, in which debate a number of noble Lords spoke, and it emerged at once that there was the most violent and bitter antagonism on the part of the residents of that particular area against the installation of an airport there. We are now debating Cublington, and again it emerges that the section of the population housed there—it emerged from the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down—will fight à outrance to prevent the installation of an airport there. We shall be starting a bitterness and a corrosion within a section of the community that cannot be worth any compensatory benefits derived from it.
It is no use saying that we must live in the 20th and the 21st century. It is no use saying, as they say here in an astonishing paragraph, with which I find myself in disagreement:
"We see no reason why the pursuit of leisure should not allow a flight to Rome to see the Sistine Chapel but should permit a car journey to Audley End or Waddesden Manor."
So that, in order to enable some enthusiast to see the Sistine Chapel within seconds of his having reached the decision to do so, we are to despoil an

1013
immense area of beautiful countryside and ruin acres of agricultural land. It is of course the spirit of this enthusiastic flying saga that informs the whole of this document. It is people who do believe that we should leap into aeroplanes without a moment's delay and set off to see the Sistine Chapel, as though that would be the major motivation of most air travellers, who seek to justify what is going to be, in topographical terms and in rural terms, an absolute outrage.
I am wholly in agreement with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Luke, when he said that we should dismiss the notion that any inland airport is a possibility in human terms and in civic terms. We should, on the whole, accept that if a third airport is necessary—and I think a case is made out for this—it should be at Foulness, where there would be a minimum of disturbance, and where, astonishingly, a large section of the population actually welcome it. To have an area where people are welcoming an airport should be such a delight to the Government that I should have thought they would make the decision without a moment's hesitation.
However, my Lords, in any event one thing we should certainly do is to delay. I have recently twice had the weird experience of travelling in a Jumbo jet. If anything establishes the extent to which we are forgetful of ordinary civilised considerations in pursuit of air travel, it is this abominable instrument. If we are thinking in terms of extending a facility of this kind to the human race; if we are thinking in terms where we place in front of every æsthetic consideration, every notion of beauty, of tranquillity, quiet and repose, the necessity to hurl ourselves in all directions through the air at maximum speed, then I despair of civilisation.
7.5 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am indeed at a disadvantage following the noble Lord who has just sat down in his most humorous but in fact extremely businesslike approach to this problem. It crossed my mind, with a giggle, when everybody has been asking, as the Roskill Commission asked, "Is there an ideal site for a third London airport?" to ask myself, "Is there an ideal site for any airport?". That is a reasonable sequence of thought. Having been
1014
unable to attend your Lordships' House yesterday, I studied during the morning the OFFICIAL REPORT Of yesterday's debate, and I have listened to practically every speech this afternoon. As a result, I have been able to put aside practically everything that I was going to say, because it has already been touched on. Therefore shall confine myself to a few points which do not appear to have been mentioned, and in doing so I am going to refer to the Stansted debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, referred.
I concluded my speech on that occasion with the following words:
"… I have no interest in Essex"—
nor indeed have I any in Buckinghamshire—
"but I am jealous of our agricultural heritage and have respect for our countryside. I am influenced by some knowledge and experience of airports and of the noise problem. I am confident that the right plan for modern aircraft is to stack, take off and gain height over the sea, and that, as we see in other parts of the world, such would be achieved by an airport which I visualise on the sands, connected to London by a barrage controlling the tides."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11/12/67; col. 943.]
So in one respect I support Professor Buchanan. Indeed, I would resist any further measure of delay, although what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has just said makes one realise that perhaps some reconsideration as to timing might be wise.
One point occurred to me on hearing his speech, and about that undercarriage: the fact that an airport has its connected planes stacking over the sea, over sandbanks and over mud is a safety factor in an emergency—which is always a possibility although, fortunately, more and more remote as design improves. But I turned to my diary and, with some amusement, I read the entry I wrote on the day of the Stansted debate:
"Made my speech containing my suggestion of a new airport and barrage"—
this is my point—
"and road/rail complex, but nobody appeared to notice."
However, The Times published a letter from me on the subject a few days later, and I trust that your Lordships will therefore forgive me if I return to this barrage proposal. For, somewhat to my surprise, I have not noticed any reference

1015
in any of the speeches to this ever-present problem of the flood threat to the Thames and to London, although in fact some of the papers circulated to us from, I think, Messrs. Bernard Clark and Partners made reference to this matter; and I shall return to that again.
Since the Stansted debate there have been, as we all know, a number of developments: we have heard of them. There is an established recognition of the flood danger to London; there has been the decision of the Port of London Authority to develop docks at Maplin Sands, and there has been a general acceptance of the need for orbital highways around cities to relieve their internal traffic. My main impression of the mass of papers which has encompassed me, as it has encompassed all of your Lordships, in this matter is the vast cost of whatever has to be done. I ask myself, as my noble friend Lord Simon said, "Why cannot this cost be shared?". And, my Lords, what about private capital?—a point which I think was referred to by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale.
The flood protection plan for Woolwich seemed to be the most speculative affair because the actual incidence cannot be foretold, and I can find no estimate of the cost of protecting the land between Woolwich and the sea in the considerations for the mechanical barrage there. Your Lordships may ask: what has all this to do with Roskill? My Lords, it is this. One of the many proposals to which I have referred by Messrs. Bernard Clark and Partners was, in fact, printed in The Times on December 30, 1970, and this includes the desirability of a massive land reclamation. This is what was said in The Times:
"A result of this would mean that low-lying areas of London, at the moment susceptible to flooding, would no longer be threatened. The danger removed, these districts could be developed without the expense of antiflood walls."
That, my Lords, is why the flood protection plan is connected with the Foulness proposal. Land reclamation on a massive scale, if it will control the floods, is surely the answer to our problem.
If the scales have not already been tipped, I should say that that tips them in favour of the airport on the sands—perhaps more costly than Cublington, as the Roskill Report says, though it may
1016
be contended that it would be less expensive in the long run if the cost were shared and the cost of flood protection were included as part of the contribution towards the cost of the whole complex.
But, my Lords, a massive road/rail highway between Essex and Kent would be part of this proposal (indeed, it is forecast in one of these Reports), because it could be superimposed upon land reclamation. In this respect—and with respect—I differ somewhat from Mr. Clark and his partners in the alignment of this line which he connects with a Channel Tunnel. Could not the line be such that it would primarily provide for a direct, fast rail link between Foulness and Heathrow and Gatwick and the Victoria area? I understand that the speed of rail vehicles of a modern design has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and if this link were the primary connection between Foulness and London it would bring the traffic to the terminal complex which already exists in the neighbourhood of Victoria, both existing and, I believe, prospective.
The TEDCO proposal that King's Cross should be the terminal of any communication with the Third Airport seems to me to be out of reason, if what we want in the air requirements of London is rapid passage between airports for transit passengers. Whether or not we join the Common Market, the volume of cross-Channel traffic is bound to develop; and whether or not there is a Tunnel (and I am not one of those who favour it), a road link between the Channel and the Midlands, bypassing London, would be invaluable and a boon to the new London dock system. Indeed it would go some way towards meeting the need, expressed by various noble Lords, of providing the Third London Airport with ready access from the Midlands—added, as I suggest, to a substantial bypass to London itself.
I think that everybody has accepted that an airport on the sands would reduce the noise problem to a minimum, and I doubt whether the people of Kent need worry very much on this point. It has been developed in the debate, and I do not know how many of your Lordships saw the B.B.C. 2 programme called "Westminster", on Saturday night last, in which a number of Kent objectors took part. My information from air operators

