Sitting of 24 February 1971

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

    Unemployment
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from the Scottish Trades Union Congress following the publication of the January unemployment figures; and what replies he has sent.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): None, Sir. But, as the hon. Member will be aware, the Scottish Trades Union Congress earlier this week had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at which I was present.
    Mr. Sillars: At that meeting, did the Secretary of State confess to the Scottish Trades Union Congress delegation that his designation of a large part of Scotland as a special development area amounts to a clear admission that his own investment allowances system is a failure?
    Mr. Campbell: No. Sir. This S.D.A. designation happened to be a recommendation put to the Government by the S.T.U.C. itself earlier. At the meeting at No. 10 on Monday, there was a full discussion, and I had the impression that the S.T.U.C. considered it extremely useful.
    Mr. MacArthur: Did my right hon. Friend point out to the delegation that the industrial future of Scotland depends on the defeat of cost inflation and, thereafter, on the resumption of growth in the total United Kingdom economy?
    Mr. Campbell: It would be right to say that there was general agreement on that.
    Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind the gravity of the unemployment figures in Scotland, and whatever the merit of the S.D.A. proposals, since they can have little or no effect this year and very little next year, if the Prime Minister's figures given yesterday are correct, has the Secretary of State any plans for immediate action to alleviate the situation during the coming months
    Mr. Campbell: In July, when I first met the S.T.U.C., we were aware that unemployment was standing at over 90,000 then, at the height of the summer. I have seen the S.T.U.C. since then, and we have kept in touch about the matter. The S.D.A. was the quickest method to be brought in because, contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but in accordance with what I said on 3rd February, legislation was not required and it could be designated straight away. [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman did not know."] I replied at the time —this was in my first speech—but hon. Members did not take it in, that I had been advised that legislation was not necessary to designate it. The point is that legislation is still necessary to raise the grants to the amounts which have already been announced.
    Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State now answer my question?
    Mr. Campbell: I have already stated that the S.D.A. system was a method which was to hand and was the quickest to introduce in order to deal with the situation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that already, in order immediately and urgently to relieve as much as we can of the unemployment which we found on coming into office, we have introduced, for Scotland only, the winter works programme,

    Rural Areas
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an official tour of the rural areas of Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: As my home and constituency are in the North of Scotland, I frequently travel by different routes through much of rural Scotland.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Keep travelling.
    Mr. Campbell: I do. I shall continue also to make visits to particular areas as part of my programme.
    Mr. Sillars: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the staggering number of withdrawal notices on rural bus services in Scotland at present? Am I to take it from Written Answers which I have received in the last week or two that, instead of doing anything to save these services in the meantime, the Secretary of State has chosen to shelter behind two pilot studies, in Devon and West Suffolk, set up by an English Minister?
    Mr. Campbell: No, Sir; I am not sheltering behind anything. This serious matter is receiving the Government's urgent attention. I travel by bus a lot in the North of Scotland, apart from using other forms of travel, and I am aware of the usefulness of the rural bus services.

    Hunterston (Harbour Development)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations have taken place between his Department, the Clyde Port Authority and other interested parties about the construction of ocean terminals at Hunterston.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): My right hon. Friend's officials keep in close touch with the Clyde Port Authority and other bodies concerned with port development on the Clyde.
    Mr. Lambie: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is his job to see that a lead is given to the Clyde Port Authority and the British Steel Corporation, and that there is a tremendous feeling in Scotland that if this great national asset of deep water in the Clyde had been an English channel we should have had a decision years ago?
    Mr. Younger: This is a matter between the Clyde Port Authority and the British Steel Corporation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that negotiations are going on between those two bodies as to how they can forward this project. I think that a decision is not very far off.
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: Is it true that there may be another inquiry at Hunters-
    542
    ton? If so, may we be assured that it will not be of the same marathon length as the last inquiry at Hunterston? Are the Government being consulted about the projected agreement between the British Steel Corporation and the Clyde Port Authority on the construction of an ore terminal port?
    Mr. Younger: I certainly hope that any new inquiry would not be as long as the first. My right hon. Friend has just circulated the additional evidence on the demand for home refining capacity and so on, which he promised to do. It is too early to say whether there will be objections that will need a further inquiry. If there were to be such an inquiry it would probably take place some time in May. This is a matter between the British Steel Corporation and the Clyde Port Authority, and the Secretary of State's interest, apart from his general economic interest in Scottish affairs, is a planning interest, and he will be ready to step in as soon as he is needed.
    Mr. Lawson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is about three months since his right hon. Friend gave the all-clear for this to proceed? What has his Department been doing and what is it doing, to get rid of the difficulties which seem to have cropped up? What precisely are those difficulties?
    Mr. Younger: It is not a question of difficulties. Negotiations are going on in the perfectly normal way between the two bodies concerned. I can at least assure the hon. Gentleman that no time is being lost and that technical investigations and site borings are proceeding to ensure that no further time will be lost when the decision is reached.

    Housing (Glasgow)
    Mr. William Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many approvals were granted in respect of houses to be built by Glasgow local authority in each of the years 1968 to 1970.
    Mr. Smallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is now the final figure for houses completed in 1970 in the city of Glasgow.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was

    543
    the total number of housing starts, by all sources, in Glasgow in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970.
    Mr. Younger: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 4, 19 and 22 together and circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hannan: That reply is an abuse of the procedure of Question Time. But sometimes we happen to know the answers before we ask the Questions, so may I ask the hon. Gentleman this: in view of the declining number of approvals, does he agree that the declining number of approvals automatically means a decline in the number of houses constructed? Do not the figures show a wanton, criminal neglect of its statutory duty by the strife-torn, right-wing alliance in Glasgow? What action does the hon. Gentleman propose to take to encourage it, or better still, to abandon it to its inevitable defeat at the forthcoming elections?
    Mr. Younger: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is putting Questions to which he already knows the answers. I agree with him, of course, that if approvals decline, as they have in Scotland as a whole over the past three years, completions will naturally be likely to decline also. But I cannot agree that the trend in Glasgow is one to be regretted. The Corporation is to be greatly congratulated on at least having looked at the planning standards of housing for the people of Glasgow so that they can have better homes.
    Mr. Small: I received nearly a cultural shock from that answer, because my question relates to the City of Glasgow and I think that it will be crystal clear—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use an opportunity to ask a supplementary question to transmit his cultural shocks to me. He must ask a question.
    Mr. Small: Does the figure in Glasgow show so alarming a drop that the Minister is afraid to give us the figures today?
    Mr. Younger: Not at all. Cultural shocks are a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport, who deals with these things. As to the figures, it is not the question of completions in the past
    544
    years that is relevant. In the past 12 months Glasgow Corporation has rehoused more people in the city than ever before in its history.
    Dr. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. All that the hon. Gentleman was asked for was four small sets of figures, which he could easily have told us. Is it a new departure that when it becomes a bit difficult for the Government, they hide behind the cloak of putting figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT? As backbenchers we should like your guidance on the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. First, I deprecate points of order during Question time because they shorten the time available. Second, I have no responsibility for the nature of the Minister's answer. That is his responsibility, not mine.
    Mr. Brown: Will the Minister stop hiding behind the figure of house letting which he has quoted? This is the second time that he has quoted it, and it shows an abysmal ignorance of the true facts of Glasgow's housing problem if he thinks that that is a substitute for new houses.
    Mr. Younger: The point made by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) is without substance, because it was not merely four figures for which I was asked but a veritable table, and it would be an abuse of the time of the House to read it out. The point about the housing programme in Glasgow is that the people of Glasgow are no longer prepared to tolerate any house at any price built anywhere. They want a higher-standard housing, and that is what they will get.
    Mr. Ross: The Minister got us into this difficulty because he decided with permission—and I do not remember giving permission—to answer three Questions together. The answer to the first should consist of three figures. Will he give us them? The answer to the second, Question No. 19, consists of one figure. Will he give us that?
    Mr. Younger: I was asking the permission not of the right hon. Gentleman but of the House, which is not the same thing. Second, there is a whole table of figures in the reply. The right hon. Gentleman can have any of them that he wants at any time, but it is a question

    545
    of the approval of the House, which was given.
    Mr. Hannan: On a point of order. In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Following is the information:

    Glasgow Corporation only:

    All agencies:

    Approved

    Started

    Completed

    1968

    …

    1,428

    3,496

    4,651

    1969

    …

    4,199

    1,551

    4,787

    1970

    …

    2,632

    3,272

    3,051

    House Purchase
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will implement Recommendation No. 5 contained in the Report on the Construction Industry in Scotland, prepared by the Scottish Council, Development and Industry, with regard to the purchase of new houses in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is bearing it in mind in considering possible ways of encouraging owner-occupation.
    Mr. Gray: I am very glad to hear that my right hon. Friend is considering that, because the difference between the mortgage limit and the purchase price of a house is too great a burden for many people, particularly as they also have to face expenditure on furnishing. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter very urgently?
    Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. It is because of the considerations he outlined, among others, that we are considering in our present review of housing finance all the possible ways of helping people who wish to go in for home ownership.

    Scottish Inshore Fishing Industry
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further steps he is taking to protect the Scottish Inshore Fishing Industry in Common Market negotiations.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): As the House has been informed, Her Majesty's Government have reserved our position on fisheries and made representations about the fisheries policy adopted by the Six.
    Mr. Gray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he also bear in mind that many of the recommendations of the Cameron Report are almost as bad for inshore fishermen as the prospect of joining the Common Market? Will he give an assurance that before any legislation is introduced he will seriously consider the industry's views on the fishing limits?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am conscious of the concern felt about some of the proposals in the Cameron Report. My right hon. Friend and I are in the process of consulting the interests involved. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall not come to any conclusions until those consultations are completed.
    Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister go a little further on the Cameron Report? While I do not ask him now to repudiate the whole Report, will he make it quite clear that the Government are not bound by the recommendations about the limits, otherwise these may have a serious effect upon our negotiations? Will he see that it is made clear in Brussels that the throwing open of the Scottish fishing waters to indiscriminate fishing of all kinds would not only be disastrous for the Scottish industry but would be extremely harmful to the whole European industry?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Of course, the Government are not prejudging the Cameron Committee proposals. It would make a mockery of the consultations if we did not study them before coming to a conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that, in the Brussels negotiations, we shall do everything possible to ensure that the interests of the Scottish inshore fishing industry are properly represented.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: In the unlikely event of the United Kingdom joining the E.E.C., are the Government undertaking any studies to see whether there are any alternative ways of providing employment for the large numbers of fishing communities up and down our coastline which depend on fishing and nothing else?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am much more concerned at the moment to ensure that we conduct the negotiations properly, and that is precisely what we are doing.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Government follow the example of the Norwegian Government and oppose the entry of Scotland into the E.E.C. unless and until the E.E.C. abandons its fisheries policy?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What the Norwegian Government do is a matter for the Norwegians. We shall negotiate in the way which we believe is in the best interests of our inshore fishermen and in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that both the Cameron Report and the Community policy on free access raise two problems—the one on conservation and the other on the regional impact? Is he aware that this is a peculiarly Scottish difficulty? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the Scottish problems are being properly represented at Brussels?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I have said on many occasions, we are fully aware of the problems which arise from both those issues. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not so naïve as to think that, in important negotiations like this, the United Kingdom should declare its position in advance.

    Home Helps
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what assistance he is prepared to give to local authorities to enable them to recruit more home helps to look after chronically sick and disabled people under the 1970 Act.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): This Act does not affect the provision of home helps in Scotland. My right hon. Friend has decided to bring into operation on 1st April Section 14 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act, 1968, which places a duty on local authorities to provide home help for those who need it, including the disabled. Provision has been made for the development of this service in the Rate Support Grant Order for 1971.
    Mr. McElhone: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern among Scottish local authorities about the shortage of financial assistance from the Government to provide more home helps? Is he further aware that, under the Social Work (Scotland) Act, he is obliged to provide more home helps for people who are in need?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have noted from the report on the Rate Support Grant Order that the local authorities' current expenditure on social work services is expected to rise from £21 million in 1969–70 to over £26 million in 1972–73. This increase of 25 per cent. will enable the authorities, among other things, to expand the home help service.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the requirements of Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, are being or will be met in respect of the severely disabled in Scotland? With regard to Section 1 of the Act, does he agree that there will be little point in finding out the number of severely disabled persons unless we know who they are and where they live?
    Mr. Taylor: The situation in Scotland is rather different from that of England. The Sections of the Act to which the hon. Gentleman has referred do not apply to Scotland. We have our own Social Work Act, which covers similar circumstances.

    Passenger Transport Authority, Glasgow
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state his present intentions with regard to a passenger transport authority in the Greater Glasgow area.
    Mr. Younger: It remains my right hon. Friend's intention to discuss this issue with the local authorities concerned when he has completed his examination of all the factors involved.
    Mr. McElhone: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that, if Glasgow's overspill programme and the special development area programme are to be successful, it is essential to improve the transport situation in the Greater Glasgow area?
    Mr. Younger: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general point, but he will appreciate that, following the publication of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study, there was a need for some follow-up studies to be done. These are coming to hand now. In addition, this matter cannot but be bound up with the decisions announced recently in the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government.
    Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government had to ask for follow-up studies. Has he made any assessment of the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study in a more general form? Will he impress upon the Secretary of State for the Environment the importance to the Clyde Valley area of the "blue train" commuter service and the importance of Section 39 of the Transport Act being continued at least until there is a complete reorganisation of local government in Scotland and a passenger transport authority is set up?
    Mr. Younger: I agree that the Greater Glasgow Transportation Study is a valuable and useful document. That is why the follow-up studies were necessary before reaching final conclusions. I agree about the importance of the "blue train" service.

    Double Glazing
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to local authorities, new town development corporations and the Scottish Special Housing Association, about the need for double-glazing, to prevent heat-loss in houses intended for the occupation of old people.
    Mr. Younger: Advice on the design of houses for old people, including heating, was given in Bulletin No. 3 of the new Scottish Housing Handbook, copies of which were sent last July to local authorities, new town corporations, and the Scottish Special Housing Association.
    Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman has not said to what extent that included advice specifically to the new town corporations on double-glazing in houses for old people. Is he aware of the increasing importance attached to double-glazing in the prevention of hypothermia
    550
    among old people? Is he aware that, in East Kilbride, we have the rather odd situation in which the new town corporation is not providing double-glazing, even in houses for old people, whereas the town council provides it in its own houses?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate the right hon. Lady's interest and agree with her about the value of double-glazing. I think that the more valuable thing to do, however, is to insist on appropriate minimum heating standards and not necessarily to specify double-glazing as against other forms of heat insulation. But I take the point. We will seek to see that all local authorities, including the new town corporations, maintain the minimum adequate heating standards.
    Mr. David Steels: Declaring a possible financial interest, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he accepts that there is a strong case not only for double-glazing in the construction of new houses for old people but for the conversion of existing old people's houses to double-glazing?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate that, but the important point is to get minimum heating standards accepted, and double-glazing may or may not be the best way to achieve that in different circumstances.
    Mr. Dempsey: Before the construction of such houses, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the plans are sent to the fire prevention authorities so that every, step that can be taken will be taken to avoid fires, in view of the tragic number of fatalities which are occurring because of fires in council housing?
    Mr. Younger: We are very concerned with the views of the fire authorities and will do all that we can to see that the fire regulations are observed in the planning and construction of new houses.

    New Town Development, Stonehouse
    Mrs. Hartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to reach a decision about the proposed new town development at Stonehouse.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Shortly.
    Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all that we have been told so far is that there will be a lot of extra houses at Stonehouse but that we have been given no numbers and still do not know whether he has specifically put it to the East Kilbride Development Corporation that it should be the agency to build houses? Is he aware that, in these circumstances, his reply is totally unsatisfactory and that it is too much that all this procrastination should take place because, apparently, he cannot make up his mind about the fundamental issues involved?
    Mr. Campbell: I am sorry to think that the right hon. Lady should appear to be opposed to a proposal of this kind. It is under consideration, as I announced on 3rd February. I am aware that the last Government made an announcement in January, 1969, which has led to the development plan being amended. My estimate of the scheme which we now envisage is that it will be about five times larger.

    Housing Capital Debt
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the housing capital debt per head of the population of the joint burgh of Motherwell and Wishaw and of each of the 10 largest local authorities in Scotland, respectively.
    Mr. Younger: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these very large debts have been built up by the local authorities in following the housing programmes of successive Governments? Will he give an assurance that the Government have no intention of welshing upon their debt obligations, which they themselves have undertaken to meet?
    Mr. Younger: I am not quite certain to which aspect of the housing finance system the hon. Gentleman is referring. The question of the housing debts incurred by the present local authorities is something that we shall take into account—and, indeed, we are doing so—in our current consultations with the local authority associations.
    Following is the information:

    NET CAPITAL DEBT PER HEAD ON THE HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

    £

    Motherwell and Wishaw

    …

    460

    Glasgow

    …

    …

    …

    246

    Edinburgh

    …

    …

    …

    187

    Lanark County

    …

    …

    254

    Dundee

    …

    …

    …

    332

    Aberdeen City

    …

    …

    …

    238

    Ayr County

    …

    …

    …

    204

    Fife County

    …

    …

    …

    175

    Renfrew County

    …

    …

    84

    Paisley

    …

    …

    …

    …

    282

    Aberdeen County

    …

    …

    140

    NOTES:

    1. Debt figures from returns for 1969–70.

    2. Population figures as at June, 1969.

    Housing
    Mr. Mackintoshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the number of housing starts in Scotland in the past six months; how these compare with the equivalent six months of the previous year; and what are his explanations for the changes that are revealed by these figures.
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how the number of houses started in the last six months compares with the number for the similar period a year ago; and what are the reasons for the difference.
    Mr. Cordon Campbell: 18,470 houses were started in the last six months of 1970, and 19,649 in the last six months of 1969. The change reflects the response of local authorities to their housing needs.
    Mr. Mackintosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this decline in housing starts is a very serious matter—very serious indeed in view of the sick housing situation in Scotland? Does he accept that this decline is to go further in the next year? What proposals has he to increase the number of housing starts now?
    Mr. Campbell: The decline is not as regular as the hon. Gentleman suggests. For example, there were more starts in the second half of 1970 than there were in the first half. The general decline started in 1968, because between 1968 and 1969 there were nearly 5,000 fewer starts, and there were 3,000 fewer between 1969 and 1970.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the scrapping of S.E.T. on the building industry, a tax imposed by the previous Government, will give the building industry in Scotland a much-needed boost of £19 million and enable the industry to take up much of the slack of the present unemployment in the industry, which totals 26,000 at present, to whom we are paying unemployment benefit to the tune of the equivalent of 50 new houses per week?
    Mr. Campbell: I am aware that S.E.T. has been a burden upon the building industry. My aim is to encourage public authorities and the private builders to meet the outstanding need wherever it exists and as quickly as possible and by all the means available, including improvement and slum clearance.
    Mr. Ross: Does the reduction in the number of houses started, completed and authorised by Glasgow in the last two years reflect an improvement in its need?
    Mr. Campbell: That is a question about Glasgow, and there are other Questions down about that.
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of houses completed and the number of houses approved in Burntisland for the year ended 31st December, 1970.
    Mr. Younger: Twenty-one local authority houses and three private houses were completed. No proposals for council house building were approved.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that at present there are 195 people on the waiting lists of Burntisland and that there are only 16 houses under construction? Is he prepared to condemn nearly 180 families in Burntisland to a homeless future? What steps does he propose to take to prevent that?
    Mr. Younger: In the first place this is primarily a matter for the town council of Burntisland to decide. That council has not submitted to me during the past year any proposals for housebuilding but is in no way being held up by the Government, and I very much hope that it will be looking at its future needs. I have been doing need surveys in respect of all local authorities. I am still awaiting detailed estimates from Burntisland
    554
    of the number of houses which fall below the tolerable standard.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Mackintoshasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what calculations the Scottish Development Department has made of the total estimated loss to Scotland of the Government's decision to phase-out the regional employment premium; and whether he has received representations from Scottish industry on this matter.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Government announced last October that the regional employment premium was to be paid in full until September, 1974. The total amount of regional employment premium payments in Scotland, on the latest figures available, for the financial year 1969–70 was £41·3 million.
    Mr. Mackintosh: In view of this prospective loss of £40 million to industrial development, and with the statement in the Government's White Paper that the amount of money to be spent on industry and employment over the country is to decline by 7·1 per cent. per annum, how can the right hon. Gentleman go on saying that the amount of money to be spent on regional economic development in Scotland is not being diminished by the present Government?
    Mr. Campbell: The statement confirmed that R.E.P. would be paid for four years from last October to the end of the seven-year period for which it was introduced by the last Government. This gives a considerable period ahead, removes uncertainty, and provides time to consider the economic situation in 1973–74 and what combination of measures will then be appropriate.
    Mr. Mackintosh: I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would answer the question he is asked.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the imposition of selective employment tax in Scotland has had a much wider significance than the regional employment premium? Will he accept that the removal of this tax would effect a much-needed boost to the whole Scottish economy?
    Mr. Campbell: I agree with my hon. Friend that S.E.T. has been harsh in

    555
    areas of Scotland. Of course, a number of things will happen during the four years R.E.P. continues to be paid. These are bound to alter the situation, and that will give us opportunities for considering other measures.
    Mr. Ross: Can the Secretary of State tell us exactly what Scotland's share is to be of the additional expenditure on the S.D.A.? The Prime Minister told us that this year nothing is to be spent; the following year it is to be about £2 million, rising to a maximum in 1974–75 of £10 million. That is for England and Wales and Scotland. What is Scotland's share of that £10 million?
    Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman ought to know, because he was involved in this, that the results will depend on how successful we are with the economy as a whole and, therefore, to what extent incentives will be taken up. If we can get nearly 40,000 new jobs a year in Scotland, as we did between 1960 and 1964, those incentives will be taken up to a greater extent.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish estimates of the percentage of housing subsidies which will be applied to the private and public sector of housing in Scotland following his discussions with local authority associations on housing finance.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have already announced our policies and stated that discussions with local authority representatives are proceeding. I shall be able to provide more information after these discussions have been completed.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the Secretary of State admit that the total expenditure envisaged in the White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1974–75 indicates a falling off in capital expenditure on housing in Scotland, and will he admit, therefore, that the direct result of Government policy, no matter how much he tries to cook the books, is less local authority and public sector housing in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: No, because if the hon. Gentleman looks at his hon. Friend's Question No. 18 he will see that there is to be an increase, at constant prices—
    Mr. Ross: Oh, come on.
    Mr. Campbell: —and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the working party is examining proposals at the moment and it hopes to report next month to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development.
    Mr. John Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman comment on suggestions which are rife in Scotland that it is the policy of the Government by 1976–77 to eliminate all rate contributions to council rents and all Exchequer subsidies? Will he deny that this is the policy of his Government?
    Mr. Campbell: There has been no statement about reducing Exchequer subsidy. Countless times in this House I have stated that the intention is to retain the amount, at constant prices, but to redirect it to where it can do the most good. As regards rates, I have also pointed out that it is definitely our intention to remove the burden now on Scottish ratepayers, who are contributing 35 per cent.—no less—of the costs of council housing.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings he has had with local government associations regarding future housing finance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 13th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 36.]
    Mr. Eadie: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has managed to breed a great deal of uncertainty about the future of new homes in Scotland? Is he aware, further, that the only certainty he seems to have bred is that there will be increased rents in the future?
    Mr. Campbell: We have stated that we intend to bring in rent rebate schemes which, for the first time, will cover the whole public sector and will also extend into the private sector. With proper rent rebate schemes and the advice of the Brownlie Committee, which has just reported upon them, it will be possible to finance housing properly in Scotland and to reduce the unbearable burden on Scottish ratepayers.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: If we are unwise enough to sign the Treaty of Rome there will be, as my right hon. Friend knows, free movement of labour. Can he tell me what effect that would have on housing finance in Scotland and the number of houses?
    Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend has raised a very much wider question. I can assure him that I shall look to him for advice about these matters when—if they do—they have some bearing on our housing problems.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why public expenditure on housing will increase from £225·2 million in 1969–70 to an estimate of £230 million in 1974–75; and what is the anticipated average rent increase per year for public authority housing on which these estimates have been made.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Estimates of public expenditure on housing in 1970–71 and 1974–75 are given in the White Paper on Public Expenditure published last month. The composition of this expenditure from 1972–73 onwards will depend on the outcome of the discussions which I am having with the local authority associations on the reform of housing finance.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether this expenditure will result in more houses? This is what we want. Will he further say whether the Government's aim is to increase rents by not less than 10s. a week each year up to 1974–75, as was said in a circular in his Department a few months ago? Will he be honest with the people of Scotland and tell them that it is the Government's intention to increase rents substantially and regularly up to 1974–75?
    Mr. Campbell: On the first point, it is our intention to provide more homes in the places where they are needed. On the second point, I have made it clear that rents will be raised by reasonable steps each year. The amounts await the result of the discussions which we are having with the local authority associations.
    Mr. Mackintosh: The right hon. Gentleman was unable to answer my earlier supplementary question whether he expects house building to increase and
    558
    what ideas he has for increasing it. He has now said that he will build more homes in places where they are needed. What proposals has he to increase or to alter the present downward trend in housing starts?
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I said that the intention was to "provide more homes", the point being to provide homes by repairing and retaining those that are falling into decay and to improve housing which would otherwise fall below the tolerable standards, in accordance with the Act passed by the last Government, and also by building new houses. I must emphasise that to take the view that the provision of homes depends entirely on new house building and not on other methods is to over-simplify in a misleading way the problem before the Government.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House do not accept, and nor should he, the proposition that house improvements mean less new house building? The two methods are not mutually exclusive, as we demonstrated. Does not the Secretary of State agree, from his own figures, despite the Artful Dodger's earlier answers which avoided the questions, that the house-building programme is falling? It is clear from this Question and this answer that the house-building programme is steadily falling to less than 30,000 a year.
    Mr. Campbell: It is for the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to explain on his side why the starts between 1968 and 1969 fell by nearly 5,000—that is when the house-building programme started to fall—and by 3,000 in the following year. He should accept that, besides maintaining a house-building programme, particularly by encouraging the private sector which can add so much to the public sector, the provision of extra homes in the places where they are needed is now the requirement for any Government of Scotland.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the last four years there have been record completions of houses both in the public sector and in the private sector? What we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is what are his targets—or is he afraid to state them?
    Mr. Campbell: No, I have made it perfectly clear that I have no intention of setting targets. For the right hon. Gentleman to talk about targets, having missed his own last year by over 5,000, is incredible.

    School Building (Midlothian)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent communications he has had with Midlothian County Council regarding their future school building programme.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Midlothian Education Authority has asked for a meeting to discuss primary school building in its area. I shall be seeing representatives of the authority for this purpose on 8th March.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to insist that local authorities implement the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970; and what financial provision has been made for this purpose in the White Paper on Public Expenditure 1969–70 to 1974–75, Command Paper No. 4578.
    Mr. McCartneyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent instructions he has given to local authorities with regard to the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: The Act does not give my right hon. Friend the power to instruct local authorities how its provisions should be implemented. He has, however, sent out several circulars to bring the requirements of the Act to the notice of local authorities, and offered guidance on them. He is also arranging to obtain from the authorities the information which they are required to supply under the provisions of the Act.
    No specific additional provision needs to be made for local authorities' expenditure in implementing the Act, but I can give an assurance that, in approving building proposals, my right hon. Friend will take full account of expenditure required to meet the needs of the disabled.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that when the Act was passed the previous Government in their Money Resolution undertook to underwrite all the financial burdens laid on the local authorities? Do the present Government stand by that undertaking, and will they engage in a publicity campaign on television and radio to make the estimated 250,000 seriously disabled people in Scotland aware of the provisions of the Act, about which the local authorities are doing very little?
    Mr. Taylor: The Government take the Act very seriously. In fairness, some of the provisions have been in force for less than three months. The fact that local authority expenditure on social services over the period concerned, as I have said previouly today, will increase by about 25 per cent., shows that local authorities have the money to expand their social services in this and other ways.
    Mr. Murray: The Minister has rightly pointed out that Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 190 do not apply to Scotland. He will know that Section 1 lays upon local authorities the duty to have a register of disabled persons. Will he instruct Scottish local authorities to keep such a register?
    Mr. Taylor: The Social Work (Scotland) Act covers many of the provisions dealt with in these Sections. It is my intention that the services which we shall provide in Scotland will be no worse than in England.

    Employment Prospects
    Mr. Smallasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Scottish Trades Union Congress about the employment prospects in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I met the Scottish Trades Union Congress twice during 1970, and they had a meeting this week with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at which I was present. On all these occasions employment prospects in Scotland were discussed.
    Mr. Small: In view of the grave unemployment situation in Scotland, will the Secretary of State at regular intervals,

    561
    say quarterly, give advice to the S.T.U.C. on employment prospects?
    Mr. Campbell: I am glad to say that I have frequent meetings with leading members of the S.T.U.C. on the Scottish Economic Council and elsewhere, besides the meetings I have described. On all these occasions we have opportunities to talk about unemployment and what can be done to bring modern industry to Scotland and to encourage industry there to flourish and expand.

    Police (Pay)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations on police pay.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Negotiations on the current pay claim are still proceeding in the Police Council for the United Kingdom and my right hon. Friend has not yet received a recommendation from it. The council negotiators are meeting again tomorrow.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Minister take cognisance that the Prime Minister told us yesterday that more than 3 per cent. of civil servants received a 20 per cent. increase? Will that be the yardstick for the police? Many areas in Scotland are under-manned. Will not the Government fulfil their election promise to give the police a fair deal and a living wage?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, it would be quite wrong for me to comment on the merits of the claim while negotiations are proceeding. I entirely accept the need to strengthen the police. We gave that undertaking at the General Election, and we shall fulfil it.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that thousands of police officers who joined the police force after the war are due to retire after 25 years' service, and that this will be a tremendous drain on the police force in Scotland unless a substantial increase in salary is awarded?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I accept, as the hon. Gentleman said, that one of the biggest problems is wastage. Another problem is that which he mentioned of the police officers who are coming up to retirement. This matter will be taken into account in the negotiations.

    Local Voluntary Organisations (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to how many local voluntary organisations he gives direct financial assistance for community purposes.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: In 1970 capital grants were made to 23 local community associations, 112 local sports clubs and 30 local youth organisations to help them to provide new or improve existing facilities.
    Mr. Brown: Could the hon. Gentleman not break with the conservative traditions of this Government, and indeed of previous Governments, and sponsor or assist, in co-operation with local authorities, the setting up of pilot schemes in community work in the light of the importance of community councils, even under Wheatley?
    Mr. Taylor: I am very much aware of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this matter, and I assure him that I shall bear very much in mind what he said.

    Manufacturing Industry (Employment)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Economic Planning Board's estimates of the changes in employment in manufacturing industry in the period 1970 to 1975.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Scottish Economic Planning Board is carrying out, as a continuing exercise, an examination of the factors likely to determine labour supply and demand in Scotland over the next few years.
    Mr. Douglas: I hope that the Secretary of State will concede that, whatever estimates the Planning Board has made, it has been drawn off course by the high incidence of unemployment in Scotland, particularly in the manufacturing industry. Would he concede that his Government's policy is undermining the manufacturing base which the Labour Government created in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: The answer to the last part of the question is, "No". As many hon. Gentlemen know, before I came

    563
    into office I was prophesying unemployment in Scotland this winter if the Labour Government did not make changes. I was not myself surprised at what happened, but I regret it. The Labour Government in their 1966 White Paper estimated a net gain of 60,000 jobs, but during that period there was a net loss of 82,000.
    Mr. Strang: Since the Secretary of State has reminded us of his prophecy of unemployment this winter, would he give a categorical assurance that unemployment in Scotland next winter will be substantially less than it is now?
    Mr. Campbell: I can give an assurance that the changes which we have made and which the previous Government refused to consider should lead to a better situation next winter.

    Highlands and Islands Development Board
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Highlands and islands Development Board concerning the development of the sporting estates in the Highlands and Islands.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: None, Sir, but sporting estates feature in the Board's first comprehensive development report on Kildonan.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State repudiate the Prime Minister's statement last week that the Government would not allow the Highlands and Islands Development Board concerning compulsory powers, or does he believe that his friends, the sporting landlords of the Highlands, are interested, without compulsion, in providing employment?
    Mr. Campbell: No; the hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point to which the Prime Minister was referring. I believe that the hon. Gentleman was in the House and will remember that the Highlands and Islands Development (Scotland) Bill, as first introduced, contained a Clause which would have given powers to take over compulsorily and run any kind of enterprise. Fortunately, the Government at that time accepted an Amendment to include the words "by agreement", which completely transformed the effect of that Clause, and said that this had been their intention.
    564
    Therefore, the legislation which finally emerged was quite different from the Bill as first published.
    Mr. David James: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as the trustee of a large highland sporting estate, I can tell him that for a long time we have offered the Highlands and Islands Development Board unlimited co-operation in developing sport and tourism?
    Mr. Campbell: As hon. Members know, I do not myself shoot or fish—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Why not?
    Mr. Campbell: I am sorry to say that I am 80 per cent. disabled. But I am aware that sport can contribute to the Highlands and its economy and should be compatible with agricultural and other pursuits.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Gentleman look anew at his answer? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in answer to a question put by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, clearly stated that the Board would not be allowed to use its compulsory powers. Would he examine this matter, since we do not wish to have the record corrected again? This is an important point and I ask him to look at what we have said.
    Mr. Campbell: I heard the Prime Minister on that occasion and I have a report of his words with me. I wish to make the record clear, because I took part in those other proceedings in the debates on that Bill when on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) was not in the House at that time. When that was referred to outside this House as "a Marxist Measure". it was in relation to Clause 6, which at that time was an odious and obnoxious Clause, which was later changed to the satisfaction of the whole House.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Prime Minister was not referring to powers which the Board does not enjoy but to compulsory powers which are contained in the Act? Will he give an assurance, in contradiction to what was said by the Prime Minister, that the Board will be allowed to use compulsory powers which it enjoys?
    Mr. Campbell: Again the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Prime Minister was replying to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition referring to the remark about its being a Marxist Measure.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Gentlemen can look it up. I have the quotation with me. The Prime Minister was replying to a question about its being a Marxist Measure, which was a reference to Clause 6 in the Bill as it first appeared. Later in the Bill we discussed the compulsory powers. This is all on the record.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a deputation from the Highlands and Islands Development Board recently visited the Midland counties? When the Board repeats its visit, would my right hon. Friend arrange lo accompany the Board and then, after it has completed its official duties, proceed to South Worcestershire where I will offer my right hon. Friend excellent fishing, shooting, hunting and other sporting facilities?
    Mr. Campbell: As I have indicated, I am afraid that they can be of little use to me but I am very much aware of the welcome the Highlands and my area of the North gave to my hon. Friend when he made a visit there recently.

    Teachers (Shortage)
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further study he proposes to make of the secondary teacher shortage in 1972–73.
    Mr. Edward Taylo: My right hon. Friend's Department is currently engaged on studies of staffing needs.
    The main purpose of these investigations is to establish more objective standards for determining the numbers of teachers needed by different types and sizes of secondary school.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is my hon. Friend aware that the estimates of the shortage grow larger and larger and that part-time education in Scotland has now reached alarming proportions? Does he consider it educationally wise to raise the school-leaving age throughout Scotland in these circumstances?
    Mr. Taylor: As my hon. Friend is aware, the problem, though serious, is concentrated largely in several areas.
    566
    This is a major problem, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are conscious of the need to recruit more teachers and are taking all possible steps we can.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in 1946 the Labour Government, faced with teaching conditions infinitely worse than those faced by the present Government, raised the school-leaving age? Will the Tory Government, when they face the issue in far better circumstances, ensure that the school-leaving age goes up to 16?
    Mr. Taylor: We have already said that it is the Government's intention to proceed with the arrangements for raising the school-leaving age on the due date. But I do not accept criticism from the Labour Party, bearing in mind the very severe teacher shortage which the Labour Government left this Administration.
    Mr. Buchan: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the best single thing which he could do to guarantee that we recruited the kind of teacher we require would be to give the House an assurance today that Scottish teachers will not be put on the chopping block, as the Government have done to every other public servant in recent wage negotiations? I hope that he will not follow the lead given by his right hon. Friend in leaning on the local authorities. Such a guarantee would go a long way towards helping the situation in Scottish schools.
    Mr. Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the Government's policy to ensure that there is fairness in all our dealings with everyone. I hope that our general policy will be infinitely better than the shambles which the previous Government left us.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker: This is the second occasion on which we have not reached the Questions tabled to the Minister for the Civil Service. The difficulty is that on the one side there is an insatiable quest for information and on the other an almost remorseless endeavour to give it. I therefore hope that this matter may be considered again because I do not think that the situation is very satisfactory.
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Speaker, given your guidance and help to frustrated Sassenach Members such as myself on Scottish Question days? As it is possible to reach the "Minister for the Bureaucracy" by Questions only once every three weeks, and as we have been frustrated by the loquacity of the Scots so that only 30 Questions have been answered, would you, Mr. Speaker, prevail on the authorities to rearrange matters in such a fashion that the "Minister for the Bureaucracy" comes in at Question No. 15 on Wednesdays, thus enabling us every three weeks to put Questions to him instead of being squeezed out by these Scots?
Mr. Speaker: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks about loquacity. My intervention had very much the same purpose in view.
Mr. David Steel: Further to the point which you raised, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to a matter within your control. Is not one of the difficulties that there is such a galaxy of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Scottish affairs—no fewer than six, I understand—it is very difficult to increase the number of Questions answered and extremely difficult for back-bench Members to put any questions at all?
Mr. Speaker: It would be very dangerous for me to pronounce on galaxies, on whatever bench they might be.
Mr. Lawson: Further to the point of order. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will bear in mind that the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible for the equivalent of about seven Ministries and that we have very little opportunity to question him. Therefore, when you consider this matter, I hope that you will try to ensure that it is not Scottish Questions which suffer.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is on a very real point. In trying to get along as quickly as possible, one has to give proper time for matters to be investigated because there is a very broad spectrum to be examined. I will bear the point in mind. But it is not for me; it is for the usual channels.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order. May I say with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is within your power to
568
deal with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) about the number of supplementary questions put by what are termed privileged right hon. Members—Privy Councillors and Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of the House. We know that the custom is for Mr. Speaker to give privileges to Privy Councillors in debate. [Interruption.] Listen.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening very carefully.
Mr. Lewis: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to deal with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). A custom which has been carried on for some time is that Mr. Speaker gives privileges to Privy Councillors in debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House may accept that —[HON. HEMBERS: "No."]—but it is taking things a bit far if right hon. Members who do not table Questions are given precedence in asking supplementary questions on Questions which other Members have tabled? May I suggest that you look into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and do not give preference to Front Bench spokesmen and Privy Councillors just because of the positions they hold to the detriment of other Members?
Mr. Speaker: This is almost a case of the biter bit. I am almost regretting that I said anything at all on the matter. However, only one Privy Councillor has been called today. At Question Time I try to call those who I think are entitled to ask questions. I cannot call all hon. Members who wish to ask questions, and I regret that. However, I will bear in mind everything that has been said.
Mr. Ross: Would it not be much easier for members of the Liberal Party to get a Question answered if they tabled one? The Liberal Party has not tabled a single Question to Scottish Ministers today.
Mr. Pavitt: Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) dealing with the extent of the responsibilities of the Scottish Office. I should like to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. This situation arises not only with the Scottish Office but as a result of the combination of a

569
large number of responsibilities in giant Ministries. Even though Questions are tabled early, many of them are not reached because more than 100 Questions are put down before four o'clock. May I ask the Leader of the House through you, Mr. Speaker, to consider how Questions tabled for answer by giant Departments with multiple responsibilities can be reached?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the time which we have spent on this matter has been wasted. There is a real problem, and I hope that the subject can be considered through the usual channels.
Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order. In accordance with the rules for tabling Questions, I called at the Table Office 21 days ago at 10 a.m. and tabled my Questions No.43 which has not been answered today. May I ask you, Mr.Speaker, to suggest through the usual channels, which I believe are unusual at the moment, that as Members hand in their Questions they be numbered so that they can be dealt with fairly when the Order Paper is published?
Mr. Speaker: I will ensure that the hon. Gentlemen's point is considered.

TEACHERS (SALARIES)
Mr. Edward Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will make a statement on the breakdown of negotiations on teachers' salaries.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): The management panel has made an open offer, based on a new structure, which would give every teacher an increase from 1st April of at least 8 per cent., and would increase the total salary bill in 1971–72 by £51 million or 8·8 per cent. This offer has been rejected by the teachers' panel. A further meeting of the Burnham Committed is arranged for 5th March. Negotiations therefore have not broken down.
Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Lady aware that it is true only in a technical sense that negotiations have not broken down? They have in fact broken down. The next meeting is merely to hear the
570
teachers' replies on arbitration. Is she aware that both major teachers' organisations have announced today that they refuse to take part in arbitration and, therefore, that the only way in which there can be arbitration is if the right hon. Lady imposes it upon them? Is she also aware that neither the teachers' unions nor any others have any faith in arbitration under this Government? The whole concept of arbitration is now discredited. Is she also aware that I share with her the view that teachers' salaries should be restructured to give the career teacher a better salary? Is she further aware that the proposals of the Management Committee, in which her representatives have concurred, are utterly unacceptable to the teachers because they divide up the teaching profession? How does she reconcile her support for this new structure, which would further widen the gulf between primary schools and secondary schools, with her professed desire to close this gap? Finally, how does she reconcile this miserable offer—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!".]—with the increases agreed for the Civil Service and nurses and the very large increases for the police to be announced tomorrow?
Mrs. Thatcher: I will take the right hon. Gentleman's points in the order in which he raised them. The Burnham Committee will meet again a week on Friday and, therefore, negotiations are still continuing. On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, it might perhaps be helpful to give the precise arrangements for arbitration which, in the event of a breakdown, are that an independent chairman shall be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment after consultation with the panels, and two members shall be selected by my right hon. Friend, one from each of two lists of not fewer than four individuals each considered suitable by the Teachers' Panel and by the Management Panel respectively of the relevant committee.
I think that the restructuring proposals are good proposals for the Teachers' Panel to consider. As negotiations continue, I do not think that it would be right to go any further on that point.
Finally, I think that the conditions of service of the nurses and the kind of offer made with regard to night duty, etc.,

571
are really rather different from the conditions of service of the teachers and the kind of restructuring offer which has been made to them.
Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Lady saying now that she will impose arbitration on the teachers? Clearly, the process that she has described cannot take place without the co-operation of the teachers. Both major organisations have said today that they will not co-operate. In view of that, will she impose it?
Secondly, will the right hon. Lady answer my question about how she is able to say that these are good proposals for restructuring? How can she reconcile her support for them with her professed aim to close the gap between primary and secondary schools, when she knows that these proposals will widen the gap?
Mrs. Thatcher: The right hon. Gentleman asks whether I would impose arbitration. I was not saying anything of the kind. I was saying that the time for arbitration has not yet arrived. Therefore, no decision has been made.
As for the structural arrangements, I stand by what I said. The restructuring arrangements are good and worthy of consideration by the Teachers' Panel.
Mr. Hornby: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the reform of the salary scale for teachers is a very necessary and long overdue element in any settlement that might be reached? Does not she also agree that it would be a great pity if these negotiations were to break down on this point? Does my right hon. Friend agree, finally, that the right hon. Gentleman's comments are one more example of the Opposition backing the highest bid, whatever the circumstances?
Mrs. Thatcher: I hope that the negotiations will continue a week on Friday and will not break down. I hope, too, that they will result in a structural agreement.
Mr. Marks: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that the total amount available for this increase is quite inadequate and that an 8 per cent. increase will not even cope with the rise in the cost of living since the last award when one considers taxation and other deductions from pay? Does not she agree, further,
572
that the offer of a basic minimum of something like £1,059 is totally inadequate, especially to people who have spent three or four years living on student grants?
Mrs. Thatcher: On a question of fact, the offer on the bottom scale for the three-year trained teacher would be £1,055 in the first year rising by 12 increments of £70 and one increment of £95, followed by a further increment of £100, the last increment to be given after three years, the others to be annual, to a maximum of £2,090. That is the basic scale. There are several scales above that. The maximum for the topmost head teacher would be £5,275 a year. It is inevitable that in any restructuring offer the amount in the first year should be followed by further benefits in successive years as teachers reach higher maxima by larger increments.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would not it be a remarkable surprise if one of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen asked a constructive question on a pay dispute, instead of trying to make mischief?
Mr. Barry Jones: Is not it apparent in the current negotiations with the teachers that the local authorities are tied hand and foot to the Treasury Ministers? Is the right hon. Lady aware that the offer now made would result in a declining standard of living for teachers? Finally, is not there evidence that the phantom Secretary of State for Wales has responsibility for teachers in Wales?
Mrs. Thatcher: The Management Panel made it clear at its Press conference yesterday afternoon that it both spoke and speaks with one voice, by which it meant the local authorities and the Government representatives on the panel. I am happy to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is also in agreement with me.
Mr. Jennings: Is it correct that the first offer has since been raised by the management side to 9·7 per cent.? Secondly, has my right hon. Friend studied the long history of arbitration proposals during the regime of the previous Government?
Mrs. Thatcher: The conventions provide for "without prejudice" offers to be made higher than open offers, with a

573
view to trying to secure agreement. Such an offer was made. But such a without prejudice offer lapses if agreement is not secured.
Mr. Short: In the interests of accuracy, will the right hon. Lady make it clear that that higher offer was conditional upon the teachers accepting in their entirety the structural proposals of the management side?
Mr. Jennings: What about arbitration under the previous Government?
Mrs. Thatcher: All the offers have been made in relation to the structural proposals.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to move on now and, if I may, I will say why. It is a matter entirely for the Chair whether a Private Notice Question is accepted. I decided, after some initial doubt, to accept this one today. There has been eight supplementary questions. I do not think that because a Private Notice Question is accepted that necessarily means spending a quarter of an hour on each one. In this case, we have heard about the further meeting of the Burnham Committee on 5th March. There will be plenty of other opportunities to raise this matter again.
Mr. Pardoe: On a point of order. Do you consider it satisfactory, Mr. Speaker, that three of those supplementary questions should have come from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman? Is that a fair representation, knowing that the right hon. Gentleman represents only one union represented on the Teachers' Panel?
Mr. Short: Further to that point. I must ask the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) to withdraw that remark. In this House, I represent the electors of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.