1017
is that, with fully loaded aircraft, on full bore, in most winds Kent would not be subjected to offensive noise.
There is one other point that has not been fully developed; it is connected with the effect of restrictions either on flying hours or on load, which latter is inevitable if you are not going to allow aircraft to take off at full bore, on the earning power of an aircraft. I do not think this factor has received sufficient attention in the cost effectiveness studies on the revenue side, although perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, may differ from me in that connection.
If we are not to have flying at night (and, judging from what the noble Lord said about the possibility of trouble with the second runway at Gatwick, the remedy there may be the same as at Heathrow: no flying between certain hours), that inevitably detracts from the earning power of the airport. And if, similarly, aircraft are not allowed to take off at full bore, this will be, when we realise how important is the freight aspect, a serious factor in estimating the cost/effectiveness of an airfield. My Lords, I will not say much about the VTOL and STOL side, though my information is that, so far as profitable passenger and freight operations are concerned, it will be many years before that system is viable—although of course for passengers STOL may come sooner than we expect.
Another matter that I should like to mention concerns the Brent geese. I, too, am a bit of a bird-watcher, and I love geese. But I do not think the preservation of their territory is a matter to compare with the problems outlined in the most attractive maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Essex. The geese will find somewhere else to go; distances present no difficulty to them. Brent geese are shy and they will go somewhere else. Admittedly there is a potential danger to aircraft from the geese, but I am informed by an airline executive that the geese of Foulness are probably no more of a threat than the vultures in Bombay or the seagulls in Rio. In short, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that Foulness is the place, and that an airport at Foulness should form part of a complex with the London Docks, with flood control and a road link with Kent; and I believe that such a scheme is within the capacity of our
1018
planners if they are prepared to "think big".
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I think he said that Bernard Clark and Partners suggested that if we reclaimed the land in the Thames Estuary it would be more necessary to have a Thames barrage. I saw them this afternoon and they told me that by narrowing the Thames Estuary there would be less likelihood of flooding. Can the noble Lord tell rue anything about that?
LORD FERRIER: Yes, my Lords. I am very glad the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, has made that observation, because that is what I meant to indicate. Their recommendation is that by adequate reclamation the floods themselves would be controlled without the necessity for these vastly costly mechanical devices. Where I differ from Messrs. Bernard Clark & Partners is not that they have suggested that there should be no barrage there (they say that a barrage is unnecessary because its place would be taken by reclamation), but because they show a road connecting with Kent in the neighbourhood of Herne Bay. My idea is that it should be further West. In the TEDCO paper there is an indication. It says:
"It is unthinkable that when the Channel Tunnel is built there will not be a bridge over, or a tunnel under, the Thames much further East than any of the present crossings so that this Channel Tunnel rail/road traffic to the North and Midlands can avoid London."
What I am suggesting is that this connection should be combined with fast monorail or other passenger connections between the third London Airport, Gatwick, Heathrow and Victoria.
7.20 p.m.
LORD GRAY: My Lords, if my speech fails even to get off the runway, I hope that noble Lords will understand that it is because I have tried to trim its wings in view of the lateness of the hour and my position in the batting order. I have no particular interest to declare in either Cublington or Foulness. I have to confess that the rejection of Nuthampstead favoured me personally, where I live, and I was only too aware that one of the sites considered at an earlier stage was only a mile or so from my back door. In principle, I have for a long time been

1019
disposed to prefer a coastal site to an inland site. This does not mean, however, that I was not prepared to read Roskill, and that I did not read Roskill. I have in fact done so carefully, and I should like to join in the tributes paid to the thoroughness, extensiveness and ingenuity of the work they undertook and the Report that they have presented to us.
I was prepared to have my mind changed if certain difficulties were thrown up by the Report. I had hoped that Foulness would be chosen as a basis for a national airports policy and in due time perhaps, as the cornerstone of a national transport policy. I had hoped that it might thus be possible to alleviate immediately distress at the other airports in the South-East, stop any increase in the movements and noise stress at these, and, with VTOL and STOL (about which we have heard a lot that is perhaps more encouraging than the views on it in the Report), we should then be able to maximise the advantages which these aircraft would bring, and which would I believe also be brought by what are termed S.S.T. aircraft.
I mentioned a national transport policy, and here I had in mind that in due time—perhaps at the end of the century or before—we should come to a point where not only would these short take-off and similar aircraft be the norm, but also we should be making use of unconventional—or in our present view unconventional—overland high speed transport systems. I said that if the Report posed certain particular difficulties I was prepared to be persuaded. I took the view that a coastal site should be rejected only if, first, it represented a cost that we could not entertain; second, it did not meet air traffic and safety requirements; third, it was not possible physically to build it; and fourth, it would not pay its way.
On the second of my requirements, concerning air traffic and safety, I am satisfied that Foulness is all right in terms of the Commission's findings. The Commission certainly do not suggest that it could not be built. Therefore, the third of my points is met. As to the question of cost, and whether it would pay its way, here the cost/benefit analysis seems to overshadow the issue. However I look at it, it is rather like looking into a
1020
child's kaleidoscope into which have been put too many pieces of one colour or one over-large piece; however I shake it, one figure always dominates, and that is the figure for passenger user costs. They have a direct bearing on whether the airport would pay its way, if one accepts Roskill's figures, inasmuch as they bear on, among other things, the amount of traffic likely to use the airport in its later stages.
On capital cost, if one accepted that Foulness could be the cornerstone of a national airport policy, as I have suggested and as I hope the Government may look at it, then the extension of Luton, which represents £18 million in the cost/benefit analysis as a dis-benefit to Foulness, would not need to be considered. Nor would the subjective cost of £11 million for noise.
On the question of passenger user costs, I know that many noble Lords have spoken on these; but I should like, if I may, to add one or two comments. It seems that here we come to the crux of the issue, since whatever view one may take as to whether the Commission did or did not put the market considerations above the environmental considerations, no one could dispute, on looking at the table in which they aggregate the cost/benefits, that the passenger user costs dominate it. Hence it is not surprising that they have received so much attention in our debate yesterday and to-day.
How much value should be put on them? Some would say none; others might say a great deal. I do not think they should be admitted in terms of whether or not one is to go ahead with Foulness. It is not without interest in this context that when we are looking at the time value element this expresses differences in aggregate of times that are a matter of only five minutes for rail and 12 minutes for road travel. These represent in many cases only a very small proportion of the total journey time for a traveller. As to the question of the value to be placed on time, to what has already been said I would only add that it has some of the appearance of a bit of a red herring; and when one knows that the time value calculations include a valuation for children accompanying their parents, seeing them off at the airport, or other people doing the same