TEACHERS (SALARIES)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY, 12th MARCH
  Members successful in the Ballot were:
  Mr. John Horam.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr.
  Mr. Neil Kinnock.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    MECHANICS OF PAYMENT OF ALIMENT BILL
    Mr. Tam Dalyell, supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Joe Ashton, Mr. Michael Barnes, Mr. Alex Eadie, Mrs. Doris Fisher, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Michael Meacher, Mr. Bruce Millan, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. James Sillars, and Mr. James Tinn, presented a Bill to transfer responsibility for the mechanics of collection and payment of alimony or aliment awarded to women, by court order, from the individual to the Ministry of Social Security and the Inland Revenue: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Friday 30th April and to be printed. [Bill 121.]
    PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Mr. James Wellbeloved, supported by Dr. Reginald Bennett, Mr. Michael Cocks, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Scott-Hopkins, Sir John Langford-Holt and Mr. Arthur Davidson, presented a Bill to extend the powers of the Secretary of State for the Environment under section 4 of the Public Health Act 1961: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time Friday 5th March and to be printed. [Bill 120.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [Tenth Allotted Day]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 23rd February].
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    Clause 121

      PEACEFUL PICKETING
      Amendment No. 873 [23rd February], in page 83, line 37, to leave out the words
      'not being a place where he resides '.—[Mr. Harold Walker.]
      Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
      3.52 p.m.
      Mr. James Sillars: I rise to speak simply because, I was on my feet when the Guillotine fell last night. I want to put a question or two about peaceful picketing in the sense of peacefully communicating information to or obtaining it from someone.
      On television the other night the cameras followed a blackleg postman strikebreaking who passed the local headquarters of the Union of Post Office Workers. The strikers came out and hurled at him what some people might consider abusive language. It was on the lines that the strike-breaker was nothing better than a quisling. Some might think this abusive language, while other might regard it as fair comment. I will not comment, having been called a quisling by Scottish Nationalists.
      In the context of this Clause, would the shouting of that slogan, which is certainly communicating information or opinions about the strike-breaker from the strikers be construed as peacefully communicating it to him, or would the branch secretary who shouted the slogan be in breach of the law under the Clause?
      Mr. Edward Gardner: This Clause restricts, in the narrowest sense, the place where peaceful picketing may lawfully take place, but also implies, although it does not express, recognition of a distinction between peaceful picket-
      576
      ing at the place where a person works and other places and peaceful picketing at or near his home.
      This is a real and fundamental distinction. The nature and character of peaceful picketing when done at or near a person's work and the nature and character of it at or near his home are very different. A person who refuses to follow the decisions of his union, however right they may be, is entitled to look upon his home as a place of refuge. If he cannot do that, there is no other hiding-place.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. and learned Member is continuing the argument expounded on his side last night. Would he now give some conclusive evidence in relation to this type of picketing which is in favour of changing the law in this way?
      Mr. Gardner: I shall come to this point, which was raised by the hon. Member last night. I find it a difficult line of argument to follow.
      If one thinks that some action is so offensive that it should be prohibited by law, it seems to me, as I hope it will seem to the majority of the Committee, that it is quite irrelevant to consider statistics to decide how many times, if at all, that offensive action has happened in the past or the present. We are legislating for the future. What we want to ensure is that this kind of action, which we regard as offensive—on the immaculate principle that a person is entitled to protection within the confines of his own home—should not be allowed by law. This proposition is neither strengthened nor weakened by the production of statistics.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Although the undefinable nature of whether or not something was taking place near a person's home has been demonstrated in the discussions so far, and although, therefore, the law is rendered unenforceable—we wait with bated breath to hear the Solicitor-General answer this point—would the hon. and learned Gentleman still uphold this obscurity in the light of the absence of evidence to show that the law should go so far?
      Mr. Gardner: This is not an unrealistic or obscure point or one which anyone considering the reality of the situation

      577
      should have the slightest difficulty in following.
      Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. and learned Member aware that having to listen to that sort of claptrap nauseates me`? Some of us, like myself, were born in mining villages and can cast our minds back to 1926. None of us, in our working-class homes in long terrace housing, knew any incidents of this nature. I have not heard or seen this. I have spent my life among the working class and this hypothetical legislation nauseates people like me.
      Mr. Gardner: If this is hypothetical then where is the harm in making such behaviour unlawful? What is wrong in saying that this should not be done if it is the sincere view of hon. Members opposite that such behaviour is not likely to happen?
      Mr. James Johnson: It is Wonderland.
      Mr. Gardner: It is not Wonderland. It is today and it may be tomorrow. These are difficult points, some of them points of law but all of them with an application to our everyday life. Hon. Members cannot close their minds to the realities of the industrial scene. I do not close my mind to what is happening outside daily, and to what appears to be a situation which could drift towards disaster, a situation in which extremists may take over, although I hope that they never will.
      4.0 p.m.
      If, as is suggested by the Opposition, the precautions we are seeking to import into this Bill are likely to be unnecessary and unreal, let me put it to the test in this way. If I were to stand here and say to this Committee that pickets who were trying to persuade Post Office workers or any other workers in an industrial dispute had been going to the homes of those workers there would, I suppose and I would expect, be an outcry.
      Mr. Orme: Give us some evidence.
      Mr. Gardner: There is no evidence. I am not suggesting that there is. What I suggest to the Committee is that there is a real distinction between peaceful picketing outside a man's place of work
      578
      and peaceful picketing outside his home. The Committee cannot overlook the fact that "peaceful picketing" is a misnomer. Peaceful picketing is quite different from friendly picketing. The peaceful picket trying to persuade someone whom he regards as a blackleg to return to work is more likely to be hostile than friendly, more likely to incite fear than respect.
      It takes a strong mind and a courageous conviction to enable a person to defy his union's decision and to continue working. Neither trade union leaders nor members of the Opposition must be surprised at the admiration which has been accorded to trade union workers, including the young women, who have stood up to the picket lines recently. This is no more than an elementary precaution that we are introducing into the Bill, one that is needed and which I ask the Committee to support.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: Like the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), I want to see the protection of people who are are in their own homes. It is only a short time ago that a Tory councillor in one of the rural districts in my constituency suggested that there should be a demonstration outside my home because of something which the Minister had failed to do. I resented it and I would resent anyone interfering with a person in their own home.
      I want to place before the Committee certain circumstances in which peaceful pickets might be put at risk as a result of talking to people near their homes and might be caught by the provisions of the Bill. To some extent participation in industrial organisation and my working-class background enables me to see the difficulties of this part of the Clause. I was engaged in distribution and we often had disputes, although not as often as some other unions.
      A considerable number of people such as shop managers live on the premises, either at the back of or over a shop. It would be very difficult for peaceful pickets to keep within the law if they attempted to picket such people near their own homes. The caretaker of a school is in a similar position. There would be a difficulty in someone peacefully picketing such a person. This is legislation which will not apply to lawyers but to ordinary

      579
      people who will not make the sophisticated distinctions that we sometimes make.
      What is likely to create a greater incidence of breaches of the regulations is the situation which can arise in areas where there is an enormous number of terraced houses. We live in a close community. I know hon. Gentlemen opposite, like myself, live in a small community and perhaps in detached houses. But when people live in an area where there are a number of terraced houses—
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Colliery houses.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am coming to that because I have a number in my constituency. Take the example of colliery houses and let us suppose that the men coming off the night shift decide upon strike action and want to stop the next shift going in. The relationship between miners and their workmates is not perhaps so formalised as it might be in other sections of the community. There would be nothing unusual in Tom Jones knocking on the door of Harry Brown and saying, "Don't go in Harry, we're on strike."
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is arguing against the proposition that the Englishman's home is his castle and that he is arguing instead in favour of the proposition that the Englishman's home is Barbara Castle?
      Mr. Loughlin: Sir Robert, we all consider ourselves comedians, but this is not the type of comment to make during this debate. terruption.] If the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has a giggling fit, will he kindly leave the Chamber?
      Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East): There is a place for him just round the corner.
      Mr. Loughlin: Because Tom Jones has told his colleague to strike, it is possible that he will be in jeopardy, not because of the intention of the Government but because of the way in which the Bill will operate. I do not believe that the Government wish to stop peaceful picketing. The trouble with this legislation is that
      580
      if one is not caught under one provision, one is caught under another. For example, peaceful picketing will be allowed, but once blacking comes into it, it will be illegal.
      Mr. Daniel Awdry: The hon. Gentleman is quoting an example of one man telling another not to go to work. How could that be an offence under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act, 1875? We are referring to two or three people using violence.
      Mr. Loughlin: Perhaps Tom Jones is not giving this advice. Maybe two or three men are telling a colleague not to go to work.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: That is a different story.
      Mr. Loughlin: The trouble with hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they do not know the first thing about the habits of working-class people. The Clause says:
      "The provisions of this section shall have effect where one or more persons … 'pickets' … in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".
      I am not sure that I was wrong when I was referring to one man giving certain advice or taking action. The wording of the Bill is so vague that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) may be reading more into the word "one" than I am.
      The Government are trying to stop people conducting effective picketing, because the most effective picketing that I have known is not when employees have been stopped from going to work but when supplies on their way to a factory have been stopped. The Government have, perhaps inadvertently, drafted the Bill in such a way that people may find themselves in breach of the Measure when the Government do not wish that to happen. In view of the way in which people not only work but also live, I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.
      Mr. Michael Grylls: I well understand that the right to carry out peaceful picketing is something which the trade unions value very much. It has been made clear in the earlier discussions on this issue that there has been no intention on the part of the Government to remove this general right. That should be clearly on the record.

      581
      The only point in dispute between the two sides of the Committee is whether it is wise for the Government to approve, and endorse in the Bill, the picketing of a man's home. Hon. Members will agree that there is a certain sacredness about one's home and family life and that these should be left undisturbed. While certain forms of peaceful picketing would obviously not necessarily disturb one's private life, as Donovan made clear, such disturbances could happen. That was clear from the quotation which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) gave yesterday, after I asked him to read a passage from the Report.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said yesterday, it is up to hon. Gentlemen opposite to prove that there is an absolute need to allow and authorise the picketing of a person's home. Unless they can prove this need, the Government are right to take the view that is taken by the Bill. In other words, hon. Gentlemen opposite have not proved that it is absolutely necessary and, in the absence of that proof, it would be irresponsible of the Government, in the comprehensive reform and modernisation of the trade unions on which we are embarked, to condone the picketing of a person's home.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that when I quoted that passage from Donovan, at his invitation, I stressed the fact that the Royal Commission had pointed out that there were existing remedies under the law for other than peaceful picketing and that people were protected against violence by the law as it stood.
      Mr. Grylls: I appreciate that, but paragraph 855 of Donovan took away the importance of wanting to picket a person's home by stating:
      "From a striker's point of view, the most effective means for this purpose is the placing of pickets outside the place of work."
      It should not, therefore, be necessary to picket a person's home.
      In industrial disputes feelings can, and almost always do, run high on both sides. It is possible to imagine circumstances when two or three members of a strike committee might visit the home of a worker who, for one reason or another,
      582
      good or bad, disapproves of the strike that is in progress. It needs little imagination to believe that an incident could flare up in which the wife and small children in the home of such a person could become involved.
      If the family of a Member of Parliament becomes involved in such an affair, then tiresome and upsetting though it may be, it is something which we accept when we enter politics. However, it is not the sort of thing which the ordinary worker should be forced to accept by having to tolerate the picketing of his home. I hope, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will appreciate that this is in no way trying to restrict liberty. It is the reverse. It is trying to preserve the liberty and sanctity of the home.
      The factory can, of course, be picketed and, as Donovan said, picketing a factory is probably the most effective way of doing it. Perhaps the public house and shops can be picketed. However, picketing should be restricted to places other than the home. I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite will claim that, in this context, the preservation and protection of home life can be considered an illiberal act.
      Mr. John Mendelson: I was amazed to hear the general legislative doctrine which the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) advanced when he said that one did not need evidence or statistics in this sphere but only legislation. It so happens, happily, that there are many practised and experienced Parliamentarians present on his side, and they must be as appalled as I am at this suggestion. We could legislate on anything on that basis.
      For example, the Association of Paper Manufacturers has various regional bodies. I believe that one meets in Leeds once a month. It sometimes takes certain stringent decisions as to how each paper manufacturer should behave on matters of pricing, conditions and general policy. Discussions take place, and a nod is as good as a wink. It frequently occurs that they sometimes call upon each other at home because Mr. So-and-so might have missed the monthly meeting. As a matter of courtesy, a colleague calls at his home, perhaps on a Saturday afternoon, and informs him of what passed at the meeting and indicates to

      583
      him the decisions. There is never anything untoward, any threat or intimidation, as far as I know. But somebody might say, "Let us now legislate. Although there is no evidence or statistics", as the hon. Gentleman was saying, "that anything untoward ever happens, just the same we want to legislate and make it unfair industrial practice or an offence for a member of the association who has not been attending the monthly meeting in Leeds to be called upon by a colleague or by another entrepreneur in the same trade."
      That is only a preliminary remark. I am not dealing with the substance of the matter yet. Surely there has to be a reason for legislation. In the absence of a reason it is absurd to argue that there should be legislation.
      Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Before the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) finishes the exercise of testing the water before taking his more definitive plunge, would not he agree that if it be right that there is this good situation amongst manufacturers and that there is no apprehension of abuses, it is because a Conservative Government in 1956 legislated, under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, to ensure that there would be no unfair commercial practices, just as a Conservative Governernment are now legislating to ensure that there will be no unfair industrial practice?
      Mr. Mendelson: I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would bring up that point. That is why I put in three kinds of activity which passed at that meeting. We have not the time to go into the accuracy of the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman made. Even if it were true, the other two stand.
      Mr. Gardner: The example given by the hon. Member for Penistone was one of an approach to a man's house for a perfectly legitimate and unobjectionable purpose, and he says that this is the sort of behaviour which, if the Committee so wished, could be legislated against. It could be. But the kind of behaviour which I was predicating and which we are now considering is offensive behaviour and becomes more offensive the nearer it gets to a man's home. That is the sort of behaviour against which we on this
      584
      side of the Committee feel that we ought to legislate.
      Mr. Mendelson: The hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) can get as much into harness as he wants, but it is obvious that I have talked past him. I have not yet reached the substance of the argument. I am merely trying to puncture his general case that we do not need any evidence for the legislation before going ahead with it. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to follow me into the logic of it, I leave the matter there because we are under the Guillotine.
      In another part of his speech the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Anybody will see that we can legislate although there is no evidence". Who does he mean by "anybody"? The Donovan Commission—not just "anybody", but the appointed experts on this matter, drawn from industry, the law and the employers' side—in its Report at paragraph 877 states:
      "A majority of members consider that the Commission has had no evidence of abuse of the right to picket sufficient to justify such a restriction."
      Surely it cannot be maintained in the face of that that anybody—which means "everybody" in this connection—will see the wisdom of that approach.
      On the substance of the matter, the Clause is widely drawn, because in lines 39, 40 and 41 on page 83 it states:
      "… and do so only for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information to him or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work."
      That means that only one part of the Clause deals with persuading a colleague either to work or not to work." Of capital importance for the Committee is that the first two lines do not deal with persuading a colleague to work or not to work but deal with either obtaining information from him or imparting information to him. This is a very serious departure from the ordinary rights of Englishmen to call upon a colleague and ask him a question or impart information to him. In the face of that, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman appear particularly ridiculous.
      The onus of proof is on the Government. It is not on the Opposition or anybody else. It is the Government's

      585
      legislation. Surely nobody can contradict me on that point. That at least ought to be common ground. If the Government want to interfere with such long-established traditional rights, what is the reason?
      I want to separate the two propositions to which the Amendment is linked. The first proposition—that of obtaining information and imparting information—could be an ordinary discussion. How will right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite defend the first part of these three lines to their constituents? How will they defend the interference with this right unless there have been so many hundreds of thousands of cases where the right of merely calling upon each other has been abused and the evidence is overwhelming? That is how we proceed in legislation. We do not suddenly say, "We shall have a law for this, that and the other", if there is no reason for it.
      I deeply object to those two lines especially, and to any of the legislation being introduced. Hon. Members opposite have not dealt with that so far. It will restrict the rights in future, in whatever way, of people, be they paper manufacturers, miners—as some of my constituents are—or steel workers, to call upon each other to impart or receive information.
      Mr. Raymond Gower rose—
      Mr. Mendelson: I do not wish to give way, because we are under the Guillotine. Some of my constituents work in the steel industry. Let us suppose that something occurs at work at 2 o'clock in the morning—as it recently did—and there is a dispute between the manager and two men, and the manager decides, wrongly in the view of the trade unionists, to send the men home without further ado, and the workers adopt a certain attitude. As the Committee knows, each piece of machinery is run by three shifts and there are teams of people who take over at 6 a.m. Surely it must be the right of ordinary citizens, on the way home between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m., to call upon one of their colleagues and to tell him what has happened. This would become an offence—an unfair industrial practice—under the Bill. The words are
      "for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information".
      586
      We are not dealing with the case of somebody saying, "Please do not go to work".
      4.30 p.m.
      Let us assume that two workers do not wish to call upon somebody else but wish to wait outside the house of one of their colleagues until he comes home from work. Instead of calling on him at an unearthly hour, they decide to wait outside his house until he comes out or comes home so that they can inform him of something that took place at two o'clock in the morning. This would then begin to be the process of persuasion, because what is the purpose of imparting such information? It is an implied appeal to the sense of solidarity of those about to go to work. [Interruption.] I am putting a logical case to the Committee. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like a logical case because they cannot disprove it.
      Mr. Orme: On a point of order. It is impossible to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson).
      The Chairman: Order. I must ask hon. Gentlemen to be a little more orderly. If the hon. Member for Penistone does not give way, there is nothing they can do about it.
      Mr. Mendelson: I have no intention of giving way. At the point when these two colleagues who are outside the door of the house with the intention of imparting information to seek a show of solidarity for those who have stopped work express a point of view and start discussing the question with their colleague, it changes into the matter dealt with in the last two lines—
      "persuading him to work or not to work".
      If we allow these words to go through, the action I have described could be interpreted as picketing outside a home. The Clause is widely drawn and is a dangerous invasion into the ordinary rights of people, never mind about the rights of trade unionists.
      I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde was present when examples were given yesterday which showed the need to retain a residual right for trade unionists to call upon people or to wait for them outside their homes and to speak to them.

      587
      I will recall one of those examples. Strike breakers were hired by shipping employers and driven towards the place of work into the port, no chance being given or offered at any time for their striking colleagues to have any conversation with them. It can be said that a form of force was used to avoid any possible contact between the men who were on strike and those who were going to break the strike.
      Mr. Swain: This happened in North Derbyshire.
      Mr. Mendelson: Hon. Members will be able to quote other examples. In such a case, how are the members of a work group or of a trade union who happen to be on strike to contact the strike breakers? For all we know, it may be the most official and legitimate kind of strike that anybody can think of. In circumstances where the strike breaking force is driven in by the employers, who deliberately prevent any physical contact or conversation between those who normally work on the job and those who are driven in from outside, the people who normally work at the workplace are prevented even from saying to the strike breakers, "We think that in all conscience you should not do this".
      It is absurd to deprive people on strike in such circumstances of the opportunity of being able to go somewhere else. They might say, "Let us try to meet these men in the pub "or" on the market square". It is absurd to say that in no circumstances in such a situation should those who are on strike be able to say, "We know that so-and-so is involved in this strike breaking activity. Let us wait for him until he goes home and then we will have a word with him".
      Evidence is decisive. It is a proud claim of the trade union movement that it behaves peacefully even when involved in an industrial dispute. This is the factor which led the majority of the Donovan Commission to reach the conclusion that there is no need for legislation. It is important to weigh the evidence, to keep the situation that way, and not to introduce legislation that will make men feel bitter about their being prevented from even talking to people who are trying to break a strike.
      588
      This provision will not merely leave the situation where it is. It will do untold harm. This is why the Donovan Commission, after more than two years' work, rejected the idea of legislation.
      It must be remembered that these things are matters of psychological judgment. A sense of fair play is absolutely essential for our industrial relations. It is precisely in those circumstances that, if there is an exemption or an exception to the normal course according to Donovan, which is the absence of violence and only peaceful discussion, there is the criminal law.
      It has always been known that, in a situation of normal picketing at a factory gate, if anybody behaves in a way in which he should not behave and if peaceful picketing changes into something else, it immediately falls under the criminal law. Obviously, if anybody stood outside somebody else's home and did anything similar, it would immediately fall under the criminal law. The protection is there. There is no need to introduce this provision.
      Therefore, the onus of proof is on the Government. I can hardly think that the Solicitor-General is very pleased with his so-called support he has received from the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde and other Members behind him. They just want to hit at picketing; that is what they are after. They want to discredit the general idea of workpeople having the right to persuade their colleagues. [Interruption.] This is where the cloven hoof shows, as it shows itself in so many other Clauses.
      I repeat that that is what hon. Members opposite are after. The self-controlled Solicitor-General knows that he has to make a case for this. I do not believe that he can make a case for it. I therefore hope that we shall support the Amendment in the Lobby.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will forgive me—
      Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman should know that I am not a learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Fell: I should have thought that it was unnecessary to protest so much; for indeed I would have thought that it

      589
      would have required a learned Gentleman to adduce such a speech in defence of such a case as the hon. Gentleman has just adduced. It was the most monstrous thing to say to the Committee that hon. Members on this side are out to destroy peaceful picketing. It is rubbish.
      The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), alone amongst hon. Members opposite, at least made a concession when he said, "I do not believe that a person's house should be disturbed in any way by pickets or anybody else, but …". Then the hon. Gentleman went on to make his case.
      Mr. Loughlin: I did not say that I did not believe that a person's house should he disturbed by pickets. I said that I thought that a person's house was his castle. I thought that I said that it was to some extent a place that was private to the person concerned.
      Mr. Fell: It is either a person's castle or it is not. Either it is his private home and his private property or it is not.
      It is very difficult for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to defend their case on the Amendment. There is no defence for it, and they must know it. What is enormously surprising to the Committee is the amount of time that hon. Members have spent on this issue. Throughout our debates, I have on many occasions avoided speaking because! have felt, as we have all felt, that sensible and strong arguments were being put from the Opposition which, one understood, came from men who have lived their lives close to the matters we are discussing. But, on this question, I am astonished that hon. Members opposite should wish to fight against the Clause.
      It was astonishing yesterday to see the way my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) was constantly interrupted by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), jumping up and down and yelling at my hon. Friend, telling her to "Shut up" and "Sit down", because we were working under a guillotine. For heaven's sake, why?—so that we could have two, three or four hours of debate on this subject? It is absolutely ludicrous. Many of us thought that the right hon. Lady must have been behaving in that way because she wanted to get through this subject and
      590
      pass to something really important. But not a bit of it.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Who does the hon. Gentleman think he is to judge the priorities?
      Mr. Fell: With the greatest respect, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not interrupt me from a sitting position, for every time he speaks he attacks me from a standing position.
      Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman challenges me to attack him from a standing position. Who the devil is he to judge the priorities in these matters?
      Mr. Fell: Obviously, I shall not reply to that delightful intervention. There is a serious point here. Is it no longer possible for one side of the Committee to talk to the other about anything?—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone—
      Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Sir Robert. You will appreciate that we are working under a guillotine. The hon. Gentlemen has not yet referred to the Amendment, and he has been speaking for a few minutes already. Can you do something about it?
      The Chairman: There is some substance in that complaint. The hon. Gentleman ought now to come closer to the Amendment.
      Mr. Fell: With the greatest respect, it is utterly untrue for the hon. Gentleman, whom I have attempted to praise—the only one I did attempt to praise—to say that I have not referred to the Amendment. I referred to it at the beginning, and on several occasions since. So let us at least have some truth in this Committee, if nothing else.
      I am trying to make an appeal to the Opposition to be sensible for once and to support that part of the Clause which they now wish to delete. It will do them nothing but harm throughout the nation if it becomes known, as they seem to want it to become known, that they do not want the ordinary private individual's house to be protected against picketing.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: I shall not take up what was said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). Throughout this debate, both today and last night, different views have been put

      591
      from each side of the Committee, and I have regarded it so far as a meaningful debate expressing the concern felt by both sides. If hon. Members opposite are irritated by what we say, they must, surely, accept that we are irritated by what some of them say.
      Mr. Fell: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman may give a cheer at that, but, obviously, he does not know how people live. He just made debating points.
      One hon. Member opposite talked about general violence, and we have been told that, in order to make the case for our Amendment, we are required to justify the exclusion of these words. That is a queer concept to apply to the preparation of legislation. The onus lies on those who maintain that these words should stand.
      It must be acknowledged—some hon. Members have conceded it—that there is a greater wealth of experience on the subject of picketing and the circumstances arising from picketing among Members on this side than among hon. Members opposite. It is no good making demagogic speeches on this subject. It is a vital issue. We are conscious that in the circumstances associated with picketing people may be hurt. It is sometimes the tragedy of strikes that people are hurt. There never has been a strike or picketing in which someone, somewhere along the lines, has not been hurt in certain circumstances. We recognise that, and we agree that it is deplorable.
      The word "peaceful" seems to be thoroughly devalued by the Government in this debate. There are plenty of learned Members on his side, and I am sure that the Solicitor-General will have been appalled at the way in which they, and others, have sought to devalue the word "peaceful" in this Clause. It is a meaningful word to us, and anything which is unpeaceful comes under the criminal law.
      I have said that strikes are hurtful to people. I understand the argument when hon. Members opposite say that they do not want women and children hurt. Neither do we. Incidentally, on the question of the word "peaceful", the great demonstration which took place on Sun-
      592
      day was a good example of how the trade union movement tries to conduct its business in a peaceful manner.
      Sometimes, on the picket line—I have been there many times in my working life—there is provocation. One thing which pickets will not stand for is the chastising of women and children. We utterly reject the argument that our Amendment would mean that women and children would be penalised. Sometimes, there are hurts, but those who try to legislate for these things will find great difficulty. I understand what some hon. Members tried to say, but I want them to understand that in the aftermath of a strike there will sometimes be hurts.
      I have lived in a mining area all my life. After a strike is over, what happens? Women and children are hurt, because at school others will say, for instance, "That is John Macdonald, the son of blackleg Macdonald", or "That is Mary Macdonald, the son of blackleg Macdonald", and so on. [Laughter.] This carries on throughout the whole of their lives. Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but it is a very serious matter in a mining area.
      Mr. Loughlin: They do not know anything about it.
      Mr. Eadie: As my hon. Friend says, it illustrates their appalling ignorance on the subject of picketing.
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman saw some of our faces, but he could not have seen the faces of his hon. Friends. I entirely understand the force of his argument, but by an unconscious slip of the tongue—this is what amused some hon. Members—he spoke of, "Mary Macdonald, the son of a blackleg".
      Mr. Eadie: I understand. In trying to rush my argument forward, I must have made a slip, but it was, surely, obvious what I meant. I am trying to put a serious argument.
      People will be hurt. I have known lads who have blacklegged. Sometimes, when they were old, after they had retired, perhaps, they have said to me, "Alec, it was a great mistake. I was selfish, and I inflicted hurt on the whole of my family". That sort of thing is the result of strikes. If hon. Members

      593
      opposite want to avoid hurts, they must try to solve that problem, not aggravate it.
      Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of the effect on a man's child at school. Is there not also a risk that hurt might come to his wife and family if his house were picketed?
      Mr. Eadie: It does not apply in that way at all. I am trying to show how illogical the Government are in trying to put a provision such as this in the Bill. This debate illustrates once again how important it is to recognise that, in dealing with industrial relations, one is dealing with human factors. I felt sorry for the chap who told me that he wished he had never blacklegged because it affected his whole family. In close communities this can have appalling effects. I am sorry that sometimes man's inhumanity to man occurs, but it is a factor. Even the most eminent Conservative lawyers could never legislate to prevent it. It illustrates, as it has throughout the Bill, that industrial relations is a very human question, which the law cannot solve.
      I wish that the Government had listened more to what my hon. Friends and I have said about industrial relations. They are building up tremendous problems for themselves in believing that the law can solve the question of industrial relations. We shall have to deal with it in a human way. We shall always be imperfect, but let us try to deal with it like that. That is the way to solve industrial relations, not by bringing in the law.
      Mr. Awdry: I intervene only because the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) would not give way to me, though I rose several times and was rightly rebuked by the Chair for doing so. The hon. Gentleman built up a great argument on a fallacy. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that if Tom Jones, or anyone else, went with two or three other men to see a fellow worker at his house with some information he would commit an offence. But that cannot be the position. Subsection (2) says:
      "In the circumstances specified in the preceding subsection, the attendance of the pickets at that place for that purpose—
      594
      (a) shall not of itself constitute an offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 —"
      We must see what that Act says.
      Mr. John Mendelson: That has nothing to do with this.
      Mr. Awdry: The hon. Gentleman took the example of going with information and waiting outside the house for the answer, but he cannot indicate any Act of Parliament that makes such an action an offence. It is necessary to look at the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act to find out whether there is conduct amounting to intimidation. That is why his argument is based on a fallacy. Surely, no one thinks that it could possibly be an offence for a man to go to see a colleague at his house. That would be absurd, and no one suggests that it could be an offence. It becomes an offence if there is an element of intimidation. That is what worries us.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman must look at subsection (2) in relation to subsection (1). He has the thing all mixed up.
      Mr. Awdry: I do not approach this as a lawyer, but I think that I have got it right. Subsection (1) sets out the type of circumstances, and the offence referred to must be an offence under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, or another Act. I believe that I am right, but we will let my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General sort this out when he replies.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The final paragraph of Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act provided protection for exactly the groups of people who are now being exposed by the Bill. That paragraph was subsequently repealed by the 1902 Act. If those people are not to be exposed by the Bill, why was it necessary to write that paragraph into the 1875 Act?
      Mr. Awdry: It would be better if I did not try to be an amateur Solicitor-General on this point, and allowed my hon. and learned Friend to give us the answer. I understand that for an offence to be committed under the Clause there must be an element of intimidation. The discussion is all about whether that element of intimidation, that pressure, should be brought to a person's home.

      595
      I hope that the Opposition will accept the explanation to be given by my hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps it is a futile hope, but it would be much batter if occasionally we could see each other's point of view, and if the Opposition did not press on with an Amendment when a proper explanation was given. They do not have a strong case. I cannot believe that it is worth their while pressing the Amendment to the limit.
      Picketing is not a very pleasant practice, and it is bound to lead to a certain amount of argument and strife. I imagine that we all agree about that. If the argument and strife are brought to a person's home, it is rather odious.
      Mr. Skinner: The question of a person's home has been mentioned several times. The Bill speaks of
      "a place where he resides".
      In my constituency the place where the miner resides happens to be the place where he works; it is within the precincts of the pit, and the picket line is arranged around the back gardens of the houses. What I want an assurance on is whether
      "a place where he resides"
      is in conflict with the person's place of work.
      Mr. Awdry: That is a rather narrower point. What we are talking about is whether the argument and strife should be brought to the home of an individual worker. Several hon. Members asked yesterday for examples of violence, and I admit that I can give none. As far as I know, there has been no violence of this kind in my constituency. But we are talking not just about violence but about pressure. Picketing involves some pressure, which is applied to persuade a man not to work. Let me give an example. Two or three workers go to a man's house and call at the door or stand outside with armbands on with the intention of persuading that worker not to work. If he chooses to ignore them and go to work, there is bound to be unpleasantness and a row. The wife and children of that worker will be involved. Many wives are naturally very sensitive and do not want to be in the public gaze. They do not want to be involved in a public row and they hate it if unpleasantness comes into their homes. Many wives
      596
      would suffer in health if that happened. They would be distressed and there would be serious consequences for them.
      All that we on this side of the Committee are trying to do is to protect families from that situation. We are not trying to weaken the trade unions in any way. In our view, picketing can take place anywhere else in the world, in the factory or the street, but not in the home. That is what the debate is all about.
      Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am convinced after listening to two or three of the speeches by Conservative hon. Members that those who drafted the Bill lived in suburbia. A Clause like this could never have been drawn up by anyone who knew old industrial England. There must be many places in my constituency and elsewhere, particularly in Lancashire and the mining areas, where the houses abut the factories or mines. Some of the biggest works in my constituency have terraced houses right opposite their entrances. If any of the fellows who live in those houses work at the factory, where can the pickets peacefully picket without falling foul of the Clause? If they stand with their placards on the footpath opposite the works entrance, they will probably be standing outside the front door of people working at the factory. There is nowhere else where they can picket that factory. There are mills where houses abut on either side of the main entrance. This means that a picket outside that mill would, presumably, fall foul of the law even though he was not trying to picket a home but merely picketing the works. The closeness of the home to the factory gate would put the pickets in a peculiar position. We should have clarification of that.
      5.0 p.m.
      There is a far more modern form of intimidation than picketing. The telephone can be a very abusive and intimidating instrument. Yet there is no suggestion that anyone using a telephone to abuse or to persuade someone engaged in blacklegging to desist from doing so should fall foul of the Bill. I am not suggesting that, on Report, we should have an Amendment to make that possible, but we all know that the telephone can be a far greater intimidator and far more irritating than a knock on the door.
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman using a dangerous double-edged weapon and accepting that picketing is itself intimidating and equated with intimidation?
      Mr. Fernyhough: No. Temporarily, I am accepting the argument of those who want the Clause. They are saying that if I stand outside the home of a blackleg and that home is opposite the factory in which he works, if I have a placard or try to speak to him I fall foul of the law. That is something which has not been illegal in this country in the lifetime of any hon. Member here. It has not caused any difficulty or hardship except in so far as what my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) had to say about the 1926 strike. I remember that strike and I know that some of the bitterness lives on to this day. Hon. Members should remember how that bitterness arose. These men were engaged in a bitter struggle to protect their hard won rights and they felt that those who were not with them were against them.
      Surely this was a natural reaction. Hon. Members opposite who were captains and air marshals and what have you in the forces must have felt the same about men who deserted. They had no time for them. They thought that they were unworthy of the cause. Men engaged in an industrial struggle rightly or wrongly take the same line about colleagues as hon. Members opposite do about those who desert from the Armed Forces.
      The Solicitor-General should reconsider this matter. I do not believe that the industrial experience of Britain justifies a change in the law of this magnitude. Millions of days have been lost in strikes during the last 12 months, but not one hon. Member opposite has been able to give a single example in which a constituent has complained that picketing has in any way influenced or intimidated him. After all these years of practical experience in the House of Commons—some hon. Members have been here for many years—they are unable to call upon one example of a constituent saying that the law should be changed because he has had a bitter and formidable experience of picketing.
      In introducing a Clause of this kind, the Government are doing a great disservice to millions of ordinary men and
      598
      women in the trade union movement because they are pretending that those men and women are a lot of brutes who will force other people to comply with their views even if they do not agree with them. I do not accept that valuation of the average British worker. I think that the average British worker is a decent, law-abiding peaceable citizen. Hon. Members opposite have even tried to bring in the women and the children, but there is not a body of men whose whole existence has been so devoted to making the lives of their women and children happier as that of the men who belong to the trade union movement, because those men wanted to improve the standard for their children and to free their women folk. In view of our industrial history, there is no justification for the Clause and the hon. and learned Gentleman should willingly and gladly be guided by us and accept the Amendment.
      [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The indiscriminate incomprehension and intemperance of the way that the Clause has been opposed and the Amendment proposed by hon. Members opposite gives one an insight into the frailty of the foundation of their argument. It is really an alarming and astonishing insight. There is no other Clause and no other Amendment in respect of which I have felt less doubt the longer the debate has proceeded. I see no reason to make any change in the Clause. In order to explain why, I need to explain just what we are on about and how slender is the change being proposed.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: Why bother?
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) says, "Why bother?". I should like at the outset to explain the dilemma in which hon. Members opposite find themselves. On the one hand, they say that the possibility of anything happening at a person's home that could be complained of in the slighest way is so remote, so hypothetical, that there is no need to consider it in legislation. Very well. Let us accept the Clause as it stands and proceed upon that basis. Alternatively, they say that what we are doing is striking at the heart of the organisation of

      599
      trade unions, attacking their basic philosophy. Which is it? If it is part of the basic philosophy of organised labour to preserve the law as it stands and resist the Clause unamended, I am astonished and the country will be astonished as well.
      The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, is the foundation of this provision and is the only foundation upon which an offence in respect of picketing can be founded, unless it be the obstruction of the highway or assault or some other matter of that kind. Section 7 of the 1875 Act says:
      "Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing …"
      something he is entitled to do,
      "Uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children, or injures his property: or … Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place…"
      is guilty of an offence. In order to show an offence under that provision, it would have to be shown that the person or persons were acting with a view to compelling another person to abstain from what he was entitled to do. They would be doing so if they were watching or besetting the place, the house or place where the person works or happens to be or happens to live.
      Mr. Fernyhough rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I must continue the explanation. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker)—
      Mr. Fernyhough rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I am half way through a section of the story and the right hon. Member must restrain himself. The hon. Member for Doncaster pointed out that there was an original proviso added to that Section in the 1875 Act and replaced by the proviso to Section 2 of the 1906 Act. The essence of those provisos was really to make it plain that attending at or near—a variety of places, but basically a place where somebody lives or works or happens to be—for the purpose of, in the words which appear in this Clause,
      "peacefully obtaining information … or peacefully communicating information"—
      600
      and this is in the 1906 Act—
      "or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work"
      is all right. The effect of those provisos in the 1875 and 1906 Acts and here is that in order to be found guilty of an offence it must be shown that one is watching or besetting with a view to prevailing upon a person in an intimidatory fashion; and they made it plain that there is a licence that people may attend upon a person outside his place of work or his home or any other place. It is in that context that we should look at this provision. All that we are opposing is a licence saying it is perfectly lawful for a group of people to post themselves outside somebody's home. It does not expose anyone—
      Mr. Loughlin: Why?
      The Solicitor-General: I will come to why in a moment. I want to make plain what we are doing. It does not in itself expose anyone to risk of prosecution, as hon. Members opposite have said. To qualify for that one must be acting with a view to compelling—watching, besetting. So that we say it is unnecessary and unattractive—and I will explain why in a moment—to give a clear licence for people to post themselves in this fashion, besetting the home—basically the home—or the place where somebody happens to live.
      Mr. John Mendelson: That is precisely what I was afraid of. This does not justify the Solicitor-General's first arrogant introductory remarks. If two people decide to go into the home or to stay outside, but in order to talk to the man to persuade him, that might be interpreted as besetting, and then they would fall under the Solicitor-General's Clause.
      The Solicitor-General: No. They would only begin to fall under the Clause—I will develop the argument—if in fact they were to post themselves and were there with a view to compel, watching or besetting the house.
      Mr. Loughlin: I gave examples.
      The Solicitor-General: There is something astonishing in a proposition for an express licence for posting outside somebody's home and conducting—[Interruption.] I will develop the argument and explain the points which were put to me.

      601
      The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) asked what happens if the home is over a shop—if I may put it so simply—and other hon. Members put the same kind of example. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), I think, gave a similar example, where the home is intermingled with a pithead or colliery workings. The answer is that if pickets attend at the place, that is, a shop or pithead, where the person works or carries on business, then under this Clause 121(1,a) they are expressly and plainly protected as they were under the 1875 Act or the 1906 Act.
      The only variation which is made by this Clause has been rightly identified by the hon. Members opposite who drafted this Amendment. That is the only position at which this blanket presumption in favour of posting no longer prevails—that is, the place where he resides.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and learned Gentleman really must be as honest as he possibly can be. What this Amendment is seeking to do is to delete the words
      "not being a place where he resides"
      because one must read paragraphs (a) and (b) together, and the picket is caught on both legs here. I gave illustrations time and time again. That man is caught under this Bill; he comes under it.
      The Solicitor-General: No. If I may answer the point directly, without acknowledging the suggestion that I may be dealing with the Committee dishonestly—because I am certainly not—the provisions of this Clause are clear, and concern persons who
      "attend at or near a place where a person works or carries on business".
      If people attend at such a place, where a man works or carries on business, and do so only for the purposes set out under the previous Sections and this Bill that does not of itself constitute an offence.
      One comes to subsection (1,a) and (b) and the word is "or", and they may attend at any other place where a person happens to be, and the only restriction or qualification is that correctly identified by the hon. Member who drafted this Amendment, that is
      "not being a place where he resides".
      602
      The only place where the law is being altered is, if persons are outside that place where somebody resides but where he does not work. [Interruption.] It is clear if one looks at the wording. There is no possible room for doubt, and the wording of the Amendment is precisely directed to this.
      If one were to remove the words which this Amendment wants to remove we would be back to the 1906 Act, and this, and no more, is the narrow area of our discussion, whether there should be a presumption in favour of the legality of posting pickets at a place where a person lives.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. and learned Gentleman keeps using the word "posting". That is in his imagination. Nowhere does he really define what a picket is. If the picket takes his armband off and goes along to a fellow striker or fellow worker, is he or is he not a picket? I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will answer, because I do not want to intervene again, and will deal with the situation where, as I said last night, even a strike committee might go along to try to persuade somebody to come back to work, perhaps to help with an emergency service. They might do that as well as seek to persuade him not to work. They might be outside the house saying, "Come to work". How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain that?
      The Solicitor-General: There is no change in the basic law save in just one respect. For, in order to qualify for consideration for the possibility of prosecution under the 1875 Act, one has to be shown to be watching or besetting with a view to compelling somebody—[Interruption.] And the offence arises only where one is watching or besetting with a view to compelling. There is no possibility of it in any of the circumstances which hon. Members have put to me. If somebody comes to my home, or to the home of any one of them, knocks at the door and says, "I would like to have a talk with you about what is going on at the works"—the pithead, or whatever it may be—" and explain that this is what was happening", he is not within a thousand miles of an offence under the 1875 Act. It is only if persons are assembled watching or besetting with a view to compel that the offence begins

      603
      to arise. This is so with the proviso in the 1875 Act and the proviso in the 1906 Act and the re-enacted proviso here. All we are saying is that this proviso should not prevail in respect of the home.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I am sorry. I ought not to give way. I must proceed.
      Mr. Lewis: I can give examples—
      The Solicitor-General: I have been given a very large number of examples by hon. Members and I am trying to deal with them.
      It is now said that the provisions of the the 1906 Act had remained unchanged and nobody had seen any need of change at all. It is not so. The 1927 Act removed the home from the area of presumed legitimate picketing. The 1929–31 Labour Government introduced legislation to amend the 1927 Act—and one can look at that to see the areas which they thought it necessary to put right—and did not do so. That wlel-known, hardfaced, punitive Tory, Sir Stafford Cripps, who was then holding the office of Solicitor-General, introduced that Bill. One of the areas of the 1927 Act which the 1930 Bill not seek to change was the provision saying that the presumption of legitimacy in respect of picketing at the home should be removed. The situation was tolerated by that strange predecessor of mine in 1930. So we come back to the argument of principle.
      Are hon. Gentlemen opposite standing by some of the phrases used by them in support of the proposition that picketing at a person's home should have this blanket blessing conferred upon it?
      Mr. John Mendelson: Nobody said that. The Solicitor-General is putting words into our mouths.
      The Solicitor-General: I am wondering about that. Let us be clear, we are dealing with the presumed legitimacy of picketing at home. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said that we are "attacking the only weapon of trade unionism", we are placing "an onerous restriction upon it". We are attacking, so the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, "the basic philosophy of trade unionism".
      604
      The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) referred to "the foundation of good trade unionism". Is this really so? Is it to be said to the country that the proposition that the right to picket a person's home is at the heart of trade unionism?
      Mr. Orme: The Solicitor-General is using emotive phrases in answer to our case, but he has not yet given any evidence why the law should be changed. We are fearful that the change in the law proposed is the thin edge of the wedge for attacking the basis of picketing.
      The Solicitor-General: I will answer the hon. Gentleman in this way. As the nation and hon. Members will have seen with their own eyes on television on more than one occasion in recent months, there is something in the nature of picketing that is capable so easily of spilling over into abuse, intimidation and violence. I will quote to the Committee something which was written some time ago but which is still valid:
      "The truth is that picketing—however conducted—when it consists of watching or besetting the house, and it is to be observed that the statute places no limit to the number of persons attending for the purpose only of obtaining or communicating information or to the length of time during which such attendance may be maintained—is always and of necessity in the nature of an annoyance to the person picketed. As such, it must savour of compulsion. … It is obvious how easy it must be to pass from the language of persuasion into that of abuse, and from words of abuse to threats and acts of violence."
      All that is self-evident from what we have seen in incidents away from people's homes in recent months. The quotation comes, not from some stiff-backed hard-faced Tory but from the unanimous report of the Royal Commission which reported in 1905, one of the members of which, and one of the signatories of that paragraph, was that astonishing dragon of the trade union movement, Sidney Webb.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I do not want the Solicitor-General to misrepresent my speech of last evening by picking out selected quotations from it. Nothing in my speech either condoned or supported abuse, intimidation or violence in picketing. I was saying that the main weapon available to trade unionists was strike action and that picketing was one of the ancillaries which the trade union had

      605
      to support it. Anything which diminishes, in the way in which the Solicitor-General admits that this Clause diminishes, that right to picket must inevitably blunt the strike weapon.
      The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the point with such clarity. The strike weapon is a weapon of trade unionism —certainly, clear. Picketing is a weapon of the organisation of a strike—certainly, clear. Many people outside the House could argue that the way in which the law at present operates to restrain that which people on all sides deplore, namely, the spill-over into violence represents that it is already inadequate. Many people have argued that we should go further than we are proposing and restrict in some way the right to picket. We are not doing so. We are not blunting in any respect the existing provisions of the law about picketing at the work place or at any other place. The only area in which by this Clause we are blunting the strike weapon is by asserting that the home of the man who dissents from the majority view shall not be a place which can presumptively be beset. That is all.
      Mr. John Mendelson: If the Solicitor-General is now arguing that many people have said that the existing provisions of the criminal law are not sufficient, he must produce evidence why the change is necessary. Donovan examined the evidence and said it was not.
      The Solicitor-General: One comes back to the simple point. I think it was the hon. Member for Salford, West who said that it requires great courage to participate in strike action. I have no doubt that in many circumstances it does, but equally it cannot be gainsaid that it requires great courage to dissent from that, whatever one's view about it. I think it was the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) who said that the philosophy is that those who are not for us are against us. Be that so; be that the argument which could be addressed to the non-conformist when he tries to go to and from his work; be that the argument that could be addressed to him in the street or in the supermarket, without restraint, but surely he too is entitled to cherish his little shred of courage in his own home, and it is
      606
      only about that that we are concerned here.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeatedly come back to this phrase. Either the trade union movement needs not this protection in respect of picketing a person's home, in which case there can be no possible objection to the Clause as it stands, or the trade union movement regards it as an illegitimate blunting of the strike weapon, which I suggest is an inadmissible argument.
      The provision legitimising picketing at a person's home is an unnecessary and unwarranted licence for intrusion into private domestic life, and I go along with the minority of the Donovan Commission, and so do my hon. Friends, in considering in such places it is quite unnecessary. 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.
      When a clock strikes 13 times it casts grave doubt on the accuracy or adequacy of everything it has previously said. On this Amendment the Opposition have struck 13 times and have exposed the inadequacy of their arguments.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Solicitor-General was quite right to say that everyone in the Committee would wish to see respected the privacy of a person in his own home and that such a right should continue without hindrance or interference by anyone. It goes almost without saying. The idea that the Englishman's home is his castle applies equally to the working class as to the aristocracy. The right to privacy and protection in our own home is something we all hold extremely dear. Trade unionists accept this as much as anyone else.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Opposition were making a great deal of this point and that in putting forward the Amendment they had made the clock strike 13 times. The hon and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends must explain to the Committee why it is considered to be essential that the law should be changed and to tell us what proof they have. We have had many emotive speeches, with talk of violence, and so on, but nobody in this Committee has given any concrete evidence why this

      607
      Clause is necessary and why the Amendment ought not to be agreed.
      An Hon. Member: What about Pilkington?
      Mr. Heffer: I will deal with Pilkington on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Section 7.4 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 deals with any person who, with a view to compelling any other person from doing any act,
      "Watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place".
      Therefore, anybody who indulges in that sort of conduct and tries to intimidate a person or his wife or children, or injures his property, can be caught by the Act, and indeed has always been caught since 1875. No doubt in order to protect the right of peaceful picketing the provision says that
      "Attending at or near the house or place where a person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place, in order merely to obtain or communicate information shall not be deemed a watching or besetting within the meaning of this section."
      In other words, it was essential to put in those words so that anyone who was carrying out peaceful communication could not be caught by those provisions, it was necessary to make that absolutely clear.
      Those words were deleted in 1906 and were replaced by Section 2 of the 1906 Act which reads as follows:
      "It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to be…
      Those words were clearly included so that there should be no doubt about picketing.
      The Solicitor-General asks why we are now suspicious and why we are making a great thing of this matter. He says, since there have been no abuses, why do we want these words to be eliminated. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has either deliberately not understood the position or has misinformed the Committee. We want the words in, because if taken out this will not only diminish
      608
      the right of picketing, but will also not take account of the practical realities of the situation. Certain realities were pointed out by my hon. Friends involving houses which are inside the confines of pit or dock premises. For example, if insurance agents go on strike, since they operate from their own homes how will the other insurance agents communicate with the workers who might decide to scab? How are they to do it except by peaceful communication with them at their homes?
      Another point hon. Gentlemen do not understand is that work in certain industries is farmed out to people's homes. How is communication to be carried out with those workers working in their own homes?
      Mr. Eadie: What about the cottage industries?
      Mr. Heffer: I do not mean only the cottage industries, but that is an example. There are other industries, in the Potteries and elsewhere, which are in the same situation. These are practical questions involving the situation where the place of work is also the place of residence. If because of this provision it is not possible to approach those workers at their place of residence, there is an argument as to whether it would be wrong to approach them.
      Mr. Tom King: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, (Mr. Loughlin) did not get the point, but I thought that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) had got it.
      Mr. Loughlin: Do not be arrogant.
      Mr. King: I meant no offence to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, but I appreciate his difficulty. It is clear that the only point which is excluded is the residence or place in which he resides. If it is also the place of work, it will be included in the subsection.
      Mr. Heffer: If I had the hon. Gentleman's absolute confidence that there would then be no legal argument in a court of law on this matter, I would cheerfully accept his point. But when the Solicitor-General, in a previous debate, was asked by one of his hon. Friends whether he could give an assurance that the words used by the Solicitor-General would be the same words uttered