1021
thing, voluntarily, then in relation to the value, the very much lesser value, placed on other subjective costs, it takes on a somewhat grotesque character.
My Lords, I shall be interested to hear what answers are given to the noble and learned Viscount regarding defence matters. I think that a very big question mark hangs over these, and certainly Foulness enjoys an advantage.
Before I sit down, I should just like to say that I was amused yesterday to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, say he had not spoken in the Stansted debate because he had been advised not to make his maiden speech on that occasion. I received similar advice from a similar source on my side. I do live near Stansted, and I should like to say I derive some comfort from what the Report has to say. But we had our first jumbo-jet the other day and the graph in the Report which includes projected growth at Stansted and Luton makes the Commission's conclusions on this look a little like the curate's egg. I do hope that Stansted will come to an end and that there will be a reduction of flying at Gatwick, at Luton and at Heathrow generated by the adoption of Foulness as the cornerstone of a national airports policy.
7.31 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD: My Lords, I know very little about airports and so I shall say very little about a subject on which so many experts have already spoken. I merely want to place on record my implacable opposition to the creation of any new airport anywhere in England, at least in the crowded southern half of England. I am, of course, aware of the fact that an airport on the coast will cost more than an airport nearer to London, if we are talking about an airport somewhere near London, but I do not see how you can measure people's lives in terms of money.
To destroy a great tract of beautiful countryside in which many people have their homes would, in my opinion, be a crime, an act of vandalism for which posterity would not forgive us, and it would be a negation of all the fine talk that we have recently been hearing about the quality of life. The time has surely come for Governments to cease spoiling
1022
people's lives in the sacred name of progress.
For many centuries English people held a legal right to peaceful enjoyment of their property. I do not know whether that right has ever been legally abolished, but successive Governments, and indeed local government authorities, have ridden roughshod over it time and time again. Perhaps this is the moment for us to reassert that right and to say that no Government should have the power to take it away; that no Government should be allowed to go to three or four villages and say, "You will all move".
There is, Lords, a body of opinion which is gaining more and more support every day to the effect that more civilisation need not and should not mean more noise, more dirt, more pollution and less fresh air and sunshine. Even in New York there are objections to the noise of Concorde. If the inhabitants of New York can object to noise and dirt, surely we can, too. Let us take a step forward towards more civilisation by saying a loud and clear "No" to the idea of any airport near London.
7.33 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I rise to knock yet another nail into what I fondly hope is the coffin of any suggestion that an airport be built at Cublington. At this late stage in the debate, heaven knows it is difficult to find any room left to knock another nail in, but I took very strongly the point of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he said that it was not merely important that the Government and all the interested parties should hear the individual judgments of Members of your Lordships' House but that a general balance of opinion should emerge; so I shall trouble your Lord ships for a very few minutes longer on this very topic.
I, like so many of your Lordships, admired the colossal labour that went into the preparation of this Report. Also, like so many of your Lordships, I found many of its conclusions doubtful and much of the reasoning employed in coming to these conclusions actually specious. The figures themselves I found no way of questioning. As one easily intimidated by technology, I was much encouraged by how many of your Lordships treated the mystique of cost/benefit

1023
analysis with such easy familiarity and even dared to doubt the figures and turn them upside down. My faith in human nature has been quite restored by that. I had really thought that we were coming out second best to the computer world, and I am most encouraged.
In the conclusions of the Report there are many things which noble Lords have already commented on. For example, I think the question of the port at Foulness was unfairly treated. By "unfairly", I mean that it was scarcely treated at all. As someone knowing nothing whatever of the advantages and possibilities of a port at Foulness, I had hopes of learning a great deal from reading the Report. I learned nothing. All I learned was that the Commission had decided that because they had not been asked specifically to comment on the port and they were not in a position to recommend a site for a port, they would say no more about it. Yet it appears that the existence of a port alongside an airport at Foulness has been much canvassed as one of the great advantages.
I know that it has also been suggested that a vast increase of industry on top of the airport and the port would not be a good thing, but I have yet to see the suggestion that unless a vast influx of industry arrived in Essex the port would not be viable or the airport would not be viable, and I was disappointed that the Commission told me so little about the port. I was disappointed in their handling of the VTOL situation. I see that if vertical take-off aircraft become a reality it will be some time before it happens and I see, according to the projections of Cublington and Foulness, that if the airport were at Foulness any possible impact of the VTOL aircraft on the situation would come only just after Foulness received its second runway. Is this to suggest that because Cublington, if it were chosen, would have a runway somewhat earlier, the immense waste of effort involved would be any less distressing? Merely because the impact of VTOL was coincidental with the second runway at Foulness seems to me to be no argument whatsoever for suggesting that Cublington is a better site.
However, in the course of to-day's debate I have been even further encouraged
1024
by learning a new phrase, QSTOL. Unfortunately, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I did not read Flight this week, but I understand that QSTOL must be "quiet take-off aircraft", and it suddenly occurred to me in a flash how nice it would be if the technology of this country were applied to making aeroplanes quieter. This is the one thing that everyone regards as a consummation devoutly to be wished—not faster or bigger or shinier, but quieter—and if our technology were applied to that how much more happiness there would be not only in your Lordships' House but also over the whole spread of the country.
On the matter of priorities, in its reasoning this Report seems to me to be more than a little specious. Much has been made of the unfortunate paragraph about the journey to Rome to see the Sistine Chapel, but in fact the sentence which precedes it is very dubious indeed:
"If an air traveller wishes to make his journey, whether on business or holiday, we see no reason why he should not be allowed to do so."
It is not a question of allowing him to do so. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his capacity as Chairman of the Arts Council, sees no reason why the inhabitants of the Hebrides should not be allowed to hear grand opera, but I also doubt if he is going to build an opera house in the Hebrides to ensure that they do. This sort of argument is merely a semantic confusion. It is not a question of permitting and allowing; it is a question of encouragement. Indeed, there is a passage here which suggests, as if it were a great horror, that on considering the length of journey to Foulness a business man might actually decide not to make his business trip. What sort of a business man, faced with the decision of a 39 or a 44 minute railway journey, will cancel a business appointment abroad? If that is the hope for English businessmen, then we can relax at once—no airport is necessary.
But the most serious point of all is the one which so many of your Lordships have already made. I will not labour it further. It is, of course, the proposed destruction of Cublington and the area round it. It parenthesis, I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said today that those concerned with defending

1025
this area had raised the sum of £55,000 for this purpose. I wonder how many of your Lordships thought with me at the time how monstrous it is that a sum of £55,000 should have to be raised to prevent one's house and one's home from being bulldozed; that the mere suggestion in official circles—not a recommendation or at this point an endorsement—should cause sums of this magnitude to be subscribed, much from outside sources and most from people who probably can ill afford it.
But if one wants one last quotation from this very dubious recommendation of the Report, with which I will take issue, it is in its second paragraph. The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, this afternoon impressed upon us that in this matter we must not take or recommend a decision for emotional reasons. With the greatest respect to the noble Viscount, I do not believe that there are emotional reasons. There are reasons expressed with emotion. If that is the case, then I welcome it. He also suggested that we must give our opinion on this matter only after calm and dispassionate judgment. I defy anybody to wade through this document for its whole length in a white-hot passion; it is physically impossible to do so. So, my Lords, as I come to my conclusion, it is with the calmest and the coolest judgment that I can summon, and I say that if we permit the area round Cublington to turn into an airfield the world will believe that Britain is going backwards to barbarism. Any country that could permit the desolation and the outrage envisaged would be looked at by others, and rightly so, as a nation of vandals.
This Report, taking issue with Professor Buchanan, says:
"Professor Buchanan regards the planning and environmental factors as he interprets them, as constraints to which all other factors must be subservient. No matter how well a particular site will serve as an airport in other respects, if that site fails to satisfy planning and environmental considerations, that site must be rejected. We cannot accept this approach."
With the destruction envisaged, if that is what is meant by "planning and environmental considerations", then the Roskill Commission may not be able to accept that approach. But I accept it and, if I judge aright, the majority of your Lordships accept it. I beg Her Majesty's Government to accept it.
7.44 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, because I have been approached from all sides not to speak at all However, I have one point that I should like to make; namely, that the planning and the reclamation of Foulness must not be taken as concerned solely with an airport, but also as concerning a seaport, an oilport and a manufacturing and industrial area; and also that there must be in the plan a residential area. All these ancillary interests would make Foulness the Midlands of the East Coast, with the benefits of the seaport and of an airport on their doorstep—and we all know that people work very much better on the East Coast than anywhere else in England.
I have here a map from Bernard Clark and Partners to the effect that 600 square miles in the Thames Estuary can be reclaimed. I make the figure only just over 500 square miles. However, the total area amounts to 320,000 acres. If this land were reclaimed and sold at £5,000 per acre it would realise £1,600 million. That is a lot of money. I do not believe that the seaport or the airport and the overhead rail will cost that amount of money. I think the Government are going to make a profit. In these days I say let the Government make a profit; I am all for it. Finally, we should have the finest airport in the world, and a seaport second to none. My Lords, think big; think the future!
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, I must apologise for intervening at this late hour, but I want merely to ask a question which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in winding up will be able to answer in the negative. The question is: is it really true, as noble Lords have suggested, that people who live in the noisy areas around Heathrow and Gatwick can expect no relief during the next ten years, either by alternative routing or the quietening of existing aircraft? Further, is it true that they must in fact expect increasing noise, caused by additional movements?
7.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, I must first of all apologise in that my absence from London made it impossible for me to be here yesterday for the first

1027
half of this debate. However, everything that I have heard this afternoon and this evening, and everything that I have read in yesterday's Hansard, has made it clear to me that the Roskill horse has already been flogged very nearly to death, and it is hardly necessary for me to flog it much further. I should also say that it is by mistake that I appear in the list of speakers as winding up for the Liberal Party. The fact is that I just did not know how soon I was going to get back to London and I asked to be put late on the list. This is in no sense a winding-up speech.
My Lords, if at any moment, at any time, and in any circumstances I had read of a proposal permanently, irrevocably and deliberately to despoliate the Vale of Aylesbury and much else besides, I should have been horrified. When I read it in the Report of a Commission of this kind, and when, in particular, I read the principal reasons why the Commission so decided, I am sickened. The reasons that we have I quote from paragraph 13.58:
"The first is that it makes substantially less demand upon the nation's resources. The second it that the benefits to air travellers are greater."
On the first point, there is already precious little green unspoiled land left near London. Even among what remains, the Vale of Aylesbury is unique. Can its loss possibly be measured in financial terms? I do not believe it can.
On the question of distress, can the distress suffered by the thousands of people who will be evicted from their homes, and the countless thousands more whose lives will be made a living hell by noise and pollution be measured in such a way? The Roskill Report is perfectly right when it says that there are certain factors which cannot be quantified—horrible word, quantified—but if this is the case, and indeed it is, surely all this means, if they cannot be fitted into a cost/benefit analysis, is that the resulting cost/benefit analysis will be inaccurate; it does not mean that those considerations can be ignored. The second reason is that the benefits to air travellers are greater. Are we really going to put the interests of air travellers, who may use the place for a few hours a year, above those of the residents of the area that is
1028
threatened with destruction, and for whom it is their home, and their only home?
I do not want to develop these points any more as they have already been developed over the past two days at enormous length by far greater intellects and far more persuasive tongues than mine. The real reason why I put my name down to speak this afternoon is to make one particular point, which I think has not been adequately covered either in the debates in this House or in the Roskill Commission's Report. It is the question of the threatened properties of the National Trust, on whose executive council I have the honour to serve.
We have all heard a great deal about Stewkley Parish Church—about which, incidentally, the Report, totally inaccurately and, in my view, highly tendentiously, says that it can be moved. It cannot. We have heard much less about Waddesdon Manor, which is the home, after the Wallace Collection, of the second greatest private bequest in this country. We have heard even less about Claydon, which is not only the home of the family of Florence Nightingale but is also the possessor of the most superb suite of rococo rooms in this country. We have heard less still about Ascott, with its superb collection of English and Dutch paintings. None of these houses, it is true to say, is going to be razed to the ground if an airport is built at Cublington, but the whole tranquillity and peace, which is vital if they and all the things within them are going to be appreciated and loved, will be lost for ever. What about the Trust's 4,000 acres of Ashridge Estate, including Ivinghoe Beacon; unspoilt downland and beechwoods, through which the public is free to roam at will? If the airport is built at Cublington the whole of that estate will have just about as much rural tranquillity as Kew Gardens, and any of your Lordships who have been to Kew Gardens in the last five years will know what I mean by that.
I come to the question of Foulness. The National Trust cares every bit as desperately about the coastline of this country as it does about stately homes and their art collections. Those of your Lordships who are members of the National Trust—and I am sure that all of your Lordships are members of the National Trust—will understand and

1029
believe me when I say that. But is this not the only country in the world where the interests of birds are placed above the interests of humans? If a certain amount of area has to be despoiled for ever, is it not only sensible, is it not self-evident, that the maximum possible proportion of that area should be over the sea? If it is, then we are forced to the conclusion that no inland site for an airport can be acceptable.
One thing I should like to say about Foulness concerns a point which, certainly in the speeches that I have heard this afternoon, has not been stressed; that is, that the site at Foulness is infinitely, or very nearly infinitely, expandable. We have heard so much this afternoon about whether a third airport is or is not in fact necessary. If we have an airport at Foulness, a third airport will not be necessary; nor indeed, will a second airport be necessary. Foulness can be built—and I hope that it will be built—on a huge scale; a scale big enough to make both Heathrow and Gatwick redundant. It will be able to concentrate the entire foreign civil aviation of this country in one place. That place will be very largely over the sea, and the noise levels, the inconvenience levels, the pollution levels will be at a minimum. If, as may happen, though God forbid! in some future time that airport becomes too small, it can be expanded; more land can be reclaimed, more runways built, and more passenger terminals. There will never be a problem. We shall never be in the position that we are always in whenever an office building, an airport, a station or anything is built nowadays, that by the time is it built it is already too small. This has happened all the time at Heathrow. It could never happen at Foulness.
With the hovertrain, about which my noble friend Lord Gladwyn has told us, travelling at 250 miles an hour once every two minutes to the centre—and this is not a dream; this is perfectly practical—everybody will be happy. The long distance air travellers will be happy, because the problems of getting to the airport will no longer exist. Transit passengers in particular will be happy because they will have to bother no longer about getting from one airport to another, and crossing central London as they do so. The airlines will be delighted because at last all their stock, spares, offices and
1030
equipment will be in the one and the same place. Finally, and most important of all, the people of the South-East will be happy, because at last they will be free of that tyranny of noise and pollution which so many thousands have suffered, and with which so many thousands more have been threatened for very much too long.
7.57 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this has been a very curious, poignant and ironical debate, because all your Lordships will remember that not so long ago it was proposed in this House that there should be a third London Airport at Stansted, and there was a great outcry not only against the idea of Stansted but about the supposed failure of the Government to have examined the matter sufficiently in detail and sufficiently publicly. The Government were sent away like very naughty boys—I think my noble friend Lord Greenwood will bear me out on this—in order to set up a Commission and do it all publicly and better than we had done it. The Commission duly reported, and the Commission's Report is before your Lordships' House, and you do not like it. What a difficult situation in a democracy this is!
I believe that not one single noble Lord has spoken in favour of the solution brought up by the Commission, the very setting up of which was determined by this House. Speakers in to-day's debate have been divided between those who say, "Don't let us have Cublington; let us have Foulness", and those who say, "Don't let us have Cublington; let us wait." Many noble Lords have had a grand time going over the Roskill Commission's Report. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, produced a wonderfully high level rending noise, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland yesterday produced a spendidly racy rending noise, both of them, I thought, very effective. The Report can indeed, be faulted all over the place. There are obvious and glaring faults, not in the way the cost/benefit exercise has been carried out but in the way it was set up in the first place in the questions asked. If I may take one example, the whole finding in regard to Foulness rests on the passenger user cost. That means the difficulty of getting there. If you