      609
      by the judge concerned—I am paraphrasing but that was basically the point—the reply was that the Solicitor-General could not give that assurance; in other words, the judges and courts would decide. All sorts of judgments have arisen on the basis of law and have sought to interpret the law. We are worried when the provisions of a Measure are not clear and there can be argument about the interpretation of words. Why do hon. Members opposite wish these words to be taken out?
      I refer to the bible of apparently everybody in this debate—the Donovan Report. Everybody seems keen to quote the Donovan Report for his text. Paragraph 876 of the Report says:
      "The following members of the Commission, namely. Lord Donovan, Lord Robens, Dame Mary Green and Sir George Pollock consider however that picketing should not be allowed at a person's home where this is not also his place of work."
      They say that pickets "may cause … distress". They do not say that they would cause distress or that they have caused distress. Paragraph 887, which has been quoted from this side of the Committee but not from the benches opposite, states:
      "A majority of members consider that the Commission has had no evidence of abuse of the right to picket sufficient to justify such a restriction."
      If there has been no abuse and no evidence of abuse, why should the Solicitor-General wish to delete these words if it is not to restrict the right of workers to picket? It is the thin end of the wedge.
      We must be distrustful because of what the Solicitor-General said earlier. He said that the provision was removed from the Act in 1927 and that it was not put back by the minority Labour Government. There are arguments about whether there should ever have been a minority Labour Government. I have strong views about minority Labour Governments. They work even less well than some majority Labour Governments. When there was a majority Labour Government in 1946, this provision was reinstated because the trade union movement recognised it as essential and accepted that there was no abuse.
      I hope that we shall have a brief debate on the Question, That the Clause stand
      610
      part of the Bill, so that we can deal with other points about violence and picketing and the extravagant language used by many hon. Members opposite which was totally unjustified. I urge the Committee to accept this sensible and important Amendment. If the Government are not prepared to accept it, we shall divide on it.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Hooson: This debate illustrates better than any of the other debates on the Bill the very revealing approach which the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) adopted in the remarkable speech which he made in the early stages of our deliberations.
      Although I entirely agree with the Solicitor-General about the Amendment and the justification for the Clause. I do not share his difficulty in appreciating the view expressed from this side of the Committee. As I understand it, the view of the Opposition is that the picketing of a man's home is distressing. Obviously it is to anybody who does not share the view of those taking part in the strike whose home is approached by a number of men. It is bound to be distressing. Because of it, a man often forsakes his own view and accepts the view of the group.
      The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), in a moving speech, described the hardship which inevitably results from a strike. The Opposition's view is that essentially this is a matter of group freedom and that, although distress may be caused to an individual if his home is picketed, he must bear it in the interests of the freedom of the group. That is basically the view put forward by this side of the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon Members are like a picketing line at the moment, but they will not intimidate me.
      Mr. John Mendelson: Speak for yourself.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the ability to picket a man's home was very much part of the freedom to picket. Many hon. Members on this side of the Committee have made that point. They say that this is a right or privilege which those concerned with the trade union movement are reluctant to give up.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: They have had it for 65 years.
      Mr. Hooson: I realise that. The other side of the coin is that in all these arguments there is a balance between the rights of the group and the rights of the individual. We have reached the stage in our civilisation when the rights of the individual should be paramount.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in the circumstances which we are discussing a blackleg may be committing injury to the community?
      Mr. Hooson: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree with him.
      On this point the trade union movement reminds me of the Church of England in the eighteenth century. One could not enter a university or take a degree at Oxford or Cambridge or hold any of the higher offices of the land unless one was a communicant of the Church of England. This was a highly conservative approach and it is now rife throughout the trade union movement. As the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said just now, as it has been a right for 65 years it must not be changed. What is that but excessive conservatism? The Opposition's approach is that whatever happens the trade union is the sacred cow of the realm: it must not be touched and its rights must not be infringed. Apparently, the individual can go to blazes and the rights of the group must be reflected in the trade union movement.
      Mr. Loughlin rose—
      Mr. Hooson: I have not the slightest doubt about the Amendment. I have had doubts on some matters, and sometimes I have shared the view of this side of the Committee.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fernyhough rose—
      Mr. Hooson: It is no use right hon. and hon. Members sitting round me trying to intimidate me. I intend to stick to my viewpoint.
      Mr. Fernyhough: I am trying to help the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Hooson: I know what the right hon. Gentleman's help is like. However, I will give way to him.
      Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. and learned Gentleman has contended that, because we on this side of the Committee have taken this line, we are being very conservative. However, does he know the history of the trade union movement? Does he know the kind of Government who were responsible for the Tolpuddle Martyrs?
      Mr. Hooson: Yes, and that was a disgraceful episode. However, when Conservative Members in years gone by relied on history, they were rightly criticised by Liberals for doing so. By saying that the trade union movement has developed as it has because of past history and nothing should change, the Labour movement seems to be adopting the same approach as that which has been attacked so much in the past by those who share my creed.
      Whatever the value of picketing to a trade union involved in a strike, if one accepts that innocent people are bound to be hurt, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) had the guts to admit, clearly a civilised society can do without situations where men's liberty is infringed and their wives and children are forced to share their distress.
      Mr. Eadie: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has been picketed during his speech. He is a lawyer. Will lie agree that he has been peacefully picketed?
      Mr. Hooson: Certainly.
      Mr. Eadie: Then what is he complaining about?
      Mr. Hooson: I was not complaining. I was merely commenting. This happens to be not the place where I reside, and my wife and children are not here to appreciate the peaceful attempts by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting round me.
      Another point which appeared on the face of it to have some substance was where a man's place of work and where he resides are so close together that it is impossible to disengage them. However, I remind the Committee that the word "or" separates paragraphs (a) and

      613
      (b). If one examines a given case and reaches the conclusion that it falls within paragraph (a), there is no need to consider paragraph (b) at all.
      I think that the Solicitor-General is right in his interpretation, and that the only substantive argument advanced in favour of the Amendment does not stand investigation. For that reason, I have no doubt the way in which I will vote on this matter. I am entirely against the Amendment.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about the arguments which have been adduced. I hope that I do not do him any injustice, but I do not think that he was present to hear my speech last night when I moved the Amendment. It is as though he has come into court half way through a case. He has criticised the arguments which he has heard. However, none of them was advanced by me when I moved the Amendment. I wish that the hon. and learned Gentleman had read my speech before making his rather disparaging remarks.
      Mr. Hooson: I agree that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's speech last night. I shall read it with interest. However, I have heard many of the speeches from this side of the Committee and, unless the hon. Gentleman disowns all of them, I have answered the arguments that I have heard.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: It had been my intention to speak before we came to the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. If it had not been for the arrogance of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who came bowling into the Chamber and was fortunate enough to be called without having heard all the debate, I would not have delayed the Committee. But I was present during the whole of the debate last night and again today, hoping to be called.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman made some disparaging remarks about the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, and he concluded his speech by supporting the interpretation of the Solicitor-General. Let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that, while the individual has a right in this kind of case, so has the individual striker. He has the right to
      614
      see that what he is protecting with his colleagues is individually as well as collectively protected.
      Then the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as though the family of the non-striker, the scab or the blackleg—this mythical heroic figure going against the wishes of his fellow workers, I admit, with courage—needs protection. However, it should not be forgotten that the family of a non-striker is getting the full benefit of his wages. What about the families of the strikers?
      During the fish dock strike last year, men who scabbed got higher wages because of the inflated value of fish on the market. That is why they scabbed. It was greed, not courage, that made people go to work. That is what very often happens, and the hon. and learned Gentleman should realise it.
      I come then to the interpretation put on the Clause by the Solicitor-General, with which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery agrees. The Solicitor-General did not deal with the case that I put forward last night, and we are entitled to an answer. The Clause refers
      to
      "… where a person works or carries on business …".
      How is that provision to be applied to the case where scabs are invited to a meeting place before they go to work? Often it is the only place where it is possible to get at scabs. A person is neither working nor carrying on business at such a place. It is merely where the group of scabs congregates before going to work. During the recent strike to which I referred just now, scabs came off vessels, immediately climbed aboard lorries and closed vans and disappeared in different directions all over the East Riding. The strikers had to follow them in order to find out who they were and to explain the position to them. The scabs could only be found at their homes. Employers told them to leave their homes and not go to their normal place of work but, instead, to go to, say, Scarborough or Bridlington and join a ship there. Where would strikers have been able to picket in those circumstances?
      Clearly the arguments put forward by the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery are not good enough. They do not know what it is all about.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 251, Noes 298.

      Division No. 196.

      AYES

      [5.59 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Forrester, John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Albu, Austen

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marks, Kenneth

      Allen, Scholefield

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marquand, David

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Ashley, Jack

      Ginsburg, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mendelson, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Barnes, Michael

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Millan, Bruce

      Barnett, Joel

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Beaney, Alan

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Hamling, William

      Molloy, William

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Moyle, Roland

      Booth, Albert

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Hattersley, Roy

      Murray, Ronald King

      Bradley, Tom

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      O'Halloran, Michael

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

      Hilton, W. S.

      O'Malley, Brian

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Horam, John

      Oram, Bert

      Buchan, Norman

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Orme, Stanley

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hunter, Adam

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

      Pendry, Tom

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Janner, Greville

      Pentland, Norman

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Cohen, Stanley

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Prescott, John

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      John, Brynmor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

      Rankin, John

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Judd, Frank

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kelley, Richard

      Roper, John

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lambie, David

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyre)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Latham, Arthur

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

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lawson, George

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sillars, James

      Dempsey, James

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Silverman, Julius

      Doig, Peter

      Leonard, Dick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Small, William

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Driberg, Tom

      Lipton, Marcus

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunn, James A.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Eadle, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McBride, Neil

      Strang, Gavin

      Ellis, Tom

      McCartney, Hugh

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      English, Michael

      McElhone, Frank

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Evans, Fred

      McGuire, Michael

      Swain, Thomas

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

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

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

      Mackie, John

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mackintosh, John P.

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

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tinn, James

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Tomney, Frank

      Foley, Maurice

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Torney, Tom

      Foot, Michael

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ford, Ben

      Urwin, T. W.

      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. James Hamilton and

      Wellbeloved, James

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mr. John Golding.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Emery, Peter

      Kilfedder, James

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Eyre, Reginald

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Farr, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Astor, John

      Fell, Anthony

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fidler, Michael

      Kirk, Peter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Knox, David

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lambton, Antony

      Balniel, Lord

      Fortescue, Tim

      Lane, David

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Fowler, Norman

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Batsford, Brian

      Fox, Marcus

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Bell, Ronald

      Fry, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Gailbraith, Hn. T. G.

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

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Gardner, Edward

      Longden, Gilbert

      Benyon, W.

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Loveridge, John

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Biffen, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      McLaren, Martin

      Blaker, Peter

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Goodhart, Philip

      McMaster, Stanley

      Body, Richard

      Goodhew, Victor

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Gorst, John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gower, Raymond

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Maddan, Martin

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gray, Hamish

      Madel, David

      Braine, Bernard

      Green, Alan

      Maginnis, John E.

      Bray, Ronald

      Grieve, Percy

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Brewis, John

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Marten, Neil

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Mather, Carol

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Grylls, Michael

      Maude, Angus

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Mawby, Ray

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Gurden, Harold

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Bryan, Paul

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Buck, Antony

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Bullus, Sir Erie

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Burden, F. A.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

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

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hastings, Stephen

      Molyneaux, James

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Havers, Michael

      Money, Ernie

      Channon, Paul

      Hay, John

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Monro, Hector

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Heseltine, Michael

      More, Jasper

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hicks, Robert

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Cockeram, Eric

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

      Mudd, David

      Cooke, Robert

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Murton, Oscar

      Coombs, Derek

      Holland, Philip

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Cooper, A. E.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Neave, Airey

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Costain, A. P.

      Hordern, Peter

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Critchley, Julian

      Hornby, Richard

      Onslow, Cranley

      Crouch, David

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Curran, Charles

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Osborn, John

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hunt, John

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pardoe, John

      Dean, Paul

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      James, David

      Percival, Ian

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Jerkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Dixon, Piers

      Jessel, Toby

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Jopling, Michael

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Eden, Sir John

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Elliot. Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      618

      619

      Raison, Timothy

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Soref, Harold

      van. Straubenzee, W. R.

      Redmond, Robert

      Speed, Keith

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Spence, John

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Stainton, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Steel, David

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Wall, Patrick

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Walters, Dennis

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Shoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Stokes, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Tapsell, Peter

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Rost, Peter

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

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Royle, Anthony

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wilkinson, John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Temple, John M.

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

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

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Sharples, Richard

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Younger, Hn. George

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

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Tilney, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Simeons, Charles

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Trew, Peter

      Mr. Walter Clegg.

      Mr. John Fraser Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 874, in page 84, line 3, leave out 'of itself'.
      The Deputy Chairman: It would beconvenient if we also discussed Amendment No. 875, in line 8, leave out 'of itself'.
      Mr. Fraser: In replying to the last Amendment the Solicitor-General said that there was nothing in the Bill, apart from the picketing of a person's home, which blunted the strike weapon or the right to picket. This Amendment seeks to explore what we on this side of the Committee suspect will be a considerable blunting of the right to picket. To understand the significance of the Amendment and the wording of the Clause we have to examine the history of the words "picketing" and "persuasion", starting with Section 2(1) of the 1906 Act. The wording there is:
      "It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute, to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works …".
      The wording "it shall be lawful" gives an imprimatur of legality to the act of picketing. The 1906 Act, including Section 2(1), would be repealed by this Bill, and, therefore, we do not have the words "it shall be lawful". There is there a clear and unequivocal statement of legality which has been taken out.
      We then have to go back to Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, which says:
      620
      "Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority,—
      4. watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business, or happens to be, or the approach to such house or place …shall, on conviction … by a court of summary jurisdiction or on indictment … be liable to pay a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour."
      The reason why the declaration of legality was put in the 1906 Act was it could be construed, if one were construing only Section 7 of the 1875 Act, that the act of persuasion was also with a view to compelling someone. The words
      "with a view to compel"
      are wide and difficult to interpret, and the act of persuasion in itself could be construed by a court as an act of compulsion.
      We are thrown back, having got rid of the 1906 wording, on the 1875 Act, as varied by the Bill. What is significant about the wording of Clause 121(2) is that it does not reproduce these words "it shall be lawful". It plays about with the wording. Why is this other word used when instances are given in which picketing can take place? Then, it says that it
      "shall not of itself constitute an offence"
      and:
      "shall not of itself constitute a tort."

      621
      6.15 p.m.
      The words "of itself" can have only one interpretation. What they mean is that, while it shall not of itself constitute an offence or a tort if there is something else present, then it could constitute an offence and a tort. How else can we interpret it? Clause 121 talks about peaceful persuasion, peaceful communicating. How else can something which is peaceful become a tort or an offence? There must be some other ingredient which can be added to the act of picketing and peaceful persuasion making it in some way or other unlawful. There must be some circumstances where the trade union application of peaceful persuasion can constitute an offence.
      We have to try to find the catalyst, the hidden ingredient, which turns the act of peaceful persuasion into a tort or an offence. I suggest that that catalyst is the strike which is an unfair industrial practice. There is no doubt that any unfair industrial practice is an unlawful act in the civil sense of the word. It is not criminal but it is certainly unlawful. If the Bill becomes law it is something which is against the law and which gives rise to a claim for damages or compensation and to an injunction.
      It could be the element of illegality which, added to the act of picketing, could make the matter into an offence. I suggested yesterday that someone who conspires to organise a strike which is an unfair industrial practice could be committing a tort. That might seem a farfetched proposition but in suggesting that I have the support of the Solicitor-General, who, in winding up the debate on Clause 117 yesterday, said:
      "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."
      I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted there the possibility of a new tort being created. He went on:
      "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 …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 432.]
      The point that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted is that new kinds of illegal act can be created and there could be, in the context of this Amendment, a
      622
      new tort of conspiracy to incite or induce an unfair industrial practice which takes place when someone persuades another person to stay away from work when the strike in which he is being persuaded to take part is of itself an unfair industrial practice. Otherwise, I do not see why he should change the wording in the 1906 Act and use this particularly limited form of words and say that only in certain circumstances shall it not of itself constitute an offence or a tort.
      If the Committee accepts this, then it must support the Amendment. There is a whole serious of unfair industrial practices which might constitute a form of illegality which would then make picketing unlawful. The Committee must understand how far this goes. For instance, in some circumstances it is an unfair industrial practice in support of an unfair industrial dispute to persuade someone to come out on strike. When we look at the definition of "strike" in Clause 148, it is a concerted stoppage of work. There could be a situation when people are acting unlawfully, when they come out on strike and generally break their contracts of employment. If all give notice to end their contracts of employment, up to now that has not been considered unlawful. It has not even been considered to be in breach of agreement because the notice required under the terms of the agreement had been given.
      Under the terms of the Bill that is still a strike which could be unlawful in certain circumstances, even though the people are doing something perfectly lawful in itself. We get to the stage when in the course of picketing to use persuasion which is of itself peaceful to do something which is of itself lawful could nevertheless be an offence or tort because of the wording and the inclusion of the words "of itself" in this subsection.
      The Solicitor-General owes the Committee a thorough explanation of the reasons why these words appear in this form and why the words "it shall be lawful" are not reproduced from the 1906 Act. If he is not able to give us that explanation, the words "of itself" could be a detonator inside this legislation which could spark off a legal minefield. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman must give a clear assertion

      623
      to the Committee that picketing in support of what he terms an unfair industrial practice will in future be completely lawful and will not be in any way impinged upon by the residual legislation from the 1875 Act which still remains in effect, in a slightly changed form, under the terms of the Clause.
      The Solicitor-General: I will deal, first, with the form of words about which the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke. The provisions of the 1906 Act are reproduced here, with the exception concerning the picketing of a person's home, with which the Committee has dealt. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, there is a variation from the earlier wording of "it shall be lawful" to "it shall not of itself".
      The object of this change in relation to subsection (2)(a), which is concerned only with the 1875 Act, is to preserve the effect of the 1875 Act but over the smaller area; in other words, as under the 1875 Act the appearance of pickets under Clause 121(1) is in no way capable of amounting to an offence under that Act, there is no change whatever in that provision.
      As for the reference to the law of tort, I take the example which was given by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) when we discussed the last Amendment. He cited the case of a picket who shouted the word "quisling" at somebody who was strike-breaking or leading a group of strike-breakers.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Might he not shout "Conservative"?
      The Solicitor-General: To take the hon. Gentleman's example, a picket might shout "Conservative" at a strike-breaker—no doubt because, in the view of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), there are some areas of the country where it might be considered defamatory so to describe a person. A person so described would be misguided to seek to bring an action and would be unlikely to have his claim sustained by a jury. However, the hon. Gentleman can advance that argument.
      The mere presence of the people constituting a picket line for the purpose of peacefully persuading others would not of itself constitute a tort, but one cannot
      624
      exclude the possibility that a person so described might want to commence proceedings for slander. He would not get much damages if he won. He would certainly not get legal aid to proceed or be advised to bring such an action.
      However, there might be a substantial situation when there has been, say, an assault and the person there involved might wish to bring civil proceedings for assault. All of those things would go beyond the presence of a picket under Clause 121(1) and would constitute a separate ground for bringing proceedings in tort. The words "of itself" in subsection (2)(b) are designed to make it plain that if somebody goes beyond what has been permitted, then he is back with the ordinary law of the land. The purpose of subsection (2) in its entirety is to reproduce in the ordinary courts the position as it prevailed up to the passing of this Measure.
      The hon. Member for Norwood harked back to the debate which took place last night on Clause 117 and suggested that there might be here the grounds of some new formulation of a new tort of conspiracy. The subsection as it stands makes plain that the presence of pickets in the conventional way cannot of itself constitute a tort. It is, therefore, difficult to see how a conspiracy to post such pickets could be a conspiracy to fulfil a lawful purpose by an unlawful means, and so be a fresh tort.
      However, even if it were sought to bring that complaint in the ordinary courts, by Clauses 117 or 118 it would not be possible to proceed with it in the ordinary courts. There are, therefore, double checks to the establishment of a new conspiratorial tort of picket-posting, if I may put it that way.
      Mr. Eadie: The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to picket-posting and asks permission to describe it as such. Is he aware that the words he uses must be interpreted by people outside the Committee and that they may eventually mean something in a court of law? Does a picket cease to be a picket if he is not posted? Must he wear a distinguishing mark when he is posted? If not, will he be considered to be a fellow worker or trade union official?
      What will happen if he seeks to persuade others to strike, not necessarily

      625
      at their place of work but perhaps on his way to work or elsewhere, remembering that his exclusion depends on a narrow form of words and that previous legislation has not defined what a picket is? One has visions of people being posted to do certain tasks in a regimental way, but things do not happen quite in that manner and we would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain when a picket is not a picket?
      The Solicitor-General: I am not using the word in a mystical sense as a term of art. The hon. Member for Norwood raised this point in this context and I borrowed the phrase from him.
      Aside from the 1875 Act and the law of tort, in the context of this Measure we have a number of Clauses in which it is made plain that the organisation for or inducing of an unfair industrial action is something in respect of which a remedy will be available. If as part of the organisation for or inducing of an unfair strike or industrial action it can be shown that somebody has posted—and I use the word in that sense here—people with the intention that they should be his instrument for bringing about that unfair industrial practice or action, then that would be part of the evidence that could be brought against the person organising their presence.
      This could arise in a variety of ways, and the provisons of the Bill apply right across the board in respect of the unfair practices which we have identified, but they do not change the ordinary law so far as it applies outside. That is the intention.
      Mr. John Fraser: The hon. and learned Gentleman is explaining that there are circumstances in which picketing could be part of an unfair industrial practice—as part of the process of inducing a strike —and that it could, therefore, lead to the apprehension of people and their appearance before the National Industrial Relations Court because picketing would be
      evidence of the fact that they had induced the strike.
      If that is the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, then is he aware that he lets in the criminal sanctions contained in the 1875 Act, for it could be argued that they were acting wrongfully under the terms of the opening words of Section 7 of that Act? In those circumstances, they would be open to civil proceedings in the National Industrial Relations Court and to criminal proceedings as well because they would be acting wrongfully under the 1875 Act.
      The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that question because it takes us back to Section 7 of the 1875 Act, which refers to:
      "Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do"
      something. In other words, he must do it with a view to compelling, and there is no question of any presence of a picket infringing the 1875 Act.
      For the reasons I have explained, the provisions originally contained in Section 7, transferred to the 1906 Act and carried over to this Measure, mean that the presence of a picket everywhere except at somebody's home places that presence in exactly the same state, from the point of view of the 1875 Act, as it always would have been. In other words, that presence cannot of itself constitute an offence under that Act.
      It would be necessary, as always, to show that the person was acting with a view to compel, in one or other of the prescribed ways, and here we have the question of using violence, intimidation and so on. There can, therefore, be no change in the provisions of the 1875 Act or in the ordinary law of tort, and I invite the Committee to conclude that the Amendment is not necessary and would not improve the Bill.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 299.

      Division No. 197.]

      AYES

      [6.29 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Ashton, Joe

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Albu, Austen

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Allen, Scholefield

      Barnes, Michael

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Barnett, Joel

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Ashley, Jack

      Beaney, Alan

      Booth, Albert

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Bradley, Tom

      Heffer, Eric S.

      O'Malley, Brian

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

      Hilton, W. S.

      Oram, Bert

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

      Horam, John

      Orme, Stanley

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oswald, Thomas

      Buchan, Norman

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Paget, R. T.

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hunter, Adam

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(EdgeHill)

      Pendry, Tom

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Janner, Greville

      Pentland, Norman

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Re

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Prescott, John

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      John, Brynmor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Rankin, John

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dalyell, Tam

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

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Judd, Frank

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roper, John

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Kerr, Russell

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kinnock, Neil

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

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

      Delargy, H. J.

      Latham, Arthur

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lawson, George

      Sillars, James

      Dempsey,James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silverman, Julius

      Doig, Peter

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dormand, J. D.

      Leonard, Dick

      Small, William

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Driberg, Tom

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dunn, James A.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Loughlin, Charles

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilton)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Strang, Gavin

      Ellis, Tom

      McBride, Neil

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Evans, Fred

      McElhone, Frank

      Swain, Thomas

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McGuire, Michael

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

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

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mackie, John

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

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Tinn, James

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tomney, Frank

      Foley, Maurice

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Torney, Tom

      Foot, Michael

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ford, Ben

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Urwin, T. W.

      Forrester, John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marks, Kenneth

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marquand, David

      Wallace, George

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Watkins, David

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Weitzman, David

      Ginsburg, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Wellbeloved, James

      Golding, John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mendelson, John

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Millan, Bruce

      Whitlock, William

      Griffiths, Eadie (Brightside)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Molloy, William

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Hamling, William

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Harper, Joseph

      Moyle, Roland

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Mr Ernest Armstrong and

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Murray, Ronald King

      Mr. Donald Coleman.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Ogden, Eric

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Astor, John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Balniel, Lord

      628

      629

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mather, Carol

      Batsford, Brian

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maude, Angus

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Mawby, Ray

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Benyon, W.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gorst, John

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Biffen, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

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

      Blaker, Peter

      Gray, Hamish

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Green, Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Body, Richard

      Grieve, Percy

      Molyneaux, James

      Boscawen, Robert

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Money, Ernie

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Bowden, Andrew

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Braine, Bernard

      Gurden, Harold

      More, Jasper

      Bray, Ronald

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Morgan, Ceraint (Denbigh)

      Brewis, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mudd, David

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Murton, Oscar

      Bruce-Gardyne J.

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Bryan, Paul

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neave, Airey

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

      Hastings, Stephen

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Buck, Antony

      Havers, Michael

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hay, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Burden, F. A.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Osborn, John

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

      Heseltine, Michael

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Hiley, Joseph

      Pardoe, John

      Channon, Paul

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

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Percival, Ian

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Holland, Philip

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Pounder, Rafton

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Hordern, Peter

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hornby, Richard

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

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

      Cooke, Robert

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Coombs, Derek

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Cooper, A. E.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Cordle, John

      Hunt, John

      Raison, Timothy

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Costain, A. P.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      James, David

      Redmond, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jessel, Toby

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Curran, Charles

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Jopling, Michael

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dean, Paul

      Kilfedder, James

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dixon, Piers

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kirk, Peter

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kitson, Timothy

      Rost, Peter

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Knox, David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Eden, Sir John

      Lambton, Antony

      St. John-Stevan, Norman

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lane, David

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott, Nicholas

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

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Emery, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sharples, Richard

      Eyre, Reginald

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

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

      Farr, John

      Longden, Gilbert

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fell, Anthony

      Loveridge, John

      Simeons, Charles

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      MacArthur, Ian

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fidler, Michael

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McLaren, Martin

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

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Soref, Harold

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McMaster, Stanley

      Speed, Keith

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Spence, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Fowler, Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fox, Marcus

      Maddan, Martin

      Steel, David

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

      Madel, David

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Fry, Peter

      Maginnis, John E.

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.

      Gardner, Edward

      Marten, Neil

      Stokes, John

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Sutcliffe, John

      630

      631

      Tapsell, Peter

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Wilkinson, John

      Tebbit, Norman

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Temple, John M.

      Waddington, David

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Worsley, Marcus

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

      Wall, Patrick

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Walters, Dennis

      Younger, Hn. George

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Tilney, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Trew, Peter

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mr. Walter Clegg.

      [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Heffer: We oppose the Clause because it will lead to a limitation of the right to picket. The Bill will take away certain rights which have been regarded as rights, at any rate by the trade union movement, and it will put us back into the pre-1875 position.
      During the debates on the Amendments to the Clause one or two hon. Members opposite painted a picture of violence and intimidation which bore no relation to the facts. Violence has occurred in disputes and as a result of picketing. I quote from the report of Chief Superintendent A. E. Clark, of the Liverpool Police, who was delegated to inquire into the complaints regarding the ill-treatment of certain pickets by the Stockport police during the Roberts Arundel strike:
      "I do not consider that the relative responsibilities of the three officers allegedly concerned in this assault can be separated and I would submit that they have a case to answer for 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm'."
      The position arising from that report was that the three victims of the police assault were paid damages by the police. Allen received £1,322 for a spinal injury and a broken nose. Heywood got £583 for a broken nose and a battered face. Cook got £375 for a broken nose, body injuries and subsequent mental anxiety.
      I do not want to make a great point of this. I merely point out that violence emerges, and it has emerged, unfortunately, on both sides—or on three sides, if one can put it that way—in industrial disputes.
      The Opposition are totally opposed to violence emerging from any quarter in picketing. We are opposed to the concept of violence. We have always be
      632
      lieved, as the trade union movement believes, that one must be able peacefully to picket to persuade one's fellow workers.
      We have been told that there was a great deal of violence at Pilkingtons. I want to quote from the book "Strike at Pilkingtons" by two academics from Liverpool University—Tony Lane and Kenneth Roberts. They analysed the Press reports which arose from the Pilkington dispute and gave two or three examples:
      "…the Financial Times gave a fuller report, but it could not have been said on this occasion that the Mirror was sober. Its story was not, strictly speaking, inaccurate for there were as a matter of fact several scuffles but the impression was nevertheless created that there was fighting on a large scale. Sentences such as 'Police reinforcements were rushed in as violence flared' suggested a sense of urgency and confrontations of some magnitude—a sense that the situation could not have justified."
      Hon. Members who speak about violence in disputes and violence as a result of picketing accept what a large body of the Press writes: a sober study of the evidence shows that there is little in the allegation.
      6.45 p.m.
      The authors say on page 171 of "Strike at Pilkingtons":
      "Relationships with the police and the Pilkington security men seemed to have been amicable when things were quiet; they talked and drank tea with the pickets. No doubt the odd bobby was grateful for the warmth of a brazier on a cold night and a bit of company to relieve the tedium of the night patrol."
      That puts the matter into perspective. Allegations of constant violence in disputes are not borne out by the facts. The facts are that the British working class and trade union movement is a very responsible and peacefully organised movement, and violence is alien to the concept of the movement. When, unfortunately, there has been trouble, it has usually arisen when scabs and blacklegs have been protected by the police. It is

      633
      at the stage when people are trying to go against the democratic decision of the workers that there have been inflamed actions on the part of some workers and then often on the part of the police as well.
      We do not accept the contention that there is great violence in the trade union movement. We oppose the Clause because it is a limitation of the rights of picketing. It holds further dangers. Anyone distributing leaflets and issuing a call for attendance at a meeting could be held to be acting contrary to the Clause.
      The evil thought creeps into my mind that there are people who would suggest that the scope of the Clause should be extended and that perhaps political canvassing should be covered at some stage. Hon. Members opposite always say that we exaggerate and that we see more in these Clauses than is there. I wish that I did not have the distrust of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that I have. Bitter experience of the activities of the Tory Party leads my right hon. Friends and myself to the conclusion that in order to preserve and extend our democracy we must be constantly vigilant. It is important that in our bid to extend our democratic rights we oppose Clauses of this nature which take away part of the democratic rights which have been with us since before 1875. Those rights are now being limited and we are being put back into the pre-1875 position.
      Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a good case for retaining something which has been with us for a very long time, on the basis that if we have had it for long enough there is no reason to change it. That is a rather Luddite attitude because, look as I may at the Clause, I cannot tie it up with most of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
      In the debates on the Amendments to the Clause it was suggested that the Clause would prevent the normal activities that have been carried on and that are still carried on by those who are in dispute with their employers. There has been a great deal of argument about this. Hon. Members opposite have challenged the allegation that violence has occurred. Hon. Members opposite have always stated that there is no
      634
      evidence that violence has occurred. All I can say is that in my constituency there has been sufficient evidence to show that violence has occurred and that cars have been wrecked and men's wives threatened with having acid thrown in their faces.
      Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Member give way?
      Mr. Mawby: I have only just started, but I will give way to the hon. Member.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member has just said that he has evidence of a number of very serious crimes that have been threatened against individuals in his constituency. Can he produce the names of the people concerned, the occasions, the places—evidence of both threats and action that the police have taken, and of reports that have been made? It is important that the Committee should be able to evaluate what the hon. Member is saying.
      Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not expect me to have all these facts in my possession at this moment—
      Mr. J.D. Concannon: Oh, yes.
      Mr. Mawby: All I can say is that the complaints were registered with the local police, who have all the information concerning these matters.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: Have the police taken proceedings? They should have done.
      Mr. Mawby: The police have not taken proceedings. [Interruption.] Whether hon. Members opposite think that it is up to me to decide whether or not the police should institute proceedings is another matter. All I am doing is to put the facts before the House.
      Mr. Concannon: They are not facts.
      Mr. Mawby: I was going on to say—if hon. Members opposite had allowed me to do so—that these things happen.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher rose—
      Mr. Mawby: May I say six words in a row before there is an intervention? I am saying that neither I nor any other sensible person would have been prepared to say that all those cases provided definite evidence of the activities of

      635
      bona fide trade unionists pursuing their objectives. There will always be the person who commits violence acts or makes threats but who is not connected with the dispute. All I am saying is that there is the danger that violence will occur.
      The Clause gives reasonable rights to the majority; it is, those who decide that there is a dispute and go on strike, and want to make certain that those who carry on working will be given the reasons for the dispute and be asked to join or rejoin their colleagues who have stopped work. Nothing in the Clause prevents the normal, orderly procedure of a group of people in dispute notifying their colleagues of the reason for that dispute, and trying to obtain their support.
      Until now we have been talking as if all strikes were brought about by the officials of a union saying, "We are in difficulties. We are going out on strike. This is an official strike which has the majority of our members behind it." We are not talking about those strikes. The majority of strikes that take place are brought about by relatively small groups of people, often against the advice of their own trade unions. They come out on an unofficial basis. The men who are still at work are not scabs or blacklegs; they can legitimately say that they are following the advice of their trade union executive.
      No hon. Member opposite can tell me that occasions do not arise when, although the union executive says, "There is no reason for this strike, because of this, that and the other. Therefore we are not recommending our members to come out on strike," a group of people come out on unofficial strike. Those who remain at work in those circumstances are probably better trade unionists than the men on strike, but hon. Members opposite suggest that we should perpetuate the system in which those on strike can intimidate the ones who remain at work following the advice of the trade union executive.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Member referred to a dispute that occurred in his constituency. He would not mention the name of the company concerned, but I believe that he was referring to the
      636
      Centrax dispute. He made some hard and constructive efforts to bring about a peaceful solution to that strike. Am I right in thinking that that is the strike to which he referred?
      Mr. Mawby indicated dissent.
      Mr. Walker: Was not that dispute essentially concerned with the refusal of the employer to recognise the trade union?
      Mr. Mawby: Several issues were involved, but when that dispute occurred the three main unions, the E.T.U., the Transport and General Workers' Union and the A.E.F.—now the A.E.U.—were all recognised for negotiating purposes by the local management. Basically it was not a strike to obtain recognition. The strikers did not think that the management was prepared to give them sufficient recognition, but the district officials of the unions concerned were recognised, and negotiated from time to time.
      Apart from that fact, the important point is that a man who had no intention of being either a scab or a blackleg could be intimidated. A group of his fellow workers might have gone on strike contrary to the union's advice, and might be taking steps to make certain that their fellow workers also came out on strike.
      If the whole future of the trade union movement relies on that sort of intimidation many people will ask whether the movement is worth saving anyway. We therefore come back to the fundamentals. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) put his finger right on the point when he referred to the need to preserve a balance—to make certain that the majority has its rights but that at no time shall it have such rights as to allow it to intimidate not only a man but also his wife and family.
      Basically, the Clause is necessary. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may say that under other parts of the Bill there will probably not be the same incidence of unofficial strikes and that as the problem grows less there is less need for this Clause. If that be so, all we are doing here is jamming the sandwich a little too much, but it will be none the worse for that. I regard the Clause as essential because it lays down that the ordinary individual in his home with his

      637
      family shall not be liable to intimidation by any body of people, whoever they may be.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. McNamara: The Clause does not say that. Even on the Solicitor-General's interpretation of it, with which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) agreed, if a worker resides at his work place or his usual place of business, and that is the place to be picketed, the protection which is so dear to the hon. Gentleman does not apply. So there is a lack of consistency there.
      Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman has done his usual hair-splitting act. If a person resides at his place of work, then, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery pointed out, it is a case of "either/or", and in such circumstances it would be regarded as a place of work rather than a place of residence. It would take a Solomon to draft a Clause to cover the case of a person living above the shop, which the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) suggested. But, in the nature of things, we cannot, unfortunately, cover absolutely everything. If it is a man's place of work, obviously the balance comes back again because one returns to the point that those who are in dispute with their employer ought to be able peacefully to picket at the place of work and so convey information to those who are not on strike and do whatever they can in a peaceful fashion.
      The problem of the person who happens to live at his place of work is, I suggest, highly marginal. Those who choose not to do that but to live in their own homes, having their family around them, believe that they have a right, for example, if someone wants to call and sell them encyclopaedias, to show him the gate and say, "I shall set the dog on you if you do not leave. This is my home, and I will not be intimidated by anyone trying to flog me encyclopaedias, or, for that matter, someone trying to tell me what I ought to do in my place of work. This is my private residence, and I maintain that right."
      Every British citizen whatever his walk of life, has the right to demand that he be free in his own home from the intimidation which he might encounter on the streets, in the supermarket or at
      638
      his place of work. Therefore, assuming that right hon. and hon. Members opposite mean what they say, this Clause, far from being a damaging one, is a valid and reasonable provision which will retain the sort of balance which any of us who talk about democracy should approve.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: The purpose of the Clause is stated clearly in the Explanatory Memorandum:
      "Clause 121 removes the protection formerly given by section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 in respect of picketing a person's home —".
      So the purpose is to remove a protection which the trade union movement has had for 65 years.
      One would have expected the Government to produce, or try to produce, a good argument to justify this change. But what is different in 1971 from 1961, 1951 or any year back to 1906? Have the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General been inundated with letters from employees who have been intimidated in their homes by trade union pickets? What special circumstances have arisen in 1971 to make the Government believe that now is the time to take away a protection which has existed since 1906?
      Incidentally, I remind the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that it was a Liberal Government which passed the 1906 Act. He accuses me of being conservative and wanting to go back to the past. The Liberal politicians of 1906 would turn in their graves if they saw the present caricature of a Liberal Party supporting the Tories in trying to dismantle the 1906 Act, which for the first time gave protection to trade unionists for peaceful picketing.
      We are told that there has been a deterioration in standards in recent years and that there is more violence about, though we have been given no evidence for this. I am sure that society was more violent in 1906 than it is in 1971. But, it is said, because society generally is deteriorating it is rational to introduce a restriction of this kind.
      No one has pinpointed a single incident in which Section 2 of the 1906 Act has been abused. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) could not give the names and addresses of people who have

      639
      been intimated. Why, then, is this provision being railroaded through now?
      The real answer is that many hon. Members opposite are against the idea of any picketing and would like to abolish it altogether. As a sop to them, knowing that that would be impossible under any law, the Secretary of State has said, "Let us stop it in one particular instance and say that there shall be no picketing where an employee resides".
      It is not always necessary for trade unions to picket at the residence of an employee, but there are circumstances which make it essential. A trade union official calls a strike. He has to be certain of 100 per cent. backing, or near-100 per cent. backing, for the strike. The first thing that people on strike do is to elect pickets. There may be a dozen or 20, or it may be a mass picket in which every individual striker is regarded as a picket. Incidentally, no definition is given in Clause 148 or anywhere else of what a picket really is.
      If there are people who do not know of the decision to strike—perhaps they are on the night shift—the trade union official will say, "Let us have pickets outside the factory to advise these people that we are on strike and to explain the reasons". But there may well be others whom he cannot contact by this method; some may be at out-stations, some may be engaged on fitting a ship five miles down the river, and others may be engaged on construction work at a site 20 miles away from the factory. In order to tell and peacefully persuade these people, it is necessary to picket outside their homes and say, "This is the situation. We are in dispute with the management. The union has called a strike. and we want you to come out with us".
      That has been permissible in the past. With his "smoothie-chops" approach, the Solicitor-General tells us that nobody will be intimidated under the Clause and that nobody will suffer. He tries to give the impression that this is a benevolent piece of legislation by which no one will be caught. Unfortunately, the people given authority under the Bill to interpret the law do not read Committee stage speeches. Although the hon. and learned Gentleman might say that this is a benevolent piece of legislation, that it is very tolerant, and that the Government intend
      640
      that a person merely conversing with a colleague in his house will get through the net, that will not be the interpretation of those given authority to impose penalties under the Bill.
      The Clause says that anyone
      "peacefully communicating information"
      to an employee,
      "or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work"
      can do that in certain places, but not where the employee resides. On any interpretation of that, a picket who goes to a person's home to communicate to him information about a strike is guilty of an offence. Whatever plausible explanation is given, we shall have a judges' law, with cases built on cases, and so on, until no one can approach the home of a would-be striker without being in defiance of the law.
      That is one argument by the Government, the argument that we must stop people being intimidated by trade unions calling a strike, though no evidence has been given that they are intimidated.
      The other argument called in aid is that four members of the Donovan Commission were in favour of a review of Section 2 of the 1906 Act. It is very strange that when it suits the purposes of the Solicitor-General he can quote the Donovan Report, but if it does not suit his purpose he can quote the minority. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said that the report has been regarded in these debates as a bible. The Under-Secretary said that even Lord Donovan supported the minority, which seemed to me as though he was trying to make out a case that Lord Donovan is God Almighty, calling him in aid with the minority to substantiate his case. He seems to believe firmly in the proposition that all men are equal, but that some men are more equal than others. The majority, eight of the 12 members of the Commission, reviewed the matter very carefully and said that there are no grounds for amending the 1906 Act.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. Gentleman's case would be far stronger if there had been a complete recommendation from Donovan. It was split on the issue.
      Mr. Fletcher: Of course it was split. In every instance where there are a majority and a minority report a commission or committee is split. My point is that two-thirds of the Commission, after considering the matter very carefully, said that in their view the protection the unions have enjoyed for 65 years should be continued.
      So the two arguments in support of the Clause—intimidation, which cannot be proved, and the minority Donovan Report—do not hold water. It is not we but the Government who are in the dock. They owe the Committee an explanation why a protection enjoyed for 65 years is now being taken away. We have listened intently but have not had that explanation. The best thing the Government can do is to withdraw the Clause.
      7.15 p.m.
      Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that many Conservative hon. Members are against all forms of picketing. I have heard nothing in the Committee so far that gives the slightest justification for that assumption. I will perhaps now give the hon. Gentleman some slight justification. It is not that I shall oppose picketing, but I will say a word or two to the effect that the right to picket now requires a certain regulation.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Why now?
      Sir A. Meyer: I shall come to that shortly.
      Both sides have accepted that, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) said, instances of violence in the use of picketing are almost unknown in our society. I do not think that what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said in any way disagreed with that, because he was at pains to point out that the case to which he referred could very well have been touched off by people who were not acting within the authority of their union. But between violence and the idyllic language of the Clause, where we talk about
      "the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information to him or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work."
      642
      there is a whole gamut of possibilities. A large section of that gamut could be covered by the word "intimidation".
      My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes let slip a very telling phrase which no one seemed to pick up at the time. He talked about the normal intimidation we meet in streets or supermarkets. It is a fact of life, recognised by most of us, that the kind of situation which results in a strike and pickets taking up positions is one in which there is a temptation to use intimidation. The intimidation can vary from threats of violence to merely the pushing of a face into the face of the person going to work.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Or threats from the employer.
      Sir A. Meyer: My own daughter worked in the International Telephone Exchange, and, in the delicate language of hon. Members opposite, is no doubt to be called a blackleg or scab. She went to work not during the present postal strike, but during a strike two or three years ago. She says that she did not have to face any threats of violence but that it was extremely unpleasant having to walk through a line of pickets thrusting their faces into hers as she went past and calling her abusive names.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: That may he unpleasant, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that many times so-called reputable employers have threatened to sack their workers and threatened that they will never take them back into employment? Is not that also rather reprehensible and worrying to the worker on strike? But I suppose that that is not intimidation.
      Sir A. Meyer: It is very reprehensible, and it is one of the things that the Bill sets out to remedy. But discussion about that belongs elsewhere.
      I am trying very hard not to adopt too partisan an attitude on the matter. Labour hon. Members feel passionately about the importance of enabling trade unions properly to defend the interests of their members. None of us who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) is likely to forget it. It was unforgettable for all of us who had the

      643
      privilege to hear it. He argued with extraordinary persuasion the importance of the unions having the ability to defend the interests of their members and the importance for the working class of solidarity. It was an extraordinarily moving performance, which gave a great many of my hon. Friends a fresher insight into the motivation of hon. Members opposite. But it was founded on a fallacy—not a discreditable fallacy but nevertheless a fallacy—based on what The Times today called,
      "… a romantic view of the trade unions as the representatives of the downtrodden".
      The position of the trade unions today is not that of representatives of the downtrodden. It is much more accurately reflected in what the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) described when she spoke to the Institute of Directors some time ago. She said that power had now passed to the shop floor.
      Mr. Orme: So it has.
      Sir A. Meyer: It is true in a sense. One of the objectives of the Bill is to strengthen the responsible trade union leadership. Some hon. Members may think—although so far no one on this side has said it—that this is the wrong Bill and that we should be bringing in a Bill to make any combinations either of employers or of workpeople—
      The Temporary Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now relate his remarks to Clause 121 and not to the whole Bill?
      Sir A. Meyer: I apologise. I will come back to the Clause.
      Strong trade unions—and we want strong trade unions—cannot be based either on intimidation or on anything that could conceivably be represented as intimidation. Therefore, we must lean over backwards to ensure that this opportunity to ensure that there can be no possibility of intimidation, which will probably be the last for a long time, is not allowed to slip by.
      I fully acknowledge that 1 have allowed it to slip by myself because I should have put down an Amendment at this stage. On Report, some of my hon. Friends intend to put down an Amendment asking that the right of picketing
      644
      should be regulated. We freely accept that the trade unions have an absolute right to ensure that any persons going to work at the time of a strike should be made aware that there is a dispute, and that arrangements must be made to allow representations to be made to people, if necessary in their own homes, to ensure that they are aware of the strike and of the issues involved. But I do not believe that this need necessarily involve more than two or three persons making such representations. There is a strong case for replacing the reference in this Clause to "one or more persons" by some such wording as "not more than two persons", or "three persons"—wherever may be appropriate. If such an Amendment were made, it would remove for ever any threat of intimidation, and I give notice that on Report I shall move an Amendment to that effect.
      Mr. Hooson: Reference has not been made so far to the fact that the Clause re-enacts the old legal position as it existed in the 1906 Act and as it has existed since. There has been one exception. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has chided me and the Liberal Party for having been the authors of the 1906 Act and for having now committed an unforgivable sin by believing that we should change even a dot or comma of the Act. To him, apparently, that is a cardinal sin.
      I do not know what motivates the Government, but I will say what motivates me in my approach. Picketing is a very important weapon in the hands of the trade unions and it is perfectly legitimate. We live in a real world and when there is a real dispute in industry leading to a strike, people naturally feel strongly. When picketing, therefore, they are bound to use robust language. We have to tolerate this. It is part of the legitimate weapon of argument. We have to accept it in the world in which we live.
      The question facing us is what limits there should be to picketing. There has been gross exaggeration in the debate in relation to the question of intimidation. Violence is rarely used. The history of the British trade union movement is, considering what the unions had to bear, especially in the earlier days, one of remarkably peaceful progression. I do not think that anyone with any