1031
turn to paragraph 10.1 of the Report which introduces this concept of passenger user costs and access, it says as an example:
"People in the Nuthampstead area for example might find it preferable to fly to Scotland from a nearby airport—should there be one—instead of travelling to London to catch a train or even not travelling at all."
This is obviously so: if you did happen to live anywhere near Nuthampstead and there was a plane from there to Glasgow, you would take it. This is undoubted common sense and wisdom. This is the kind of thing we need.
We then carry on to paragraph 10.2 and we find that the argument is changing somewhat. We are dealing with Foulness now. It says:
"For some potential air travellers the inaccessibility will deter them from their air journey."
Yes, indeed, if they live near Nuthampstead and they want to go to Glasgow, they will not go to Foulness. I agree with my noble friend Lord Beswick, who said that the day we go to Paris by way of Maplin Sands will be absurd. Of course, the day we go to Amsterdam by way of Maplin Sands will be more sensible. The paragraph continues:
"The more pronounced this effect is, the greater the risk that London will cease to be an important station on the world's main air routes."
Now by a kind of sleight of hand, in a few lines of print, we have passed from how to get from Cublington to Glasgow, to how to get from London to New York or London to Singapore; and it is perfectly obvious that things that might deter you in the one would not deter you in the other.
In paragraph 10.3—I am not going through every paragraph of the Report, but these are points which I should like to bring out; perhaps the Government would like to pick them out from Hansard later and think about them—there is a bit about how they have taken the Ministry of Transport's appraisal of road investment schemes in order to find out where drivers want to go. They asked the Ministry of Transport, "What do you do about deciding where to build a road and finding where the drivers want to go? How do you relate the two facts?" This is all about road users wanting to go between one place and another; it is
1032
not at all about people who did not want to use the road, and simply wanted to get to an aeroplane to get to a much more distant place. It seems that the Ministry of Transport's excellent ways of calculating this requirement have been carried over into the access costs, in arriving at that enormous loading against Foulness in the final charts.
Now I do not say, "Do not have Cublington; have Foulness" —far from it. I give these examples of the fact that the Roskill Report is based all the way through on what you might expect "homo economicus" to do, and, especially, what you might expect that sub-species, "homo economicus touristicus" to do in different circumstances. They are perfectly right to have found out and to have told us. But what the Government have to do now—and, my God!, I pity them—is to take this data and from it decide what is going to be right for our country. They must ask themselves, "What do we think is going to be best for this country? What do we want to do as the elected Government? Of course, if we want to, it will be right for a Government of either Party to take a course other than the cheapest."
Of course it will be right, if they want and judge it right to do so, to take a course which may involve certain persons in greater suffering for a time—that is the swings and the roundabouts. You need not necessarily follow the immediate short-term pay-off. I hope that the Government will have the courage to consider the regional planning aspects, to incur certain costs on the economy as a whole if need be—but not necessarily on the taxpayer—if in their judgment it is for the general social benefit of the country. And I believe that we are here taking the biggest planning decision, at least for the South-East of England, which will ever be taken until we come to the next century.
I have paid great attention, as have all of your Lordships, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. It was an important speech, coming from whom it did, and I was struck—how could one not have been struck?—by his programme, which came in two parts. First of all, we get the quieter engines by 1980—and he was fairly sure about that. Secondly, we get OSTOL. He did not put a date on it, but he did not seem to doubt that we shall get it; and his proposal

1033
was that we should go ahead with the second runway at Gatwick. I think that was the main part of his interim recipe. We should then examine progress in 1977, by which he meant that if it appears in 1977 that we are not going to get quieter engines by 1980, and QSTOL very shortly after, then we may have to think again and take more unwelcome courses. I was immensely struck, also, by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine—a practical and political one, if you like.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was preparing a Party issue in trying to pin on us all the continued and extra aircraft noise at Heathrow between now and 1980, because there is going to be that, anyhow. Two Elections are going to be covered by this increase and I do not think there is any hope of getting out of it. What we are talking about is the course to be adopted to decrease the Heathrow noise after 1980. If you adopt Roskill lock, stock and barrel, start planning now, and do exactly what he says, you do not get the first runway at Cublington till 1980, and the same will be true of Foulness, so that has to be faced.
One may be encouraged in this matter by one bit in the Report which I do not think anybody has mentioned; that is the passage where the Commission themselves are talking about VTOL and STOL, though not QSTOL. They state at the end that they do not think that STOL and VTOL are going to be of any help for a very long time; they end up on a rather depressing note. They then state, in effect, that this view supposes that the Government or industry are not going to provide large sums for all that is involved in developing one of these aircraft. They said that because they did not receive very much evidence on the VTOL and STOL questions. What they did receive was mostly devoted to the question of VTOL, and they said that this development is a very complicated thing to do and is a long way ahead in the future; that it will cost millions, it is very sophisticated and there is not very much hope.
They did not go too closely into what has become known as the less sophisticated approach of STOL, which could even be a sort of medium take-off—MTOL.—because something that could get
1034
off in half-a-mile would be usable in the centre of a big city, provided it was quiet enough. This is where the hope lies. I gather that since then the arrow of hope has been turning much more towards this. Moreover, one of the bogies they saw in the way of the development and use of VTOL was that there might not be small airports or pads ready for it in the centre of the places people go to—Paris, Madrid, Ibiza and all the rest.
The other difficulty about VTOL was that you cannot bring it down vertically through a mass of horizontally landing aircraft, and it is difficult to mix on a conventional airport. But if we come to the less sophisticated half-and-half idea of Slot., which still rolls horizontally, though very much shorter, there is no difficulty about slotting that into an ordinary conventional airport which we already have and which is handling conventional fast landing and take-off planes. So there are two factors there which have developed more favourably to the approach that my noble friends and I are advocating since the Roskill Commission finished their labours: first of all, the fact that it looks differentially easier to develop STOL with a "Q" in front than VTOL and secondly, the fact that the Commission's fear about the development of specialised infrastructure applies to VTOL, bur not to STOL to anything like the same extent.
If I may finish with two general points, they are these. First of all, in the Report, in the Government's thinking, to a certain extent in the last Government's thinking, in everybody's thinking, it is taken for granted that there has to be a lot of public money in the infrastructure of the aviation industry. I wonder whether it is not time now to begin to question ourselves about this. At one time it was thought that Foulness was going to be free to the public because there was a great amount of private capital corning in, because of the port. But then it was discovered that under the law as it stood you could not avoid a heavy charge on the ratepayers. You had to provide a lot of infrastructure, and all the rest of it, and this was going to fall on the public purse, willy-nilly. Are we perhaps taking it too much for granted that such expenditure should fall on the public purse? Why should we not devise a form of financing where the full cost

1035
of travelling by air is borne by those who wish to travel by air? Do we need to subsidise even by remote control? Do we need even to make favourable loans for the development of airports? It seems that the industry of aviation, as opposed to aircraft building, is something that ought by now, after fifty years, to be learning to forecast its own demand and to buy its own equipment, including airports, in a rational enough way to do without public subsidy; to do without, even, very large public loans. It can raise money in the market in the ordinary way. I think it might be time to begin to turn in that direction.
If we do that, we shall free a certain amount of public financial capacity theoretically—and what a good thing it would be if it could be spent on developments where public money is more properly spent! They are the dubious ones, which may not pay off. The State is not going to go broke, though firms do, as we know to our cost recently. Let the money be sunk in the development of doubtful engines; let it be sunk in brave projects—not in forlorn hopes, nothing stupid, but let risks be taken with public money rather than with private money. If private firms go "bust", the suffering is hard indeed to rectify. In the other case the Government have to rectify it, and Governments, as I say, do not go "bust". This ties in with what Lord Kings Norton—
LORD MOLSON: Governments do.
LORD KENNET: No, not yet they have not. It is a long time since a Government went "bust", but firms are going "bust" every week now under the present dispensation. This ties in with what Lord Kings Norton was saying about the need for courage in developing the QTOL engine. I would say, "Sink money in it". I would say, "Approach the Germans, the French, the Italians, anybody else around the place who is interested in it." I only did not add the Americans to the list because it might be politically easier at the moment not to. Let us get it off the ground in a major and a brave way, and let us then look at it again. I do not perhaps say, "Let us wait until 1977", as Lord Kings Norton said; but let us look at it again in 1973. By then, if it
1036
is not working, it may be that the Roskill Commission Report will take on a new immediacy and relevance. But for the moment I am among those who do not believe that it should guide the Government very closely in the decisions they have to take within the next month or two.
8.12 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, we are coming now towards the end, I hope quite closely towards the end, of two days of debate, and they have really been memorable days. We have had some very remarkable speeches: speeches from experts, speeches from people with a very deep interest in the subject. Here, I should like to refer right away to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Essex to-day. I have always been told that when anyone makes a maiden speech he should choose a subject he knows intimately. Certainly the noble Earl followed that advice, for he quite plainly knew intimately not only the place he was talking about but the people who live in it, and in consequence he made an extremely effective speech with which everyone will have sympathised deeply.
Some noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, have put forward complete packets, as it were, of alternative suggestions for consideration. There have been an immense number of criticisms, questions and suggestions, and even some wholehearted support occasionally.
LORD MOLSON: There has been no wholehearted, support of the Roskill Commission.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; I am talking of criticisms of various aspects. I have not suggested for one moment that there has been wholehearted support of the Roskill Commission's recommendations. What I meant to convey was that there has been wholehearted attacks on Cublington and wholehearted support from time to time of Foulness; that sometimes it has been modified support, and so on. I do not intend to go through all the various questions that I have been asked, and to deal with them separately—obviously, that would take an immensely long time—but perhaps I might be allowed to deal with

1037
one or two of the questions straight away before I come on to my speech.
Towards the end of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, asked a very pertinent question about how far we could expect relief within the next ten years so far as noise was concerned around Heathrow and Gatwick. My Lords, the answer must be that this is a factor that is likely to persist, unless limits on day travel as well as night travel movements are imposed at these airports, for the next tell years or so. The opening up of the third airport is the only prospect of significant relief, although we hope that during the period quieter aircraft will slowly turn the tide. But they will not really be in regular service until about 1985 onwards. I think one has to face this fact.
At the same time, one of the main reasons why the Roskill Commission were asked to look into the question of the third London Airport was to make sure that this noise nuisance in these areas did not become so great as to be completely intolerable over an even wider area than it is at the present time. The figures have been quoted of the immense number of people who are affected—700,000 homes around Heathrow and about 2¼ million people. These are very large figures. This, I am afraid, is the answer which I think the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, expected. I am sorry that it cannot be a more satisfactory one.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? May I ask him whether he is aware that, if he is saying that it is not possible to get a quieter engine until 1985, he is wrongly advised?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we know that steps are being taken to quieten down engines now, but at the same time, of course, their power is growing. But I accept what the noble Lord has said. The question is on what scale we are likely to get a quieter engine by 1985.
I should like to reply to the direct question which my noble friend (I am not allowed to call him my noble friend; the noble and learned Viscount) Lord Dilhorne asked about Brize Norton. The Government will naturally give the fullest consideration to this problem before
1038
reaching their decision, but I cannot give further information to the noble Viscount on that subject at this time. I think he will appreciate that it would have been wrong to have reached a firm conclusion on that particular matter. It is one, I think he will agree, that needs to be looked at in the perspective of the whole subject.
My Lords, although my noble friend Lord Salisbury is not here, I think your Lordships would like to have an answer to the question that he put about the Foulness range. Here the Ministry of Defence are reconciled (I think that is the best way to put it) to a move sooner or later, and wherever the third airport is situated the growth of air traffic over the Thames Estuary will make a move inevitable. But a decision to develop Foulness as quickly as possible would present the Ministry of Defence with the difficult, though one would hope not insuperable, problem of finding an alternative location.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, by that I hope the noble Lord does not mean that there would be a move to the Welsh coast.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have enough problems about moves to-day without considering that one in detail.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I can promise the noble Lord that there would be an uproar if that occurred.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the problem is that whenever you try to move something of this kind to somewhere else, and establish it somewhere else, there is uproar. We had it about Stansted and we are having it about Cublington to-night. That, to a large extent, is what this debate is all about. My Lords, we are deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for having initiated this debate. We all admired the great skill and force with which he presented his case, and he certainly set the tone for the debate.
It would be presumptuous on my part to attempt at this late hour, or at any hour, to evaluate the advice that has been proffered to-day. The Commission said that there were two different approaches to the problem that had been set to

1039
them: the market approach and the planning approach—and that neither on its own could provide the answer. Some noble Lords differed from that opinion to-day. They said that the one, the market approach, seeks to make the maximum use of the nation's resources and so to increase the nation's wealth; the other, the planning approach, seeks to identify certain socially desirable aims such as the conservation of the countryside and the best distribution of population and employment. The Commission stressed that both these approaches are indispensable and need to be blended. Individually, I suppose, we are all predisposed to stress one or the other according to our temperament, our profession perhaps, and even our personal preoccupations.
The Commission had the very difficult task of reaching a judgment impartially and dispassionately. Their methods have not always been understood. In particular, it is easy to criticise the cost/benefit analysis. No one would claim that the method is infallible. Nor did the Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, drew a very vivid and not altogether inappropriate analogy which delighted your Lordships. Nobody would claim that the method was infallible but it is, nevertheless, an important tool when sensibly used for helping decision-taking, especially where simple commercial criteria are not applicable. But it is a developing tool and we cannot afford to be uncritical in our approach to it or in our interpretation of its results.
As the Buckinghamshire County Council have pointed out, there are elements in the problem that have not been covered and some that could not be covered by a cost/benefit analysis. That is not to say that they were not given their due weights by the Commission in reaching their conclusion, although opinions will inevitably differ as to what their due weights should be. At least it is fair to say that the Commission, in their position of impartiality and after two years of study, are as well placed as any one person or any other body to reach a judgment. It is for the Government now to consider whether there are any factors which could not have been or were not given their full
1040
weights from the national point of view. But whatever may be the conclusion that the Government must reach and present to Parliament, it is right to recognise and to express the greatest gratitude for the immense amount of time, work and thought that the Commission and their staff have given to the problem.
Basically, however, the Government will have to weigh up considerations about the best use of economic resources and the viability and prospects of the candidate airports together with the environmental gains and losses. It is not only the sites that have to be compared. The airport, wherever it is, is bound to make a dramatic impact on the environment and amenity in the surrounding area and some impact on the lines of communication to London. As to the latter, it would be rural amenity that would be affected on the way to Cublington and mainly urban amenity on the way to Foulness, where two new motorways, we are told, would ultimately be required. As to the surrounding area, there would be a great loss of open countryside, historic and beautiful buildings and even entire communities at the inland sites. No less than 1,000 houses on the site and in the safety zone would disappear from the face of the earth at Cublington and 600 at the other two inland sites. This means an enormous upheaval and real distress for a lot of people.
At Foulness, the coastline and wild life would suffer. The noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, thought that this perhaps was not really a balancing factor to take as against other considerations. In all cases, the population would increase substantially in order to provide the 65,000 airport workers estimated to be required for a four-runway airport—although I would remind your Lordships that that is 25 years off. To provide that amount of workers would need an extra population of close on 400,000 in the case of Cublington or Thurleigh. If Cublington is chosen, the plans for Milton Keynes will have to be modified even if the population target there were not altered. The effect of the airport upon environment will therefore constitute a most important factor in the Government's considerations and the fact that there are aspects of it which are not included in the cost/benefit analysis will in no way diminish the weight to be attached to it.