      645
      knowledge will dispute that. Where there has been violence, it has usually occurred in very trying circumstances.
      Nevertheless, we all know that picketing is a very distressing matter for the person picketed. We have to accept that that is so. It is a perfectly legitimate weapon—a weapon of persuasion just as much as mass propaganda in the Press is a weapon of persuasion. This is where I disagree with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). I think that we have to accept picketing, and I believe that the Secretary of State takes the same view.
      But the one great difference is that it is not now going to be permissible to picket a man at his home unless—according to my legal interpretation—it also happens to be at his place of work. If I am wrong in my legal interpretation—I do not think that I am—I understand, from speeches made by the Government, that an Amendment would be acceptable on Report to put this right.
      As I heard the debate, the one legitimate point concerned the example given by the hon. Member for Darlington of a mining village or a place where some of the houses are within the curtilage of the mine. One might in that case have a picket line at the place of work which is also near the residence. It is a perfectly valid point and one must ensure that picketing is allowed in such circumstances.
      The hon. Member—whose contributions I greatly respect—also raised a valid but narrow point when, in effect, he said that the onus of proving the matter is on those who propose a change because they have brought forward no evidence of intimidation over the years to justify any change. I want to answer that point. I do so as a matter of judgment.
      I think that we have reached a stage in society where we are aware, whatever is said here, that picketing is a very unpleasant thing for those who are picketing and for those who are picketed. I accept that. There are certain times in the evolution of our country when the group must be given greater power at the expense of the individual. This country owes a great deal to the way in which the groups have used that power. There is no doubt that all working people owe
      646
      a great deal to the fact that the trade union movement used its power and provided a means of emancipation of the workers from the conditions of the early industrial revolution.
      But in our modern society, power has moved to the shop floor, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has said—and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) would say that that is a good thing. We are at a stage, where we have to consider the balance. We have to ask ourselves, "Is it necessary and right?". The hon. Member for Darlington gave examples from the building industry, where it is awkward to picket a man at his place of work and easier to picket him at his place of residence. I accept his argument but I must ask whether it is necessary today to give a union a power which, from my inquiries among hon. Members on this side of the Committee, is comparatively rarely used—the power to picket at home.
      7.30 p.m.
      I come to a value judgment on it. I do not need any evidence of frightening, intimidation, injury and so on. I think that in the state of society we have reached today, our present state of civilisation, this matter is no longer necessary, and despite the bewailing by the hon. Member for Darlington of the fact that there is a slight change from the 1906 position I say, taking my view of it as a Liberal, that although it was necessary in 1906 to strengthen the group, that is no longer necessary in 1971. When we consider the position of the wife and the children at home, and the fact that trade unionists very rarely use this action, and considering the sometimes exaggerated arguments used on the other side, I come to the value judgment that individual rights must be elevated above the group's. I ask the hon. Member for Darlington so say that it is not necessary to produce evidence, because we are all able, from our own knowledge, to come to a decision whether it is necessary in 1971 to give the trade unions the right to picket the individual's home.
      Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way, particularly in view of what I said earlier, in order that I may ask him whether he would not agree that what we are criticising here is a blanket exclusion, whereas it is possible in a number of

      647
      cases, which we have instanced, and I gave one from a recent strike, to show that a home can be used as a congregating place for blacklegs. The Clause should take account of that.
      Mr. Hooson: I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point. I think it would be very difficult to draft a Clause for that. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made a very good point, and, as I have said before he has made very good contributions to our debates on this matter. In a strike people are hurt. They are bound to be. However legitimate the strike, however legitimate the weapons, they are hurt, and if anyone is legislating for this kind of thing one cannot cover every eventuality.
      I agree that there are certain examples which have been given of how this will be a handicap to unions in certain narrow circumstances where they are unable to picket a home, but I understand from my inquiries that normally picketing at home is not the method used by trade unionists if they can avoid it. I think that the generality of the procedure must dominate and I do not think it is possible to legislate in the way that the hon. Gentleman would like.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am very glad that we have had this debate, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred to the legal interpretation of the first Amendment which we discussed, because it will be within the recollection of the Committee that I quoted a number of particular cases in which men could be caught under this Clause.
      In his winding-up speech the Solicitor-General gave me, at least, to understand that the problem was not so much the cases I quoted but my inability to understand the Bill. In consequence of both his statement and the statement by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery I took legal advice, following upon discussion of that Amendment, and I find from my legal advice that there is a measure of dubiety about the legal interpretation of the Clause, and that it would be, in most of the cases which I quoted, and which other hon. Members on this side quoted, a matter for the courts to decide, and that the
      648
      interpretation given by the Solicitor-General—and I put it no higher than this—may have been wrong.
      From what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said a moment or two ago it appears that he goes a little further than I, after we had a little chat, and he had some discussion with the Government Front Bench. If the Solicitor-General would give us an assurance—I should like to catch his attention—that if in the light of any fresh looking at the Clause he were to find that there is a measure of dubiety, he would then table an Amendment for Report, I think that would satisfy the Committee.
      The more I have listened to this debate and the contributions made from the other side the more I have despaired. I have given every benefit of doubt to those hon. Members on that side to whom I have listened and I agreed with them in many instances. But the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) was conveying the impression, prior to an intervention from this side, that trade unionists on strike had committed a considerable number of instances of intimidation, abuse and violence. I invite him to read in HANSARD tomorrow morning the statement which he made—not only that they had committed that kind of action but that one lady had had acid thrown in her face. He said that in his original remarks. It was only when he was challenged that he back-pedalled. I think that it is an abuse of the procedures of this Committee to make statements of that kind without being prepared to table for the Committee the evidence on which such statements are made.
      There has been an argument whether there is something inequitable, or equitable, in the length of time trade unions have enjoyed this right. They have enjoyed it for over 60 years. I agree that there are times when we have to examine the rights which have been bestowed on sectional interests within society, and that there may be circumstances in which we can justifiably say that, in the interests of society as a whole, we have to withdraw a particular right which one section has enjoyed; but before we withdraw a right from any section of the community we have to advance chapter and verse as to abuse, if any, of that right on the part of that section. It is almost an inherent

      649
      principle of democracy that we should do so. Not one single jot or iota of evidence has been presented, either by the Tory Party or by my Liberal colleague, to suggest that trade unionists have abused the right about which hon. Members opposite are protesting at the moment.
      Of course, one sees on the television instances not only of trade union disputes but of many kinds of dispute. There could be a mammoth demonstration such as the demonstration we had on Sunday, about which there have been estimates varying between 100,000 and 140,000 of the number having taken part, and I do not want to say which estimate is right. If one person had thrown a brick in that demonstration every camera would have pounced. It is now becoming customary for analyses to be made of the conduct of individuals on the basis of the misreporting one sees regularly on the television media.
      I will not tolerate, without protest at least, any suggestion that the trade union movement acts as a mob in the greater proportion of its activities. I accept that there may be occasions when trade unionists go off the rails. Outside the Synod of the Church of England—I concede that they are saints and that we are only sinners who keep trying—if anyone can tell me where to find completely peaceful activity by everybody I shall be pleased to know. Let us not condemn the trade union movement, and only the trade union movement, just because a small proportion of its members may on occasion do something wrong. A substantial case must be made out for denying to the trade union movement a right that it has enjoyed for a long time.
      When the Bill was introduced I tried to look at it with a degree of charity. Having attended the Second Reading debate and the debates in Committee, I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that every Clause we debate is just another link in the chain which is designed to bind the trade union movement. The Solicitor-General has done a mammoth task, but he must cease listening to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), who is already beginning the pushing that will take place. If chains are put round the feet, the backwoodsmen will force the Solicitor-General to put chains round the legs. If the Solicitor-General will give an assurance that he
      650
      will look at this again on Report we might begin to believe in his innocence rather than his guilt.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      Mr. Orme: The extraordinary case expounded by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the Solicitor-General was that, whilst there was no concrete evidence that the law on picketing at a person's home should be changed, they nevertheless felt that the law should be changed. Neither the Solicitor-General nor the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has explained to the House why the law defining picketing—which is difficult, and no one has tried to skate over the problem—should be changed from the 1906 Act in respect of
      "not being a place where he resides".
      The answer was given by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). He wanted to see the issue of picketing narrowed further and said that on Report he would try to persuade the Government to define picketing much more clearly and restrictively. The Solicitor-General dismissed as absolute nonsense what I said about this being the thin edge of the wedge, and said that the speeches from the Opposition confirmed his belief that what the Government were doing was right. The Solicitor-General made one of his most impassioned speeches in replying to Amendment No. 873. He was convinced that the Opposition were being irrational, but we are not. The onus is on the Government to prove the point, but they have brought not one iota of proof to the Chamber. It is what lies behind this that worries us.
      7.45 p.m.
      In an earlier debate the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that he recognised that this was an emotional issue to trade unionists,although he could not understand it himself—he happens to be a member of one of the best trade unions in the world which never has to resort to industrial action to achieve its objectives. The Solicitor-General missed the point that, despite what we hear in the Chamber, trade unionists who take strike action do not do so lightly.
      I do not run away from the picketing in the Post Office strike. What happened

      651
      was completely justifiable and I am prepared to say so publicly, but the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery fail to understand the feelings of trade unionists. Trade unionists who justifiably come out on strike, and their families, have to suffer and make sacrifices, just as the Post Office workers are doing. They feel that they have the right to express forcibly to the people who are going to work why they are on strike. They feel that if the other people had joined the strike they might have been more likely to achieve what they wanted. It is an emotional experience.
      Only someone who has been on the picket lines, as I have on several occasions, outside factories and places of work, can understand this. It does not matter whether the strike is official or unofficial, or whether there are pickets or no pickets, if the law is broken people can be prosecuted for violating the common law. When I have been on the picket line some of the people who have been going to work have said to me afterwards that they had been wrong to do so, and had done so only because of difficulties and emotional troubles at home. People who are picketing peacefully have a right to express themselves forcefully. A person going in to work will express himself forcefully too. Pickets often operate in difficult disputes where there is conflict between management and workers and sometimes differences between workpeople.
      Hon. Members will recognise immediately the disputes at Pilkingtons and Roberts Arundel, the dispute at B.M.C., in the 1950s, the trawlermen's dispute, the Barbican site dispute. There are not a great number of disputes in which forms of violence took place during picketing. The police were involved in the Roberts Arundel case and damages were paid.
      Captain W. Elliot: I appreciate that emotions run high and, as the hon. Gentleman said, violence and intimidation take place.
      Mr. Orme: I did not mention intimidation.
      Captain Elliot: The hon. Gentleman mentioned violence. Would he agree that exactly the same is likely to arise if a man's house is picketed?
      Mr. Orme: I was saying that examples of violence are so few in this country that they prove my case, namely that violence does not take place in the vast majority of disputes. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to give me an example of intimidation or violence during picketing of a non-striker's home. He cannot. It is extraordinary that no instances have been given.
      This is no small matter. It is obvious that some people are seeking to reduce the power of picketing. Picketing is an extension of the arm of the strike weapon. When workers on strike appear before the public they are not always trying to prevent people going to work. A few years ago during a big dispute at Fords a great deal of picketing and argument took place, though not intimidation. Today, the whole of Ford's plant are out and nobody needs to be on picket. Whole factories have stopped. It is only in certain instances that this sort of thing takes place.
      One of the dangers of the Clause is that the police will become more and more involved in disputes, and this point must be carefully weighed. In recent years this tendency has increased. I have witnessed these things personally, and have not merely seen them on television or read about them in the newspapers. It is wrong for the police to be involved in industrial disputes since they should be seen to be independent. During one industrial dispute in Manchester in the early 1960s police turned up with police dogs and it was only after the matter was raised in the House that the police were instructed to withdraw.
      Mr. Loughlin: May I ask my hon. Friend to make the clear distinction that, as a general rule, the police are impartial and that it is only in the odd case that difficulty arises?
      Mr. Orme: I am not making an attack on the police. In fact, I am seeking to prevent the police being involved. The extension in the provision to somebody's home will bring in more police in industrial disputes. I ask the Solicitor-General to answer this point. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) wishes to interrupt?
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I shall be making my own speech.
      The Chairman: Order. We cannot have these arguments going on sotto voce.
      Mr. Orme: This is not a narrow point and the question of picketing is aimed at the heart of industrial action and dispute. The right to picket has existed since 1906, and if the Bill comes into operation increasing pressure will be put on the Solicitor-General to narrow, define and reduce the picketing powers. I should like an assurance from him that this will not take place.
      Mr. F. P. Crowder: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) should criticise hon. Members on this side of the Committee for not having said enough on the Clause. May I congratulate the lion. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) on his recent recordership, which all falls in with the union which has been referred to and to which we both have the honour to belong.
      I ask the Government to look at this Clause again. The most important thing about this great Bill of 150 Clauses is that the ordinary person who is affected by it should understand it and not be frightened by it. We do not want a Bill that people do not understand or for them to feel that their rights are affected, when in fact they are not. I do not see how there can be a satisfactory relationship between workers and employers unless they can have complete understanding of what this legislation is all about.
      The Committee will know that as a lawyer I am not directly concerned with industrial law, but I have a certain association with industry because my family own one of the few small ports in Cornwall, which I am happy to say was not to be nationalised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). That was the only part of the United Kingdom in the General Strike of 1926 in which the dockers did not go out on strike. The reason was the happy, friendly, family relationships that existed between employer and employed. When I was a boy I remember one of the dockers, who was wearing earrings and who was aged about 70, coming into the office and asking for a job to be given to his boy. The "boy", who was aged about 45, came in and my father, who was a member of this House, gave him a job immediately,
      654
      though he had not one to offer. That was the sort of happy relationship that existed at the time. It is the sort of relationship that is required in industry between the employer and the employee, but with the vast concerns of today it makes the task very difficult indeed.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Whose responsibility is that?
      Mr. Crowder: It is a reflection of the modern world, and it is happening not only in this country but all over Europe. When we seek to put down our ideas in the form of legislation, it should at least be in simple language which the ordinary workman and the man on the factory floor can understand. What do hon. Members think that somebody from a small, working-class cottage on the docks in South Cornwall, at the age of 15, would gather from reading the following:
      "The provisions of this section shall have effect where one or more persons (in this section referred to as "pickets"), in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, attend at or near

      (a) a place where a person works or carries on business, or

      (b) any other place where a person happens to be, not being a place where he resides,

      and do so only for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information to him or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work.
      (2) In the circumstances specified in the preceding subsection, the attendance of the pickets at that place for that purpose—
      (a) shall not of itself constitute an offence under section 7 of the Conspiracy, and protection of Property Act 1875 …"?
      How many people living in cottages in South Cornwall will have that Act under the bed? How can we pass legislation of this sort without looking at it in a common sense way?
      Mr. Russell Kerr: It is like the rest of the Bill.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Crowther: I could have drafted the Bill in 60 Clauses. The point of this loquacious Clause is to be found in the three words "where he resides" in subsection 1(b). All that the Government are trying to say in verbose, complicated lawyer's language is that they do not want pickets outside people's homes.
      The Government should look at the Clause and redraft it on sensible lines

      655
      because picketing has been going on in this country for as long as 65 years. It was introduced by the Liberal Party to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery belongs. All that the ordinary person who will be subjected to this Clause wants to know is what it means, and all it means is that one cannot be beastly and behave disgracefully outside a person's home. In the 20 years that I have been at the criminal bar, I cannot think of an instance of a person having been attacked or assaulted by a picket. Will the Government have the kindness to look at this Clause again and simplify it?
      The Solicitor-General: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) has urged simplification of the Clause, but he cannot have recollected the way in which the law stands. It stands on a combination of the 1875 Act and the 1906 Act. I dare say that copies of the 1906 Act are as scarce under the bed of his friends in their cottages as are copies of the 1875 Act. My hon. and learned Friend has enough experience of the law to know that one must formulate Clauses with some precision and that if we were merely to attempt the random style of draftsmanship which he suggested it would not add to the intelligibility of the document. Even the last Government's Bill dealing with a much smaller area, like many other pieces of recent legislation, covered many pages and contained many Clauses.
      I share my hon. and learned Friend's aspiration that the law should be drafted in the crisp simplicity of the law of Justinian or the Magna Carta, but those days are no longer with us. I assure him that a great deal of thought has been given to the formulation of this Clause to achieve precisely the object which he endorses. The object of the Clause is to remove the place where someone resides from the presumption in favour of the legitimacy of picketing.
      Mr. Dan Jones: May I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman—
      The Solicitor-General: I fear not. We have spent many hours debating the Clause in the context of the two Amendments.
      As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) acknowledged,
      656
      the object of the Clause is to make clear that the presumption in favour of the legitimacy of watching and besetting a person's home should be withdrawn. Understanding of the legal position, whether on this or on any other matter, depends on that which is known and made plain throughout the country. I cannot believe that people have benevolent legislation like the Rent Act, 1965, posted around their dwelling houses.
      The purpose and effect of this legislation is clear. The purpose and effect dates back to 1875 when the law first started—perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery will forgive me for mentioning it—in a Statute placed on the Statute Book by Disraeli, who at that time sat on this side of the Committee, and the principle continued in the 1906 Act. All that we are doing is to make a single change in respect of picketing of the home. Everyone is agreed about the effect and intention of the Clause.
      The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) wondered whether there was room for doubt about the legitimacy as it has prevailed heretofore of picketing a place of work which was one and the same place as the home. I have looked at the matter again very closely and sought advice, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has done the same. The intention is plain: to vary the law only in respect of the pure home. I judge that the intention is plainly achieved by the Clause. I cannot see any way in which the object of the exercise can be made plainer. If there is anxiety about the matter we will look at it again, but it is difficult to see any way of changing it.
      Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the question which I raised last night about which I feel very strongly? Will he undertake to look at the drafting of the Clause to deal with the situation in which a home is used as a place for gathering blacklegs together and taking them from one place to another?
      The Solicitor-General: I cannot agree to look at that matter. The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly referred to the motorised strike situation in which people are chasing each other around the countryside of Yorkshire and arguing and

      657
      counter-arguing about the legitimacy of a strike. All forms of communication are perfectly legitimate as long as they do not overstep the bounds of the 1875 Act and do not amount to attempts to compel someone to act against his entitlement or to watching or besetting. There is nothing wrong in attending at a house, whether it is occupied by one or more strikers, would-be strikers or strike breakers. All that we are saying is that there is no longer an automatic presumption in favour of the right of picketing somebody's home. There is no case for altering the law in the way which would apply to the examples which the hon. Member has given.
      The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) raised a similar point. Nothing in the Bill affects the right of people to visit each other's homes and to talk to each other and deliver notes. The hon. Member for Darlington asked how one could communicate with people who were not at home when one wanted to communicate with them. The 1875 Act provided that certain forms of attempted compulsion could amount to criminal offences. It wrote in a special licence and privilege for picketing in the course of industrial disputes. It was continued, with modifications, in 1906 and is now continued. But that special privilege and immunity is no longer judged to be necessary in respect of the home.
      I return to the reasons given by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for accepting that situation. No one is making a general charge of violence against trade unions, trade unionists or the trade union movement. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) condemn, as we all condemn, violence in an industrial situation. But almost every hon. Member who has contributed to this and the previous debate has acknowledged that in the picketing situation, an extension of the strike weapon, violence may sometimes occur. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) explained how that can happen. He referred to the very nature of the feelings on both sides, the emotional experience of both sides, the real conflict of view involved between the striker and the non-striker, and so on. It is because of this conflict of emotion, desire and will that
      658
      violence can occur from time to time in the picketing situation. We all know it.
      From that, my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) argues that it would be right to change the law to limit the rights and privileges of pickets more generally. I do not accept that, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not, and the Government do not accept it. We believe that the ordinary criminal law, to various aspects of which a number of hon. Members have referred, is sufficient in almost all areas. It is available and can be deployed to that end. We do not accept any suggestion for changing the general law on picketing.
      The hon. Member for Walton introduced a curious thought into the discussion when he suggested that violence tends to occur in picketing only if the police attempt to protect the rights of scabs to go to work. That is a very odd proposition to advance in this Committee.
      Mr. Dan Jones: It is a very practical one.
      The Solicitor-General: I want to follow it through. The hon. Member for Salford, West said that it was wrong for the police to become involved in the resolution of industrial disputes.
      Mr. Orme: Hear, hear.
      The Solicitor-General: I accept that, and I am sure that every hon. Member will. But if it is the function of the police in this situation, as in so many others, to uphold the criminal law on which hon. Gentlemen say that it is sufficient to rely, it is their unenviable duty to check and identify, and proceed in cases which they judge right, where the criminal law has been infringed.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: That is what provokes trouble.
      Mr. Concannon: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has read the history of the Nottinghamshire miners, but perhaps I might direct his attention to the case at Harworth, where the police were involved in taking what was termed the "Harworth chain gang" through the village to the pit. An incident resulted in 11 people in Har-

      659
      worth, including a female, being sent to prison.
      The Solicitor-General: What was the date of that incident?
      Mr. Concannon: It was some time ago. It was in the 1930s.
      The Solicitor-General: I think that it is common ground on both sides of the Committee that, so far as the occasions when picketing spills over into violence are concerned, one has the ordinary provisions of the criminal law to prevent the violence taking place and spreading. If that is common ground, it can only be done by the police. It is a difficult duty to discharge, but I suggest that it would be disastrous in such a situation if the police were seen to be discriminating in favour of one side or the other, be it in favour of the unanimously striking employees against the employer or vice versa, or be it against the strikers or against those whom hon. Gentlemen opposite have termed "scabs" or "blacklegs".
      I do not accept the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton that violence arises only when the police seek to protect scabs. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee do not accept the ligitimacy of this distinction. On their behalf, I put forward the proposition that people are entitled to make their way to their place of work without the threat of violence and with proper protection. But I do not accept that that involves any change in the general law on picketing.
      I accept the point put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that when one judges the balance for changing the law, there is a case for considering the extent to which the home no longer becomes a place to which it is presumed by law that the emotions, conflicts and passions of industrial dispute should wash. There is some point to which a man can retreat and feel that he is immune from pressures of this kind. That is the limit of what we want to achieve. It is on that point that the Committee has now spent some six or seven hours arguing for and against seeking to that very limited extent to protect the home of a person, on whatever side of an industrial dispute he may
      660
      be, from the presumption that it is a legitimate site for picketing.
      I now commend the Clause to the Committee.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I have spoken on only one occasion before in a debate on this Bill. That was on Second Reading, when I detained the House for only four minutes. I shall be equally brief today.
      I think that I am the only hon. Member in the Palace of Westminster to have had experience of both picketing and taking part in a strike not very far from this Palace—
      Mr. Dan Jones: My hon. Friend is right in his geography, but not otherwise.
      Mr. Lewis: I repeat that I think that I am the only hon. Member to take part in a strike while an hon. Member within a stone's throw of the Palace of Westminster.
      I wanted to intervene during the speech of the Solicitor-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman refused to give way. I also wanted to intervene during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). My hon. Friend refused to give way at first—
      Mr. Orme rose—
      Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend was advised by our Front Bench, and he later gave way. If the Solicitor-General had given way to me, I should have put two questions to him.
      The incident which I am about to recount to the Committee is not hypothesis. It actually happened to me. The first case concerns a worker who, while employed at a hotel, may live in the hotel and, as such, reside there. In other words, for the time being it becomes his home. The second case is where a hotel worker resides in an annexe which is not actually in the hotel but is near to and adjacent to the hotel.
      On the occasion of which I speak, I was picketing at the Savoy Hotel, on the Embankment. I was picketing the place of employment of the hotel workers involved. Nearby and adjacent to the hotel was the place where they resided and which was their home. It was impossible to picket either their home or

      661
      their place of work without picketing both at the same time. Therefore, what I was doing was quite legal, although eventually I was arrested for other reasons, as hon. Members will recall—[Interruption.] I am not apologising. I was quite proud of the effort. However, it is not material to the point that I am making.
      If this provision had existed then, I would have been arrested and charged with picketing the residence of those workers. How can trade union officials or strikers picket in places like this other than by picketing the place of residence?
      Many charges have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Orme) said that no instance had been given by hon. Members opposite in which intimidation had taken place and violence had been used near someone's home. I would ask not hon. Members opposite
      but the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to produce this evidence. His Department was formerly the Ministry of Labour and must have records of strikes and disputes for quite a period.
      Will he officially—if not now, by Report stage—give the number of cases which have been officially reported to his Department of complaints and intimidation at the homes of striking workers? So far as I know, no figures have been published. If there are any, I should like to see them. They must be so few that it is not worth bringing in this restrictive Clause to prevent legitimate picketing.
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:
      The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 249.
      Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 122 and 123 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 124

      APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT WITH A VIEW TO DISCONTINUING OR DEFERRING INDUSTRIAL ACTION
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Haffer: We regard Clause 124 as being of considerable importance. I will not say that it is the heart of the Bill because that has been said many times before about other Clauses. I oppose the Motion that this Clause should stand
      666
      part of the Bill, and in doing so it is necessary to consider it in association with Clauses 125 and 126, although I shall deal primarily with Clause 124.
      This Clause raises the whole question of the so-called cooling-off period—a period which can be operated under the proposals in the Bill for up to 60 days. The Clause goes much further than strikes and deals with other forms of industrial action. The so-called cooling-off period could be used to deal with a strike, a work-to-rule, an overtime ban, a go-slow or any other form of industrial action known of at present.
      We have frequently pointed out that the Bill is modelled very much on the United States Taft-Hartley Act. Indeed, many parts of the Bill are a direct import from the U.S. However, this part of the

      667
      Bill goes further than that because it gives direct powers to the secretary of State which the American President does not have.
      Section 206 of the Taft-Hartley Act enables the U.S. President in certain circumstances to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding a strike. That board must report to him within an agreed period. Its report must be made public, and under Section 207 of the Act the board may summon witnesses, examine documents and investigate in the most detailed way the circtunstances of the dispute before there is any decision on the part of the President about making an order for a cooling-off period. Only after receiving that report may he direct the Attorney-General to petition for an injunction and impose a 60-day cooling-off period.
      Under this Bill the Secretary of State can decide, when it appears to him to be necessary, to make an application to the industrial court for an order. In other words, we are giving greater powers to the Secretary of State than the people of America are prepared to give to their President for the imposition of a cooling-off period. Nor is there any suggestion in this Measure that there should be a board of inquiry first.
      I have no doubt that in discussing this matter our attention will once again be drawn to the document "In Place of Strife". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would be surprised if hon. Gentlemen opposite did not do that, having no real case of their own. In that document my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put forward the concept of the status quo; that an employer should keep to the prevailing conditions of employment. Nothing like that is suggested in this Measure.
      Under our policy, if a strike arose because of a change made by an employer he could be obliged to return to the status quo. Many industrial disputes could be solved if the first step was a return to the status quo. Proper discussions could then take place. It is when an employer arbitrarily takes a decision to move away from the existing conditions and tries to impose new conditions that disputes frequently break out.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman has just said that if the parties would
      668
      go back to the status quo, in many cases a solution could be found to the strike. What about the postmen at present? If they had returned to the situation where arbitration was agreed and if they had accepted it, there would have been a solution. The hon. Gentleman puts forward a proposition which in that instance does not, has not and is not working because the union will not conform.
      Mr. Heffer: I have often heard hon. Members say that they regret having given way. I have never yet said it myself, but on this occasion I regret that I gave way because the hon. Gentleman's point added absolutely nothing and made no contribution to the debate. We are not discussing the exact conditions of the postmen's dispute. I am pointing out that many disputes would be easier to settle if the status quo situation remained.
      The words of Section 208 of the Taft-Hartley Act are very similar to those in the Bill. Section 208(a) states:
      "Upon receiving a report from a board of inquiry the President may direct the Attorney General to petition any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties to enjoin such strike or lock-out or the continuing thereof, and if the court finds that such threatened or actual strike or lock-out (i) affects an entire industry or a substantial part thereof engaged in trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or with foreign nations, or engaged in the production of goods for commerce; and (ii) if permitted to occur or to continue, will imperil the national health or safety, it shall have jurisdiction to enjoin any such strike or lock-out, or the continuing thereof, and to make such other orders as may be appropriate."
      The language used in our laws has been mentioned in the debate. It seems that the language used in the United States laws is not much better from the point of view of the understanding of the ordinary worker. Lawyers in every country suffer from the same problem in drafting documents. If those words are contrasted with the words in Clause 124(2)(a) and (b), whilst they are not exactly the same, there is an immense similarity. It is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have to a large extent lifted them. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is nodding in agreement. That is interesting. I understand that he is a leading member of the Industrial Committee, which obviously had something to do with the drafting of the Bill. The words are lifted right out.

      669
      These proposals go beyond that part of the Act. I quote a very interesting statement from Mr. George Meeney, the National President of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.:
      "Under Taft-Hartley, as under the proposed British legislation, the government's assertion that a strike creates or threatens a national emergency is supposedly subject to judicial review, but no court has ever been willing to override the judgment of the government on that. Thus in practice under Taft-Hartley a 'national emergency' is any labor dispute that the government decides to so label. While the U.S. government has been fairly restrained in invoking the National Emergency provisions … the definition of national emergency contemplated for the proposed British legislation is much, much broader than that in Taft-Hartley. Thus the British legislation would apply to disputes which 'would deprive the community of the essentials of life or seriously endanger the national health, security or economy'. That would encompass any very large strike, such as the current General Motors strike, whereas Taft-Hartley may not be invoked simply because of the size of the strike."
      8.45 p.m.
      That is important. It must be said again and again that the Bill goes much further than the provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act: yet the American unions have consistently fought the Taft-Hartley Act and have suffered as a result of its existence.
      Precisely because it is a direct import from the United States, the effects that the Taft-Hartley Act has had in America must be examined. I quote the headlines of an article by Stephen Fay in the Sunday Times of 26th January, 1969:
      "Seven strike threats plus seven cooling-offs equal seven strikes.
      And 13 ballots equal 13 strikes."
      Stephen Fay said something else which is well worth quoting. He had discussed the situation with one of the leaders of the dockers' union on the East Coast of the United States. This is what Gleason—the dockers' leader—said:
      "'Taft-Hartley is a nuisance'. It clearly does not deter the dockers. It is not that Gleason is bent on the destruction of American capitalism. This is one of the most militant unions in the United States', Gleason says. 'and it is one of the most patriotic in the country, too. I have been to Vietnam four times to help them get the stuff off the boats'. But Taft-Hartley does seem to have fouled up negotiating practice in the docks. 'The trouble is that the employers never make their final offer before the contract ends because they know the Government will send us back to work for 80 days', says Gleason."
      670
      So there we have it—13 ballots equals 13 strikes; seven strike threats, plus seven cooling-off periods, equal seven strikes.
      I call in aid the Royal Commission, because I am sure we shall hear much of this. Paragraphs 423–25 refer. In paragraph 425 the Commission, after having examined the proposals for cooling off, said this:
      "On the whole therefore we do not think that the introduction of a procedure such as is proposed by the Society of Conservative Lawyers"—
      that was the proposal for the 60-day cooling-off period—
      "would be beneficial. We think it preferable that the Government's present freedom of action should be preserved, and we do not think that it has been shown that its power needs to be increased."
      All the evidence—whether it is the evidence of the experience in the United States or the evidence of the Royal Commission, which seriously studied the question—proves conclusively that the proposals in the Bill are unnecessary and will not aid industrial relations.
      These proposals may increase bitterness and result in strikes of longer duration than is necessary. During the 60-day cooling-off period both sides may build up their resources for the time when the cooling-off period ends. That has been the experience in the United States, and it could well happen here. The proposal gives far too much power to the Secretary of State. It is directed wholly against unions, with no attempt to influence employers.
      The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) said that he wanted the control of picketing to go much further than merely preventing the picketing of peoples' homes. In the United States of America similar voices are being raised. One is the voice of Senator Fannin, a Republican from Arizona, who said in January of this year that
      "When an injunction has been applied to a union on supposed grounds of a threatened national emergency strike, this Bill will make the injunction permanent until after an agreement has been reached, rather than the 80-day period now in law."
      So we start with a 60-day cooling-off period. That does not prevent strikes. Hon. Members opposite would then propose a permanent injunction. Basically,

      671
      that would mean the end of the right to strike.
      The next step would be open and direct Fascism. The argument has been advanced that things would be very much easier with this sort of legislation. Things are easy in Spain; the workers cannot take action. It is easy to argue that case; but it means the end of democratic rights for trade unions.
      Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has said that workers in Spain are not allowed to strike; but in both Spain and Poland they have done so, in defiance of the law, thereby bringing it into complete disrepute.
      Mr. Heller: Yes. The workers always will do that, in defiance of the law.
      Mr. David Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Heller: I will not give way. The hon. Member for Basingstoke will have an opportunity of debating this matter. I have spent long enough explaining my opposition to the Clause.
      Because this part of the Bill is a fundamental attack on the trade union movement, because we believe that it is totally unnecessary, and will not solve disputes, and because the important thing is to get the conciliation machinery into operation in these situations rather than introduce Measures of this kind, we ask the Committee to reject the Clause and the whole of this part of the Bill.
      Mr. Ian Percival: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) that this is a very important Clause. It introduces something new into our law. It is important that it should be justifiable, clear and workable. I agree that the concept is taken from the cooling-off period specified in the Taft-Hartley legislation. I stress the word "concept", because there is a lot of difference in the detail. Shortly I shall respectfully submit that the hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that the powers given to the Secretary of State under the Bill are greater than the political powers given in America. I think that he has misunderstood it. At all events, there is another view.
      672
      I shall not spend time comparing what is proposed here with "In Place of Strife", and neither shall I spend time referring to what the Royal Commission said about it, although I had the honour to form the society of Conservative lawyers which was referred to in the quotation which the hon. Gentleman made from the Donovan Report. But I am glad to have a chance to speak on the Clause because, although I acknowledge that hon. Members opposite have much more knowledge of certain aspects of the matter, my interest in it has been no less great and no less sincere over many years.
      Last year, having talked a lot with other lawyers about Taft-Hartley over the years, I thought that it would not be a bad thing to go and see it in operation on the ground. I concede that I am only a "three-week" expert, a rather limited kind of expert, but I did meet people like Tom Harris of the A.F. of L.-C.I.O. who has worked with the Taft-Hartley Act for a very long time, and who has such a reputation in the United States, as well as meeting people like the Regional Director of the Labour Relations Board in Brooklyn who has had such great experience of implementing Taft-Hartley, and many others.
      In that way, one gains a rather better slant on the American law—I put it no higher than that—than one does merely from reading, hearing about it and discussing it.
      Mr. Heffer: I spent two full months, long before I came to the House, studying the whole trade union movement and American trade union law in the United States.
      Mr. Percival: I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not think that I meant to imply anything adverse to him, for I meant no such thing. I was merely saying that I had a little experience and that, although I could not claim a lot of knowledge, I felt that I was entitled at least to claim some. [Interruption.] I said that hon. Members opposite have much more knowledge of other aspects of the subject than I have. I speak merely as a lawyer who has been closely interested in the legal side of the matter, who does not believe that the law can solve industrial relations problems but who hopes that it might provide means to assist those

      673
      who are actively engaged in resolving differences, and one who has a little, albeit only a little, first-hand experience of the Taft-Hartley legislation.
      The hon. Gentleman overstates the case when he says that the American trade unions have suffered from the Taft-Hartley Act. I dare say that they have in some ways, but I am sure that he will be the first to agree that there are differing views on the other side of the Atlantic about who benefits under Taft-Hartley. There are some who think that it is meant entirely for the benefit of unions, and there are some unions who think that it is certainly not. I do not believe that one can postulate either of those views. In some respects, it is very helpful to unions, and in other ways it is not.
      What we should learn from the United States is that this particular procedure has, on the whole, worked. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that it has been used only about 27 times in 25 years—or 25 times in 27 years; I am not sure which. I say here and now that I expect and hope to hear from Ministers that it is the Government's intention that this procedure should be used very rarely, and only in the quite exceptional case.
      The one lesson to be learned from the United States is that, if it were to be used frequently, it might soon lose its effectiveness. It should be available only in most extreme circumstances when the national interest is at stake. I for one am very glad that the conditions upon which it may be prayed in aid are drawn so very tightly in the Bill.
      I was told that in the United States they regarded that as very important. One example was an airline strike. The Secretary of Labour at the time said that his immediate reaction was that it was a dispute on such a scale that it must be affecting the national interest and that therefore the cooling-off period should be employed. But, realising how important it was that it should be used only very rarely, he reconsidered the matter and said that while it was an enormous inconvenience to have all the airlines out on strike it was not necessarily prejudicial o the national interest in the short run. So the United States Government gave effect to the principle that the power should be used only in the most extreme cases.
      674
      [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
      9.0 p.m.
      Where the hon. Gentleman may be wrong is in his assumption that great powers are given to the Secretary of State. The only reason I find the provisions acceptable is that I believe that the powers of the Secretary of State have been severely curbed. If I thought that the provisions gave him great powers, I should oppose them.
      We must look at Clauses 124 and 125 together. I hope that I shall be in order in referring briefly to Clause 125, because the point I want to make is so closely bound up with what is in it. It is true that the Secretary of State does not have to appoint a board of inquiry, as the United States President does. He has only to satisfy himself that the conditions postulated in Clause 124 are satisfied, and does not have to go outside his own Department at that stage. But he has first to satisfy himself that all the conditions of the Clause are met. All that the Clause says is that if he has satisfied himself to that extent he may apply to the court, but nothing happens then unless he satisfies the court that he was right in thinking that those conditions were met.
      Here I speak with 20 years' experience of the courts, and from the heart. It is wrong to think that we shall see here anything like what happened in the United States, if the quotation which the hon. Gentleman read is true. If my memory is correct, it said that the courts had never dared disagree with the President's conclusion that the national interest was at stake. I do not wish to comment on that, though from the little I know of the American courts I doubt whether that proposition is justified. But, be that as it may, I am certain as I can be of anything that it does not apply to this country. I am certain that the Industrial Relations Court will carry on the traditions of the other courts that it stands there to protect everyone else against the State, and that when the State applies for an order it has if anything an even more difficult job to satisfy the court of the conditions which must obtain before the court will make an order.

      675
      The procedure in the Clauses is very desirable. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, it is designed to protect the persons against whom the order may eventually be made, and it provides the best protection that can be provided for them. Apart from the Secretary of State's deliberations, which will be in private, everything must happen in public. The application must be in public, the Secretary of State must satisfy the court on facts stated in public, facts which will be presented by witnesses who will be cross-examined, no doubt very rigorously if the ground is shaky, and the contrary case can be put by anyone who is interested to put it in public. Then, finally, the decision and the reasons for it will be given in public.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: With the lawyers earning fat fees.
      Mr. Percival: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) does himself and the Committee less than justice by silly remarks like that. No one ever employs a lawyer unless he wants his services. In the N.I.R.C., legal aid will be available. We were told that yesterday but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here then. We have not seen much of him in the last few days.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis rose—
      Mr. Percival: No, I am not giving way.
      The case may be presented to the court by any person any party desires to present it—perhaps it will be a trade union official or an individual. If the party wishes to employ a lawyer, he may present the case. The whole of the facts are to be examined in public, and the onus will be on the Secretary of State to satisfy the court that all of the conditions postulated by the Statute have been satisfied. It is only in these circumstances that an order can be made. I believe that the conditions have been drawn very tightly. If any hon. Member opposite were able to demonstrate that they are not drawn tightly but are drawn loosely, I should be the first to express the wish that such a defect should be remedied, because 1 believe that, if a procedure like this is to be useful, notwithstanding the remarks of my right hon. Friend—
      Mr. Russell Kerr: That is a matter of opinion.
      Mr. Percival: What lawyers hope for is that these processes will be useful for the purpose for which they are intended. I believe that the process we are introducing into our law can be useful, providing two conditions are satisfied—first, that the conditions under which the powers may be exercised are tightly drawn, and, secondly, that the procedure is used but rarely.
      I commend the Clause to the Committee because I believe that the first requirement, which is the only one which can be dealt with in the Bill, is satisfied by the Clause as drafted, and I hope and expect that the other prerequisite for the success of this procedure—that it be used rarely—is the Government's intention.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: I take up two points made by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). He said that in the United States the authorities were reluctant to use injunctions for the 90-day cooling-off period. He put forward this proposition in support of an argument that we should adopt a similar system.
      The reluctance in the United States is because the system has failed there. After the longshoremen's strike, a directive was issued to the Civil Service to this effect, "Do not get an injunction to restrain unions from striking for 90 days" because in the longshoremen's case a comparatively small dispute during the waiting period was blown up into a major national strike. As a consequence of its own experience, the United States is holding back from imposing upon the union a statutory period of 90 days before it takes strike action. So it has nothing at all to do with the reluctance of the Administration to invoke that clause. It is a fact of history which has taught it that the law does not work. It is getting its fingers burned, and that is the reason why it is holding back.
      So do not let us take as an example what is happening in America, because if we have similar legislation we shall find out from our own experience gained in the hard way, that the law will not work and that a cooling-off period would, in fact, be a hotting-up period and that many strikes would be more difficult to settle rather than easier to settle.

      677
      The next point which the hon. and learned Gentleman made was that if the Secretary of State made application to the court, the court would have to be satisfied that it was a legitimate application. Surely, the courts are the creature of the Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] They are being created—
      Mr. Percival rose—
      Mr. Fletcher: Just a moment. I will give way presently. They will be created by this Bill. The courts will be created in accordance with the Clauses of the Bill. They are creatures of this Government, and the creatures of the Secretary of State, and so it is inconceivable that if he takes a case to the court and the case is in accordance with the Bill which we are about to pass, the court will not grant the Secretary of State's request.
      Mr. Percival: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, but I say to him, with all humility, that if he really believes that the courts of this country are the creatures of anybody, he has got it wrong. Somebody has got to set them up, but I hope that he will realise that and in the rest of his speech—if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) will keep quiet for a moment as others have kept quiet and listened to him—really will accept from those of us who deal with the courts every day that the courts of this country are wholly independent and not creatures of anybody, and will not be in acting under this Bill.
      Mr. Fletcher: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that I did not refer to the courts of this country. I referred to the courts which are being created by the Bill, and they have their powers set out in the various Clauses of the Bill. As a consequence. the courts are the creatures of the Secretary of State.
      To make an elaborate argument that the court will have to be satisfied that the Secretary of State is correct, and so on, is beside the point, because if the Secretary of State is working in accordance with the Bill which we are about to pass he will obviously bring himself within the jurisdiction of the court. The courts are mere creatures of the Secretary of State. So this is no safeguard. The courts are puppets of this Administration, and puppets of the Tory Government.
      Mr. Gower: We, of course, understand what the hon. Member means when he says that they are created by this legislation, but they will be a branch, a part, of our judicature and will be manned by, among others, persons who are independent of the Executive Government and who are part of the judiciary and are High Court judges. It has been the glory of the democratic tradition of this country for many generations that our judges, constantly over history, have faced and opposed actions of the Executive Government at various times.
      Mr. Fletcher: I know that judges are held in very high regard by the legal profession, but they are not necessarily so regarded by the public of this country. Judges have been matters for derision throughout the ages. From Chaucer through Shakespeare to Gilbert and Sullivan we have made fun of our judges. The only respect now shown to them is by the legal profession. The fact that we appoint judges to the Industrial Relations Court, which is the equivalent of the High Court, does not mean that the trade unions will necessarily hold them in higher reverence. Their duties are specifically set out in the Bill, and if the Secretary of State acts in accordance with the Bill he will he using his creatures to see that his will is carried forward.
      9.15 p.m.
      Clause 124(3) refers to a strike or to irregular industrial action short of a strike. On previous occasions we have asked the Government what is "action short of a strike". It is vital in this context, because the cooling-off period could be used in aid of action short of a strike. Is working to rule notion short of a strike? Is this the sort of action where the Government could impose a cooling-off period?
      When a trade unionist works to rule, he works to the employer's rule—the rules that are given to him by the employer when he obtains employment. For example, a driver in a haulage firm might be told to examine tyre pressures and the water level in the radiator and see that the battery is topped up. In the interests of production he gives a cursory glance to these things and carries on with the job. If he obeyed the rules of his employer and worked to rule he could spend a good deal of time each day doing

      679
      these things, with a consequent loss of production. Is this action short of a strike? Is it action that should be penalised? Would the court say that there should be a 60-day cooling-off period for this action because it is used in furtherance of an industrial dispute?
      The 60-day cooling-off period is quite irrelevant to solving industrial disputes, and may even prolong them. Small sections of workers who have a genuine grievance will be able to utilise the 60 days to mobilise support amongst their colleagues in other branches, and at the end of the cooling-off period we may be faced with bigger industrial problems than if initially the unions and employers had sat round a table and tried to solve their problems.
      Clauses 124, 125 and 126 are particularly important. They incorporate systems which exist in the United States and which have failed to such an extent that the Americans are having second thoughts about them. If the Government studied the American situation, they might come to the same conclusions as are being reached over there and think twice before trying to implement the Clauses.
      Mr. Tom King: I certainly follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) when he says that this Measure is no magic solution to the problems and that there will be many occasions when it could aggravate the situation. There will be little disagreement on this point between those of us with common industrial experience.
      I do not follow him on his comments on the judiciary, which I thought were most regrettable and, out of kindness, best ignored. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman may feel that it would have been better not said.
      There is a danger that this Clause may achieve a significance out of proportion to its effectiveness in relation to the number of times it is likely to be used. We are asked why we are bringing forward this provision since it is never likely to be used, but there is conflicting evidence on this matter.
      Hon. Members have mentioned the American experience and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)
      680
      mentioned the article instancing seven ballots, seven pauses and seven strikes. Furthermore, when one looks at paragraph 421 of Donovan one sees that the evidence is conflicting. In 24 cases in which injunctions were granted, a standstill period was successfully imposed. We do not know what the situation would be when tightly-drawn Clauses are imposed in regard to action which is likely to be
      "gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder. —"
      We cannot ignore the evidence that in 16 instances mentioned by Donovan stoppages were virtually avoided by the use of the Taft-Hartley procedure.
      The hon. Member for Walton pointed to the extension of the Taft-Hartley procedure to matters which are likely
      "to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury."
      That is the standard in the Taft-Hartley procedure, but surely in the national interest that could be omitted in view of the interdependence of one set of workers with another set of workers.
      Therefore, I support this provision on the strict condition that it is used sparingly. Attention has been drawn to the American experience and on some occasions we are told that we cannot avoid the consequences of the present situation in the United States. I do not accept that view. In this country we have our own ways of handling matters and we have our own ways of interpreting the law as applied to differing conditions and to different people.
      Mr. Heffer: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's last point that up to now we have had our own ways of settling problems. Why, therefore, to solve our problems do we now have to borrow from the United States something that is suspect?
      Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman intervenes as though the rest of the world remains static. We are living in a dynamic society. In 1906 we did not, for example, have 25 per cent. American investment in this country. [Laughter.] I do not introduce this matter in any way to suggest that, because we have American investment, we should adopt American labour laws. Hon. Members should not read into my words more than

      681
      I meant. Perhaps it was an unfortunate example to give. What I meant by giving that example was simply that it is a changing situation. We did not have the same level of American capital investment in 1906 or in 1875.
      Mr. David Mitchell: I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in condemning the laughter with which this very serious matter about United States investment in this country was greeted by hon. Members opposite.
      Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he was trying to throw a lifeline which was not really needed. In view of what has been said in the correspondence columns of The Times in the last two days, and in spite of the attempt of the hon. Member for Walton to dismiss the matter as though it was past history, we recognise that we live in an international world of industry. The situation is not static, and it is no good arguing that it is.
      The proposed procedure will be effective only if it is not regarded as the general rule and only if it is used extremely sparingly and strictly in accordance with Clause 124(1)(c). This is the nub of the Clause, and it provides
      "that having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute,"
      use of the Bill
      "would be conducive to a settlement … by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred".
      It does not mean that that will automatically follow or that we shall get into the sort of situation which has arisen in the United States where the 60-day period is automatically discounted and it becomes part of the common negotiating procedure. This is a fall-back procedure to be employed only as categorised in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2).
      Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. Gentleman has said on several occasions that the Bill should be used only extremely sparingly. Can he point to anything in the Clause that indicates that it must be used only sparingly and which will stop the Secretary of State, who is given complete discretion, from applying to the court as and when he sees fit?
      Mr. King: I have already answered that point in my opening remarks. This procedure will be used in only a limited number of cases.
      The hon. Member for Darlington made the point, which I accept, that in many instances the situation could positively be aggravated by employing this procedure. There are many other cases in which it will be effective. Whether the procedure is used sparingly will be determined by whether the Secretary of State correctly interprets subsection (1)(c). There will be very few cases in which it could be fairly said that it was conducive to a settlement.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: I have been trying to contemplate situations in which the Clause would be appropriate. The Prime Minister used to say that the number of working days lost was tragic and that strikes were prevalent and, therefore, legislation would be introduced to deal with the situation.
      We are now discussing a situation in which the Secretary of State is not confronted with a strike. According to the words in the Clause, he may be confronted with something short of a strike, yet that which is short of a strike must also be
      " … gravely injurious to the national economy".
      I have had a lot of experience in this House, in Ministerial positions and in industry. I cannot conceive of a situation which is even remotely comparable with that kind of wording.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: The Clause refers to conditions
      "… likely to be gravely injurious to the national economy".
      If a strike has not taken place but is definitely threatened and is likely to be gravely injurious, I think that the Secretary of State of the day has every right to act within the provisions of the Clause.
      Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is talking about strikes which are definitely threatened. I do not read anything like that in the Clause.
      In a number of places in the Clause we see references to matters which have not reached the stage of strike action. In subsection (3)(a) we see a reference to
      "… irregular industrial action short of a strike".