1041
My Lords, there can be no doubt that from the powerful opening speech of my noble friend Lord Molson onwards, the views expressed in this debate have been overwhelmingly against a third London Airport at Cublington and substantially in favour of Foulness, although some noble Lords want neither. The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, asked whether we needed a third London Airport at all; and a good many others have echoed his views. But, after all, it was the Government of which he was a Member which was finally responsible for the Commission's terms of reference.
The Commission answered the question put to them about the timing of the need for a four-runway airport by saying that,
"planning should be carried out so as to ensure that the first runway of the third London airport, wherever it may be, would be operational by 1980."
By that time the three airports owned by the British Airports Authority: Heathrow, Gatwick with one runway and Stansted, plus the municipally owned airport at Luton, would have a capacity, as my noble friend Lord O'Neill said, for 476,000 aircraft movements a year. The range of aircraft movements in 1981, as he said, for the South-East is expected to lie between 421,000 and 589,000. Clearly, therefore—and I do not think that he disputed this—another runway, whether at the third London Airport, whether at Gatwick or elsewhere, is likely to be needed by 1980.
Certainly, advice given about Gatwick was conflicting. The advice of the noble Lords, Lord Beswick and Lord Kings Norton, was that the idea of a third London Airport ought to be discarded and that the Government should press ahead with the development of short take-off landing aircraft, whether "Q" or not, speedily and energetically and meantime provide a second runway at Gatwick. On the other hand, my noble friends Lord Reigate, Lord Cork and Orrery and to-day, my noble friend Lord Mersey, among others, made clear their strong opposition to any build up of air traffic at Gatwick. Of course, any application for a new runway would be subject to the usual planning procedures.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery asked why the Commission were asked
1042
to consider a four-runway airport. The reason can only have been that the traffic forecasts for the South-East indicated that eventually a four-runway airport would be required and that it was judged to be more economical and more efficient to have one large airport rather than two or more smaller developments. Some have argued in the debate to-day that it would be better to have a number of smaller developments; others, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, looked forward to an almost indefinite expansion at Foulness should it be required.
But nobody envisages the completion of four runways by 1980. Appendix 20.8 shows the timetable on which construction costs were based. The timetable allows for the second runway to be provided in 1986–87 at Foulness and in 1983 at the other airports. The third runway was not expected until 12 years later and the fourth, seven years after that. This is a very considerable time lag that is envisaged.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, referred to the proportion of the future traffic of a third London Airport assumed to come from the South-East. I am sure that he has studied Table 10.5 of the Report on page 103. This shows the various percentages estimated at the dates 1991 and 2000.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I think I quoted from the paragraph which follows that table.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. My Lords, the proportion from London and the South-East naturally varies with the site. I recall that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, mentioned the extremes being 80 per cent. for an airport at Foulness and 68 per cent. at Thurleigh; and at Cublington the figures are 73 per cent. in 1991 and 71 per cent. in the year 2000.
There have of course been studies of the origins and destinations of air passengers before the Roskill Commission Inquiry. The then Board of Trade, and now the Department for Trade and Industry, have carried out such surveys, and more are planned. These surveys have so far tended to confirm the estimation made by the Commission rather than the opposite view.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the studies made, as shown by the Roskill Commission, were on statistics obtained in 1967 and 1969. My argument was that the potential growth must be related to the size of the population and, whatever the present pattern may be, there may not be the same potentiality for growth in the South as in the North.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there were studies made last year on Scottish airports and also, I think I am right in saying, at Liverpool and Manchester, and one or two others. The results of these are due to be published before long. I am not sure whether they were before the Commission, but I certainly hope that they will be before the Government when they take their decision. I am just making the point that these forecasts from the studies were certainly before the Commission, and so far we have no reason to suppose that there has been any change in the forecasts.
At first sight it may strike noble Lords as odd that there should be this preponderance of air journeys generated in the South-East and that it would be wrong to assume that it will continue. But is it so odd when one considers that many of the journeys in question (about half in 1969 and it is assumed that the number will grow to over half in 1981 before reducing again to less) are made by non-British residents; in other words foreign tourists and businessmen? One has to hear in mind the enormous increase in tourist traffic to this country. It has been 20-fold over 35 years.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will look at the paragraph after the table to which he has referred, he will see that only 25 per cent. of the growth is estimated to be foreign.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point I am making is that we are discussing two forms of growth; the growth that is to come from foreign journeys and the growth from home journeys. All the noble and learned Viscount is saying is that the two are likely to keep more or less in parallel in the future—this is the forecast. Whatever the attractions of the rest of this Island, there is no doubt that the overseas visitors concentrate their attention on London; or at
1044
least they want to include London in their programme.
It is with this thought in mind that I suggest that those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Royle, urge the claims of airports far distant from London, may have to look at this more carefully. Most air journeys are short or medium-haul, and it is not at all reasonable that travellers, both British and foreign, should undertake a surface journey from, say, Liverpool to Central London; a journey three or four times longer than the duration of their air journey. I do not think that this can be contemplated.
There is now plenty of spare capacity at provincial airports, while in the peak periods the London area airports are crowded. But still the airlines, tour operators and passengers prefer London, for market reasons. The difficulty is further compounded in that the 20 to 30 per cent. of London area traffic, with its origins or destinations outside London and the South-East area, would, if forced out, be fragmented to all the other areas in which it is generated; and thus would not do enough to generate a useful level of services at any one place to any one destination in most cases.
Certainly it is sensible to have a national airport strategy—indeed, I think it more important to have a national airport strategy than to have a fixed national airport plan—which seeks to ensure that international flights are not frustrated by lack of capacity at airports outside the South-East, and successive Administrations have tried to ensure this; for example by the development of Prestwick and Manchester. Equally, a sound national strategy requires that we cope with the problem of growth and demand in the South-East which, for the reasons I have given, cannot be shuffled off elsewhere. My Lords, all these questions, or forecasts, will be most carefully examined by the Government in the course of making up their minds and I need hardly say that everything said by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in his most pungent speech, will be looked at extremely carefully.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, made a most interesting and constructive speech. Everything he said also will be considered extremely carefully. I am afraid that at present I am

1045
advised that the position has not changed as much as he hoped regarding short take-off and landing, and vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. I am advised that on the most favourably informed estimates they are unlikely to make any significant impact until the late 1980s. The noble Lord, of course, also has informed estimates, as I know. I am not saying that these aircraft will not be there; but they are not likely to make a significant impact. One has to remember that we cannot have a D-Day for aircraft. We cannot change, from one day to another, from long take-off to short takeoff and landing aircraft. As such, my Lords, these aircraft might well affect the need for a third runway which the Commission's construction timetable does not envisage until at least 1995; or the fourth runway which, as I have said, is expected some seven years later.
There are considerable problems involved in the idea. As someone has already said, it is gambling on the short take-off and landing or the vertical takeoff and landing aicraft in order to obviate the need to take any decision now. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick suggested, to put one's faith firmly in the short take-off and landing aircraft involves not building a third London Airport. In turn, that involves increasing the use of Heathrow, building a new conventional runway at Gatwick and making greater use of Luton and Stansted. The noble Lord also mentioned an airport on the South Coast, and putting down short take-off and landing runways at some or all of these places. Perhaps even more important, assuming short take-off and landing aircraft, some unspecified site—such as Poplar Docks as he said—in or near Central London would have to be found that would not create environmental or competing use problems.
All this will offer small comfort to those (and noble Lords have many times referred to their plight) who are suffering noise nuisance at existing airports. It seems to be a certain formula for increasing this nuisance. Moreover, my Lords, STOL and VTOL aircraft are now lagging far behind conventional aircraft in passenger-carrying capacity, and seem likely to do so for many years. The noble Lord mentioned planes carrying 100 passengers, I think, and he said they
1046
were likely to cost more in competition and would be handicapped. It is this which renders their economic operation doubtful. It is true that this could also result in needing two or three times as many flights with STOL and VTOL planes as with the conventional aircraft they are to replace.
LORD BESWICK: May I say that I think the noble Lord has a point about the increased number of flights that would be necessary to carry a give number of people? May I ask him this question, in all seriousness? When he says that an aircraft of this type could not be expected to be operating until the late 1980s, has he made any inquiries, or caused any inquiries to be made, of those people who will be responsible for making them? Is this the sort of estimate that they themselves would make?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not say I did not think they would be operating. I said that I did not think they would make a significant impact until the late 1980s.
My Lords, finally on this point there is the question of expense. In evidence to the Roskill Commission it was said that development of a short take-off and landing aircraft alone could well cost something over £250 million, and even that might not be enough to cover all the engine costs. On top of that there could be something of the same order of cost for the full system, in terms of developing, producing and installing new air traffic control equipment, new STOL airports and new types of navigation equipment. It is far too soon for any Government—and this is the point—to commit themselves to a course of action which would involve such costs. Two more years of study, at least, I am told, is needed before firm decisions one way or the other can be taken.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, is it improper to suggest that the Minister is advised by a lot of pessimists?
LORD DRUMALBYN: What the noble Lord has said will certainly be carefully studied. But we have examples of over-optimism which are not particularly encouraging at: the moment.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting him?—but this really is the most