      683
      How does any Minister begin to construe irregular industrial action short of a strike as being a situation which is gravely injurious to the national economy?
      Mr. Ian Lloyd (Portsmouth, Lang-stone): Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman with a valid example. If those in charge of the national defence radar computers were to work to rule on those computers, in certain circumstances they could so prejudice our defence that large numbers of people would find their lives at risk. But that is not a strike.
      Mr. Lee: Here we come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher). Apparently, if there is a threat to work to rule it is now to be decided that the Secretary of State is justified in using this Clause. However, if men are working to rule, they are working to conditions and regulations laid down by their employer.
      Mr. Tom King: I should have picked up the hon. Member for Darlington on this point. I do not think that anyone seriously accepts that working to rule means working to rules approved by an employer.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Of course it does.
      Mr. King: In practice, it means working to rules established by employees within the vacuum of unspecified terms of employment of their employers.
      Mr. Lee: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put that proposition down as an Amendment, I will consider it. At the moment, hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to be violently disagreeing with each other, and I do not wish to see supporters of the Bill getting themselves into that sort of state after I have been on my feet for only about 30 seconds.
      Mr. Gower: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the interpretation Clause, Clause 148, he will see the word "action" defined as
      "any refusal or failure to act"
      Mr. Lee: I do not want to continue with this point for too long. I have tried to glean some information from the combined wisdom of hon. Gentlemen opposite by giving way to them, but I still want to know how the Secretary of State proposes to work the Clause.
      684
      I have quoted the words of the Clause without importing any language of my own. If the Secretary of State were suddenly confronted by one of his civil servants who said, "It really should appear necessary to you that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, certain things are likely to happen," what action would he take? Would he first ask himself whether the issue was gravely injurious to the national economy? He would have to satisfy himself that it was before he could act on this Clause. If he does not act, having satisfied himself that it is, or is likely to be, gravely injurious to the national economy, then he is falling down on his duty. But the criterion for that is not necessarily a strike. It is that in some way or another some action short of a strike is likely.
      In the first instance, how does the Secretary of State find this out? I do not want to go over some of the other Clauses, but my hon. Friend has shown with great clarity that this must be a "snoopers' charter" if it is to work at all. How does the solemn occupant of No. 8 St. James's Square find out that some action short of a strike is to take place in Trafford Park, Manchester, or some other industrial area, and then make up his mind whether it is likely to become gravely injurious to the national economy? I suggest that the Clause alone, no matter how much we may disagree on other issues, shows that this legislation is utterly unworkable.
      The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) disagreed about working to rule. Let me give other illustrations. I can think of huge factories in which I had responsibilities, in which—during the highest crisis imaginable, a war period—one had to keep the balance of production pretty uniform. In other words, parts produced in one part of the factory had to synchronise with those produced in other parts.
      Suppose that in one part of the factory a large number of men with a grievance decided to come off the piecework system and go on day work. There is nothing whatever in their terms of employment to stop them doing that, but anyone with any knowledge of the work floor in a great factory knows that if that went on for a few days the whole balance of production would be distorted in the factory.

      685
      Is this conceived as something gravely injurious to the national economy? These men, let us remember, are working entirely within their rights. In this case, it would be not even a question of working to rule but one of working to the conditions on which they were employed.
      With some experience as a Minister, I would not know how to work this Clause, and I would challenge any right hon. Gentleman within sound of my voice who has been in a Ministerial chair to tell me how he would work it out.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: The right hon. Gentleman should be fairly fair on this. Besides dealing with this Clause, perhaps I can make a passing reference to the next one. This is subject to the N.I.R.C. being satisfied that the evidence is there, on sufficient grounds, under these premises which are enumerated in Clause 124. So any precipitate action by a Secretary of State, if it took place in hypothetical circumstances, would be checked by the Industrial Court, which, of course, will be independent of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Lee: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Of course one can say that that is the follow-up of Clause 124. But we are not arguing about what happens after the Secretary of State has made his reference; we are arguing about the conditions under which the right hon. Gentleman would first satisfy himself that he should make a reference to the Court. This is the issue of Clause 124. I repeat that I would not know how to make such a reference. I would not know the conditions.
      Let us go back to 1926, which is the only case that I can think of. I should not have thought that, even then, the Clause was any answer to the problem, but I could understand those who support it saying that it was operative under those conditions. Short of that, I can remember no dispute in my adult life to which this Clause would be at all appropriate.
      It seems that even the supporters of this Bill know that it is making a complete nonsense of all the propaganda by which the country was conditioned to accept this legislation. It has nothing whatever to do with the number of unofficial strikes or the number of days lost in unofficial strikes. It does not even
      686
      require strike action. It is something which to me—and I have some industrial knowledge—is complete gobbledegook, and it will make no sense at all under any circumstances.
      Mr. David Mitchell: I listened with incredulity to the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). If what he says is true—and for the purposes of the argument I am prepared to accept his judgment—then he cannot conceive of irregular industrial action short of a strike which would be gravely injurious to the national interest or security. If there is no such circumstance there would be no prospect of the Minister managing to get a court order and, if he could not get a court order, then the fears of the right hon. Gentleman would be of no consequence.
      Mr. Greville Janner rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: I cannot give way. I know that the hon. Member is trying to get into the debate and I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity.
      During his speech the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made four points which I noted carefully. He drew attention to the fact that there is a considerable similarity between the proposals of my right hon. Friend in this Bill and the cooling-off period which operates in the United States. He said that the use of the cooling-off period in the United States was subject to judicial restraint, by which I take it he means an application to the court. He said that never has the United States Government been rebuffed in its application to the court and that therefore the judiciary of the United States was a rubber stamp for the President.
      Mr. Heffer: We must get this on the record. I was quoting from George Meany and Mr. Meany said:
      "… the Government's assertion that a strike creates or threatens a national emergency is supposedly subject to judicial review but no court"—
      and he is talking about the United States—
      "has ever been willing to override the judgment of the Government on that. Thus in practice under Taft-Hartley a 'national emergency' is any labour dispute that the Government decides to so label"
      Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for restating the point. I was doing my best to put it as fairly as I could. The Government of the United States takes great care and much advice before making an application to the court, because it does not wish to be shown to have made an application and to have been rebuffed. It is not the case that the court is in the pocket of the U.S. Government—very much the reverse. The U.S. Government does not dare move unless it is sure that it has a watertight case and can convince an independent court that it has such a case.
      The hon. Gentleman went on to quote from Stephen Fay's article and referred to the fact that there is a ballot for the continuation of a strike. He said that many times, in the U.S., I think seven times in the case of the longshoremen, the ballot has gone for the continuation of the strike. This is true. But let us be clear that this is one of the major differences between the U.S. legislation and that proposed here. Under U.S. legislation the employer's last offer has to be put to a ballot. That ballot comes, I think, after 50 days of the cooling-off period have run.
      9.45 p.m.
      In this country the union says to its members, "Please vote for a continuation of the strike because we have not succeeded in negotiating a satisfactory settlement. If you vote for a continuation of the strike and for confidence in your union leaders, we will be able to secure a better offer from the employers than we have obtained so far".
      Naturally, whenever these circumstances arise, the union will get its vote of confidence and there will be a concurrence with the union leadership not to accept the employer's last offer. For this reason the Government are right not to replica in our legislation this fault that exists in the American legislation.
      By this state of affairs arising at this point of the cooling-off period, one is bound to get a heating up of the atmosphere, precisely when a settlement might be reached. Because of this fault in the American legislation, it is not being included in this legislation.
      The hon. Member for Walton went on to refer to Mr. Gleason saying that em-
      688
      ployers never made the best offer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman discussed this matter with Mr. Gleason when he was in the United States. I did.
      Mr. Heffer: I did not discuss this question with Mr. Gleason, though I discussed it with Mr. Reuther, Harry Bridges and every top trade union official with whom I could get in touch. Unfortunately, I was not in contact with Mr. Gleason.
      Mr. Mitchell: I was more fortunate than the hon. Gentleman. I was able to speak to Mr. Gleason about this. I can, therefore, give the Committee the evidence necessary to support my argument, which is simply that Mr. Gleason takes the view that it has become a crutch—he used the word—in that employers do not make their last offer because in the case of, for example, longshoremen's disputes, it has become a habit of the U.S. Government to apply for a cooling-off period.
      It has been used frequently and regularly in this one industry, as a result of which both sides in the industry take into their calculations when negotiating the probability that a cooling-off period will be slapped on should a dispute break out. It is to be hoped that the same sort of thing will not occur here. If it did, similar difficulties would arise.
      In all other disputes, however—that is, in all disputes apart from those affecting the longshoremen—it has been used rarely and the parties do not know whether or not it will be used. In those circumstances, it cannot and does not enter into their calculations. It does not, therefore, have the disadvantages to which attention has been drawn.
      The hon. Member for Walton then said that workers would still go on strike. However, U.S. experience is that on every occasion when an 80-day cooling-off period has been applied, it has been observed. Indeed, while I was in America talking to Mr. Gleason there was in operation a cooling-off period applying to his union because of a longshoremen's dispute.
      Despite the rhetoric which hon. Gentlemen opposite have used, workers in the U.S. have carried out these court orders when they have been applied. In many cases, they have found them to be substantially to their advantage. I have no reason to suppose that the workers in

      689
      this country will take a different attitude. In two-thirds of the cases in which 80-day cooling-off orders have been applied in the U.S., the disputes have been resolved before the end of the cooling-off period.
      One turns to the very important question of the circumstances in which it would be used in this country. It appears from the Clause that the Minister must satisfy an independent Industrial Court of two things. First, he must satisfy it that it is conducive to the settlement of a dispute that there should be a 60-day cooling off period and that it will assist in securing resolution of the dispute. Second, he must show that the strike has caused or would cause grave injury to the national economy, imperil national security, endanger a substantial number of lives or expose a substantial number of persons to disease or personal injury.
      If the Secretary of State can satisfy the court that those things are at risk if the strike continues, will hon. Members opposite really tramp through the Lobbies tonight to suggest, in circumstances where in other countries two-thirds of the disputes have been resolved by an 80-day cooling-off period, that there should not here be applied a cooling-off period in cases in which there would be grave injury to the national economy, with lives and national security endangered? Do they consider that it is very important for a trade union to be allowed to continue with a strike—a strike which, if there were a cooling-off period, it could renew afterwards—regardless of the national economy, lives or security? If they do, they have reduced to a sorry state their assessment of what is in the interests of either their members or the nation, which hon. Members presumably seek to support.
      Mr. Greville Janner: One strange feature of the debate, and especially of the speech of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), is that it has been so often without regard to the wording of the Clauses which we are considering. The problem was well expressed by the hon. Member who said that it was honed so much that this process would be used sparingly because in his view the success of these Clauses would depend on their sparing use.
      On the proper interpretation of Clause 124 read together with Clause 125, a
      Vol. 812
      690
      Secretary of State has a complete and absolute discretion when he brings this matter to the court. I most respectfully disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee). A Secretary of State who is anxious to use this procedure will be able to do so in connection with almost any dispute, actual or potential, as he sees fit. Whereas a Secretary of State has a complete discretion, the court does not have a complete discretion. The court is given only a discretion to consider the matter on the basis stated, and then it "shall" make an order. It is not given a discretion. The judge is not given the right to decide whether or not he thinks it proper or right to make an order. That is a right reserved for the Secretary of State, who is given far more power under these Clauses than any court.
      Let us look at the wording of the Clause in that light:
      "Where it appears to the Secretary of State"—
      this gives the Secretary of State a discretion in the matter; it is what appears to him—
      "that, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or a lock-out, has begun or is likely to begin —".
      We have to take a trip into this new legal jungle and look back at Clause 6, which states what an irregular industrial action short of a strike is. It is a fairly broad definition.
      A Secretary of State would be in a fair position to say that a strike is likely to begin when a group of union members or a group of workers in a plant have decided that they are not satisfied with the ordinary procedures and they start consulting. Is there then likely to be some irregular industrial action? The Secretary of State will decide whether he thinks there is.
      The Secretary of State then has to look at Clause 124(2). Would this be
      "gravely injurious to the national economy"?
      It has been said that in this modern economy, in which each plant is dependent on all the others, each union on the other, and each industry on the other, it only takes a breakdown in a small

      691
      plant to stop a great number of other plants, and that could be, in the eyes of the Secretary of State
      "injurious to the national economy".
      Therefore, this could be applied easily and properly, within the meaning of the Clause, to almost any industrial situation which is likely to give rise to a strike. It is felt, rightly or wrongly, that any strike which is likely to give rise to cost inflation, as it described, is
      "injurious to the national economy".
      I am not considering at present whether this is right or wrong; I am considering only what power appears to be granted to any Secretary of State under the Clause.
      Mr. Cower: Does the hon. Gentleman notice the use of adjectives—for example, "gravely injurious" and "serious risk"? These are not ordinary terms.
      Mr. Janner: I have had to argue before now whether a situation or an injury was grave, whether bodily harm was actual or grievous. These are lawyers' words subject to interpretation by the courts, and it is a question of opinion as to what is or is not serious. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because the court has to decide not beyond reasonable doubt that there is a grave risk but only that there are sufficient grounds for believing that there is such a risk. That is very different.
      Mr. Timothy Raison: Surely the crucial words are "is fulfilled", which imply some meaningfulness.
      Mr. Janner: I do not understand that intervention. The courts will have to interpret what Parliament means. God help the judges! It has been argued that the courts are creatures of Parliament. Let us use the word "creation". A new court is to be created by Parliament. It is a creation of Parliament. The judges are given the powers that we see fit to give them. Their power is not to make law but only to interpret the law as it is set forth in these Clauses.
      So the Secretary of State must decide whether there are grounds for believing, first, that some "irregular industrial
      692
      action" is likely to begin which—this is the second limb—may be
      "gravely injurious to the national economy"
      and, third,
      "that, having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred".
      I believe that that subsection need not be there at all, because every Tory Secretary of State believes that it is more conducive to a settlement if people are not out on strike. I do not believe that the subsection is likely to present any grave problem of conscience to hon. Members opposite.
      Therefore, the Secretary of State must decide three matters. If these appear to him to be correct, once again he is given a second discretion. He—the Executive, the Government of the day, the representative of the Government—may. if he sees fit, in his absolute discretion, bring the matter before the Court.
      10.0 p.m.
      The Court is given its terms of reference in Clause 125, which says:
      "Where an application is made to the Industrial Court under section 124 of this Act, the Court, subject to its being satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition specified in subsection (2) of that section is fulfilled, shall make an order".
      There are two points to note about that. The Court does not have to be satisfied that the situation is gravely injurious to the national economy, as hon. Members opposite have argued; it has only to consider whether there are sufficient grounds for believing that that is the case.
      It is one of the lowest standards of proof that I know of anywhere in English law. In civil law it is necessary to prove matters on the balance of probabilities, and in criminal law it is necessary to prove them beyond reasonable doubt. This Bill spills over into criminal law, because if the worst comes to the worst it will result in criminal sanctions being imposed upon persons who do not accept it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am sorry, but if things get bad enough and the law is flouted and fines are imposed and people will not pay those fines they will be in contempt. The court will not stand by and allow its orders to be flouted. No court can do that. That would bring the law into disrepute.

      693
      All sorts of attacks have been made upon my honourable profession, from both sides of the Committee. It is about time some lawyer on the Opposition benches expressed his fears, as one who may be instructed to argue a case concerning this Bill. I fear that the Court will not have the powers that it should have to deal with the discretion placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. If the court makes an order and that order is flouted it will impose a sanction—otherwise the law will fall into disrepute.
      The court has power to impose heavy fines, but I cannot imagine a union paying those enormous fines. That being so, it is not possible to say, "Do not bother"; the court will then be faced with a clear case of contempt, and either the court will be brought into contempt because it does not impose sanctions or orders will be made which people do not respect.
      The essence of good law is that people should respect it. We found with certain road traffic Acts how difficult it was to make laws that the public did not feel to be to their benefit and with which they were not prepared to comply. The police were placed in a difficult position.
      It is wrong to say that the judges are puppets. They do their best to apply the law, within the limitations of the powers given them by this House. The trouble with the Bill is that it does not give the court enough power, whereas it gives too much power to the Secretary of State. We are not enabling the court to curb those powers. I am not in favour of setting up a new court, and I am not in favour of these Clauses, but once we give the Secretary of State these powers it is wrong to argue that we need not worry about them because the great independent courts can curb the exercise of those powers.
      The court has to decide whether there are sufficient grounds for believing that the conditions specified are fulfilled. That is a very simple and low burden of proof. The Clause goes on to provide not that the court can make an order; not that the judge has a discretion if he sees fit to make an order; not that he, like the Secretary of State, "may" take a stand; but that the court "shall" make an order under the Clause. It is
      694
      absolutely mandatory for the court to make an order. To my mind, if the court has to make a mandatory order under a Clause such as this it will cause such incredible ill-feeling that it is likely to bring the law into contempt. The Government ought, primarily for that reason, to consider most carefully the wording of these provisions if they are determined to bring in the procedure at all.
      Happily—I am sure that this is agreed by hon. Members on both sides who come from my city—industrial relations in Leicester are, on the whole, good. In my view, however, legislation of this sort is likely to make those industrial relations deteriorate. It is likely to bring the courts into disrepute, and it will do infinite harm to the cause which the Government say they are pursuing.
      Mr. Tom Boardman: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there are happy industrial relations in the city in which our respective constituencies lie. He has referred to the powers of the Secretary of State. Would he prefer the far greater powers which have been given to the Secretary of State under "In Place of Strife" to those proposed in the Bill?
      Mr. Janner: Under the guillotine procedure we are discussing at the moment Clause 124, which I regard as very bad for the country.
      Hon. Members: Answer!
      Mr. John Page: Hon. Members are making rather heavy weather of this Clause. In the middle of his speech, when he was going through the Bill and arguing against it, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) was helpful in putting the most convincing case in favour of the Clause.
      I believe that Part VIII, the emergency procedures, is one of the Parts of the Bill most welcomed and looked forward to by people in the country as a whole. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) has left, because I usually admire him and I wanted to refer to some of the difficulties which he foresaw. There is a postal workers' strike in progress now, we recently had a dispute in

      695
      the electricity supply industry, and previously there was the municipal workers' dispute. I should expect the Secretary of State to have applied this procedure to the first two, though I rather doubt that he would have done the same for the municipal workers' dispute. That is a matter of opinion. In the public mind, the Government seem to have too little power to deal with these disputes which can lead to national emergency.
      The Opposition say that this procedure will not work. Very well. After the Government, any Government, have tried it a couple of times and found it not successful, they will probably not use it again. It is a reserve power which they will have available to them and which I believe will be effective.
      Now, a question for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. Clause 124(3)(a) reads, in part:
      "Any application made by the Secretary of State … shall specify the persons (whether they are organisations of workers, officials of such organisations or other persons) appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible"—
      and so on.
      The same kind of consideration comes in Clause 125(4). I assume that those named organisations and persons will be included in the original order. If the injunction not to induce or to continue a dispute rests upon those named persons, what will happen if persons other than those named suddenly appear on the scene during the period of 60 days? Will they be covered by the original order, or will there have to be a further application to the court?
      One of the extra advantages of Clause 124 is that it gives the period of 60 days within which a ballot under Clauses 127, 128 and 129 could take place. In the context of the strike we are having and the strikes we have had recently, that might produce a very helpful and sensible result reflecting the views of the members of the unions and other workers in the industries concerned.
      [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, North-
      696
      West (Mr. Greville Janner) for making such a clear speech about the wording of the Clauses. When we look at Clause 124, and particularly subsection (1)(c), we may hope that a wise Secretary of State will never call upon the provision. Subsection (1)(c) says that if
      "… having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute …"
      it appears to the Secretary of State that
      "… it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation …"
      certain things follow. A wise Secretary of State would at once see that this emergency procedure is doomed to failure, and, therefore, would not use it.
      My hon. Friend made a substantial point about the important subsection (2), pointing out that paragraphs (a) and (b) state very clearly two groups of grounds upon which the necessary emergency state is to be founded. Paragraph (a) contains the words
      "gravely injurious to the national economy".
      I do not dispute for the purposes of this argument that if there is an industrial dispute imperilling the national security, creating serious risk of public disorder, endangering the lives of a substantial number of persons, or exposing a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury, these are serious situations that a Secretary of State conscientiously doing his duty is bound to take into account to the maximum of his powers. But I doubt whether the same standards apply to the words
      "gravely injurious to the national economy".
      I disagree with the view of my hon. Friend that those are words of legal art. It seems to me that they are political words, and if they are, I doubt whether they should be construed by any court. This is a serious doubt. What have the Government Front Bench to say in reply to this criticism? How is it possible for the court to determine what is or is not
      "gravely injurious to the national economy"?
      How will it be guided? If it is just left with those words, how can it properly direct itself to the question? The inquiry under Lord Wilberforce makes perfectly clear what kind of difficulties can be envisaged if those words remain and no guidance over and above them is given to the court as to how it is to proceed.

      697
      10.15 p.m.
      Attention has rightly been drawn to the words of Clause 125, which have to be read with Clause 124 because they give it effect. The important words have been stressed by my hon. Friend. They state that
      "… the Court, subject to its being satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition specified in subsection (2) of that section"—
      Clause 124—
      "is fulfilled, shall make an order under this section."
      Not only is the standard of proof suspect but the risk is that, once the Clause is enacted, we shall be presented with a state of affairs analogous to that which used to operate in the production of documents.
      The famous case here was the Cammell-Laird case in 1942. The conditions for the production of documents have been watered down somewhat, and a reasonable rule now operates in the courts, I understand. But in those days, and to some extent still, production of documents could be objected to by the Crown, notwithstanding that the Crown was not even a party. The appropriate Minister could certify that it would be injurious to the public interest to produce the documents or to disclose their contents.
      I hope that the Government will deal with this second criticism. Are we to find that the court is to be satisfied by evidence as flimsy as that the grounds are sufficient to believe that the condition specified in subsection (2) of Clause 124 is fulfilled? Are we to have Ministerial certificates or affidavits produced to the court stating that a situation would be gravely injurious to the national economy? If that is how it is to be done, then again this smacks of a political decision and not something worthy of a judicial decision. It seems to me that the court is to be used as part of the Executive and not as a judicial body. That is the most fundamental criticism that one can make of a proposal to set up a new court.
      My third point may not be as important as the first two points, but it is nevertheless important consequentially. Subsection (5) of Clause 125 states that an order may be made—it does not have
      Vol. 812
      698
      to be made—specifying certain persons who are
      "… to take such steps (whether by way of withdrawing any instructions issued by that person or those persons) … for the purpose of securing that the industrial action to which the application for the order related is discontinued or … deferred …".
      There cannot be the slightest doubt that we are face to face again with the ultimate sanction of the Bill—committal to prison for contempt of court. It has been said already, and no one can doubt it. The finger is clearly pointed at individuals who have been named by the Secretary of State in the original application. Other names can be added—and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), who posed this question.
      The important point is that people are named from the outset. Certain individuals immediately know that they are at peril. Hon. Members opposite may think this right, but we do not. What is important to notice is that the ultimate sanction is clear—committal for contempt if they are outside the four corners of the order. Such orders will be sweeping.
      What will happen? Let us face the realities. The situation will be that of emergency, in which there is a disagreement, no doubt, about how far it is an emergency. On the one side, people will say that there are no gravely injurious consequences from this threatened industrial strike—that it is not even a threatened strike but an industrial dispute which may never result in a strike. On the other side, the Secretary of State will be saying that the situation is one of grave national peril.
      There is bound to be that kind of disagreement, and in that kind of situation feelings will run high, and they will run high amongst many people, and those people can be swept up into the network of Clause 125(5) and they will be swept to one destination, which has already been mentioned, and that destination will be prison. It is all very well to have in prisons for civil reasons persons as though in criminal cases, but have the Government considered that under that Clause they will need new prisons, hundreds of new civil prisons?

      699
      If this is not that sort of situation, how are we to deal with the matter? The Government have to face the fact which is clear to us on this side—it certainly seems too clear with me, if not to hon. Members opposite—that the law of contempt will undergo very considerable changes if this Clause goes through. It
      700
      is no use praying in aid the fact that at the moment the courts rarely use this sanction, because in the future the situation will be transformed.
      I ask the Government to consider these three matters seriously. They seem to me important, and I should particularly like the Government's reaction to the first two.
      Mr. Gower: I was thinking that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) was speaking with great moderation, and I was rather sorry that he ended in that extravagant manner, calculated to arouse alarm and despondency, when he talked about criminal sanctions, because he knows perfectly well that if he or I went to the tailor and ordered a suit and did not then pay for it but had it on credit there might come a time when he or I would be faced with that sort of criminal sanction over a civil debt.
      The hon. and learned Member was spreading alarm and despondency rather as was the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) when he disparaged the position of this new court and described it as a puppet being created by the Secretary of State. I do hope that the hon. Member will regret those remarks on thinking about them, and that he will realise that this legislation will set up a new division of the High Court which will be consistent with the rest of our High Court of Justice which has had such a splendid position of impartiality and, indeed, of interpreting Statutes against the Executive Government of the day on many occasions. If there is any inadequacy in this Bill, if there is something in this Bill which the court will deem should be interpreted against the Government, I am satisfied that the Court will go against the Secretary of State or whomsoever appears on behalf of the Government.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: The hon. Member will recall that following the passage of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act the interpretation placed upon the Act later did not go against the Government but rather perpetuated some things which the Government did not want, and we feel the same about this Clause.
      Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman and I can discuss that on another occasion. It is rather involved.
      I think that this Clause is a valuable and sensible addition to the Bill, and I hope that a majority of people in this Committee will feel it to be so, including hon. Members on the Opposition side. They have asked: Why do we need to include powers of this nature in this
      Vol. 812
      702
      Bill? Others have gone further and said: Why do we need the Bill? It arises, of course, from the history of many years. The hon. and learned Member for Leith must be aware that his own party, when in Government, were deeply concerned about this matter, were deeply concerned about the state of industrial relations, were deeply concerned about the ills of the British economy. Otherwise they would not have gone to such great trouble, setting up a Commission, as they did, and then going into the matter and drawing up a whole document including proposals for a cooling-down period.
      I respectfully suggest that nothing could be more valuable in certain cases—not in all cases, but in certain cases—than a cooling-down period. This is not designed to prevent a strike permanently. It is designed to lessen the powers of workers to strike: it is designed to give time for cooling off when the attitudes of the parties to the dispute might harden.
      We have seen evidence again and again that once a strike has been called and people have ceased working, attitudes harden and people take up positions which make it more difficult for a settlement to be achieved. Is it not conceivable that a cooling-down period of not more than 60 days will in certain circumstances be most valuable?
      Sufficient guidelines are set down to achieve the control over the actions of the Secretary of State and of the Executive which is desirable. The Secretary of State has first to satisfy himself of certain premises. This is not an entirely free political choice for him. It is similar to the action of a Minister acting in an appellate jurisdiction in a planning case, where he does not exercise his political function. He would be deciding whether the circumstances would justify him in making application to the court, and the final decision would be for the court.
      The requirements set down are fairly high. There must be a serious risk of public disorder, not mere risk. The industrial action must be gravely injurious to the national economy, not merely injurious or likely to be injurious. The industrial action must be likely to imperil national security, endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons or expose

      703
      a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury. These are fairly high requirements, and any Government would be foolish not to provide in the Bill for a standstill of up to 60 days.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that the dustmen's strike would come into that category?
      Mr. Gower: There will be strikes of all kinds which will come into one or other of the categories, but it will be for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself of certain conditions. Thereafter it will be for the Industrial Court to be satisfied that there are sufficient grounds.
      After all that, the maximum effect will be not a limitation of the democratic right of people to take part in an industrial strike or to take preparatory action, but merely an order laying upon them a reasonable duty to forgo their democratic rights for a limited period specified by the court, which at the most could be 60 days. These provisions are sufficiently circumscribed to achieve the result which is required by two or three of my hon. Friends; namely, that the power should not be used too freely.
      In that setting this provision can be a valuable and useful addition to the Bill, and in certain circumstances it could prevent some of the abuses which have happened in the past, abuses which have been most exasperating to people of all parties. Not only Conservatives and Liberals but many Labour supporters are deeply anxious about the future welfare of this country, and hope that this Bill will be a great success.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. John Mendelson: One of the features of this Bill which has concerned many people in the trade union movement has been the wide definition that is often introduced. This has, naturally, given rise to a number of contributions in which wider claims are made. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) at one point argued that some 25 per cent. of capital now employed in Britain was American-owned and, by implication, he seemed to be saying that this was a reason for introducing some new legislation that was either copied
      704
      from or was very close to the Taft-Hartley laws.
      I would not attempt to burden the Solicitor-General with the sins of his supporters, but I warn him that at the end of the day it will be his duty to justify the introduction of these provisions. He will be able to do so only by proving to the Committee and to the country that they will lead to better industrial relations in the future. That is what this is all about. He stands or falls on being able to adduce such reasonable evidence.
      Many hon. Members have referred to their experience of trade union matters in America, but that does not mean a priori that they have the right to believe that their opinion has more right to be considered than the opinion of hon. Members who have gained their industrial experience in this country. We must look at the facts of the situation and the circumstances in which these provisions are to be introduced, and must seek to show why hon. Members on this side of the Committee are opposed to them.
      The Donovan Commission is helpful in this respect. Paragraph 421 says:
      "The record as regards the use of the Taft-Hartley procedure is as follows. In all but one of 24 cases in which injunctions were granted a standstill period was successfully imposed."
      There is no need to talk about the courts being creatures of the Government and of the President of the United States, but the evidence is clearly that when the President wanted an injunction he got it.
      Paragraph 422 says:
      "In the United Kingdom when a major strike occurs or appears imminent the Government has a wide range of action which it can take if it feels it desirable to intervene."
      The Commission outlines the wide range of action available to the Government.
      In paragraph 423 the Commission says:
      "The record under the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States has been worse than the record in our country. We have been singularly free from strikes in recent years which would have come within the scope of a 'Taft-Hartley' kind of procedure."
      That is clear, straight-forward language produced by a Commission which studied the subject for nearly three years. I see no reason that I or anybody else should seek to substitute ourselves as

      705
      being necessarily better informed than that Commission. The purpose of a Royal Commission is to carry some element of credibility and acceptability as a body of reasonable and intelligent men who have been given this job by the Government. The Donovan Commission came to this conclusion, and it is a valuable one. I see no reason why it should not be introduced into the record.
      If that is so, the burden of proof is again on the shoulders of the Government. Why do they wish to ignore that the record under Taft-Hartley in the United States has been much worse than our own, and why do they want to say that the instruments at the disposal of Her Majesty's Government are insufficient, and that further measures must be introduced; for example, a cooling-off period?
      The second point is one which causes many hon. Members on this side of the Committee great concern. It is the loose drafting of the Clause which contains, among others, the phrase "any irregular industrial action"—[Interruption.] I carry the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite when I merely quote a phrase from the Bill. I know that many of them want the widest possible interference with the rights of trade unions to represent the interests of their members. The Solicitor-General admitted today that the Government had been under pressure to introduce far wider and more far-reaching regulations on picketing. He did not want to do that, but he has introduced some part of what was required. In view of that, 1 think that I can safely ignore the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite on this matter. We are dealing with the Government.
      The Government have included the phrase "any irregular industrial action". That causes us concern. Like other Clauses which are widely drawn, this introduces an element which will make it very easy for the Secretary of State to make up his mind about when he will invoke these powers. There used to be criticism about a Secretary of State trying to take too much power unto himself. Here is a case in point. As this Clause and the following one are drawn, if the Secretary of State once makes up his mind that a situation with which he is dealing comes under the provisions of
      706
      Clause 124, the presumption is very strong that the court shall then follow him and agree with his proposition.
      I say that the presumption is very strong. I do not say that the courts are automatically obliged to agree with the Secretary of State. We know about the way in which the courts act and about their independence. That is common ground. But if the word "shall" is used in a subsequent Clause, the presumption is that they shall follow the Secretary of State unless there are overwhelming countervailing reasons to prove that the Secretary of State has acted contrary to all that is reasonable.
      Mr. Percival: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has got rid of the suggestion that the courts are not independent. But he has it wrong when he talks about presumptions. The court has to be "satisfied on the evidence". Evidence has to be presented by the Secretary of State in support of his application. That evidence has to be so good that the judge is able to say at the end of the day that he is satisfied on the evidence. The presumption is the other way round.
      Mr. Mendelson: There is nothing about that in the Bill. Those are the hon. and learned Gentleman's words.
      Mr. David Waddington rose—
      Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must give me a chance to deal with the intervention of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). Those are the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. I am saying that, because the word "shall" is used in a subsequent Clause, the presumption is that the court shall, having satisfied itself, be under an obligation to do what the Secretary of State is proposing. What does "any irregular industrial action" mean? Where is this extension of the Secretary of State's powers justified? Nowhere.
      So the only reason why the Government want this is to reduce the bargaining power of the trade unions during or in the approach to an industrial dispute. Of course this does not cause any alarm and despondency to lion. Members opposite. Many of them have said this many times. They are interested in reducing the bargaining power of the unions. But

      707
      they do not admit it in these debates. I do not see why they should not. We on this side have always admitted that we want to keep the bargaining power of the unions strong and vigorous and unfettered, because they are the shield of the working people.
      I cannot understand hon. Members' reluctance to come clean, since they often represent employers' federations and say that they are keen to see these powers reduced. That is not an insult. This House would have been meaningless in the past without the representation of interests, and I do not see why hon. Members opposite should be offended if I say that that is their interest—[Interruption.] At least I seem to be carrying one charming hon. Member with me on this.
      The Solicitor-General also has to prove, in opposition to the view of Donovan, that we would not suffer from the kind of disputes which the Americans have suffered under the Taft-Hartley Act—
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
      Mr. Mendelson: No, I will not give way. I had some experience of the kind of intervention which the hon. Gentleman made in my hon. Friend's speech.
      The burden of proof here is on the Solicitor-General, if we are to be free of a Taft-Hartley situation. An example of the other powers at the Secretary of State's disposal is the court of inquiry, which has the advantage of great flexibility. It is not a blunt instrument: its function is not to hand down an award. It is not coercive, but points in the direction of the settlement. When a Minister of Labour or Secretary of State for Employment decides to set up a court of inquiry, he is not taking sides.
      Peaceful and effective industrial relations are threatened if the side representing the work people suspects that the Secretary of State has moved to one side and is using coercive instruments to weaken the efforts of the unions to represent their members. The instruments which Donovan examined, which have been available in this country for many years, are particularly designed not to create that suspicion—conciliation, courts of inquiry, assessors, tribunals and so on.
      When I argued it with him, the Secretary of State himself did not dissent from
      708
      my general proposition that he should always be in a neutral position. Like the Lord Chancellor, he is in a special position. He could not perform his function properly, if he were seen to be leaning on one side or the other. [Laughter.] I do not know whether the two hon. Gentlemen who are so amused by this have graced our proceedings before. I have not seen them before. They seem to have strayed in from some other room where they usually spend this hour of the day. But those who have been here following the debate will recall that at least on this point the Secretary of State and I agreed.
      The right hon. Gentleman must explain why, with these flexible instruments and in the light of what Donovan has said about the American experience with Taft-Hartley and ours without it, he finds it necessary to impose this procedure on our industrial relations.
      10.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: The basic case for these proposals is to be found in the analysis made by many people but put most succinctly by Mr. Andrew Shonfield in his addition to the Report of the Donovan Commission. [Interruption.] We will come to the more telling witnesses later. He said:
      "With the growing dependence of people on the reliable performance of services required for tolerable living in crowded urban communities, the employment of collective power of groups of producers to disrupt the lives of people who have no means of helping themselves raises new problems. It is no longer possible to accept the traditional notion of the individual workplace as a separate and largely autonomous estate, where employers and employees are able to conduct their quarrels with little or no regard to the effects of what they do …".
      That is a situation which has been impressing itself upon the people of this country and upon Governments of all parties, and it is from that kind of reasoning that we go on to consider the proposals before the Committee.
      These are proposals designed to meet or avert the possible impact upon the national economy or the national health or safety of a strike or threatened strike or lockout which could be serious or prolonged. The important point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival), who has studied the whole of this aspect of our proposals with great care, is that this is designed for exceptional cases

      709
      which are likely to inflict serious damage far outside the range of the people affected by the initial dispute.
      Several hon. Members have raised the point that these provisions are intended to apply to irregular industrial action short of a strike. That is defined in Clause 6. The only point I need make is that irregular industrial action short of a strike which is in breach of contract can, as the Committee and the country knows, be as serious and as damaging as a full-scale strike or lock-out and can call for the application of these remedies. As the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said to my right hon. Friend on Monday, the findings of the Wilberforce Committee about the recent electricity go-slow include this in paragraph 11.9:
      "We reached the conclusion that in many areas what happened was not a 'work to rule' but a breach of rule, that is a breach of the normal arrangements for the employment of the workers."
      That is a clear and recent illustration of the potentially damaging and serious effects of irregular industrial action short of a strike and amply justifies the inclusion of that idea within these provisions.
      Given that this provision is designed to meet that kind of situation, I would address some remarks to hon. Members opposite who suggest that the allocation of political discretion and judicial decision-taking powers is not here correctly worked out. When we look at the provisions of Clause 124(1) the matter which remains exclusively for the Secretary of State to satisfy himself about is that contained in 124(1)(c):
      "that, having regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred."
      It is essentially a matter for the expertise of the Secretary of State, who must assess what the prospects are of a further delay in relation to the onset of a strike in his desire to help the parties towards a conciliation. It is
      "in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, industrial action, consisting of a strike, any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or a lockout, has begun or is likely to begin"
      that the Secretary of State must make up his mind and form his first view, but the Industrial Court must be satisfied in accordance with Clause 125(1),
      710
      and the only area left to his experienced political assessment is the likelihood of a delay contributing to a settlement of the impending dispute. It is in relation to the other matters mentioned in the Clause, where something may
      "be gravely injurious to the national economy … or … imperial national security"
      that he must go before the Industrial Court and satisfy it.
      The right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) suggested that he would find it difficult to see how any Secretary of State could ever conclude favourably towards action in relation to Clause 124(1), while the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) said he could hardly see a situation in which a Secretary of State could fail to conclude in favour of action. As in so many matters, the truth lies between these two extreme views; that the Secretary of State could certainly form his view, but that he would then have to satisfy the Industrial Court about it.
      Let us consider the rôle which the Industrial Court will play. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) suggested that to invite the court to consider whether action would be
      "gravely injurious to the national economy … or … imperil national security"
      would be to leave the court with a political and not a legal question to be considered. However, the Committee must remember the kind of tests and questions which the Restrictive Practices Court has been facing and answering in the 15 years since it was established by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). That court has not become, any more than this one will become, a creature of the Government. It will need in approaching these questions, as Clause 125(1) points out to:
      "be satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition specified … is fulfilled".
      The effect of that provision is clear. The Secretary of State, if in his judgment he decides to apply, will have to make out a convincing case before the Industrial Court—which will be as independent as any other court in this country—on the basis of reliable and adequate evidence.

      711
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite have begun to suggest that this will be thrusting into the hands of the Minister an intolerable discretion, that the matter will be entirely at large, that in any event the situation does not call for this procedure and that the definition of what is a serious or gravely injurious prospect is inadequate.
      This compels me to return to the proposals which were made by the last Labour Government. I remind the Committee—and I shall shortly be inviting the help of hon. Gentlemen opposite over this—that one of the immediate steps proposed in the interim Industrial Relations Bill which the Labour Government had decided to bring before the House was the implementation of the conciliation pause, or cooling-off period, of, in that case, 28 rather than 60 days.
      Mrs. Castle: To which interim Bill is the hon. and learned Gentleman referring?
      The Solicitor-General: I am referring to the right hon. Lady's speech the day after her right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer had abandoned the incomes policy to introduce a Bill in its place, and on 16th April, 1969, the right hon. Lady spoke of
      "The interim Industrial Relations Bill which the Government have decided to bring before the House".
      One of the matters to be included in that was this:
      "The third immediate step which we need to take is to secure a change in attitudes towards the honouring of collective agreements".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1181–3.]
      In that context, hon. Gentlemen opposite were still putting forward the conciliation pause proposal in paragraph 93 of "In Place of Strife". I know not how far the drafting of that interim Bill had proceeded, but it was being pressed forward with great urgency by the Labour Government. Indeed, it was to be introduced, we were told by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in that Session of Parliament. So one imagines that some progress must have been made towards the preparation of that Bill—I know not how much.
      I ask the right hon. Lady to help the Committee on this matter. It is being
      712
      suggested that the powers in Clauses 124 and 125 are unduly discretionary and leave too much in the hands of the Secretary of State, that they define with insufficient clarity the risks in respect of which they have to be exercised and that they are insufficiently controlled by the court which has to be satisfied that the situation exists.
      I remind the Committee of the way in which it was put forward by the right hon. Lady in the situation we are now discussing, where this conciliation pause was necessary. The method proposed was to give the Secretary of State a discretionary reserve power to secure a conciliation pause. The power would have been used only if the strike or lock-out continued and the effects were likely to be serious. How tight and precise is that formulation? Is it not ironic to find hon. Members opposite criticising us for precision in drafting when we have spelt out clearly that the court has to be satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the strike or lock-out, as set out in Clause 124(2)—
      Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please differentiate between a White Paper, which contained proposals for discussion, and a Bill before the Committee, which he wishes to put into the law of this land? I have said before, and I repeat, that it is a mask for the complete bankruptcy of the Government's ideas.
      The Solicitor-General: The Committee appreciates the extent to which the hon. Gentleman is impelled to rise to his feet whenever one refers back to that proposal. The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), both in contrast to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), voted in favour of "In Place of Strife" as a basis for legislation. The right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Doncaster were at the Department of Employment and Productivity, as it then was. The right hon. Lady, who was telling the House about the interim Bill to be introduced, may be in a position to tell the Committee exactly how they were going to control a situation the effects of which were likely to be serious if they have improvements to offer in respect of subsection (2).

      713
      I invite consideration of another aspect. It is suggested that the Secretary of State is being given too wide a discretion. The Committee sees plainly the extent to which a court independent of the executive would have to be satisfied on this matter to which I have referred. Perhaps the Committee can be told whether the discretionary reserve power which the right hon. Lady would have claimed to make an order would or would not have been subject to the approval of any court. The answer is plain. No court would have had the power to consider that. The best to be hoped for would have been that such an order might have been subject to review by the House, by an affirmative or negative Resolution, but not action.
      I invite the Committee to reach the conclusion that consideration by a court independent of the Secretary of State whether or not the test had been fulfilled is likely to be a great deal more objective, tight and specific than the consideration which might have been given by hon. Members opposite if they had been invited to go through the Lobbies time after time endorsing orders made by the right hon. Lady under her interim Industrial Relations Bill, in the same way as they were required to do so in respect of orders made under the Prices and Incomes Act. What kind of independent scrutiny or control would that have been compared with that suggested by us?
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has challenged us on this point. Surely there is a fundamental difference between the responsibility to the Committee, and, subsequently, the electorate, of a Minister for what are Governmental decisions for which he is answerable to Parliament and, on the other hand, the proposal which the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting to the Committee which would enable a Minister to shelter behind the decision of a court and thus avoid answering for his actions, evading responsibility on the ground that this was the decision of the court.
      11.0 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: Of course there is a difference. The Minister, proceeding as proposed in "In Place of Strife", would have had to come to the House of Commons and would have called upon
      714
      her loyal supporters to endorse the Order she was bringing before the House of Commons. That she may or may not have achieved, but that would have been the only hoop through which she would have had to pass.
      Under our proposals, the Minister must reach the conclusion that he may prove this to the court. He must go before the court and satisfy the court. He may still be called upon to justify in the House of Commons the wisdom or unwisdom of his decision to apply. Hon. Members can imagine the situation which could arise if the Secretary of State, having decided to apply to the court, found that he was unable to satisfy the court. At least there would have been independent scrutiny challenging him and showing him that he had made a completely wrong judgment. That would be a far more effective discipline and sanction than that which the House of Commons alone could have exercised. That is the strength of our proposal, in contrast to that put forward by the previous Government.
      The other criticism which has been made is that these proposals will in some way impair the Secretary of State's freedom of action in this kind of situation. As the Donovan Commission said, there is much to be said for leaving the Secretary of State with a variety of alternative approaches; and nothing in this departs from or in any way erodes the Secretary of State's power to consider the appointment of a court of inquiry, to undertake conciliation, or to undertake any of the other measures which he can currently undertake. What this does is to give him an additional weapon, plus the ballot. It gives the Secretary of State additions to the flexibility of his armoury. It increases the room for manoeuvre. It gives him useful additions or alternatives.
      Mr. Orme: At the beginning of his remarks the hon. and learned Gentleman prayed in aid the minority report of Mr. Andrew Shonfield. Did Mr. Shonfield dissent from the Donovan Commission's recommendation that this matter should not be brought within the scope of legal operation?
      The Solicitor-General: Mr. Shonfield proposed a number of additional alternative remedies. His diagnosis was

      715
      accurate, and it was presumably on the basis of his diagnosis that the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends went further than Donovan in the areas we have just been discussing. We are not frozen to the methods proposed by Donovan.
      This is an additional remedy, to which the country is entitled in this exceptional, serious, situation. It is an equally balanced remedy in respect of strikes or lock-outs. The point made by the hon. Member for Walton and which may be made by the right hon. Lady was that at least the conciliation clause provided for the return to the status quo. This is the one distinction which the right hon. Lady drew in a previous debate.
      The point to be remembered is that the argument about whether to return to the status quo can give rise to certain strikes when management have made a decision to the advantage of the employees. The kind of strike with which these proposals are likely to be concerned is not likely to be the kind of strike—
      Mr. Heffer: There are different kinds of strike.
      The Solicitor-General: Exactly. So the distinction becomes plain. I am glad to have that acknowledged. This kind of strike is the serious—quite probably national or very large-scale—strike posing a serious threat, almost certainly founded upon a claim for changes in wages and conditions of employment. It is in that kind of strike where the return to the status quo, as hon Members opposite acknowledge, is not likely to be a relevant question.
      Mr. Harold Walker: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is intending to continue making this comparison it is important to get the thing right. He will recall that one of the strikes that had a profound impact upon the motor car industry at about the time of "In Place of Strife" was the Girling strike. That strike was concerned not about "who does what" but about the suspension of certain individuals. In that kind of situation the issue was the arbitrary action of the employer, and we would have required the employer to return to the status quo as a basis for a return to work. In that situation—the kind with which the Clause is intended to deal—what would the Solicitor-
      716
      General require the employer to do? Would he require him to carry on this misdemeanour while telling the boys to go back to work?
      The Solicitor-General: That is a different kind of strike—as the hon. Member for Walton said. I am not sure about that strike. The scale would have to be examined closely. I cannot say whether the Girling strike would have qualified as one that was gravely injurious to the national economy. It certainly did a great deal of damage, as the hon. Member for Walton knows through his connection with Merseyside.
      It is an exceptional case that would require a return to the status quo in that situation. It is probably the other kind of strike with which the Measure proposes to deal. But what we are arguing about is apparently not the admissibility of taking, on behalf of society, powers to stay or postpone the commencement of a strike which can be doing serious damage—
      Mr. Orme: We are dissenting completely from that.
      Mr. John Mendelson: We have been consistent in our opposition.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) is entitled to say that he has been consistent in his opposition to almost anything. I am conducting my discussion with those of his hon. and right hon. Friends who have in the past put forward proposals designed to meet this kind of thing. I suggest that these proposals are fairly balanced and sensibly designed to deal with the kind of strikes that threaten the gravest risk to the economy and the safety and health of this country.
      I come now to the other point raised by the hon. Member for Walton. It has been suggested that simply because these proposals are put forward as a result of a study of some comparable proposals that have worked in the United States they are to be condemned. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) advanced arguments to justify these proposals, in this form, being adopted in this country. It has been said more than once from the benches opposite

      717
      that the North American experience does not justify any kind of consideration being given to the proposals that are working there.
      I remind the Committee of the facts: since 1947 there have been 29 cases where a board of inquiry has been appointed. Under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act applications for injunctions have been made in 25 cases. That is about one a year, which indicates how exceptional they are. In each of the 25 cases where injunctions have been granted they have been complied with. During the period when the injunction has been in force a settlement has taken place in 12 out of the 25 cases; a partial settlement has taken place in three out of the 25, and in 10 out of the 25 the settlement took place after the injunction had been discharged.
      Those figures are not very different from those in respect of a slightly earlier period. Paragraph 421 of the Donovan Report says:
      "In sixteen cases"—
      but of 24—
      "a settlement was reached during or shortly after the stand-still period, but in seven cases stoppages did take place or were resumed after it."
      On either analysis, therefore, on the up-to-date figures or the Donovan figures, it is plain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said, that in two-thirds of the situations the strike or lockout was postponed, so that it never took place. How anyone can argue that that is a record of failure I fail to follow.
      Mr. Orme: What does the Donovan Report carry on to say?
      The Solicitor-General: The Donovan Report carries on to reach a conclusion which does not at all follow from the facts set out. It is surely plain that if a remedy has been used and has been successful in two cases out of three, it is at least not something to be discarded on the basis of prejudice. It is for that reason that we have considered the same kind of approach to this problem in this country. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport drew attention to the fact that in the longshoremen's dispute the reason why, in that industry, it has not been successful in North America is that it has been over-used.
      718
      It has become part of the bargaining process. But in the other sectors and other industries where it has been employed in North America it has been a useful and valuable addition to the remedies available in the hands of the Government of the United States. It is upon the same basis that I commend it to this country in the context of this Bill.
      This is not a slavish copy or imitation either of the proposals made in "In Place of Strife" designed to the same end, or of the proposals in effect for many years in North America.
      Mr. John Mendelson: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He should know that very well. But, on the American experience, would he not agree that it has led to very long strikes, carefully planned to take in the cooling-off period, and that that is one of the reasons why the Donovan Commission came to its conclusions. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman ignore that?
      The Solicitor-General: I do not ignore it. The difference between the nature and length of American strikes as opposed to our strikes is something that we have commented on in the context of other debates. But it is not attributable to the existence of the 60-day cooling-off period of the Taft-Hartley Act. The Taft-Hartley cooling-off period as I have told the Committee, has achieved success and the avoidance of strikes in two-thirds of the cases.
      The fact that American strikes tend to be longer than ours but far less frequent is because there is a record of stability during long-term contracts and the parties prepare for the bargaining situation at the end of the contract. That is certainly a much healthier aspect. But it has nothing whatever to do with these proposals.
      Mr. Heffer: On the question of the number of disputes settled by the cooling-off period, may I put this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman? A considerable number of these disputes had not reached the stage of becoming actual strikes. Therefore, how can the Solicitor-General say that in this country our normal D.E.P. conciliation machinery

      719
      could have been used in those circumstances without having to apply for a cooling-off period? This is something that no one will ever know, but we would have used an entirely different kind of machinery. Therefore, the argument that the method to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred has proved successful is quite invalid because we may well have arrived at a successful conclusion without the cooling-off period being used.
      The Solicitor-General: The comment that I make on that intervention is that I hope the Committee has noticed the extent to which the hon. Member has shifted his ground completely. The case with which he started the debate on this Clause was to the effect that everybody could see that this procedure had not worked in North America. He has now, I understand, suggested that the reason why the procedure has been successful in North America is that the whole of the rest of the system is different there. He cannot have his argument both ways. Does the hon. Gentleman think that conciliation is something known only in St. James's Square in this country? Of course not. [Interruption.] The United States Federal mediation and conciliation service has a long experience and has done a great deal of work in this kind of situation, just as corresponding services have done comparable service in other countries.
      What we are arguing about here is whether, when we have mediation, conciliation, courts of inquiry and all the other remedies, it is legitimate and necessary to have this additional remedy. I put it to the Committee that in the conditions facing this country today it is plain beyond argument that there are some strikes and lockouts, some threats of strikes and lockouts, which pose such a grave threat to the economy and the safety of the country that it is not only sensible but vital for these new powers to be given to the Secretary of State, subject to the careful control which is set out in the subsequent Clauses.
      The case for that is proved by the experience in North America, by the extent to which the last Government moved in the same direction, and by the extent to which these proposals have long been
      720
      before the people of this country and were overwhelmingly endorsed at the last General Election.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Eric Ogden: The Solicitor-General has given a number of general answers to the general questions and criticisms which have been put to him. In the main, he gave patient answers, but I wish that he had a little more patience and allowed perhaps two other hon. Members on this side—my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and myself—who were on their feet, to put one or two more questions to him before he replied to the debate.
      I have some specific questions to put. Throughout his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman related his argument, as did other hon. Members opposite, to the general words,
      "gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security, or to create a serious risk of public disorder"—
      or to the other general phrases in subsection (2)(b).
      The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) claimed that with all the questions facing his constituents on prices, unemployment, commuter travel and the rest, this was the one Clause for which they were clamouring and there would be jubilation after it had been passed. At least, the Solicitor-General confirmed his other remark, that these are reserve powers to be used in only a few cases, or, perhaps, never used at all.
      Only one hon. Member opposite gave a concrete example of a situation in which the Secretary of State might use these powers, and he spoke of a work-to-rule in the National Radar Defence Corps. Incidentally, I have never understood why working to rule should be wrong, except that it may indicate that there is something wrong with the rules. Working to rule of itself seems perfectly right in any circumstances, but, at any rate, that was the example which the hon. Gentleman gave.
      Will the Solicitor-General give examples—they must be in the Government's mind—of the kind of situation in which they would use these powers? They may wish not to be too specific, but it is not unreasonable to ask that they spell out the

      721
      circumstances, or give examples of particular circumstances, in which an industrial dispute would be brought within the Clause.
      Do they envisage that they would use these powers to refer the Post Office workers' strike to the Industrial Court, or would they decide to wait until the strike had been joined by the telephonists and telegraphists?
      Another example: if the National Union of Mineworkers proposed a ballot on a national strike, would that be a situation in which the Government might have to invoke the powers? If only the Yorkshire or South Wales miners talked of coming out on strike, they might not wish to use them. If the electrical workers in the engineering industry talked of a work-to-rule they would not want to use them, but if those workers came out on full official strike they would have to use them.
      Conservative hon. Members have made general arguments that could mean almost anything to anyone. Very few people could disagree with the wording of paragraphs (a) and (b), but what do the Government mean by them? Their interpretation may be very different from ours.
      If the Solicitor-General could give me some indication of the industrial circumstances in which the powers might be invoked, that would be helpful. It would certainly be interesting.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I have heard practically all the debate on the Clause, and, unlike some hon. Members, I have listened to much of the debate on the other Clauses. This is the first time I have felt myself drawn into the debate, because it is an interesting and very important subject.
      I have been impressed by the style, if not always the content, of the contributions by the Solicitor-General. The content of his speech was singularly weak tonight. I do not feel obliged by anything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) proposed at any time, or by what was discussed within the Parliamentary Labour Party or with the T.U.C. Governments can be wrong, including Conservative Governments. So that line of argument takes us nowhere, though it might be clever debating and might make an impression on hon. Members opposite, who do not understand
      722
      some of the problems put forward in "In Place of Strife", to certain parts of which I take strong exception. It is a wee bit pointless if, in a serious discussion on a serious subject that is the best the Government Front Bench can do. I am not concerned with what the Labour Government or individual Labour Members proposed. I am concerned about the effect of this Bill on industrial relations as from now. While the Solicitor-General might think that he is scoring debating points, he is not impressing me with this line of argument.
      I recognise, as I am sure every hon. Member does, that there are serious problems when one small group of people can hold the country to ransom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Before hon. Members opposite start applauding, let me expand a little. If it is true that we want to go back to the good old days when, the miners could come out against an individual mineowner with no serious dislocation in the community, fair enough. But we are not going back to those days. Modern developments in industry or society inevitably mean that a few key people in any group of industries have a power held by no group of comparable workers 50 or 100 years ago.
      The answer is not to ask: What small group of workers can we try to bring. under legislation to deny them the right that other workers have? This is a problem that we must all face up to. That solution denies the principle that all men are reasonable. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not".] There are some people in business circles, in owning circles, who have such power that they can, influence the price of many commodities, and the law has to some extent tried to prevent this happening. Power does not lie just in the hands of a small group of
      unidentified, apparently irresponsible anarchists who can disrupt the whole nation. I am sorry that the Solicitor-General has left the Chamber, although I realise that he has been here almost since this debate started.
      I am not a lawyer or even an ex-trade union official. I am just an ordinary Member of Parliament who likes to be given some examples. If we cannot deal in hypothetical situations, at least the Government should try to apply some of their theories to strikes which have taken

      723
      place in the past. What was the example which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave? The power workers' dispute. What did his case rest on? Not that they had worked to rule but that there had been a breach of the rules.
      I worked in the Post Office, subject to all the rules of being a civil servant and the rest, and if I had had anything to do with the Post Office dispute I would have got the workers to work to rule. They could have achieved virtually the same effect, certainly over a period of four or five weeks, as they have achieved by completely withdrawing their labour. That would have been working to rule. Would the Post Office dispute be caught up in this machinery? At what stage and how does the Department first of all decide that a situation cannot be conducive to a settlement by negotiation? Where does it get its information? Is there some kind of notification procedure whereby, when there are rumblings about a strike, the Department is informed? Who will inform'? Not the workers. The employers will inform. The first obstacle to overcome is how the Department gets to know whether and at what stage it should come into the picture. I do not think that that is necessarily a good start to the procedure. It is interposing some kind of machinery that does not make sense.
      Surely the Government can give some examples. The information will come from the employers. Would the process apply to the second condition? Are the Government saying that they are not going to lay down any guidelines for the court to operate under? This is the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) was trying to make. Who will decide what is
      "gravely injurious to the national economy"?
      Let us take the Ford strike as an example. It has been argued that the Ford strike has been responsible for a loss of investment in this country. Is that
      "gravely injurious to the national economy"?
      Would the Under-Secretary of State like to have a go at trying to define what is
      "gravely injurious to the national economy"?
      What about the airlines? Is an airline strike "gravely injurious"? Would a domestic airline strike not be "gravely
      724
      injurious" whereas a strike on an international airline would be? Would it be injurious because of prestige? We have heard of the implications of Concorde and Rolls-Royce. What is meant by
      "gravely injurious to the national economy"?
      What about the dustmen's strike? What about strike of sewerage workers? Would they be caught by the third condition, that of exposing
      "a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease"?
      I am just a simple back bencher. I have no responsibility for any mistakes which the Labour Government may have made—and they made some. We have to be tolerant and broadminded about these things. But I argue that the present Government are in the process of making one of the greatest mistakes in political life. Many hon. Members opposite claim that trade unionists outside do not understand the provisions of the Bill. I do not blame them if that is so because I do not understand some of the provisions. But I am at least trying to get some information from the Government to help me understand Clause 124.
      So far, despite all the legal brilliance and knowledge of the Solicitor-General, I have not received any. I hope it is not too late, even at this hour, to get some information, with some examples, which we could use in convincing trade unionists that they have nothing to fear. That is the least the Government ought to be able to provide on this occasion.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      11.30 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: I just want to underwrite what some of my hon. Friends have said about this Clause. The Solicitor-General did not answer the question: what will be the effect of imposing a cooling-off period? Will it result in the type of solution which he suggested? The only law with which to compare this is the United States law, the Taft-Hartley.
      We have disputed Donovan in the past, but in this case Donovan, after examining the United States situation, where they have written evidence and documents submitted, was unanimous in coming down against having in this country the Taft-Hartley type of development. The Solicitor-General quoted paragraph 421.

      725
      I would ask him to look at it again. He quoted:
      "In all but one of 24 cases in which injunctions were granted, a stand-still period was successfully imposed. In sixteen cases a settlement was reached during or shortly after the stand-still period, but in seven cases stoppages did take place or were resumed after it."
      The last sentence reads:
      "There has not been a single case in which a vote has gone in favour of acceptance of the employer's latest offer."
      An Hon. Member: He did not read that.
      Mr. Orme: He was extremely selective.
      The Solicitor-General: The latest offer ballot vote referred to in the last sentence is something which only takes place where a settlement has not taken place. In other words, in the 16 cases where there was a resumption of work the ballot might not arise. The last offer ballot is quite distinct from the balloting proposals which we propose in later Clauses in this Bill. It has nothing to do with our proposals. What the hon. Member has said does not invalidate the point that the cooling-off period is designed to bring about the deferment of a strike.
      Mr. Orme: When we had the Ministry of Labour, which acted in a really conciliatory manner, settlements could be reached without the threat or imposition of a cooling-off period. That is the point we are making. In British industrial relations it will not resolve anything.
      Paragraph 423 of the Donovan Report is very interesting. Incidentally, as I pointed out to the Solicitor-General, Mr. Andrew Shonfield did not dissent from this whole group of paragraphs. Paragraph 423 says:
      "The record under the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States has been worse than the record in our country."
      Worse than the record in our country.
      "We have been singularly free from strikes in recent years which would have come within the scope of a 'Taft-Hartley' kind of procedure."
      If we bring this rigidity into industrial relations and enforce a cooling-off period we shall find that the workers will just sit back and wait. The lesson from the United States is that very little happens
      726
      during the 90 days. Everyone waits for the end of the 90 days, and the employers and workers prepare for the stoppage.
      Mr. Tom King: How can the hon. Gentleman say that very little happens, when 16 disputes were settled?
      Mr. Orme: We are talking about conciliation, and my point is that a cooling-off period is not necessary for conciliation. In the motor car industry and the steel industry in the United States the 90 days comes to an end and there is a strike of indefinite length. If this happened in Britain, it would be injurious to the economy, the strike would be difficult to settle and industrial relations would be worsened. The British economy cannot withstand such a strike as the American economy can.
      I have gone through the small type of the other Clauses and there are many things as dangerous as this, but this is one of the showpieces. Despite the fig leaf used by the Solicitor-General in trying to explain the Bill, he has not come anywhere near convincing the Committee that such a form of statutory control is necessary. We and the T.U.C. do not need such a cooling-off period. The courts, the policing, the arrest of individuals—all these are alien to British industrial life, and we want no part of it.
      Mrs. Castle: The Solicitor-General has given us some astonishing explanations of the provisions of the Bill. I was never more taken aback than when he told us that Clause 124 and the proposal for a cooling-off period
      "finds its origin in the Andrew Shonfield memorandum in the Donovan Report."
      I had always thought it found its origin in "Fair Deal at Work", which was based on pre-Donovan evidence. The Solicitor-General has shown great ingenuity throughout our long debates in always getting Donovan out of the argument like a rabbit out of a hat. When Donovan rejects the proposition, with great resourcefulness he says that it has its roots in Shonfield.
      Since the Solicitor-General made this comment I have been glancing through my Shonfield, and I find that Andrew Shonfield did not suggest a cooling-off period. He was dealing, as Donovan was dealing, as "In Place of Strife" was

      727
      dealing, and as 1 thought the Government were dealing with a British situation and with the special characteristics of Britain's industrial relations problems. To that situation and those problems a cooling-off period on Taft-Hartley lines is an alien irrelevance. It sticks out like a sore thumb.
      The Solicitor-General has moved us during the past weeks with his definition of the poison at the heart of British industrial society, the poison of the unofficial strike. That has been his excuse for all the other restrictions in the Bill. Suddenly we are told "Can anybody deny that the British situation demands an American-type cooling-off period?"—and this in Britain where the industrial relations problems are entirely different.
      The problem in the United States mostly involves the long and protracted major official strike, whereas the Government say that our problem is the spasmodic, spontaneous, often short-lived unofficial strike.
      My hon. Friend for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) was right to say that this is one of the Government's gimmicks. There have, in fact, been two major gimmicks in the Government's policy for industrial relations with which they have regaled the British public for many years. One was to make all collective agreements legally enforceable, which was expected to cure everything. It took us a long time to point out the irrelevance and unworkability of that one. The second was the cooling-off period; and now the Government are stuck with it.
      I repeat that I do not underestimate the Government's resourcefulness in the matter of industrial relations. When they found that to make collective agreements legally enforceable on a voluntary basis would lead to none of them being legally enforceable, they moved on to more restrictive powers and, indeed, to a new power that was not outlined in "Fair Deal at Work"; namely, the imposition by Government initiative of procedure agreements. Therefore, we find in Clause 124 the ingredients for a far more dangerous proposition than many hon. Gentlemen have yet to realise.
      Clause 124 goes very much further than the simple formula of the Taft-Hartley Act, very much further than giving the President the right to find that
      728
      a dispute affecting an entire industry or substantial part thereof will imperil the national health or safety. We have the alarming situation that in the United States the procedure of the Taft-Hartley cooling-off period, despite the limited definition under which it is supposed to operate, has been invoked in situations that went far wider than the narrow terms of the law. Yet here in Clause 124 are much wider powers even than Taft-Hartley. We have the words that this procedure can be invoked where there is likely to be a situation
      "gravely injurious to the national economy",
      and with the national economy in the state in which it is increasingly becoming under this Government, I should have thought that opened the door very wide indeed.
      I have been waiting in confident anticipation throughout this debate for the hon. and learned Gentleman, finding his back slightly to the wall on this point, in face of the facts and having been bombarded from this side of the Committee, to trundle out "In Place of Strife". I did not wait in vain. The hon. and learned Gentleman, bless his dear heart, did not disappoint me. We have had all the old resources brought in, all the minutiae of the arguments about "In Place of Strife", and it is the biggest revelation of the Government's anxiety about their own measures that they have to go to such lengths to pretend that they are the same as mine.
      11.45 p.m.
      This evening we had even the remarkable spectacle of the Solicitor-General, introducing a major piece of legislation on which the Government have spent a great deal of thought and initiative, pleading with me to spell out the terms of an interim Bill which I never even introduced to Parliament. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen need not worry. I am delighted to deal with "In Place of Strife", because it is ludicrous to say that we ever produced any provision remotely like the cooling-off period formula in Clause 124. I am delighted to spend a few minutes examining the White Paper, because no document more clearly demonstrates the fundamental difference between the two sides of the Committee, even if we are in the middle of a family dispute.

      729
      We would have nothing to do with this tatty bit of Taft-Hartley hangover, second-hand and shop-soiled in the first place, and now presented to us by this Government in an even more ridiculous and more restrictive form. The reason why we would have nothing to do with it was that we were dealing in the White Paper with the characteristics of the British problems as we saw them. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing with them, too. A major characteristic is the short-lived and spontaneous strike.
      Of course, in the case of the major, official, constitutional dispute which may drag on for months without settlement, what is often needed is not a cooling-off period but a warming-up period in which the conciliation forces of the Government Department and the imaginativeness and efforts of both sides are brought in to resolve a dispute which may have been fermenting for a long time, where the parties have become entrenched, and where the situation will only be made worse if the dispute is put into cold storage for another 60 days. That is why we rejected the cooling-off period.
      If hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot see the difference between this proposal and a conciliation Clause designed to deal with a down-tools strike where there has been no attempt to use negotiation or conciliation machinery, it is because they have never grasped the deeply reactionary philosophy of their own Bill, and so they cannot understand the very different philosophy which has always dominated our approach, whatever disagreements there may have been on this proposal or that.
      Of course the White Paper was set in the framework of an entirely different philosophy—the belief that industrial relations are human relations, not legal relations, and that if one tried to put them in a legal straitjacket one would compress the healthy growth of those human relations which must solve their own problems and differences by the development of mutual understanding and compromise, however difficult.
      Mr. Eadie: Would not my right hon. Friend think it pertinent, since the Secretary of State has joined us, to mention that under the American system there are now 24,400 postal unions? How
      730
      would we negotiate with 24,400 postal unions in our present situation?
      Mrs. Castle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for contributing a piece of information for the benefit of the Secretary of State. But there is another fundamental difference between our philosophy and that of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is that we believe—this dominates and has always dominated our policy—that the prime responsibility for good industrial relations lies with management and that the more one deals with one's problems by putting a clamp on one of the parties, the unions, the more one puts a premium on bad management.
      One of the remarkable characteristics of the Bill and our debate on it is that it nowhere makes a centrepoint of responsibility for good industrial relations the manager, the man who is there and who is paid and trained to do the job of creating those good relations. But we have done it: we always did it. That is why we on this side have always refused to condemn all unofficial strikes—
      Sir John Rodgers rose—
      Mrs. Castle: No, I have not many minutes before the guillotine falls, and I want to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite what they do not want to know—what has always impregnated our philosophy. We have always refused to condemn all unofficial strikes. When this Government come along with a Bill with two major prongs—first, an elaborate legal framework for suppressing all unofficial strikes, and then, as though that was not enough, a great armoury of powers in Clause 124 for the cooling-off period about any type of official strike—we say to them, "What are you leaving in the way of responsibility upon management. —a cooling-off period to delay the necessity for management to retrieve the solution in a major strike, placing sanctions on unofficial strikes so that it can always be said that the troubles are due to the unions, that if only the unions can be contained the trouble will go away?"
      We say that British employers are not such saints that we can declare that they are never responsible. If we give these total powers of repression for which the Government are asking we are de facto saying that British management is never

      731
      responsible for bad industrial situations leading to the unofficial strike.
      That is why we refuse to tie the hands of the shop stewards in dealing with a shop floor situation, and that is why in "In Place of Strife" we examined the right hon. Gentleman's propositions in this Bill and rejected them one by one. We rejected in terms his central proposition that immunity from actions for inducement to commit a breach of contract of employment should be limited to registered trade unions.
      One of our main reasons was that to put unofficial strike leaders at risk would mean that they could be penalised even if the strike was justified through bad management. We rejected the suggestion that the Government or some independent agency should take from employers the responsibility for negotiating good procedure agreements by imposing them by law. We rejected the idea that unions should be de-registered if they did not discipline their members who took unofficial action. All these things are in the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and they were all rejected by us because our approach is very different.
      We stressed time and again that we should do nothing by legislation to impede a voluntary reform of procedures by taking the employers' responsibility from them. Time and again in this Bill hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken from management its responsibility to negotiate, consult, persuade, to win over and, therefore, to help voluntary reform. We agree that where a strike, official or unofficial, takes place after the exhaustion of agreed procedures, it would be intolerable to interfere with the strike since employees may have no other way of remedying a legitimate grievance.
      What hon. Gentlemen opposite will not realise and face, because they do not want to, is that the whole of our proposition is based on that difference of approach, the difference of belief as to where the major responsibility lies, the belief that by spreading legal restrictions of this far-reaching kind what is being done is relieving management of its job. We have also said that the Government should be prepared to take responsibility for their actions and to answer directly in the House of Commons and not to
      732
      hide, as this Government have hidden, behind the procedures of a Clause.
      When we acted as a Government we dared to answer to Parliament. We say that total discretion means total answerability. The discretion in this Clause is divided between the Secretary of State on the one hand and the courts of law on the other. This division enables the Government to get away from their answerability, and this is the purpose of this division of responsibility. The Government are abusing the pretence of legal sanctions—
      It being Twelve o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 299, Noes 250.

      Division No. 198]

      AYES

      [8.22 p.m

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Cordle, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Corfield, F. V.

      Green, Alan

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Grieve, Percy

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Costain, A. P.

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Astor, John

      Critchley, Julian

      Grylls, Michael

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Crouch, David

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Awdry, Daniel

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gurden, Harold

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Curran, Charles

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Balniel, Lord

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Botsford, Brian

      Dean, Paul

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Bell, Ronald

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Dixon, Piers

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Benyon, W.

      Drayson, G. B.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Havers, Michael

      Biffen, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hawkins, Paul

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Eden, Sir John

      Hay, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Boscawen, R. T.

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

      Heseltine, Michael

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Emery, Peter

      Hicks, Robert

      Bowden, Andrew

      Eyre, Reginald

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Farr, John

      Hiley, Joseph

      Braine, Bernard

      Fell, Anthony

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

      Bray, Ronald

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      BrewiS, John

      Fidler, Michael

      Holland, Philip

      Brinton, Sir Tatten

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hornby, Richard

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

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

      Fortescue, Tim

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Buck, Antony

      Fowler, Norman

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Fox, Marcus

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Burden, F. A.

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

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Fry, Peter

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Carlisle, Mark

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      James, David

      Channon, Paul

      Gardner, Edward

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Jopling, Michael.

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Clegg, Walter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Cockeram, Eric

      Gorst, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Cooke, Robert

      Gower, Raymond

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Coombs, Derek

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Kirk, Peter

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Steel, David

      Kitson, Timothy

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Osborn, John

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Knox, David

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Lambton, Antony

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Stokes, John

      Lane, David

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Paisley, Mr. Ian

      Sutcliffe, John

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Pardoe, John

      Tapsell, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

      Percival, Ian

      Taytor,Edward Mr.(G'gow,Cathcart)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Tebbit, Norman

      McLaren, Martin

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Temple, John M.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      McMaster, Stanley

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Raison, Timothy

      Tilney, John

      Madden, Martin

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Madel, David

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Trew, Peter

      Maginnis, John E.

      Redmond, Robert

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Marten, Neil

      Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Mather, Carol

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Maude, Angus

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Waddington, David

      Mawby, Ray

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Welder, David (Clitheroe)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wall, Patrick

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Walters, Dennis

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Warren, Kenneth

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

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Rost, Peter

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Moate, Roger

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Molyneaux, James

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Money, Ernie

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wilkinson, John

      Monro, Hector

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wolrige-Gorden, Patrick

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sharples, Richard

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      More, Jasper

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

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Simeons, Charles

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Younger, Hn. George

      Mudd, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Murton, Oscar

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Soref, Harold

      Mr. Keith Speed and

      Neave, Airey

      Spence, John

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Normanton, Tom

      Stainton, Keith

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Eadie, Alex

      Albu, Austen

      Cohen, Stanley

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Coleman, Donald

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Concannon, J. D.

      Ellis, Tom

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Conlan, Bernard

      English, Michael

      Ashley, Jack

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Evans, Fred

      Ashton, Joe

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Barnes, Michael

      Cronin, John

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Barnett, Joel

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Beaney, Alan

      Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

      Foley, Maurice

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dalyell, Tam

      Foot, Michael

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Ford, Ben

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Forrester, John

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Booth, Albert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Bradley, Tom

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Garrett, W. E.

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

      Deakins, Eric

      Gilbert, Dr. John

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

      Delargy, H. J.

      Ginsburg, David

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch&F'bury)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Golding, John

      Buchan, Norman

      Dempsey, James

      Gourlay, Harry

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Doig, Peter

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Driberg, Tom

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Dunn, James A.

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      664

      665

      Hardy, Peter

      McGuire, Michael

      Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

      Harper, Joseph

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mackie, John

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

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Roper, John

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Hilton, W. S.

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Horam, John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Sillars, James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Marquand, David

      Silverman, Julius

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Small, William

      Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Meacher, Michael

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hunter, Adam

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

      Mendelson, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Janner, Greville

      Mikardo, Ian

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Millan, Bruce

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

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

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Molloy, William

      Strang, Gavin

      John, Brynmor

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Swain, Thomas

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Taverne, Dick

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tinn, James

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Tomney, Frank

      Judd, Frank

      Oram, Bert

      Torney, Tom

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Orme, Stanley

      Tuck, Raphael

      Kelley, Richard

      Oswald, Thomas

      Urwin, T. W.

      Kerr, Russell

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Kinnoch, Neil

      Paget, R. T.

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Lambie, David

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Latham, Arthur

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Wallace, George

      Lawson, George

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Watkins, David

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Weitzman, David

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Pendry, Tom

      Wellbeloved, James

      Leonard, Dick

      Pentland, Norman

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Perry, Ernest G.

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Whitlock, William

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Prescott, John

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Probert, Arthur

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Rankin, John

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      McBride, Neil

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McElhone, Frank

      Richard, Ivor

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Mr. William Hamling.

      [For Division List 199 see col. 747]
      Clause 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock, including the Questions on an Amendment and on a Motion for a new Clause moved by a Member of the Government.

    Clause 125

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 124
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 294, Noes 248.
      [For Division List 200 see col. 751]
      Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 126

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WHERE ORDER MADE UNDER S. 125
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 289, Noes 246.
      [For Division List 201 see col. 755]
      Clause 126 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 127

      APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR ORDER FOR BALLOT RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 286, Noes 245.
      [For Division List 202 see col. 761]
      Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 128

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 127
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 284, Noes 242.
      [For Division List 203 see col. 765]
      Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 129

      PROVISIONS PENDING RESULT OF BALLOT ORDERED UNDER S. 128
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 241.
      [For Division List 204 see col. 769]
      Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 130 to 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 137

      CLAIMS UNDER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT 1959, S. 8
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 282, Noes 242.
      [For Division List 205 see col. 773]
      Clause 137 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 138

      RECOVERY OF SUMS AWARDED IN PRO CEEDINGS INVOLVING TRADE UNION OR EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION.
      Amendment made: No. 853, in page 95, line 15, at end insert:
      734
      (3) Except as provided by subsection (1) of this section, any judgment, order or award which is made against a trade union or an employers' association in any proceedings (whether brought by virtue of this Act or otherwise) shall be enforceable against any property belonging to, or held in trust for, the trade union or employers' association.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 139

      PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNREGISTERED ORGANISATIONS
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 236.
      [For Division List 206 see col. 779]
      Clause 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 140 to 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 143

      RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRACTING OUT
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 279, Noes 235.
      [For Division List 207 see col. 783]
      Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 144 to 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 148

      INTERPRETATION
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee proceeded to a Division:—
      The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. It has been represented to me that there has been a fault in the timing in the Division. I propose to call the Division again.
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 233.
      [For Division List 208 see col. 787]
      Clause 148 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 149

      AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 280, Noes 235.
      [For Division List 209 see col. 791]
      Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 150

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 233.
      [For Division List 210 see col. 796]
      Clause 150 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause No. 18

      COMPLAINT OF BREACH OF DUTY UNDER S. 53
      (1) Any person employed in an undertaking may present to an industrial tribunal a complaint against the employer who is the owner of the undertaking that—

      (a) under section 53 of this Act it was the duty of the employer to issue to him a statement relating to a period specified in the complaint and containing the information required in acordance with regulations made under that section, and

      (b) the employer has not fulfilled that duty as required by that section.

      (2) If, on such a complaint, the industrial tribunal finds that the grounds of the complaint are well-founded, the tribunal may, if it considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order determining the rights of the person who presented the complaint and of the employer in relation to the matters to which the complaint relates.
      (3) Where an industrial tribunal makes an order under this section, the tribunal may direct that, in relation to the period specified in the complaint, the time limited by section 53(2) of this Act shall be extended for such further period as may be specified in the order; and in the next following subsection 'the time allowed by the tribunal' means the time so limited together with any further period specified in the order.
      (4) If a person whose rights have been determined by an order made by an industrial tribunal under this section claims that, notwithstanding, the order, the employer has not, within the time allowed by the tribunal, issued
      736
      to him a statement in accordance with his rights as so authorised, he may present a complaint to that effect to the Industrial Court.
      (5) On a complaint presented under subsection (4) of this section the Industrial Court may, if it finds that the grounds of the complaint are well-founded and considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order directing the employer, before the end of such period as may be specified in the order of the Court, to issue to the complainant a statement containing such information as the Court considers appropriate, having regard to the rights determined by the order of the industrial tribunal.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time and added to the Bill.
      Schedule I agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      CHIEF REGISTRAR AND ASSISTANT REGIS TRARS, NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELA TIONS COURT AND COMMISSION ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS.
      Question put, That this Schedule be the Second Schedule to the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 234.
      [For Division List 211 see col. 802]
      Schedule 2 agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      REQUIREMENTS AS TO RULES OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIA TIONS.
      Question proposed, That this be the Third Schedule to the Bill.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 279, Noes 233.
      [For Division List 212 see col. 806]
      Schedule 3 agreed to.
      Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ACT, 1959
      Question put, That this be the Sixth Schedule to the Bill:—
      The Committee Divided: Ayes 279, Noes 231.
      [For Division List 213 see col. 810]
      Schedule 6 agreed to.
      Schedule 7 agreed to.

    Schedule 8

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED
      Question put, That this Schedule be the Eighth Schedule to the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 278, Noes 232.
      [For Division List 214 see col. 814]
      Schedule 8 agreed to.
      Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order [25th January].
      Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered this day, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

  YORKSHIRE COALFIELD AREA (UNEMPLOYMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  3.10 a.m.
  Mr. Roy Mason: We are now in the eighteenth hour of my working day. This is my third shift, after having started out at 9 o'clock yesterday morning. We are on no overtime pay and if any body of workers ought to be recognised in industrial relations it is Members of Parliament. We need our own trade union.
  Nationally we have now reached the frightening, and to many people soul-destroying, unemployment figure of 721,000. Worse still, it is a trend that is moving upwards and shows no sign of levelling out. If there is no distinct change in Government policy we might have 1 million unemployed by the end of the year. Because the increase in nemployment is outstripping the Government's efforts to curb inflation, we must all recognise that unemployment is now becoming an urgent economic and social problem. Only specific measures by the Government can stop this trend escalating to a pitch that will bring back the grim memories of the 1930s.
  The nation is stagnant; growth is not forthcoming; investment is down and manpower is being wasted. What is more, misery among families is on the increase. For all this to change, there will have to be an alteration in this deliberate policy which is encouraging a spiral of price increases and which is sparking off high wage demands. Understandably, the unions want a safeguard against the rate of inflation, and consequently are requesting a built-in buffer against a quick wage erosion.
  If there is one factor that is the cause of the present inflation more than any other, it is runaway prices—and not until this is curbed shall we get a slow down in the unemployment figures. That is where the Government will have to begin before unions will co-operate in a sensible anti-inflation policy wherein growth can be planned and industry can have faith to invest, and then employment will pick up.
  This morning I am particularly concerned with the serious levels of unemployment in Barnsley and the coal zone of Yorkshire. Last month we had 5·3 per cent. unemployment in the Barnsley area, and the figures for February show a rise to 5·6 per cent.—an increase of 300 people out of work, bringing the total up to 3,929.
  In the Yorkshire and Humberside region there was also an increase in the last month and there are now 69,635 unemployed there. The Barnsley percentage is well over the national average: 5·6 per cent. against a national average of 3·1 per cent. There is a need for some fresh and urgent initiative by the Government to encourage present employers to expand and new employers and industries to come into the district.
  Four problems which cause me concern. First, the industrial development certificate policy is not working, in spite of the fact that we now have intermediate area status with extra incentives for industrialists to come to our town. On 1st February the Under-Secretary to the Department of Trade and Industry revealed to me that 22 I.D.Cs. were granted in 1969, but the number dropped to 18 in 1970. The estimated additional employment for males in 1969 from 22 I.D.Cs. was 370, and from the 18 I.D.Cs. granted in 1970 it was 130. That meant some 40 I.D.Cs. were employing only 500 men—approximately 12 men each. There is not much hope in this development. On this basis I.D.C. policy is too slow in operation and is not even scratching the surface of the problem.
  Secondly, every pit has now closed in the Barnsley borough. Nearly 1,000 ex-miners are unemployed, and even though the Labour Government alleviated the hardship of miners over 55 years of age with a special financial benefit which gave them up to 90 per cent. of their previous take-home pay for three years, this scheme is coming to an end for many of the men. Hence, there is a new problem involving hundreds of ex-miners between 58 and 65 having to resign themselves to dole queues for the rest of their lives, existing on social security benefits, with no hope, no work. They are experienced, versatile. reliable men, and they are
  740
  doomed to the labour scrap heap. In the coal zone of Yorkshire, already 1,400 are affected in this way, and there are 3,729 miners of all age groups who are unemployed in the coal zone of the county as well.
  Thirdly, in a survey of the future of the Yorkshire coalfield, the National Coal Board has revealed that, because of the exhaustion of reserves alone—by which is meant completely worked out seams; it has nothing to do with pits which may close because they are uneconomic or because of geological difficulties—29 pits will close in the next 10 years, affecting at least another 17,000 men.
  The Yorkshire coalfield is necessary. Of that, there is no doubt. It has a future beyond the year 2000, especially feeding the big coal-fired power stations in and around the county area. But the problem of closures through exhaustion and its additional appalling effects upon employment having been seen, planning for alternative industrial employment should now begin.
  The fourth problem is the working of the new Industrial Training Scheme, which was specially designed to train unemployed workers over 45 years of age. So far, it has proved useless. Within the climate of inflation, employers fear high wages. Therefore, they are finding means of shedding labour rather than setting men on. In my area, not one firm so far has taken in one man under the scheme, in spite of the incentive of £10 per man per week while he is being trained.
  To sum up, the problems are escalating unemployment, the fact that the I.D.C. policy is virtually useless in overcoming it, the special problem of older unemployed mineworkers and the fact that the Industrial Training Act is just not working, and the looming spectre of 29 pit closures by 1980. In view of all this, I propose that the Government should treat the present and future threat of increased unemployment in Barnsley and the coal zone of Yorkshire as a matter requiring urgent attention.
  First, they should declare the whole zone as one of development status. The Minister must realise that, having granted special development area status to parts of the North-East, Yorkshire is likely to be by-passed because of these additional

  741
  incentives. Indeed, it is likely to kill or at least neutralise the intermediate status that we acquired last year.
  Secondly, we should consider new capital projects in the coal mining industry of Yorkshire. Kellingley colliery is an example. We need a large mine to produce between 1½ and 2 million tons per year with high productivity and relatively cheap power station coal. What about a new super-mine to tap the 7 ft. thick coal seam that runs from Kellingley through to the coastline: a new investment in coal, a new investment in the county. and 1,000 men's jobs?
  Thirdly, the Government and the Coal Board might consider the reopening of Thorne colliery. There, £3 million of investment would be required for new winding gear and an underground transport system. This, too, would result in another 750 to 1,000 jobs. Alternatively, because both cannot be done, especially because Thorne colliery reserves are under it, the Government might consider Thorne waste as a site for a new major airport to serve the county and relieve pressure on others in the North of England. Certainly this would boost employment and revitalise the region.
  Fourthly, the Government should consider encouraging a new growth labour-intensive industry to come to the coal zone of Yorkshire. A car manufacturing plant or a bus assembly plant, even the projected Ford engine factory, would be welcome in the Yorkshire county.
  What about a new power station to follow Drax 2? We have the water, the fuel and the manpower. There would be 2,500 jobs during construction and 750 thereafter. If necessary, a new power station could be tied to the new super-mine and if there were a deliberate investment decision by the Government, the National Coal Board and the C.E.G.B. to do this, it could rejuvenate the coal zone and quickly make an impact on the serious level of unemployment.
  In the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Strategy Report, prepared by the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, reference is made to the serious situation in the coalfield—Doncaster, Hemsworth, South Kirby, Dearne Valley and the Five Towns. My hon. Friends the Members for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) and Pon-
  742
  tefract (Mr. Harper) are present tonight because of the serious question of unemployment in their areas.
  There is a special reference to Barnsley in paragraph 135:
  "A reduction in labour demand is expected as a result of a continuing decline of employment in coalmining and a substantial shortage of male jobs is likely. In our report 'Employment Prospects in the Yorkshire Coalmining Areas', we recognised that the situation in Barnsley was particularly urgent."
  It is still urgent and it is getting worse.
  There is too much migration of young adults, professional workers and non-manual workers. Prospects for school-leavers are depressing. The elderly unemployed coal miner is destined to tread the streets hopelessly searching for work until ultimately he loses his pride and his soul. The after-effects of being dependent on a mono-economy in the area for so long are now hurting. New industries are badly needed and only by Government decree are these awful trends to be arrested.
  Giving us full development status would help, and the extra financial incentives might start an inflow of industry. We have the sites and the manpower. Now it has become so desperate that we do not want just sympathy and hope from the Minister tonight—we want direct action.
  3.22 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I am glad to have the opportunity, even at this late hour, to discuss the problems of employment in Barnsley and the Yorkshire coalfield. I agree with the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) that the unemployment there is far too high. I hope that he will accept that I and my colleagues view this with very great concern, but in part what he said was a damning indictment of the economic policies of the previous Government for the last three years, and in part a recognition of the inevitable changes and restructuring of traditional industries.
  I do not accept that the I.D.C. policy is not working. I regard this as an essential weapon of regional policy and I will administer it in that way. But one must recognise that, if there is a shortage of mobile industry, as there is at the moment, I.D.C.s will simply not

  743
  be applied for. However, I would emphasise to the Yorkshire intermediate area that I.D.C.s will be made freely available if industry is found to go there.
  Also, I do not entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about training. This is a major problem, which the Government view with concern. The plight of the elderly miner who is redundant is one which I consider with great anxiety, but the right hon. Gentleman will recall that, on 4th November, 1970—I refer him to column 383 of HANSARD—the Secretary of State for Employment announced in answer to a Question that the Government intended to give a new emphasis to training to help the unemployed, and he set out four important developments, starting from 1st January, 1971. I will not read them out now, but they indicate a determination on the part of the Government to tackle this seriously. I very much hope that this will have the necessary effect of speeding up this important and difficult retraining work.
  Dealing with Thorne airport, it is a matter primarily for local interests to decide in the first instance whether detailed studies into the feasibility of developing a major airport at Thorne-Goole are required. The Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, which considered this question in the light of the refusal of planning permission for the extension of Leeds-Bradford Airport, concluded that, since there was no evidence that Manchester Airport would reach saturation before the 1980s, there was no urgent need to study alternative sites for airports east of the Pennines. It also considered that detailed studies, which would be required before the heavy capital expenditure involved in constructing a major airport could be incurred, would be essentially a matter in the first instance for the local planning authorities concerned.
  I emphasise that the viability of a new major airport on the Thorne-Goole site would depend on there being an adequate demand for air services. This is absolutely essential. It is only right that I should give the House the Government's view in this respect. which is that, while
  744
  there is no reason why local interests should not pursue this matter as they think fit, we largely take the view of the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council that the scheme is essentially a long-term one.
  As to the possibility of it being developed into an intercontinental airport of some sort as an alternative to London, this is a matter upon which I should prefer not to pass judgment since we will be debating the Roskill Commission's Report next week.
  I turn now to the coal industry, the restructuring of which is one of the major reasons for the difficulties cited by the right hon. Gentleman. Coal has a vital part to play in meeting the energy requirements of Great Britain. In common with other coal producing areas the Yorkshire coalfield has had to face major problems in the restructuring of this industry and the manpower consequences of modernisation and re-equipment. Nevertheless, the Yorkshire coalfield, providing that it is efficient and competitive, has a good future before it. The National Coal Board has, no doubt, been considering the points which the right hon. Gentleman has raised about the development of coal in the region. This is a part of Britain in which coal has a future, provided it is efficiently and economically produced.
  I was interested to observe that the Board was engaging in recruiting campaigns, which is an encouraging sign. However there is a need for new industry. Industry is needed which can utilise the innate adaptability and capacity for hard work which has always been characteristic of this area. There are no quick solutions. It would be wrong to say that the solution could be found overnight. Before new industry can begin to flow in on any scale we must strengthen the weakness in the economy which was our legacy from the previous Administration. We must do this so that industry can make confident plans for the future.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the present intermediate area should be designated a development area. I remind him that it is less than a year—it was on 5th March, 1970—that she area

  745
  was designated an intermediate area. It is, therefore, early days to judge how it is working out in its present status.
  The recent announcement of increased assistance to certain areas of the country which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stems from a detailed examination of the situations and prospects of all areas. The unavoidable conclusion to be drawn from this review was that the policies adopted in recent years has failed to measure up to the worsening problems of some of the older industrial conurbations in the development areas.
  Exhibiting over the past two or three years disturbingly high and persistent levels of unemployment, their needs are such that they must be given first priority for the limited supply of mobile industry. For this reason we came to the conclusion that, having been granted intermediate status only a year ago, the right hon. Gentleman's area could not be upgraded. Clearly, the future pattern of assisted areas must reflect changes in the situation in particular areas. However, it is not our intention to make frequent changes, since industry must be given a stable framework on which to base its decisions.
  Advance factories have been authorised for Barnsley, Doncaster, Hemsworth and Mexborough at a cost of about £500,000. Sites have been chosen, construction is expected to begin in March and the factories should be ready by about the end of the year. About 300 jobs are expected to be provided intitially in total, but each factory will be capable of expansion to two or three times its original size. It would not be sensible to authorise the construction of further advance factories until it is seen whether the first batch attracts occupiers. However, this may encourage private developers to acquire sites.
  I beg hon. Gentleman opposite not to paint a picture of an area in decline and despair. This is an area of great
  746
  potential and one which has very much to offer to incoming industrialists. The benefits of being an intermediate area have been clearly set out and the right hon. Gentleman has done something to advertise them. I will be doing everything I possibly can to encourage industry to go to the assisted areas, which of course include this area, and my Department will draw the advantages, which are considerable, of Barnsley and Yorkshire to the attention of industrialists. I repeat that no service is done to the people who live in this area to paint a black and miserable picture.
  I hope, too, that firms which are already in the area will take into account the substantial Government assistance which can support their expansion plans. This area has good access to other important centres of industry and lies along major rail and motorway routes, being convenient for the Ml and M62. My Department will continue to draw the resources of the area to the attention of appropriate firms on every possible occasion.
  Throughout the intermediate areas, industrial development certificates are, in general, freely available for new factory building and extensions. I hope that, against this background, all who have the welfare of the area at heart—and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I and my colleagues certainly have—will continue their efforts to ensure that its very real advantages are given the publicity they deserve.
  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this problem affecting his constituency and I ask all concerned not to be downhearted but to have confidence in the future and to do everything possible, as I shall, to let the industrial world and potential developers know the great advantages of going to Barnsley and Yorkshire.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Four o'clock a.m.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Division No. 199.]

  AYES

  [12 m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Emery, Peter

  Lane, David

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Farr, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fell, Anthony

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Astor, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fidler, Michael

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

  Awdry, Daniel

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Loveridge, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  MacArthur, Ian

  Balniel, Lord

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Batsford, Brian

  Fowler, Norman

  McLaren, Martin

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fox, Marcus

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Bell, Ronald

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

  McMaster, Stanley

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gardner, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Madel, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maginnis, John E.

  Blaker, Peter

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marten, Neil

  Body, Richard

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mather, Carol

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gorst, John

  Maude, Angus

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bray, Ronald

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gummer, Selwyn

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

  Brocktebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Moate, Roger

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Malyneaux, James

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Money, Ernie

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

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Buck, Antony

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Burden, F. A.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hastings, Stephen

  Murton, Oscar

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Havers, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Channon, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Neave, Airey

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Chichester-Clarke, R.

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

  Osborn, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Cooke, Robert

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornby, Richard

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Cordle, John

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Percival, Ian

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  costain, A. P.

  Howell, Raph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Critchley, Julian

  Hunt, John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Crouch, David

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

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

  Curran, Charles

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  Dean, Paul

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dixon, Piers

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Drayson, G. B.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  du cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dykes, Hugh

  kinsey, J. R

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffney

  Eden, Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kinght, Mrs. Jill

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

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

  Knox, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Lambton, Antony

  748

  749

  Rost, Peter

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walker, David (Clitheroe)

  Royle, Anthony

  Sutcliffe, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Walters, Dennis

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Sharples, Richard

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Weatherill, Bernard

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

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Temple, John M.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Simeons, Charles

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Soref, Harold

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Speed, Keith

  Tilney, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Spence, John

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Worsley, Marcus

  Stainton, Keith

  Trew, Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Younger, Hn. George

  Steel, David

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  Stokes, John

  Waddington, David

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  John, Brynmor

  Albu, Austen

  Driberg, Tom

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Barnes, Michael

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Ellis, Tom

  Judd, Frank

  Beaney, Alan

  English, Michael

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Evans, Fred

  Kelley, Richard

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lambie, David

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lamond, James

  Booth, Albert

  Foley, Maurice

  Latham, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Foot, Michael

  Lawson, George

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

  Ford, Ben

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Forrester, John

  Leonard, Dick

  Brown,Ronald(Shoreditch&Finsbury)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lipton, Marcus

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Garratt, W. E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartortshire, W.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Cant, R. B.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Golding, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McBride, Neil

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McElhone, Frank

  Cocks, Michael(Bristol, S.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McGuire, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Coleman, Donald

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackie, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamling, William

  Mackintosh, John p.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hardy, Peter

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Cronin, John

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marquand, David

  Darling, Re. Hn. George

  Horam, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Millan, Bruce

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hunter, Adam

  Molloy, William

  Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArihur(Edge Hill)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dempsey, James

  Janner, Greville

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Doig, Peter

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Dormand, J. D.