1047
important matter of the whole debate. Surely the Government are going to pay very serious attention to the whole problem of short take-off, because unless they do this we may be faced not with an expenditure of £250 million in the development, but with an expenditure of £500 million or more on a useless airport.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a question of timing and fitting in the requirements.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Yes, of course.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The question is how soon we could be in a position to start work on this and, having started work, how soon we could expect aircraft to be produced, and then how soon we could expect them to be produced in sufficient numbers to make a significant impact. Surely these are the problems.
LORD KINGS NORTON: Surely the noble Lord will agree that I have given him an interim policy which covers that point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I agree that the noble Lord has given me an interim policy, and I have said already that that policy will be carefully examined as a whole. But it has to be examined very carefully indeed. What I feel I must do at the moment is to give the posture of the Government in the matter as of now.
It was for these reasons that the Commission concluded that it could not responsibly place reliance on STOL or VTOL to
"bring about an absolute reduction in the pressure on conventional airport capacity until the end of the next decade at the earliest."
They could not responsibly place reliance upon it. The Commission concluded that, to meet the expected growth in demand, a new airport in the London area would be needed by 1980. This raises the question: should this demand be artificially curtailed or should it be ignored? On this the Commission said:
"Generally it has been accepted that this country should not purchase peace and quiet at the expense of cutting itself off from the world's air routes."
That the economic cost of doing so would be considerable cannot be questioned. Lack of provision for the air traffic demand could have a serious effect on
1048
our tourist trade. This would not be much offset by reduction in numbers of British holidaymakers going abroad, because, in the first place, these holiday-makers may make more effort to escape the English summer by using sea transport than potential visitors to this country may make so as to experience it. Secondly, the loss of United States and Canadian tourists, among others, would not be offset by a reduction of British tourists, for example, to Spain.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a personal question? Does he subscribe to the view that there are American and Canadian tourists who do not care whether they come to Britain or, for instance, to France; who simply want to go to Europe, and do not know the difference between one country and another?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No. But experience shows that they will do what they want to do; and if they are not allowed to do what they want to do when they come here they will go to France instead.
British overseas trade will also be hampered, particularly in highly competitive fields, and it would not be possible to offer future relief to those suffering excessive noise at the London airports. Unfortunate consequences would arise for our own airlines operating overseas if we could not offer foreign airlines the facilities that they want in this country. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows has already happened in a particular case, and we do not want it to happen again. We are at present a net exporter of aviation services to the tune of £38 million a year—this is the net gain to the balance of payments.
If the Commission are right in forecasting the enormous growth of air traffic from 19½ million passengers in 1970 to 122 million in 1991, and 259 million in the year 2006, at the London airports alone—and we have seen no convincing arguments to the contrary, despite Lord Goodman's doubts—failure to provide adequately for this growth may condemn future generations to live in an economic backwater, unable to compete effectively with other States in the Western World. So far as we are aware, no country has decided not to try to meet the air traffic demands expected to be made of it.

1049
In conclusion, my Lords, I should perhaps make the point that, as has been obvious in the course of this debate, Foulness would be a popular choice for the site of a third London Airport. On the other hand, after studying the question in great depth and detail, we are bound to recognise that six out of the seven eminent men who formed this Commission, and who clearly were far from insensitive to environmental matters, found themselves in agreement that Cublington was, on balance, the best site, and Thurleigh the next best. I should perhaps remind your Lordships of the section in their Report at the end of paragraph 66 of Chapter 13, on page 141. The majority of the Commission said this:
"It is some measure of the extent to which each of us was able to give full weight to all the factors involved in reaching our recommendation—including the environmental matters about which Professor Buchanan feels so strongly—that each of us, uninfluenced by any of his colleagues, has independently felt compelled to make the same recommendation however reluctantly."
Why has this come about? Why has each of these six gentlemen come to this conclusion? It is not, as they are at pains to point out, simply that they can see no further than the cost/benefit analysis. The Commission, for example, looked at the prospects of financial success of the airport they had in mind in the context of each of the sites. It was the Commission's view that an airport at Foulness would not be as certain of success as an airport at either Cublington or Thurleigh: it might need a constant subsidy from the taxpayers. An airport at either Cublington or Thurleigh would, in the Commission's view, be more resilient, in that the higher traffic flows forecast would allow an airport at either to show a return even if actual traffic is down on expectation.
But even this is not conclusive. The Commission, having quantified all those items which they thought could be quantified, came to their recommendation on a balance of advantage on the issues as a whole, including such unquantifiable elements as the relative worth of open rural background and the preservation of wild life. It is particularly in the importance to be given to such unquantifiable items as these that we in this House and Members of another place must seek to weigh the broad national
1050
interest. It is this that the Government are now seeking to do, and the advice given in the contributions by your Lordships will be most helpful to the Government in that task. When the Government have made up their minds, they will make the decision known to Parliament and then there will be an opportunity for debating that decision in both Houses.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally concludes, may I ask him whether he is able to answer a question which I put during my speech? It was the question of planning around existing airports. Can he say whether the Government are looking into the question of introducing strict control of planning around existing airports?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think I can add to what my noble friend has said on the subject of planning. Perhaps my noble friend would like to raise that question at another time.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether at least he is going to look into the question of the development of the hovercraft, and the hover-train?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I had that point down on my special list. Of course what he has said will be carefully studied, and it will undoubtedly be one of the factors to be considered.
8.51 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to express my heartfelt gratitude to every noble Lord who has helped to make this what I think can be called a remarkable debate. We have had speeches from those with experience of Government; we have had speeches from those with great technical knowledge; we have also had speeches from noble Lords who expressed the feeling of the people in the countryside, and those who live near either the threatened areas or in areas where airports already exist. I am sure that we should all wish to express special gratitude to the two noble Lords whose maiden speeches have added quite considerable distinction to our debate. One thing that is certainly remarkable about this debate is that I can think of no other Commission who have made a

1051
recommendation that has subsequently been debated in either House and not a single speech has been unequivocally in support of the recommendation made.
My Lords, we all admired the nimbleness of the Government speakers who spoke for quite a considerable period of time without in any way disclosing to us what was really going on in their minds. Every time one thought that the next sentence was going to disclose an indication of where their preference lay, or of what argument had particularly weighed with them, that sentence was immediately followed by another, expressing the diametrically contrary opinion. So, at the end of the time, we are left in the position in which the Government intended us to be: completely unaware of what is going on in their minds, or whether anything is going on in their minds. They have, however, assured us that they will give our debate the most careful—and I think one speaker said "respectful"—consideration.
I think I can draw three conclusions from what has been said, and I rely upon my noble friends to correct me if I am wrong. The first is that the Government will take an early decision. The second is that they will have consideration for the suffering of those who live near existing airports and suffer from the noise. The third is that they will take into account some of those broad, national considerations which the Roskill Commission, rightly or wrongly, thought they were debarred by their terms of reference from taking into account. Since no Minister has risen from the Treasury Bench to say that I am rash in having drawn three solitary conclusions from the three speeches which have been made, I assume that my deductions are justified.
My Lords, after general discussion such as this, which is usually based on a Motion asking for Papers, it is customary for the mover of the Motion to ask permission to withdraw his Motion. To-night I feel there is no need for me to do so. After more than 40 of your Lordships have spoken, it surely must be the case that the House cannot avoid taking notice of the Report of the Roskill Commission. I hope, therefore, that when this Motion is put to you, the "Contents" will have it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  RESEARCH ASSOCIATIONS: EXPENDITURE AND AID
  RESEARCH ASSOCIATIONS: EXPENDITURE AND AID