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

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Moyle, Roland

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  750

  751

  Murray, Ronald King

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

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

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Tinn, James

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Tomney, Frank

  O'Malley, Brian

  Roper, John

  Torney, Tom

  Oram, Bert

  Rose, Paul

  Tuck, Raphael

  Orme, Stanley

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Paget, R. T.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wallace, George

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Sillars, James

  Watkins, David

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Silverman, Julius

  Weitzman, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wellbeloved, James

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Small, William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Pentland, Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Whitlock, William

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wiley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Prescott, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Probert, Arthur

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Taverne, Dick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Richard, Ivor

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

  Mr.Joseph Harper and

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Division No. 200.]

  AYES

  [12.12 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cooke, Robert

  Gray, Hamish

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Coombs, Derek

  Green, Alan

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Astor, John

  Cordle, John

  Grylis, Michael

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Awdry, Daniel

  Costain, A. P.

  Garden, Harold

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Crouch, David

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Balniel, Lord

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Batsford, Brian

  Curran, Charles

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bell, Ronald

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Benyon, W.

  Dean, Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Havers, Michael

  Biffen, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hawkins, Paul

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dixon, Piers

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Blaker, Peter

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Heseltine, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hicks, Robert

  Body, Richard

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Boscawen, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Eden, Sir John

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

  Bowden, Andrew

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Holland, Philip

  Braine, Bernard

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

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bray, Ronald

  Emery, Peter

  Hornby, Richard

  Brewis, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Farr, John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fell, Anthony

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fidler, Michael

  Hunt, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Buck, Antony

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  James, David

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fortescue, Tim

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Burden, F. A.

  Fowler, Norman

  Jessel, Toby

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fox, Marcus

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

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

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Carlisle, Mark

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gardner, Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Channon, Paul

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Chlchester-Clark, R.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Gorst, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Clegg, Walter

  Gower, Raymond

  Kitson, Timothy

  752

  753

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Knox, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Lambton, Antony

  Osborn, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Lane, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stokes, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

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

  Percival, Ian

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Loveridge, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Pounder, Rafton

  Tebbit, Norman

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Temple, John M.

  McLaren, Martin

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Raison, Timothy

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tilney, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Redmond, Robert

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Madel, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Trew, Peter

  Maginnis, John E.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Marten, Neil

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mather, Carol

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Maude, Angus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mawby, Ray

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Waddington, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wall, Patrick

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Severoaks)

  Walters, Dennis

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Rost, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Royle, Anthony

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Moate, Roger

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Molyneaux, James

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Money, Ernie

  Scott, Nicholas

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Sharples, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  More, Jasper

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Simeons, Charles

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mudd, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Murton, Oscar

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

  Younger, Hon. George

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Soref, Harold

  Neave, Airey

  Spence, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Mr.Victor Goodhew and

  Normanton, Tom

  Stanbrook, lvor

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Nott, John

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Albu, Austen

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Eadie, Alex

  Allen, Scholefield

  Coleman, Donald

  Edelman, Maurice

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Ashton, Joe

  Conlan, Bernard

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  English, Michael

  Barnes, Michael

  Cronin, John

  Evans, Fred

  Barnett, Joel

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Beaney, Alan

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dalyell, Tam

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Foley, Maurice

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur

  Foot, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Ford, Ben

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Forrester, John

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

  Davie, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Deakins, Eric

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Garrett, W. E.

  Buchan, Norman

  Delargy, H. J.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Ginsburg, David

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dempsey, James

  Golding, John

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Doig, Peter

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Cant, R. B.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hamling, William

  754

  755

  Hannan, William (G'gow,Maryhill)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roper, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackie, John

  Rose, Paul B.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hattersley, Roy

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Sillars, James

  Horam, John

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

  Silverman, Julius

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Marks, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howell. Denis (Small Heath)

  Marquand, David

  Small, William

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mendelson, John

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hunter, Adam

  Millan, Bruce

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Irvine,Rt.n.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Janner, Greville

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Molloy, William

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Swain, Thomas

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Taverne, Dick

  John, Brynmor

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Tinn, James

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Tomney, Frank

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Torney, Tom

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

  O'Malley, Brian

  Tuck, Raphael

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oram, Bert

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Varley, Eric G.

  Judd, Frank

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Paget, R. T.

  Wallace, George

  Kerr, Russell

  Palmer, Arthur

  Watkins, David

  Lambie, David

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Weitzman, David

  Lamond, James

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wellbeloved, James

  Latham, Arthur

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lawson, George

  Pendry, Tom

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pentland, Norman

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Leonard, Dick

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Whitlock, William

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Prescott, John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Probert, Arthur

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Richard, Ivor

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McBride, Neil

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Mr. William Hamling.

  McElhone, Frank

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

  Division No. 201.]

  AYES

  [12.24 a.m.

  Allson, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Clegg, Walter

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Braine, Bernard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Astor, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Cooke, Robert

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brewis, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Awdry, Daniel

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cooper, A. E.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Cordle, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Balniel, Lord

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Costain, A. P.

  Batsford, Brian

  Bryan, Paul

  Critchley, Julian

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Crouch, David

  Bell, Ronald

  Buck, Antony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Curran, Charles

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Burden, F. A.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Benyon, W.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  d'Aviedor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry,

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

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

  Biffen, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dean, Paul

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Channon, Paul

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Blaker, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Dixon, Piers

  Body, Richard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Boscawen, Robert

  Churchill, W. S.

  Drayson, G. B.

  756

  757

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)

  Dykes, Hugh

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Eden, Sir John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kirk, Peter

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Emery, Peter

  Knox, David

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lambton, Antony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Farr, John

  Lane, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fell, Anthony

  Langford-Holt, Slr John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rost, Peter

  Fidler, Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Royle, Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

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

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Longden, Gilbert

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fortescue, Tim

  Loveridge, John

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fowler, Norman

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sharples, Richard

  Fox, Marcus

  MeCrindle, R. A.

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

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Simeons, Charles

  Gardner, Edward

  McMaster, Stanley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gilmour, Ian {Norfolk, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Soref, Harold

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Speed, Keith

  Godber, Rt. Hon. J. B.

  Madel, David

  Spence, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stainton, Keith

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gorst, John

  Marten, Neil

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mather, Carol

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maude, Angus

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawby, Ray

  Stokes, John

  Green, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sutcliffe, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gurden, Harold

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moate, Roger

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Molyneaux, James

  Temple, John M.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Money, Ernie

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tilney, John

  Havers, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Trew, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mudd, David

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hicks, Robert

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neave, Airey

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Vickers, Dame Joan

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

  Normanton, Tom

  Waddington, David

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nott, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wall, Patrick

  Hornby, Richard

  Osborn, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Hornsby, Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hunt, John

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wilkinson, John

  James, David

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Jessel, Toby

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Younger, Hon. George

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kilfedder, James

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Redmond, Robert

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Albu, Austen

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Allen, Scholefield

  Barnett, Joel

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Beaney, Alan

  Booth, Albert

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  758

  759

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Malley, Brian

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'Bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  Buchan, Norman

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Ft. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pentland, Norman

  Clark, David (Colns Valley)

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Prescott, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Probert, Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roper, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Judd, Frank

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Deakins, Eric

  Kinnock, Neil

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  de Freltas, Rr. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lamond, James

  Sillars, James

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Latham, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Dempsey, James

  Lawson, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Doig, Peter

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Small, William

  Dormand, J. D.

  Leonard, Dick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Driberg, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stallard, A. W.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Dunn, James A.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Strang, Gavin

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McBride, Neil

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Swain, Thomas

  Ellis, Tom

  McElhone, Frank

  Taverne, Dick

  English, Michael

  McGuire, Michael

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

  Evans, Fred

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mackie, John

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tinn, James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Torney, Tom

  Foley, Maurice

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Tuck, Raphael

  Foot, Michael

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Forrester, John

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marquand, David

  Wallace, George

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Watkins,David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Meacher, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ginsburg, David

  Mendelson, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Golding, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Grant, John D. (Islington, East)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Whitlock, William

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Molloy, William

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Moyle, Roland

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Murray, Ronald King

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  760

  761

  Division No. 202.]

  AYES

  [12.35 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fowler, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

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

  Maginnis, John E.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Astor, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Marten, Neil

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mather, Carol

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maude, Angus

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Balniel, Lord

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Batsford, Brian

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gorst, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gower, Raymond

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Benyon, W.

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Molyneaux, James

  Biffen, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Money, Ernie

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Blaker, Peter

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Body, Richard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mudd, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Murton, Oscar

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Braine, Bernard

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Neave, Airey

  Bray, Ronald

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Brewis, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Havers, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Osborn, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Heseltine, Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Buck, Antony

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Percival, Ian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Channon, Paul

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornby, Richard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hornsby-Smlth,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

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

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Raison, Timothy

  Cooke, Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Coombs, Derek

  James, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Cordle, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Costain, A. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Critchley, Julian

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Crouch, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Curran, Charles

  Kilfedder, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

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

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Dean, Paul

  Kirk, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Royle Anthony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Knight, Mrs.Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dixon, Piers

  Knox, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lane, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sharples, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shelton,William (Clapham)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Simeons, Charles

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

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

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Emery, Peter

  Longden, Gilbert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

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

  Farr, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Fell, Anthony

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stainton, Keith

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fortescue, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stokes, John

  762

  763

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Trew, Peter

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Tapsell, Peter

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Waddington, David

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Tebbit, Norman

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Temple, John M.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wall, Patrick

  Younger, Hn. George

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walters, Dennis

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Tilney, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ellis, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Albu, Austen

  English, Michael

  Leonard, Dick

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Evans, Fred

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ashton, Joe

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Barnes, Michael

  Foot, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Ford, Ben

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Beaney, Alan

  Forrester, John

  McBride, Neil

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Freeson, Reginald

  McElhone, Frank

  Bishop, E. S.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McGuire, Michael

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mackie, John

  Booth, Albert

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Golding, John

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Brown,Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hamling, William

  Marquand, David

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Cant, R. B.

  Hardy, Peter

  Meacher, Michael

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harper, Joseph

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mendelson, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mikardo, Ian

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hattersley, Roy

  Millan, Bruce

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hilton, W. S.

  Molloy, William

  Coleman, Donald

  Horam, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn(Anglesey)

  Moyle, Roland

  Cronin, John

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Dalyell, Tam

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Janner, Greville

  Oram, Bert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Delargy, H. J.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Dell Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Doig, Peter

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Driberg, Tom

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Probert, Arthur

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kerr, Russell

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Dunn, James A.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamond, James

  Richard, Ivor

  Edelman, Maurice

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lawson, George

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  764

  765

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

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wallace, George

  Roper, John

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Watkins, David

  Rose, Paul B.

  Strang, Gavin

  Weitzman, David

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Swain, Thomas

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Taverne, Dick

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

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

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Whitlock, William

  Sillars, James

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

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silverman, Julius

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tomney, Frank

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Small, William

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Urwin, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Division No. 203.]

  AYES

  [12.45 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dean, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dixon, Piers

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Astor, John

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hunt, John

  Awdry, Daniel

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  James, David

  Balniel, Lord

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Batsford, Brian

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Emery, Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Bell, Ronald

  Farr, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fell, Anthony

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Benyon, W.

  Fidler, Michael

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kilfedder, James

  Biffen, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Blaker, Peter

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Kirk, Peter

  Body, Richard

  Fox, Marcus

  Kitson, Timothy

  Boscawen, Robert

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

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Knox, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gardner, Edward

  Lambton, Antony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Lane, David

  Braine, Bernard

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bray, Ronald

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Brewis, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gorst, John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gower, Raymond

  Loveridge, John

  Buck, Antony

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gray, Hamish

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Burden, F. A.

  Green, Alan

  McLaren, Martin

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

  Grylls, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Channon, Paul

  Gurden, Harold

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maddan, Martin

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Madel, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marten, Neil

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mather, Carol

  Cockeram, Eric

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Cooke, Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mawby, Ray

  Coombs, Derek

  Havers, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Cordle, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hicks, Robert

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Critchley, Julian

  Higgins, Terence L.

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

  Crouch, David

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Crowder, F. P.

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

  Moate, Roger

  Curran, Charles

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Molyneaux, James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hollard, Philip

  Money, Ernie

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  766

  767

  More, Jasper

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Temple, John M.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

  Mudd, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Murton, Oscar

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Tilney, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Rost, Peter

  Trew, Peter

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Royle, Anthony

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Normanton, Tom

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Nott, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Scott, Nicholas

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Osborn, John

  Sharples, Richard

  Waddington, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Simeons, Charles

  Wall, Patrick

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Walters, Dennis

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Percival, Ian

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

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Soref, Harold

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Speed, Keith

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Spence, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stainton, Keith

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Wilkinson, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stokes, John

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Raison, Timothy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Redmond, Robert

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Younger, Hn. George.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hardy, Peter

  Allen, Scholefield

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Deakins, Eric

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Ashton, Joe

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dempsey, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Barnes, Michael

  Doig, Peter

  Hilton, W. S.

  Barnett, Joel

  Dormand, J. D.

  Horam, John

  Beaney, Alan

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Driberg, Tom

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bishop, E. S.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Booth, Albert

  Eddie, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Edelman, Maurice

  Hunter, Adam

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ellis, Tom

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Buchan, Norman

  English, Michael

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

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Fred

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  John, Brynmor

  Cant, R. B.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Foley, Maurice

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Foot, Michael

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Forrester, John

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Coleman, Donald

  Freeson, Reginald

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Judd, Frank

  Conlan, Bernard

  Garrett, W. E.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Kerr, Russell

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ginsburg, David

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cronin, John

  Golding, John

  Lambie, David

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lamond, James

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Lawson, George

  Dalyell, Tam

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  768

  769

  Lipton, Marcus

  Oram, Bert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Orme, Stanley

  Stallard, A. W.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Strang, Gavin

  McBride, Neil

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  McCartney, Hugh

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Swain, Thomas

  McElhone, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Taverne, Dick

  McGuire, Michael

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mackie, John

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Prescott, John

  Tinn, James

  Maclennan, Robert

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Tomney, Frank

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Torney, Tom

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Probert, Arthur

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Urwin, T. W.

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Marquand, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Richard, Ivor

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wallace, George

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Watkins, David

  Mendelson, John

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

  Weitzman, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Millan, Bruce

  Roper, John

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Rose, Paul B.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pellok)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Molloy, William

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Whitlock, William

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silkin Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Sillars, James

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Moyle, Roland

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Small, William

  Ogden, Eric

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mr.William Hamling and

  O'Malley, Brian

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Division No. 204.]

  AYES

  [12.57 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Channon, Paul

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Astor, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fowler, Norman

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fox, Marcus

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

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

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Clegg, Walter

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gardner, Edward

  Balniel, Lord

  Cooke, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Botsford, Brian

  Coombs, Derek

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Cordle, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Benyon, W.

  Critchley, Julian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Gorst, John

  Biffen, John

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gower, Raymond

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Curran, Charles

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gray, Hamish

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Green, Alan

  Body, Richard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Dean, Paul

  Grylls, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Bowden, Andrew

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Gurden, Harold

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Dixon, Piers

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Brains, Bernard

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bray, Ronald

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Brewis, John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Antony

  Emery, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Eyre, Reginald

  Havers, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Farr, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fell, Anthony

  Heseltine, Michael

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

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hicks, Robert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fidler, Michael

  Higgins, Terence L.

  770

  771

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Holland, Philip

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

  Simeons, Charles

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hornby, Richard

  Moate, Roger

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Molyneaux, James

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Money, Ernie

  Soref, Harold

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Speed, Keith

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  More, Jasper

  Spence, John

  Hunt, John

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stainton, Keith

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  James, David

  Mudd, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Murton, Oscar

  Stokes, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Neave, Airey

  Sutcliffe, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Tapsell, Peter

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Nott, John

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

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Onslow, Cranley

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Kilfedder, James

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Osborn, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Temple, John M.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Kirk, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Kitson, Timothy

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Tilney, John

  Knox, David

  Percival, Ian

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Lambton, Antony

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Trew, Peter

  Lane, David

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Vickers, Dame Joan

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

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Waddington, David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Loveridge, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  MacArthur, Ian

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wall, Patrick

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Redmond, Robert

  Walters, Dennis

  McLaren, Martin

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Warren, Kenneth

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Maddan, Martin

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wilkinson, John

  Madel, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Maginnis, John E.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Marten, Neil

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mather, Carol

  Rost, Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Maude, Angus

  Royle, Anthony

  Younger, Hn. George

  Mawby, Ray

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cant, R. B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Allen, Scholefield

  Carmichael, Neil

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Ashton, Joe

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Dempsey, James

  Atkinson, Norman

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Doig, Peter

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Barnes, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Coleman, Donald

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Beaney, Alan

  Concannon, J. D.

  Driberg, Tom

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grawshaw, Richard

  Dunnett, Jack

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Eadie, Alex

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Edelman, Maurice

  Booth, Albert

  Grossman, Rr. Hn. Richard

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ellis, Tom

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

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  English, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Evans, Fred

  Buchan, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  772

  773

  Foley, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Foot, Michael

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Ford, Ben

  Leonard, Dick

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Forrester, John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roper, John

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Golding, John

  McBride, Neil

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McGuire, Michael

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sillars, James

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackie, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hamling, William

  Maclennan, Robert

  Small, William

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Hardy, Peter

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Harper, Joseph

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Marquand, David

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Meacher, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Strang, Gavin

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mendelson, John

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Horam, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Swain, Thomas

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Millan, Bruce

  Taverne, Dick

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Molloy, William

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Torney, Tom

  Hunter, Adam

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Janner, Greville

  Moyle, Roland

  Urwin, T. W.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Varley, Eric G.

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

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ogden, Eric

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wallace, George

  John, Brynmor

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, David

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oram, Bert

  Weitzman, David

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

  Orme, Stanloy

  Wellbeloved, James

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitehead, Phillip

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Whitlock, William

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Willian, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Judd, Frank

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Kerr, Russell

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Lamble, David

  Prescott, John

  Lamond, James

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Latham, Arthur

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Probert, Arthur

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Division No. 205.]

  AYES

  [1.10 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Blaker, Peter

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

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Body, Richard

  Channon, Paul

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Astor, John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bowden, Andrew

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Braine, Bernard

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bray, Ronald

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Balniel, Lord

  Brewis, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Batsford, Brian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Cooke, Robert

  Beamish, Cot, Sir Tufton

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Coombs, Derek

  Bell, Ronald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Cordle, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bryan, Paul

  Cormack, Patrick

  Benyon, W.

  Buck, Antony

  Costain, A. P.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Critchley, Julian

  Biffen, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Crouch, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Crowder, F. P.

  774

  775

  Curran, Charles

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Redmond, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dean, Paul

  Kilfedder, James

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dixon, Piers

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kirk, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knox, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lambton, Antony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lane, David

  Rost, Peter

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

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Royle, Anthony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Farr, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Fell, Anthony

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

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

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Fidler, Michael

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sharples, Richard

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Loveridge, John

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Simeons, Charles

  Fowler, Norman

  McLaren, Martin

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fox, Marcus

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Skeet, T. H. H.

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

  McMaster, Stanley

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

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Soref, Harold

  Gardner, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Spence, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Stainton, Keith

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Madel, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marten, Neil

  Stokes, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mather, Carol

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gorst, John

  Maude, Angus

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Mawby, Ray

  Tapsell, Peter

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Grylls, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gummer, Selwyn

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

  Temple, John M.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Moate, Roger

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Molyneaux, James

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Money, Ernie

  Tilney, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  More, Jasper

  Trew, Peter

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mudd, David

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Havers, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hawkins, Paul

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Waddington, David

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neave, Airey

  Walder, David (Ciitheroe)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Hicks, Robert

  Normanton, Tom

  Wall, Patrick

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Nott, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Hiley, Joseph

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Osborn, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Holland, Philip

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hornhy, Richard

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Hunt, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pounder, Rafton

  Worsley, Marcus

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Younger, Hon. George

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnes, Michael

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Barnett, Joel

  Alien, Scholefield

  Atkinson, Norman

  Beaney, Alan

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  776

  777

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hannon, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hardy, Peter

  Ogden, Eric

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Harper, Joseph

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Booth, Albert

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oram, Bert

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hattersley, Roy

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Horam, John

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire,W.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pendry, Tom

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pentland, Norman

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Prescott, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hunter, Adam

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Janner, Greville

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Conlan, Bernard

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth C.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Garonwy(Caernarvon)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

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

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roper, John

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rose, Paul B.

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

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

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Judd, Frank

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sillars, James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Silverman, Julius

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C.)

  Lambie, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Small, William

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Arthur

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lawson, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Leonard, Dick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael (Fulham)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Strang, Gavin

  Dribeg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Swain, Thomas

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Tinn, James

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Tomney, Frank

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Torney, Tom

  English, Michael

  Mackie, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Evans, Fred

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wallace, George

  Foot, Michael

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

  Watkins, David

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Weitzman, David

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mendelson, John

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitlock, William

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Millan, Bruce

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Ginsburg, David

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Golding, John

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Grant, George (MOrpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Hamling, William

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  778

  779

  Division No. 206.]

  AYES

  [1.21 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marten, Neil

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Gardner, Edward

  Mather, Carol

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maude, Angus

  Astor, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Goodhew, Victor

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Batsford, Brian

  Gorst, John

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gower, Raymond

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bell, Ronald

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Moate, Roger

  Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

  Gray, Hamish

  Molyneaux, James

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Green, Alan

  Money, Ernie

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Biffen, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Blaker, Peter

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mudd, David

  Body, Richard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Murton, Oscar

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Neave, Airey

  Bowden, Andrew

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Normanton, Tom

  Braine, Bernard

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nott, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Havers, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brewis, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Osborn, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Buck, Antony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Percival, Ian

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holland, Philip

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Channon, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Pounder, Rafton

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  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

  Raison, Timothy

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Clegg, Walter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Redmond, Robert

  Cockeram, Eric

  James, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Coombs, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Cordle, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Costain, A. P.

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Critchley, Julian

  Kershaw, Anthony

  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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kirk, Peter

  Royle, Anthony

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

  Kitson, Timothy

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dean, Paul

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Knox, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Dixon, Piers

  Lane, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Langford_Holt, Sir John

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

  Drayson, G. B.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Simeon, Charles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

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

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longden, Gilbert

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

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

  Loveridge, John

  Soref, Harold

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Spence, John

  Farr, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stainton, Keith

  Fell, Anthony

  McLaren, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fidler, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stokes, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maddan, Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fowler, Norman

  Martel, David

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fox, Marcus

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  780

  781

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Wilkinson, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Waddington, David

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Temple, John M.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Woodnutt, Mark

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

  Wall, Patrick

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Tilney, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Younger, Hon. George

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Warren, Kenneth

  Trew, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Turton, Rt, Hn. R. H.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Fetcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Allen, Scholefield

  Foley, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Barnes, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan, Robert

  Barnett, Joel

  Garrett, W. E.

  McMillian, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ginsburg, David

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Golding, John

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Milian, Bruce

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hamling, William

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hardy, Peter

  Molloy, William

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Harper, Joseph

  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)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Moyle, Roland

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hilton, W. S.

  Murray, Ronald King

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Horam, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Coleman, Donald

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Oram, Bert

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orme, Stanley

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Hunter, Adam

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Janner, Greville

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  John, Brynmor

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Prescott, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Demand, J. D.

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kerr, Russell

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Driberg, Tom

  Kinnock, Nell

  Roper, John

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lambie, David

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Eadle, Alex

  Lawson, George

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Leonard, Dick

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sillars, James

  Ellis, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Julius

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Evans, Fred

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  782

  783

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tomney, Frank

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Torney, Tom

  Whitlock,William

  Stallard, A. W.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wallace, George

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Swain, Thomas

  Watkins, David

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

  Weitzman, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Tinn, James

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Division No. 207.]

  AYES

  [1.32 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jessel, Toby

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jopling, Michael

  Astor, John

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Emery, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Eyre, Reginald

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Farr, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Batsford, Brian

  Fell, Anthony

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Beamish, Cot. Sir Tufton

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kirk, Peter

  Bell, Ronald

  Fidler, Michael

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Bennett,Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Knox, David

  Benyon, W.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lambton, Antony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lane, David

  Biffen, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Legge-Bourke,Sir Harry

  Blaker, Peter

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

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Body, Richard

  Gardner, Edward

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

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Loveridge, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Braine, Bernard

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McLaren, Martin

  Bray, Ronald

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Brewis, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  McMaster, Stanley

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gorst, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gower, Raymond

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gray, Hamish

  Maddan, Martin

  Bryan, Paul

  Green, Alan

  Madel, David

  Buck, Antony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Grylis, Michael

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Burden, F. A.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Marten, Neil

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gurden, Harold

  Mather, Carol

  Channon, Paul

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maude, Angus

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mawby, Ray

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Clegg, Walter

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Havers, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Moate, Roger

  Coombs, Derek

  Heseltine, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hicks, Robert

  Money, Ernie

  Cordle, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hiley, Joseph

  More, Jasper

  Costain, A. P.

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

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Critchley, Julian

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Crouch, David

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Mudd, David

  Curran, Charles

  Hornby, Richard

  Murton, Oscar

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Neave, Airey

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

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Dean, Paul

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Normanton, Tom

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hunt, John

  Nett, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Onslow, Cranley

  Dixon, Piers

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  James, David

  Osborn, John

  784

  785

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  Trew, Peter

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &

  Whitby) Tugendhat, Christopher

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Simeons, Charles

  van Straubenzee, W. R

  Percival, Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  Waddington, David

  Pounder, Rafton

  Soref, Harold

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Speed, Keith

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Spence, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stainton, Keith

  Walters, Dennis

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Redmond, Robert

  Stokes, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Woodhouse, Hn, Christopher

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Temple, John M.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Rost, Peter

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Royle, Anthony

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Scott, Nicholas

  Tilney, James

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Doig, Peter

  Hunter, Adam

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dormand, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Douglas, Dick (Stiriingshire, E.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Driberg, Tom

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Dunn, James A.

  John, Brynmor

  Barnes, Michael

  Dunnett, Jack

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Beaney, Alan

  Edelman, Maurice

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, East)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ellis, Tom

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  English, Michael

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Evans, Fred

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Booth, Albert

  Fernyhough, E.

  Judd, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Foley, Maurice

  Lambie, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Foot, Michael

  Lamond, James

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ford, Ben

  Latham, Arthur

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Forrester, John

  Lawson, George

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Cant, R. B.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Leonard, Dick

  Carmichael, Neil

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm Northfield)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Ginsburg, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brlghtside)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Coleman, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McBride, Nell

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McGuire, Michael

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Cronin, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackle, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hattersley, Roy

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hilton, W. S.

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Horam, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn.Douglas

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Deakins, Eric

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Meacher, Michael

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Ctedwyn (Anglesey)

  Mendelson, John

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Milian, Bruce

  786

  787

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Molloy, William

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Tinn, James

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Torney, Tom

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Moyle, Roland

  Roper, John

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rose, Paul B.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Murray, Ronald King

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ogden, Eric

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wallace, George

  O'Malley, Brian

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Watkins, David

  Oram, Bert

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Weitzman, David

  Orme, Stanley

  Sillars, James

  Wellbeloved, James

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silverman, Julius

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Small, William

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Whitlock, William

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stewart,Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Prescott, John

  Strang, Gavin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Swain, Thomas

  Mr. John Golding.

  Division No. 208.]

  AYES

  [1.53 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cooke, Robert

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Coombs, Derek

  Grylls, Michael

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Cordle, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Astor, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Costain, A. P.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Critchley, Julian

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Crouch, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Curran, Charles

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Balniel, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Batsford, Brian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Beamish, Co. Sir Tufton

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bell, Ronald

  Dean, Paul

  Havers, Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Benyon, W.

  Dixon, Piers

  Heseltine, Michael

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hicks, Robert

  Biffen, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hiley, Joseph

  Blaker, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Edwards Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Body, Richard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Holland, Philip

  Boscawen, Robert

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

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Emery, Peter

  Hornby, Richard

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hornsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricla

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Farr, John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fell, Anthony

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bray, Ronald

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Hunt, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  James, David

  Bruce-Gardyee, J.

  Fowler, Norman

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fox, Marcus

  Jessel, Toby

  Buck, Antony

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

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Jopling, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Gardner, Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Channon, Paul

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Goodhart, Philip

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Kirk, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gorst, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Knox, David

  Clegg, Walter

  Gray, Hamish

  Lambton, Antony

  Cockeram, Eric

  Green, Alan

  Lane, David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  788

  789

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Osborn, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stokes, John

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

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Longden, Gilbert

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Sutcliffe, John

  Loveridge, John

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Tapsell, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Percival, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pounder, Rafton

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Tebbit, Norman

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Temple, John M.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  McNair-Wilson,Patrick (New Forest)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Raison, Timothy

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Madel, David

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tilney, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Redmond, Robert

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Trew, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mather, Carol

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Maude, Angus

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mawby, Ray

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)

  Waddington, David

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wall, Patrick

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

  Rost, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Royle, Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Moate, Roger

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Warren, Kenneth

  Molyneaux, James

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Money, Ernie

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Sharples, Richard

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mudd, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Murton, Oscar

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Neave, Airey

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Soref, Harold

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Normanton, Tom

  Speed, Keith

  Younger, Hn. George

  Nott, John

  Spence, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Onslow Cranley

  Stainton, Keith

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Forrester, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cronin, John

  Freeson, Reginald

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Armstrong, Ernest

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Ashton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Barnes, Michael

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Beaney, Alan

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Deakins, Eric

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hardy, Peter

  Booth, Albert

  Dempsey, James

  Harper, Joseph

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hattersley, Roy

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Driberg, Tom

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Buchan, Norman

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hilton, W. S.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Eadie, Alex

  Horam, John

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshine, W.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Cant, R. B.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Evans, Fred

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Hunter, Adam

  Cohen, stanley

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Janner, Grevilie

  Coleman, Donald

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Concannon, J. D.

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Conlan, Bernard

  Foot, Michael

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ford, Ben

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  790

  791

  John, Brynmor

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Sillars, James

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

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Silverman, Julius

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Molloy, William

  Small, William

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Judd, Frank

  Moyle, Roland

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Mulley, Rt. Hn, Frederick

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Kerr, Russell

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stonehrouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ogden, Eric

  Strang, Gavin

  Lambie, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lamond, James

  O'Malley, Brian

  Swain, Thomas

  Latham, Arthur

  Oram, Bert

  Taverne, Dick

  Lawson, George

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Oswald, Thomas

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Leonard, Dick

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tinn, James

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tomney, Frank

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Torney, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pendry, Tom

  Urwin, T. W.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  McBride, Neil

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Prescott, John

  Wallace, George

  McElhone, Frank

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Watkins, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Weitzman, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Probert, Arthur

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mackie, John

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Whitlock, William

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Willey, Rt. Hn, Frederick

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Wilson, Alexander(Hamilton)

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

  Roper, John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wilson william (coventry,S.)

  Marquand, David

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Mason, Rt Hn Roy

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Mendelson, John

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Mr. John Golding.

  Division No. 209.)

  AYES

  [2.4 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Buck, Antony

  Dykes, Hugh

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Burden, F. A.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter(Carshalton)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

  Astor, John

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

  Emery, Peter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Channon, Paul

  Farr, John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fell, Anthony

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Balniel, Lord

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fidler, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Churchill, W. S.

  Finsherg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Bell, Ronald

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclitfe)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Clegg, Walter

  Fortescue, Tim

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fowler, Norman

  Benyon, W.

  Cooke, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Coombs, Derek

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

  Biffen, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cordle, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Blaker, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Body, Richard

  Critchley, Julian

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Curran, Charles

  Godber, lit. Hn. J. B.

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Goodhart, Philip

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gorst, John

  Braine, Bernard

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Bray, Ronald

  Dean, Paul

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Brewis, John

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gray, Hamish

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Green, Alan

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dixon, Piers

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Grylls, Michael

  Bruce-Cardyne, J.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Bryan, Paul

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Gurden, Harold

  792

  793

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maddan, Martin

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Madel, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Marten, Neil

  Sharples, Richard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mather, Carol

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mawby, Ray

  Simeons, Charles

  Havers, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Hawkins, Paul

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Soref, Harold

  Hicks, Robert

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spence, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

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

  Stainton, Keith

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

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

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Molyneaux, James

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Holland, Philip

  Money, Ernie

  Stokes, John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hamby, Richard

  More, Jasper

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Mudd, David

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hunt, John

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Neave, Airey

  Temple, John M.

  James, David

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Normanton, Tom

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Nott, John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tinley, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Osborn, John

  Trew, Peter

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Kilfedder, James

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  van Straubcnzee, W. R.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Percival, Ian

  Waddington, David

  Kirk, Peter

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Pink, R. Banner

  Walker-Smith, Rt.Hn. Sir Derek

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wall, Patrick

  Knox, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Walters, Dennis

  Lambton, Antony

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Lane, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Warren, Kenneth

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Raison, Timothy

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Lewis, Kennethh (Rutland))

  Redmond, Robert

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Longden, Gilbert

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Loveridge, John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  MacArthur, Ian

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Woodnutt, Mark

  McLaren, Martin

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wy1ie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Younger. Hn. George

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McNair-W ilson, Michael

  Rost, Peter

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Royle, Anthony

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dalyell, Tam

  Allen, Scholefield

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshiro, W.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Cant, R. B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Deakins, Eric

  Barnes, Michael

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Barnett, Joel

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Delargy, H. J.

  Beaney, Alan

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dempsey, James

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cohen, Stanley

  Doig, Peter

  Bishop, E. S.

  Coleman, Donald

  Dormand, J. D.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Booth, Albert

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Cronin, John

  Dunnett, Jack

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

  Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Eadie, Alex

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  794

  795

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lambie, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Ellis, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Probert, Arthur

  English, Michael

  Latham, Arthur

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Evans, Fred

  Lawson, George

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Leonard, Dick

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Foot, Michael

  Loughlin, Charles

  Roper, John

  Ford, Ben

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Forrester, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McBride, Neil

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McCartney, Hugh

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McGuire, Michael

  Sillars, James

  Ginsburg, David

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Silverman, Julius

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackie, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Small, William

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Hardy, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Harper, Joseph

  Marquand, David

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Strang, Gavin

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Meachcr, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mendelson, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Horam, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Tinn, James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Molloy, William

  Tomney, Frank

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hunter, Adam

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Janner, Greville

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wallace, George

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Watkins, David

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Oram, Bert

  White, James(Glasgow, Pollok)

  John, Brynmor

  Orme, Stanley

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Whitlock, William

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Jones, Gwynore (Carmarthen)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Pentland, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Judd, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Mr. John Golding.

  Kerr, Russell

  Prescott, John

  Division No. 210]

  AYES

  [2.14 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Biffen, John

  Buck, Anthony

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Blaker, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Astor, John

  Body, Richard

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Boscawen, Robert

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Channon, Paul

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Chapman, Sydney

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Balniel, Lord

  Braine, Bernard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Batsford, Brian

  Bray, Ronald

  Churchill, W. S.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brewis, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Clegg, Walter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Benyon, W.

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Cooke, Robert

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bryan, Paul

  Coombs, Derek

  796

  797

  Cooper, A. E.

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cordle, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Critchley, Julian

  Jopling, Michael

  Redmond, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Curran, Charles

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kilfedder, James

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dean, Paul

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Dixon, Piers

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Knox, David

  Rost, Peter

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lambton, Antony

  Royle, Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lane, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Scott, Nicholas

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Emery, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sharples, Richard

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Farr, John

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

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fell, Anthony

  Longden, Gilbert

  Simeons, Charles

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Loveridge, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Fidler, Michael

  MacArthur, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McCrindle, R. A.

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

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McLaren, Martin

  Soref, Harold

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Speed, Keith

  Fortescue, Tim

  McMaster, Stanley

  Spence, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Stewart-Smith, D.G. (Belper)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maddan, Martin

  Stokes, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Madel, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sutcliffe, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Marten, Neil

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mather, Carol

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Temple, John M.

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Gray, Hamish

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S).

  Green, Alan

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

  Tilney, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Trew, Peter

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Gurden, Harold

  Money, Ernie

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  More, Jasper

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm

  Waddington, David

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mudd, David

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  Wall, patrick

  Hastings, Stephen

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Walters, Dennis

  Havers, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Heseltine, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Whitelaw, William

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Osborn, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hornby, Richard

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Worsley, Marucs

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Percival, Ian

  Younger, Hon. George

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Hunt, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Barnett, Joel

  Allen, Scholefield

  Atkinson, Norman

  Beaney, Alan

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Barnes, Michael

  Bidwell, Sydney

  798

  799

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Ogden, Eric

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hattersley, Roy

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Buchan, Norman

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pentland, Norman

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Probert, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  John, Brynmor

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roper, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Judd, Frank

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney,C.)

  Lambie, David

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Sillars, James

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Arthur

  Silverman, Julius

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lawson, George

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Small, William

  Dempsey, James

  Leonard, Dick

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Stallard, A. W.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Strang, Gavin

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McElhone, Frank

  Taverne, Dick

  Ellis, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

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

  English, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Evans, Fred

  Mackle,John

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

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Tinn, James

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tomney, Frank

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Urwin, T. W.

  Foley, Maurice

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Foot, Michael

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Wallace, George

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Watkins David

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wellbeloved, James

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mendelson, John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Ginsburg, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Whitlock, William

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Molloy, William

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hardy, Peter

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Harper, Joseph

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. John Golding.

  800

  801

  Division No. 211.]

  AYES

  [2.25 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fox, Marcus

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Marten, Neil

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mather, Carol

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maude, Angus

  Astor, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Goodhart, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Batsford, Brian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mitchell,Lt.-Co1.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gorst, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gower, Raymond

  Moate, Roger

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Molyneaux, James

  Bennet Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gray, Hamish

  Money, Ernie

  Benyon, W.

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Biffen, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Blaker, Peter

  Gurden, Harold

  Mudd, David

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Murton, Oscar

  Body, Richard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neave, Airey

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Normanton, Tom

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nott, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Bray, Ronald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Brewis, John

  Havers, Michael

  Osborn, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hawkins, Paul

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hicks, Robert

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Bryan, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Buck, Antony

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holland, Philip

  Pounder, Rafton

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

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Price, David (Eastlelgh)

  Channon, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Raison, Timothy

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hunt, John

  Redmond, Robert

  Clark, William (Surrey, East)

  Hutchison, Milchael Clark

  Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cockeram, Eric

  James, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Coombs, Derek

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cordle, John

  Jopling, Michael

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Costain, A. P.

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Royle, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Kilfedder, James

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Curran, Charles

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Scott, Nicholas

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Kirk, Peter

  Sharples, Richard

  Dean, Paul

  Kitson, Timothy

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Knigt, Mrs. Jill

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Knox, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Dixon, Piers

  Lambton, Antony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lane, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Drayson, C. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Soref, Harold

  Dykes, Hugh

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Speed, Keith

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Spence, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Stainton, Keith

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Emery, Peter

  Loveridge, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Farr, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stokes, John

  Fell, Anthony

  McLaren, Martin

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fidler, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Tapsell, peter

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Madel, David

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maginnis, John E.

  802

  803

  Temple, John M.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Tilney, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Worsley, Marcus

  Trew, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Younger, Hn. George

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Waddington, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Mr. Walter Glegg.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ford, Ben

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Forrester, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freeson, Reginald

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Ashton, Joe

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Barnes, Michael

  Ginsburg, David

  Marquand, David

  Barnett, Joel

  Golding, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Beaney, Alan

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Meacher, Michael

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mendelson, John

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Millan, Bruce

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Booth, Albert

  Hamling, William

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Molloy, William

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Horam, John

  Murray, Ronald King

  Cant, R. B.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Malley, Brian

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oram, Bert

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Orme, Stanley

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hunter, Adam

  Palmer, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'namp;St.P'cras,S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cronin, John

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pentland, Norman

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Perry, Ernest G.

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

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Prescott, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Dempsey, James

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Doig, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Roper, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Ross, Rt. Hn. william (Kilmarnock)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leonard, Dick

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sillars, James

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Julius

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Ellis, Tom

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Stallard, A. W.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Foley, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Foot, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strang, Gavin

  Mackie, John

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  804

  805

  Swain, Thomas

  Varley, Eric G.

  Whitlock William

  Taverne, Dick

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wallace, George

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Tinn, James

  Weitzman, David

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Wellbeloved, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Torney, Tom

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Urwin, T. W.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Division No. 212.]

  AYES

  [2.36 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kilfedder, James

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Astor, John

  Emery, Peter

  Kirk, Peter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Farr, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fell, Anthony

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knox, David

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fidler, Michael

  Lambton, Antony

  Balniel, Lord

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lane, David

  Batsford, Brian

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bell, Ronald

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

  Fowler, Norman

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fox, Marcus

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

  Benyon, W.

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Loveridge, John

  Biffen, John

  Gardner, Edward

  MacArthur, Ian

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Blaker, Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Body, Richard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McMaster, Stanley

  Boscawen, Robert

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gower, Raymond

  Maddan, Martin

  Braine, Bernard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Madel, David

  Bray, Ronald

  Gray, Hamish

  Maginnis, John E.

  Brewis, John

  Green, Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Marten, Neil

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Mather, Carol

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maude, Angus

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, Ray

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Buck, Antony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Miscampbell, Norman

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Channon, Paul

  Hastings, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Havers, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hawkins, Paul

  Money, Ernie

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heseltine, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hicks, Robert

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Clegg, Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Mudd, David

  Cooke, Robert

  Hiet, James (Southampton, Test)

  Murton, Oscar

  Coombs, Derek

  Holland, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Neave, Airey

  Cordle, John

  Hornby, Richard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Normanton, Tom

  Costain, A. P.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Nott, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Crouch, David

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Curran, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Osborn, John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack

  James, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Dean, Paul

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield W.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Percival, Ian

  Dixon, Piers

  Jopling, Michael

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pounder, Rafton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  806

  807

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Soref, Harold

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Raison, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Spence, John

  Waddington, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Stainton, Keith

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Wall, Patrick

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Walters, Dennis

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stokes, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff,N.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Rost, Peter

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Royle, Anthony

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Temple, John M.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Scott-Hopkins, James

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Sharples, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

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

  Tilney, John

  Younger, Hon. George

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Simeons, Charles

  Trew, Peter

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  John, Brynmor

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dunnett, Jack

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

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Edelman, Maurice

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Barnes, Michael

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Barnett, Joel

  English, Michael

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Evans, Fred

  Judd, Frank

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kerr, Russell

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lambie, David

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Foley, Maurice

  Lamond, James

  Booth, Albert

  Foot, Michael

  Latham, Arthur

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Ford, Ben

  Lawson, George

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

  Forrester, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Leonard, Dick

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Cant, R. B.

  Golding, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McBride, Neil

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McElhone, Frank

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hamling, William

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mackie, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Cronin, John

  Hattersley, Roy

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davidson, Arthur

  Horam, John

  Marquand, David

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mendelson, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hunter, Adam

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Dempsey, James

  Janner, Greville

  Molloy, William

  Doig, Peter

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Dormand, J. D.

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  808

  809

  Moyle, Roland

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Coronwy(Caernarvon)

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

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Tinn, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Tomney, Frank

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Roper, John

  Torney, Tom

  O'Malley, Brian

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Oram, Bert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Orme, Stanley

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Oswald, Thomas

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wallace, George

  Palmer, Arthur

  Sillars, James

  Watkins, David

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Silverman, Julius

  Weitzman, David

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wellbeloved, James

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Small, William

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Pendry, Tom

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Pentland, Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Whitlock, William

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Swain, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Division No. 213.]

  AYES

  [2.47 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Critchley, Julian

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Crouch, David

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Astor, John

  Curran, Charles

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hastings, Stephen

  Awdry, Daniel

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Havers, Michael

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Dean, Paul

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Balniel, Lord

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hicks, Robert

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Dixon, Piers

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Bell, Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Draysorn, G. B.

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

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Benyon, W.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Holland, Philip

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  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

  Blakey, Peter

  Emery, Peter

  Howe, Hon. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Body, Richard

  Farn, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk,N.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fell, Anthony

  Hunt, John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fidler, Michael

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  James, David

  Braine, Bernard

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bray, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jessel, Toby

  Brewis, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fowler, Norman

  Jopling, Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fox, Marcus

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

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

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bryan, Paul

  Gardner, Edward

  Kilfedder, James

  Buck, Antony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Burden, F. A.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Channon, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  Knox, David

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gorst, John

  Lambton, Antony

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gower, Raymond

  Lane, David

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gray, Hamish

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Green, Alan

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Clegg, Walter

  Grylls, Michael

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

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Longden, Gilbert

  Cooke, Robert

  Gurden, Harold

  Loveridge, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Cordle, John

  McLaren, Martin

  810

  811

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  McMaster, Staniey

  Percival, Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Maddan, Martin

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Madel, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maginnis, John E.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Temple, John M.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Marten, Neil

  Raison, Timothy

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

  Mather, Carol

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maude, Angus

  Redmond, Robert

  Tilney, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Trew, Peter

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Mills, Stratton (Beifast, N.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

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

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Waddington, David

  Moate, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Molyneaux, James

  Royle, Anthony

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Money, Ernie

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wall, Patrick

  Montgomery, Fergus

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walters, Dennis

  More, Jasper

  Scott, Nicholas

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Warren, Kenneth

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Sharples, Richard

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mudd, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Murton, Oscar

  Simeon, Charles

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wilkinson, John

  Neave, Airey

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Normanton, Tom

  Soref, Harold

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Nott, John

  Speed, Keith

  Worsley, Marcus

  Onslow, Cranley

  Spence, John

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stainton, Keith

  Younger, Hn. George

  Osborn, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stokes, John

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  Allen, Scholefield

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Golding, John

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Grant, John D. (ISlington, E.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Deakins, Eric

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Barnes, Michael

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hamling, William

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dempsey, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Doig, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Dormand, J. D.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Booth, Albert

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hattersley, Roy

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

  Dunn, James A.

  Heffer, Eric S.

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hilton, W. S.

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Eadie, Alex

  Horam, John

  Buchan, Norman

  Edelman, Maurice

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Cant, R. B.

  English, Michael

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Evans, Fred

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Hunter, Adam

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Janner, Greville

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Foot, Michael

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ford, Ben

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Forrester, John

  John, Brynmor

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Freeson, Reginald

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

  Cronin, John

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Garnett, W. E.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  812

  813

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Molloy, William

  Sillars, James

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silverman, Julius

  Judd, Frank

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Small, William

  Kerr, Russell

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Moyle, Roland

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lambie, David

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lamond, James

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stallard, A. W.

  Latham, Arthur

  Ogden, Eric

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lawson, George

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  O'Malley, Brian

  Strang, Gavin

  Leonard, Dick

  Oram, Bert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Swain, Thomas

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Taverne, Dick

  Lipton, Marcus

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Palmer, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Tinn, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Tomney, Frank

  McBride, Neil

  Pendry, Tom

  Torney, Tom

  McCartney, Hugh

  Pentland, Norman

  Urwin, T. W.

  McElhone, Frank

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Varley, Eric G.

  McGuire, Michael

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Prescott, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mackie, John

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wallace, George

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Watkins, David

  Maclennan, Robert

  Probert, Arthur

  Weitzman, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wellbeleved, James

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfie1d,E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Whitlock, William

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Marquand, David

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Meacher, Michael

  Roper, John

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mendelson, John

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Millan, Bruce

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Division No. 214.]

  AYES

  [2.58 a.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Channon, Paul

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Astor, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fowler, Norman

  Awdry, Daniel

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fox, Marcus

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Clark William (Surrey, E.)

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

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Balniel, Lord

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gardner, Edward

  Batsford, Brian

  Cooke, Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Coombs, Derek

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Cordle, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Benyon, W.

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Critchley, Julian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Biffen, John

  Crouch, David

  Gorst, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Curran, Charles

  Gower, Raymond

  Blaker, Peter

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Gray, Hamish

  Boscawen, Robert

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

  Green, Alan

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dean, Paul

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Grylls, Michael

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Braine, Bernard

  Dixon, Piers

  Gurden, Harold

  Bray, Ronald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Brewis, John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buck, Antony

  Emery, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Eyre, Reginald

  Havers, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Farr, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fell, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  814

  815

  Heseltine, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Simeone, Charles

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

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

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

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

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

  Holland, Philip

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Soref, Harold

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Moate, Roger

  Speed, Keith

  Hornby, Richard

  Molyneaux, James

  Spence, John

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Money, Ern e

  Stainton, Keith

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  More, Jasper

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Be per)

  Howell, Raph (Norfolk, N.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hunt, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stokes, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Mudd, David

  Sutcliffe, John

  James, David

  Murton, Oscar

  Tapsell, Peter

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Jessel, Toby

  Neave, Airey

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

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Jopling, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nott, John

  Tebbit, Norman

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Onslow, Cranley

  Temple, John M.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Kilfedder, James

  Osborn, John

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

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Tilney, John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Kirk, Peter

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Trew, Peter

  Kitson, Timothy

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Percival, Ian

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Knox, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lambton, Antony

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Lane, David

  Pounder, Rafton

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Waddington, David

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wall, Patrick

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

  Raison, Timothy

  Walters, Dennis

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Loveridge, John

  Redmond, Robert

  Warren, Kenneth

  MacArthur, Ian

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McLaren, Martin

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  McMaster, Stanley

  Ridsdale, Julian

  wiggin, Jerry

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wilkinson, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Maddan, Martin

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Madel, David

  Rost, Peter

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maginnis, John E.

  Royle, Anthony

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Marples Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Younger, Hon. George

  Marten, Neil

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Mather, Carol

  Scott, Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Maude, Angus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Mawby, Ray

  Sharples, Richard

  Mr. Walters.

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dempsey, James

  Allen, Scholefield

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Doig, Peter

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire,E.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cocks, Michael (Brihtol, S.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dunn, James A.

  Barnes, Michael

  Concannon, J. D.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Barnett, Joel

  Conlan, Bernard

  Eadie, Alex

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cronin, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Ellis, Tom

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

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

  English, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Evans, Fred

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davidson, Arthur

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

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

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Buchan, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Foley, Maurice

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Deakins, Eric

  Foot, Michael

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Ford, Ben

  Campbell, I.(Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Forrester, John

  Cant, R. B.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  816

  817

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lipton, Marcus

  Probert, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Golding, John

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McBride, Neil

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McElhone, Frank

  Roper, John

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hamling, William

  Mackie, John

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hardy, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Sillars, James

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

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

  Skinner, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Small, William

  Hilton, W. S.

  Marquand, David

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Horam, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Spearing, Nigel

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Meacher, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Millan, Bruce

  Strang, Gavin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Molloy, William

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Janner, Greville

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Tinn, James

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tomney, Frank

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Torney, Tom

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Moyle, Roland

  Urwin, T. W.

  John, Brynmor

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Varley, Eric G.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Wainwright, Edwin

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

  Ogden, Eric

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wallace, George

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Oram, Bert

  Weitzman, David

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

  Orme, Stanley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Whitehead, Philip

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pallok)

  Judd, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange.)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kerr, Russell

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Lamb e, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Lamond, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Lawson, George

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Leonard, Dick

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mr. Donald Coleman.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

SCOTLAND
  Housing
  Housing
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Fife (Concessionary Fares)
  Fife (Concessionary Fares)
  Outstanding Fines (Collection)
  Outstanding Fines (Collection)
  Malnutrition (Deaths)
  Malnutrition (Deaths)
  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospitals
  Dunfermline and West Fife Hospitals
  Glasgow (Housing)
  Glasgow (Housing)
  Factory Closure (Tayside)
  Factory Closure (Tayside)
  Clyde Valley
  Clyde Valley
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Construction Industry (Unemployment)
  Scottish Council for Development and Industry
  Scottish Council for Development and Industry
  Agriculture (Co-operative Production and Marketing)
  Agriculture (Co-operative Production and Marketing)
  Boat Building
  Boat Building
  Micro-Nutrients
  Micro-Nutrients
  Eggs
  Eggs
  Intoxication and Crime
  Intoxication and Crime
  Buildings of Historic or Architectural Merit
  Buildings of Historic or Architectural Merit
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Infringement of Limits)
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Infringement of Limits)
  Edinburgh (Traffic Congestion)
  Edinburgh (Traffic Congestion)
  Cattle (Tuberculin Tests)
  Cattle (Tuberculin Tests)
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Aliment
  Aliment
  West Central Scotland
  West Central Scotland
  Electricity Supply (Price Increase)
  Electricity Supply (Price Increase)
  Transport (Council of Europe Reports)
  Transport (Council of Europe Reports)
  New Towns (Employment)
  New Towns (Employment)
  Fishing Grounds
  Fishing Grounds
  Blind Persons
  Blind Persons
  Road Construction
  Road Construction
  Ports (Facilities)
  Ports (Facilities)
  Home Helps (Edinburgh)
  Home Helps (Edinburgh)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Agriculture (Rating)
  Agriculture (Rating)
  Inshore Fishing Fleet
  Inshore Fishing Fleet
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  School-leaving Age
  School-leaving Age
  Mentally Retarded Children (Schools)
  Mentally Retarded Children (Schools)
  Museums and Art Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Art Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Bull Licensing
  Bull Licensing
  Dornoch Firth (Bridge)
  Dornoch Firth (Bridge)
  New Town Development Corporations (Chairmen)
  New Town Development Corporations (Chairmen)
  Children's Panels (Members' Allowances)
  Children's Panels (Members' Allowances)
  Crofts (Owner-Occupation)
  Crofts (Owner-Occupation)
  DRUGS (ALLEGATIONS)
  DRUGS (ALLEGATIONS)
  LORD ADVOCATE'S DEPARTMENT (SALARIES)
  LORD ADVOCATE'S DEPARTMENT (SALARIES)
  SCOTTISH COURTS OF INQUIRY (PROCEDURE)
  SCOTTISH COURTS OF INQUIRY (PROCEDURE)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Business (Openness)
  Government Business (Openness)
  Ex-Civil Servants (Memoirs)
  Ex-Civil Servants (Memoirs)
  Shorthand Typists
  Shorthand Typists
  Parliamentary Draftsmen
  Parliamentary Draftsmen
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Departmental Staff (Catering)
  Departmental Staff (Catering)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Pay
  Pay
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Concorde
  Concorde
  VC10, Trident and BAC 1–11
  VC10, Trident and BAC 1–11
  RB211
  RB211
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
ENVIRONMENT
  Hunterston (Harbour Development)
  Hunterston (Harbour Development)
  Scottish Bus Group (Concessionary Fares)
  Scottish Bus Group (Concessionary Fares)
  Sir Winston Churchill Statue
  Sir Winston Churchill Statue
  Big Ben (Maintenance)
  Big Ben (Maintenance)
  Rents (London Boroughs)
  Rents (London Boroughs)
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  Court Buildings (Wales)
  Court Buildings (Wales)
  Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park (Cycle Track)
  Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park (Cycle Track)
  Tyneside (New Industry)
  Tyneside (New Industry)
  Tyne (Pollution)
  Tyne (Pollution)
  Black Country
  Black Country
  Industrial Noise (Abatement)
  Industrial Noise (Abatement)
  Economic Planning Councils
  Economic Planning Councils
  Urban Structure Development Plans
  Urban Structure Development Plans
  Advisory Council on Noise
  Advisory Council on Noise
  Swansea (Rates)
  Swansea (Rates)
  Arts and Humanities Centre, Peterlee
  Arts and Humanities Centre, Peterlee
  A19, Sunderland-Sheraton
  A19, Sunderland-Sheraton
  Fair Rents
  Fair Rents
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel Industry (Scotland)
  Steel Industry (Scotland)
  Investment Grants
  Investment Grants
  Scottish Industry (Expansion)
  Scottish Industry (Expansion)
  Aberavon
  Aberavon
  Cramic Engineering Factory, Port Talbot
  Cramic Engineering Factory, Port Talbot
  Sea Beaver
  Sea Beaver
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
  Edinburgh
  Edinburgh
  Horses and Native Ponies (Exports)
  Horses and Native Ponies (Exports)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
  Jobs
  Jobs
  Garages and Servicing of Vehicles (Report)
  Garages and Servicing of Vehicles (Report)
  Inclusive Tour Holidays
  Inclusive Tour Holidays
  Lancashire Cloth (Price Cutting)
  Lancashire Cloth (Price Cutting)
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Surtax Payers (Family Allowance)
  Surtax Payers (Family Allowance)
  Private Industry and Farming (Assistance)
  Private Industry and Farming (Assistance)
  Sheffield (Government Publications)
  Sheffield (Government Publications)
  Children Over Eighteen (Tax Allowance)
  Children Over Eighteen (Tax Allowance)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Earned Income Allowance
  Earned Income Allowance
  Single Women (Dependants' Allowances)
  Single Women (Dependants' Allowances)
  New Town Corporation Property (Purchase)
  New Town Corporation Property (Purchase)
DEFENCE
  Royal Yacht
  Royal Yacht
  Meritorious Service Medal
  Meritorious Service Medal
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons, Scotland (Sheltered Workshops)
  Disabled Persons, Scotland (Sheltered Workshops)
  Post Office Dispute
  Post Office Dispute
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Fiji
  Fiji
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Hot Water Bottles
  Hot Water Bottles
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Central Middlesex Hospitals (Residential Accommodation)
  Central Middlesex Hospitals (Residential Accommodation)
  Handicapped Persons
  Handicapped Persons
WALES
  Lower-Paid Workers
  Lower-Paid Workers
  Free School Milk
  Free School Milk
  Unclassified Roads
  Unclassified Roads

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

POLICE ROLE IN COMMUNITY RELATIONS
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what recent consultations they have had with the Police Federation about the police role in community relations.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Government have had no recent consultations specifically with the Police Federation about the police role in community relations. But this is a matter to which the Police Service attach particular importance; and it follows that many aspects of community relations are the subject of regular discussion and consultation at all levels with police representative bodies.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Police Federation have put out feelers and have been made to feel that they would be smacked down if they initiated consultations in this area? Doe he not think that it would be sensible to initiate consultations with the Police Federation in this field, because they have such a good record?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we are, as I have explained, working very closely with the police forces themselves. There has not been consultation with the Police Federation, but there has been continuing and close consultation with the police forces in all those parts of the country where there is a substantial immigrant community.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Police Federation represent the people who actually have to enforce the laws and deal with the problems of community relations at the grass roots? Is he aware that the police feel that there has been a consistent history of lack of consultation by successive Governments with the people who actually have to enforce the law in this particular field?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I would not accept that. The subject is a very wide one. On particular aspects of community relations—for example, the training of police officers—a Working Party has been set up under Home Office chairmanship on which both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation are represented.

DESALINATION: PROPOSED PILOT PLANT
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 will now provide authority and funds to get practical experience of desalination on a commercial scale in view of the success of the experimental desalination plant at Stockport.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, a substantial Government contribution has already been made to the experimental plant at Stockport. Further expenditure of £1½ million recommended by the Water Resources Board for the construction of a pilot scale plant is under consideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply and say that I am pleased to see that Her Majesty's Government are so fully aware of the desalination experiments in process?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that

1057
there has been considerable delay and there is a need for great urgency to reach a decision in this matter? Will he ask his right honourable friend to reach a decision very soon—and, I hope, a favourable one?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is certainly aware of the urgency. I would not agree that there has been an unnecessary delay, but I can assure my noble friend that there will be an early decision.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government have decided on one pilot scheme to investigate desalination as set out in the Question? Do the Government not agree with me that it would be advisable for there to be more of these schemes in various parts of the country to give us good results?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. I think the next stage in this process is the one which is under consideration now—this particular plant pilot scheme at Ipswich.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, does the noble Lord not remember that it is now nine months since I was sitting in his place and was able to announce that the Government were in the last stages of their consideration of this project and hoped to announce a decision (and that I personally hoped that it would be a favourable one) almost immediately? Can the noble Lord tell the House what has been happening in the last nine months?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in the last nine months a number of schemes and processes which were going forward under the previous Administration have had to be reviewed by the current Administration. There are a number of pressing claims on public expenditure, and the question of which ones should have priority and which should be dropped has had to be considered. A decision on this one has not yet been taken, but it will not be long delayed.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the decison is favourable, noble Lords on this side of the House will be delighted, but that
1058
if it is unfavourable they will want to probe the reasons therefor with extreme thoroughness?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Lord please push the priority for any Government expenditure possible in this field? Is he aware that whether or not the rest of the world need aero-engines from us, some day people are going to need fresh water, and that this is going to be a very important export industry?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that last factor is very much in the mind of my right honourable friend.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that similar pilot projects are going on in countries abroad? Are the Government in touch with the foreign Governments in whose countries experiments are being conducted? Will the Government confirm that they are?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that after nine months gestation there is a reasonable prospect of expecting an answer?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.

HAVERHILL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME
2.36 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the expansion of Haverhill, West Suffolk, is proceeding satisfactorily and can they indicate whether the transfer of business enterprises to the town will continue at a rate that will ensure steady and balanced development.]
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, as with all overspill schemes, the town development scheme at Haverhill is affected by fluctuations in the rate at which new jobs can be created. Firms cannot be compelled to move to expanding towns. Subject to the priority requirements of the assisted areas, however, the Government will do all they can to ensure that

1059
the Haverhill scheme proceeds at a satisfactory pace. I am sure that the Greater London Council and the local authorities concerned have a similar objective
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I should like to ask whether the Government accept an ultimate population target for Haverhill of 30,000. I should also like to ask whether the Minister is aware that at the present time there are nearly 400 newly built houses standing empty at Haverhill; that some of them have been empty, as I am told, for over 18 months, and that they are but part of the 900 houses standing empty in West Suffolk, according to Brigadier Aldous as reported in the Suffolk Free Press on February 18? Does the Minister consider that such a number of empty houses has a reassuring effect on people who have moved from a totally different environment?
Further, is he aware that according to a statement made by the clerk of the Haverhill Urban District Council, reported in the Haverhill Echo on February 18, that at the end of the year, and set against all needs, this would leave a surplus of 259 houses; that is to say, that at the end of the year it is anticipated that there will still be a surplus of 259 houses? I wonder whether I might—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not aware of all those points, but I am aware of the two most relevant; namely, that there are at present 400 empty houses belonging to the G.L.C. at Haverhill and it is likely that there still will be 250 empty at the end of this year; and that is far more than is really necessary. Of course a pool of, say, 100 houses would be desirable in an overspill scheme of this kind. I think the first supplementary question that the noble Lord asked me in that rather long series of questions related to the population that is envisaged. The more precise factor is that the plans approved involve the creation of 4,500 new houses. That is the scheme that is being operated on at the moment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, again I thank the Minister for that further
1060
information. I should like to ask him who is to pay for the cost of these houses while they are standing empty. I should like at the same time to ask him whether he does not agree that the attraction to Haverhill would be greatly enhanced if the lines of communication with neighbouring towns were improved? Does he not think it regrettable that the town was deprived of a railhead some time ago? Anyone depending on public transport wishing to make—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, it is, I think, part of the same question. I am quite prepared to put another supplementary.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think it would be more in accordance with our normal procedure if the noble Lord would put his supplementaries a little more briefly, and perhaps make them rather fewer in number.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think that any but the first of those supplementaries is really relevant to the Question originally on the Order Paper. In answer to the first supplementary question, I can confirm that these houses belong to the G.L.C., and the fact that they are lying empty does impose a considerable financial burden on them.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, is it not a fact that the G.L.C. make this a charge against the housing account, so that the tenants of London are having to pay increased rents because of it?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, my right honourable friend is not responsible for the detailed operation of the G.L.C. housing account.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he does not think that there is urgent need for improvement in the lines of communication? The bus service is very deficient.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is quite another question. If the noble Lord would like to put a Question down, I would certainly be ready to deal with it.

FENCING OF TRUNK ROADS
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: 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 how many miles of trunk roads in England and Wales, and Scotland, are still unfenced; and whether there are statistics available of the number of accidents caused by animals straying on to such roads.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the information is not readily available. To obtain it would require disproportionate expenditure.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I can hardly thank my noble friend for that Answer. May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will consider entering into talks with the appropriate organisation to find a way acceptable to all parties for fencing these roads, bearing in mind that on occasion "creeps" have to be provided under them for sheep, and also bearing in mind that the animals were there long before these roads became so dangerous?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are always willing to enter into any discussions with any highway authorities who so wish. No significant safety factor has been brought to the notice of the Department. In open country the motorist is warned by notices that animals might stray, and it is up to the motorist to use caution.

GREAT SOUTHERN CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATION (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

THE DEFENCE ESTIMATES
2.44 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1971.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will perhaps have noticed on the list of speakers that I am, with your Lordships leave, proposing to wind up this debate as well as to open it. But I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I made it clear that I shall confine myself on the second occasion only to answering questions which noble Lords have put to me during the course of the debate, and not seek to make another speech or to reserve some part of my comments on the White Paper until the end of the debate.
This is the second White Paper on Defence that I have presented to Parliament in the last five months. Let me make it absolutely clear that, though I am in favour of increased productivity, I do not intend to maintain this rate of production. I might add, in passing, that this year's White Paper is 30 pages shorter' than its predecessors—that is about 25 per cent.—and it costs 7½p less than the 1971) edition. The information in it is as comprehensive, but is more concisely and briefly expressed. Altogether it is another good example of Conservative cost/effectiveness.
The White Paper of last October was designed to set out the Government's objectives in defence policy and the major decisions that we had taken to amend and reverse the defence programme we had inherited. I therefore make no apology for the lack of dramatic surprises in this White Paper—indeed, this is precisely what I intended. In the past six years the Armed Forces have had more than enough of chop and change, withdrawal, retrenchment and reduction. And the aim of the defence policy of the present Administration is one of consolidation and stability: consolidation in the sense that we are making solid progress with putting into effect decisions we have already announced; stability in the sense that, having set their Defence objectives, the Government aim to maintain a stable point in pursuit of them. I hope we shall never return to the situation

1063
where the Services apprehensively wait to see in the White Paper where the axe will next fall.
My Lords, it is of very great importance that we should remain steadfastly on our course and that we should reinforce the confidence of our Armed Forces. For I believe that the situation about us in the world to-day contains much which we should find worrying. I should like to start my remarks by saying why I take this view. There are of course many factors contributing to the prevailing instability of so much of the world. There are the tensions and strains in the Middle East; the continuing conflict and dangerous uncertainties about the future in the Far East; the growing power of China, slowly emerging from its cultural revolution, but also concerned to spread its influence more widely, particularly among the non-aligned countries (of which Tanzania provides perhaps the best example); and the sinister growth of urban terrorism and international lawlessness, with increasing resort to kidnapping and hijacking.
But the largest and most perilous single factor continues to be the military expansion of the Soviet Union. Coming back, as I have done to the defence world after eight years, and now that I have had a few months in office in which to see the position in some detail, I am more and more convinced that the dangers we face are greater and not less. If we look first at the field of strategic nuclear weapons we see that the Russians are aiming at parity with the Americans and are well on the road towards it. It may be argued that because they are so terrible these weapons will never be used by either side. But one does not have to disagree with that hypothesis in order to find the thought of a neck-and-neck nuclear arms race deeply disturbing. The strategic arms limitation talks offer hope of a check on this race; but they also mark a stage of development in the confrontation between the super-Powers which has significant implications for Western Europe.
The European members of NATO can no longer take comfort in the massive superiority in strategic nuclear weapons of the United States. The nuclear guarantee is still there but its credibility will
1064
depend increasingly on the maintenance by NATO of its capacity to deploy well-equipped conventional forces in adequate numbers. It is an essential part of the Soviet Union's policy to improve its conventional as well as its strategic nuclear forces. Over the last five years defence and defence-related expenditure of the Soviet Union has risen in real terms by about 6 per cent. a year, on average; and of this expenditure about half has been devoted to conventional forces.
Relative force capabilities are difficult to assess in a definitive way: but there can be no argument that the Warsaw Pact is numerically superior to NATO in several important areas, notably tanks and tactical aircraft. In NATO'S central region there are at present more than 60 Warsaw Pact divisions confronting about 23 divisions, or their equivalent, on the NATO side, and 3,500 Warsaw Pact tactical aircraft confronting 1,500 on the NATO side. The NATO forces provide a critically thin coverage over an 800 mile front, bearing in mind that the initiative would lie with the aggressor in choosing its point of attack, and that NATO is committed to a forward defence to avoid loss of territory.
In recent years NATO has become more and more aware of the threat to the flanks of the Alliance where both in the North and the South the NATO area has a common border with the Soviet Union. The most striking growth in recent Soviet activity has been in the Mediterranean. Five years ago the maximum number of Soviet naval vessels was 5 surface ships, 5 submarines and 10 auxiliaries. In 1970, on the latest assessment, this had risen to 30 surface ships—that is, warships—10 submarines and 25 auxiliaries. These forces have been deployed throughout the Mediterranean.
But it is not sufficient for NATO to extend its military concern merely from the central region to the flanks. The world-wide and increasing manifestations of Soviet military power compel the Alliance to take an even broader view. The Soviet activities are political as well as military: but a major factor has been the emergence of the Soviet Navy as a global force. The Soviet Fleet is now second in size only to that of the United States. Its outstanding features are the very large and modern submarine element (including about 70

1065
boats which have been built in the last five years), the sophisticated missile armament of its surface ships (over 25 of which have been built in the same period), and the very large number of intelligence-gathering vessels. The major fleet exercise which the Russians held in early 1970, carried out in the Atlantic and beyond, demonstrated in the fullest sense that the Soviet Navy had reached the status of a global sea Power. Moreover, the Soviet Navy is backed by what is now a huge merchant fleet.
This naval power has recently been extended into the Indian Ocean, where five years ago there were no Soviet vessels at all. In 1970 there were for a period 7 surface warships, at least 4 submarines and 9 auxiliaries. We as a nation, depend so heavily for our livelihood upon the shipping lanes across the Indian Ocean, as well as having such substantial interests around its shores, that we can watch this expansion only with growing concern. In short, my Lords, we are witnessing in many areas of the world, and in particular in the developing and hitherto non-aligned areas, an attempt by the Soviet Union to extend its influence—partly through that classic instrument of an expansionist diplomacy, a growing military presence in the areas concerned and in this case a growing naval presence. And this, a country which has appointed itself the great denouncer of imperialism!
My Lords, the Russians have not achieved this massive build-up of their fleet and their military strength generally without a vast expenditure of money and resources. Bearing in mind all the other heavy burdens which the Soviet economy has to bear they can hardly have gone in for such expenditure without the most careful reasoning. We are entitled to wonder what that reasoning is. They have certainly not been doing it for fun.
My Lords, I have painted a sombre background for our discussion to-day of British defence policy. I believe it is right to do so; for it is no good deluding ourselves that the strategic situation is other than what it is. I am not seeking to rattle any sabers: even less am I trying to justify an imperial role for Britain in the 1970s. My purpose is to set the
1066
current scene realistically, as the Government have had to view it for the purpose of determining how they should shape their own defence policy with the resources they have available. It is a scene of contrast. On the one hand we see a coherent Soviet policy composed of potentially aggressive strands: for example, their apparent intention to station naval units in Cuban waters; the rough tactics they follow in surveillance of Western naval activities; recent attempts to interfere with access in Berlin. On the other hand, we have the Western Alliance, exposed to political divisions which did not exist several years ago and with a downward trend in defence spending; in general unwilling to look outside the narrow confines of the NATO area, and subject to pressure in the social and economic fields which give defence a comparatively low priority in national policies.
In his last Defence White Paper, my predecessor concluded that NATO'S conventional forces at their current level were just sufficient for making sense of the Alliance's strategy of flexibility in response, although there was need for improvements in quality and equipment. This assessment still applies twelve months later, but I should not like to predict that it is a judgment that will remain valid in the years ahead. It will become open to question if the disparity continues between the upward trend in defence expenditure in real terms in the Warsaw Pact countries and the downward trend in the European NATO countries. The onus is on the European members of NATO not only to maintain and improve the present levels of their military contributions, but to prepare for the time—which may, and I think will, be some way off—when they will inevitably have to take over from the United States a bigger share of the common defence burden.
This, then, is the situation in which the Government decided to set the objective of
"resuming, within her resources, a proper share of the responsibility for the preservation of peace and stability in the world".
I shall say something later about that. First, just a word about resources. My Lords, it is obvious that in defence we cannot ignore the question of the resources likely to be available in making

1067
our plans. Of our total defence expenditure in 1971–72, some 52 per cent. goes to provide manpower, 31 per cent. to provide equipment, and 17 per cent. the remaining smaller items (that is, works expenditure and so on). Both the major items, equipment and manpower, are subject to their own pressures: increasing complexity naturally forces up equipment costs. Very broadly, it costs between two and five times as much to re-equip an Army unit now as it did ten years ago, even discounting inflation. At the same time the G.N.P. has risen by only a little over a quarter. Manpower costs also rise, since pay rates, military and civil, must keep pace with their counterparts elsewhere. Of course, we seek higher productivity from our manpower where we can: the White Paper describes some of the areas and the work being done in this field, but that is necessarily limited. However, the scope for offsetting higher manpower costs in this way is, in defence, necessarily limited.
So there are pressures on the Defence Budget from within and without, and we have to try to steer the best middle course between them. I should say, in passing, that it is interesting to compare the course we have chosen with that of our allies. Despite the pressures I have mentioned, 1970 figures show that, whether measured by percentage of G.N.P. taken by defence (in this category the highest country being Portugal) or by defence expenditure per head, our effort is the second highest among the European members of NATO.
I should like now to go on to say something about what is being done to translate into positive action the Government's determination that Britain should assume, within her resources, her proper share of responsibility for preserving peace and stability around the world. As your Lordships can see from the section in Chapter I which I have called "Western Security", the Government have not followed their predecessor's practice of dividing the world into "Europe" and "outside Europe". That, in our view, is an illogical and unrealistic distinction in the light of the global character and the increasing scale of Soviet military expansion. As I have already suggested, we take the view that it is right that a global view should be
1068
taken of the threat and what is required by way of the Western response. In practical terms this means that we must be ready, in association with our allies, to deploy our forces outside Europe, as well as inside Europe, as part of the deterrent to aggression and as a contribution to stability.
We have made clear, both in the Supplementary White Paper and in this one, that NATO remains the first priority of our defence policy. Britain's security rests on the strength of the North Atlantic Alliance, and it is in recognition of this that we commit by far the greater part of our military forces to the Alliance. And, as your Lordships will remember, since this Government took office we have further increased our forces contribution to NATO. These forces are all directly relevant to NATO's most urgent requirements, and in addition they provide a major contribution to the European Defence Improvement Programme which was put together by the Euro Group within NATO at the end of last year. Valued at 1,000 million dollars over the next five years, this Programme will consist of a mixture of force improvements by member countries and an extra contribution to NATO infrastructure funds for two important projects: the NATO Integrated Communications System and the aircraft shelter programme.
As your Lordships will know, following discussions between the British and German Governments, we have now decided to contribute our full proportionate share—which is £32½ million—to the infrastructure part of the programme, which will amount in all to some £175 million over the next five years. That decision has been made possible by the satisfactory progress which has been made in negotiating a new agreement to replace the Anglo-German Offset Agreement due to expire at the end of March. As a result, Britain, in common with other major European countries, is making a very substantial contribution both of Forces and of money to the improvement programme. The European Defence Improvement Programme itself is, I think, an impressive first step towards showing that Europe is prepared to take its own defence seriously. Certainly Mr. Laird, the American Secretary

1069
for Defence, at the Defence Policy Committee in Brussels last December, welcomed it very warmly when he repeated President Nixon's undertaking to maintain and improve United States' forces in Europe and not to reduce them except in the context of reciprocal East/West action, provided that the European allies followed a similar course.
Britain's interests are worldwide, and I have already said that I do not think we can confine ourselves to the NATO area. In this respect, the Government differ from the policy which was pursued by our predecessors. The prime example of that is the establishment of Five-Power defence arrangements in the Malaysian and Singapore area. Our decision to keep British Forces in the area after the end of 1971 was announced in my Supplementary Defence White Paper, and it has been debated both in this House and in another place; and I do not want to repeat what was said on those occasions.
As the White Paper says, the five nations have made good progress towards the establishment of the new defence arrangements. A very useful meeting of senior officials was held in Singapore in January; and a meeting of Ministers will take place on April 15 and 16 in London. I am confident that we shall achieve our objective that Ministers at this meeting should set the seal on the new arrangements, which will then come into force towards the end of the year. The good progress we have made confirms my view of the welcome that was given to our proposals by the other four countries.
The British Jungle Warfare School will become a Malaysian establishment at the end of this year. There will be discussions between Malaysia and her partners about arrangements for our Forces and those of the other nations concerned to train at the School and elsewhere in Malaysia. The great importance of jungle training within the new defence arrangements is fully recognised by all concerned. Senior officials reached agreement on the proposals to be put to Ministers on the political framework for the new defence arrangements; on the establishment of an Air Defence Council, which will be responsible for the functioning of the future integrated air defence system;
1070
and on the outline of future arrangements for regular consultation between the five Governments. Until these proposals have been endorsed by Ministers of the five countries it would not be appropriate for me to give further details, but I think that very satisfactory progress is being made.
Two further new announcements were made in the White Paper, both concerning our Naval Forces: first, that we have decided that these Forces should include a sixth frigate or destroyer, and second, that the Australian Government have decided that the Royal Australian Navy should provide a submarine in the Singapore area for most of the year; and we have agreed to assist by contributing one submarine to the Australian squadron. Just before leaving the subject of the Far East and Forces in that area, I would remind your Lordships that our Forces on the spot will not be our only contribution to the new defence arrangements. From 1972 onwards there will be a very considerable number of visits by other combat units for maritime, jungle and air training, and we believe that that is an important part of our contribution. Lastly on this subject, your Lordship; will have noted the decision to set up an integrated command for British, Australian and New Zealand Forces. While the details of this command have to be finally settled it has Teen agreed that the Joint Force Commander should be at 2-star level and that the post should first be held by an Australian officer. Below him there will be Naval, land and air components, and we have been asked to provide the first land force commander.
As regards the Gulf, your Lordships will know that Sir William Luce has recently undertaken a new round of discussions with the Rulers. The Government are at present considering Sir William Luce's report. I hope that it will be possible to announce the Government's policy decision on the Gulf to your Lordships very soon. In the Indian Ocean we still have national responsibilities. Furthermore, as I suggested earlier, the area is one of great importance to Britain, both because of the trade routes and because of our lines of communication with the Far East: the important staging posts at Gan and Masirah, and the Naval communications station in Mauritius. To these will shortly be

1071
added the small communications facility which, by agreement with the Government, the United States will be building on the island of Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean Territory. This should provide a useful addition to the facilities in the area; and the Royal Navy will be contributing some personnel towards the running of it.
My Lords, I have already spoken of the growing Russian presence in the Indian Ocean and of the concern with which we view it. The signs are clear enough. The Russians are increasing their options in the area at the expense of ourselves and other countries with vital interests there. To allow their presence to go completely unmarked will give them useful political, as well as strategic, benefits; and we must certainly maintain continued vigilance in the area. Our decision to continue to station Naval forces and long-range reconnaissance aircraft in the area after 1971 will enable us to do this; and the continued availability of the Naval facilities at Simonstown will, of course, be of considerable importance in this context.
As regards the supply of arms to South Africa, the Government have explained their legal obligations in the White Paper laid before another place and before your Lordships; and my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced on Monday that we are prepared to issue export licences for Wasp helicopters, should the South African Government wish to purchase them, as well as for certain spare parts. The question of further arms sales is one which we must reserve for consideration in the light of British interests at the time when it arises.
My Lords, sitting in Whitehall and trying to solve the multitude of problems which arrive on one's desk, it is easy to become detached from the human realities of defence and from the Servicemen upon whom the running of the machine depends. It is therefore very refreshing sometimes to be able to get out of Whitehall and to see the Services getting on with their day-to-day work. In the last nine months or so I have made a number of such visits. Service morale is not—and rightly not—a Party political issue. Noble Lords on both sides
1072
of the House have a very real interest in its preservation and, whenever possible, its improvement. But I do believe that the reassurance we have been able to give the Services during our first months in office, after the policy of retrenchment and withdrawal, has meant that they can come to expect some guarantee of stability; and this has been a valuable shot in the arm. It has enhanced their belief in what they are doing and in the significance of their role in the life of the nation.
Your Lordships need only look at Chapter II of the White Paper to see how extensively they have been used over this past year, but I wish to-day to pay particular tribute to the Servicemen in Northern Ireland. I visited that Province at the end of January, and during my stay I was able to visit a number of units and to talk to a number of men who have been undertaking, with great forbearance, what must be one of the most unpleasant tasks the British Army has been called upon to perform. There can be few prospects so utterly depressing and so potentially demoralising as to have to carry out one's duties in the face of intense hostility and provocation from some of one's own countrymen. Our soldiers in Northern Ireland are mainly very young men. As the need for emergency reinforcement has arisen, many of them have been separated from their families at short notice and have had to live in makeshift accommodation during their tours of duty of up to four months in Northern Ireland. For their own safety they have been placed under severe restrictions in their off-duty periods. They have been accused of partiality by members of both communities. They have been confronted by jeering women and stone-throwing children. And in spite of all this they have remained exemplary in their courage, their good humour and their patience and their restraint.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have no qualms whatever about the quality of the men and women in our Armed Forces. But I wish I could say the same about their numerical strength. The manpower situation which the Government inherited is described in some detail in Chapter IV of Cmnd. Paper

1073
4592, the Statement on the Defence Estimates. The previous Government planned to reduce the Forces from a total of 417,000 Servicemen and women in 1967 to 350,000 in 1974. But their calculations left out of account the steep fall in recruiting which accompanied the successive announcements of cuts and which was, in my view, in large measure caused by them. Fortunately for the interests of the country, recruitment has taken an upturn. In the last calendar year, 38,000 male other ranks were recruited, compared with 34,300 in the financial year 1969–70, and the total for the year 1970–71 just ending will be close to the general level which prevailed before the cuts. But there is still a substantial backlog to be made up, and it is important that there should be a further improvement in the coming year. Did the noble Lord wish to interrupt?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, no I did not. I was just shifting a little.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope I am not causing the noble Lord any embarrassment.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like an intervention I wonder whether he would say what is the relationship between the rate of unemployment and recruitment.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think it is very significant. I believe that it marginally affects the rate of recruiting, but if one studies the figures over the years, and even before the war, one finds that it did not have such a large effect on the rate of recruiting as one might expect.
My Lords, some people have dismissed our policy as a policy of general exhortations and pious hopes. But it is not; it is a policy of close attention to detail. We are well aware that we are competing for our recruits in the market place, and we shall not get them unless we can offer them terms which will bear favourable comparison with what they could obtain from other employers. Every aspect of Service conditions must be and is being studied to ensure that, so far as is possible, it is acceptable to the recruit whom we are hoping to attract or to the man or woman already in the Service whom we hope to retain. Whether we
1074
shall be fully successful remains to be seen. Much depends on recruiting and prolongation trends over the next year or so. But I believe our approach to be the right one, and we must now give it time to prove itself.
In passing, I should like to mention a valuable and sometimes overlooked source of manpower; namely, the Cadet Forces. It is estimated that between 17 and 20 per cent. of recruits to the three Services are former cadets, and because of the valuable link they provide between the Services and civilian society we are very much alive to their needs. Your Lordships will be aware from the Statement on the Defence Estimates that, with one exception, we have accepted the recommendations of the Committee which carried out a wide-ranging examination of the Army Cadet Force. But, my Lords, we can take advantage of our all-Regular Forces only if their skill and training, which I believe to be the best in the world, is matched by their equipment. But excellence in the field of equipment is very expensive. As I have already said, the complexity and technical sophistication of modern weapon systems has raised the cost of developing and manufacturing them to daunting proportions, and the greatest care and ingenuity are needed to ensure that the money available for equipment is spent to the best advantage. We shall certainly continue to pay very close attention to that aspect of defence planning.
My Lords, the problem of undertaking major re-equipment projects within limited budgets is not confined to this country. There is a strong incentive to share the costs of development and production of a weapons system with one or more Allies who have a similar operational requirement. In this context I would say—and noble Lords will probably expect me to say—something about the effect of the collapse of Rolls-Royce on collaboration with our Allies. We have already debated the general issues, and the intentions of the Government are clear. We are determined that there shall be no interruption of work in progress and that all defence contracts, including those related to collaborative projects, shall continue unchecked. Our partners know this, and I appreciate their ready acceptance of our assurances. I have no

1075
doubt that their confidence will be reinforced by the names of the directors of the new company which my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation Supply announced yesterday.
My Lords, I have spoken for long enough. I have tried to give you a picture—not, I fear, a very cheerful one—of how I see the world to-day, and to outline the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government. And in presenting to your Lordships the Statement on the Defence Estimates I have tried to give some account of my stewardship as Secretary of State during the past nine months. As I hope I have made clear, we are faced with numerous problems, not least the restraints of money and manpower within which we are obliged to work. But I think the Government can take credit for what they have done since last June: in improving our contribution to NATO: in enabling Britain to take a proper share in the maintenance of stability and of peace in the world generally; in increasing the size of our reserve forces, and in making it clear that in our view defence is something which is both respectable and important. My Lords, I believe that we have made a good start, and that is the way we shall continue. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1971.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the manner in which he has introduced his Motion this afternoon. Your Lordships' House has always taken a keen interest in defence, and defence debates are one of the occasions when noble Lords, particularly on the other side of the House, are able to remember some of their own experiences in the Services and try to seek to relate them to modern conditions. The fact that we have the Secretary of State in your Lordships' House is clearly our gain. On the other hand, I think it is fair to point out that where we gain the House of Commons loses, and they are, in the end, the paymasters and the senior House in terms of decision making.
Defence policy, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, clearly illustrated this afternoon, is a mixture of diplomacy,
1076
foreign affairs and the provision of forces. It is perhaps well to remind ourselves that defence forces broadly have three roles: first, there is the defence of the country and the protection of British interests overseas; secondly, the final fallback in an internal security position, maintaining law and order where the civil power is unable to do so; and, thirdly, the assistance given where there has been a natural disaster. There is another role, but not perhaps so well publicised, and that is rendering assistance to developing countries. I have specially in mind the services the Royal Engineers have given in Anguilla and in Thailand. In one respect I am glad to see that the force in Anguilla is being reduced. On the other hand, I cannot help but feel sorry that the amount of good the Royal Engineers are doing in Anguilla clearly will have to be less. I hope that the Secretary of State will always be anxious to see that where Royal Engineers can be made available they are made available in this type of work. The amount of good will the Royal Engineers have earned for this country overseas is truly remarkable.
In the past few weeks there have been a number of questions expressing deep concern at the position in Ulster. If one considers the long and tragic history of Ireland, one realises that the presence and the role of the Armed Forces in assisting the Civil Power could never have been an easy one. For us in England, so long free from the need for the Armed Services to assist the Civil Power except in time of natural disaster, the sight of soldiers patrolling the streets there in full battledress and carrying out house to house searches was most depressing. I have no doubt that the Labour Government were right to send troops into Northern Ireland, and I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that they must remain as long as they are needed. We on this side of the House wish to express our full confidence in the military leadership and the Forces as a whole and our belief that, despite provocation, intimidation and insult by a very small minority in Northern Ireland, they will remain compassionate and restrained in any action they may be called upon to make.
I have spoken of long memories, but how tragic that memories can also be so short! Would those who criticise

1077
our Forces in Northern Ireland remember the services rendered to the community during the floods of 1970, not only in Northern Ireland but in Pakistan, the relief work in Jordan, and again the floods in Malaysia? On any occasion when disaster strikes and the Forces are called upon to help they act with speed and efficiency, but, above all else, with compassion. Let us remember that these men are those who patrol the streets of Northern Ireland and search the houses; they are the same men, and the task they are called upon to undertake is deeply repugnant to them. Let us remember that the soldiers cannot solve the problems that underlie the situation; only the leaders of the communities in Northern Ireland, working together, can bring peace to Belfast. How that is achieved is not for to-day's debate; but let us be clear that any failure will not lie at the door of the Forces. They are there to buy time. It will be the political and religious leaders on whom the responsibilty will fall.
My Lords, we can look at the Statement on Defence from two points of view: first, what is the underlying strategy of the policy, and here one impinges on foreign affairs; and, secondly, the way in which the Government provide the manpower and the equipment. The broad thinking of policy by the new Conservative Administration towards the Alliances of NATO, CENTO and SEATO, and towards Singapore and Malaysia, seems to me to be very close to that of the previous Labour Government. In regard to the Gulf, we are still awaiting the Government decision, but here again I strongly suspect that when it is made it will be similar to the decision taken by the previous Labour Government.
The White Paper lays great stress on the continuing threat to Western security by the military growth of the Warsaw Pact countries. To provide for the security of Europe and to improve and increase the military efficiency of NATO forces is the policy that was pursued by the Labour Government. We are glad to see that the Government accept the changes in NATO strategy, for which great credit should be given to Denis Healey. The concept of flexible approach is far more credible than massive retaliation, which was once the policy of past Conservative Governments. Nuclear weapons
1078
still constitute, and will still constitute, a major part of NATO defence, but the flexible approach seeks to extend the period of conventional non-nuclear conflict before the use of nuclear weapons becomes necessary. But such a change depends upon the Alliance providing increased conventional forces. I am not certain whether the Secretary of State himself is satisfied with the progress made by NATO in the provision of conventional forces. Nor do I know whether he is yet entirely satisfied as to how our contribution in the years ahead will be made, bearing in mind the increasing difficulties I suspect the Government will face in providing manpower, and also taking into account the commitments in the Far East.
I have one serious criticism of the White Paper when it discusses Western security. It became very obvious, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the course of his speech. It is the near complete absence of mention of disarmament or the seeking of a détente with the Warsaw Pact countries. It is true there is a paragraph on East/West negotiations. It outlines the difficulties, of which we are all too well aware, but it gives little or no indication how the Government view the future and what their policy will be. This is a serious omission from the first real White Paper on Defence from the new Administration.
The tone and presentation of the White Paper seem to me more directed to satisfying the views of Conservative Back-Benchers and grass roots opinion. It is as though "disarmament" were a dirty word, like "appeasement". Our effort, while maintaining our strength, should be to seek negotiation, the avoidance of war, and, above all else, relief from the burden of armaments. The Labour Government paid special attention to that effort. We were involved in a whole series of peace treaties seeking limitation of weapons. The Government had the privilege the other day of signing the Seabed Test Ban Treaty which was started during the period of the Labour Government. It seems to me that the present Government have not got the right priority. We had a senior Minister at the United Nations. We had a senior Minister responsible for disarmament. I do not criticise the fact that to-day at

1079
the United Nations there is a senior official, but I do question whether a Parliamentary Under-Secretary—a noble Lord for whom we have great respect, but a Minister of that rank—should be speaking for Britain at major disarmament conferences.
We on this side of the House believe that the key to progress in relations between East and West lies in Europe. We think that cautious feelers from one side to the other about the possibility of a multilateral European Security Conference offer us some prospect of a decisive change in the whole situation in Europe. It is vital that no opportunities are missed. NATO must start multilateral contacts with the Warsaw Pact and the neutral countries with a view to holding a European Security Conference before the end of 1971 or early in 1972.
We accept that any initiative has its risks. The White Paper questions whether the Russians are genuinely interested in a resolution of outstanding major problems. But the SALT negotiations are probably the most important and serious East/West negotiations that have ever taken place. There is a real impression that both America and the Soviet are deeply serious in seeking agreement on the limitation of strategic arms. If there is an initial or even a limited agreement, I strongly believe that these talks will be part of a continuing process, broadening in scope and deepening in penetration with each success. Such a rapprochement must be matched with one between Western and Eastern Europe. For this reason we must seek ways and means of bringing about a Security Conference. There are still some big differences between the Powers, but they are not incapable of being reconciled. We have already seen the initiative of Herr Willy Brandt with Poland, Eastern Germany and the Soviet Union.
Two things are important: first, that the Conference should be properly arranged and that both sides are fully prepared; and, secondly, that the NATO countries enter with a common policy, since the negotiations should be on a multilateral basis. We should not expect a short Conference. We should accept one clear lesson from SALT in our efforts to secure mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe. We must go into
1080
the talks with a solid position, maintaining our side of the military balance, otherwise we remove any incentive to make reciprocal reductions; and if we do not have confidence in our own security we shall not be prepared to contemplate concessions on our own side. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will not wish to commit the Government on a Security Conference, but we shall be glad to hear his views. However, I hope that he will confirm that Her Majesty's Government will continue the initiative of the Labour Government within NATO to prepare the ground, so that if such a Conference is possible the NATO countries will be prepared for a positive response. In brief, we must maintain the guard but be ever ready to seek the course of negotiation, however long and disheartening it may be.
My Lords, while the main commitment lies in Europe, the White Paper expresses the concern of the Government about the growing presence of Soviet naval forces in the Indian Ocean—and this was very much a part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The White Paper stresses the threat in defence terms and the political implications on countries surrounding the Indian Ocean, and the possible consequences to our trade routes. But it must seem strange to the Government that only they and their Benches behind them believe that a major threat is involved. The credibility of the Government's case or argument is severely weakened by the suspicion, held not only in this country but also among our allies, that the reason is not military or naval necessity but the provision of an excuse for selling arms to South Africa.
The truth is that noble Lords opposite have always been consistent in their policy of supplying arms to South Africa. In the early days, in 1964, it was put in terms of trade: that if we did not supply arms it would grievously affect our trade—and this despite the fact that our trade expanded. Then came the Simonstown Agreement. This, too, was called in aid. Then, in the last twelve months or so, the reason advanced was the military or political threat in the Indian Ocean.
Let us assume that there is a military threat, my Lords. Is it really

1081
conceivable that a confrontation in the Indian Ocean would arise which had no bearing or effect on NATO or SEATO, and that in the end the United States would not be directly involved? If this threat were to occur, all the allies would be involved, and any contribution that the South Africans could make as a consequence of our arms supply would be like a fleabite on an elephant. And if there is a political threat, do noble Lords really believe that the presence of Soviet ships in the Indian Ocean will force independent countries which have recently emerged from one form of colonialism readily and easily to assume another? Let us assume for a moment that such a possibility exists. Do noble Lords opposite believe that British ships, supported by South African ships, would stop it? It may be said that South African ships are not involved; but in the eyes of Asia and Africa they will be, when Her Majesty's Government have recommenced the supply of arms to South Africa contrary to the United Nations resolution.
If there is a struggle—as there is between the Chinese, the Soviet and the West to win the hearts and minds of the countries and peoples of Asia and Africa, the outcome will not be through military pressure. If the squalor and hunger of Africa and Asia bring forth local Communist Parties no force of arms will stop that. The struggle will be won by raising the standards of the people through the outpouring of overseas aid, in greater volume than in the past, by the richer nations. This will take time. Of course these countries will take aid from China and from the Soviet—and who can blame them, when the West cannot supply that aid? Are they any different from ourselves when we welcomed the Soviet with open arms as an ally against Hitler Germany? Aid is important, my Lords. In order to win the struggle for the hearts and minds of Africa and Asia we must show that our way and our standards are better than the Communist or the Soviet or Chinese way.
If that is the situation, then the dominant issue of our time, of race and colour, has to be faced, and the issue of South Africa is the centre of the problem. I accept, and would never challenge, Lord Carrington's abhorrence of apartheid in
1082
South Africa. I think it is a good thing for a politician once in a while to place himself in the shoes of the other man. I ask noble Lords opposite to put themselves in the place of a black man in Africa. I ask them: would you view the supply of arms to South Africa as anything but support for the South African Government and their policies? And if you were a South African, would you not react as the South African Parliament and Press did and regard the announcement about recommencing the supply of arms as a diplomatic triumph for the South African Government? The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has announced the supply of seven Wasp helicopters. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, whether they are being supplied under the undertaking given by the Prime Minister that they will not be used for internal security purposes?
My Lords, what is not resolved is the continued supply of arms to South Africa over and above what the British Government feel they must supply under the Simonstown Agreement. I do not know what is the reaction to the Secretary of State's Statement about the supply of helicopters; but the continued supply over and above this will have a profound effect not only in the Indian Ocean but throughout the world, and not only in terms of trade but also in the political balance. I would ask the Government, even at this late hour, to consider and to weigh up again, in purely military and political terms, the dire consequences of their policy against any marginal gain with South Africa.
I am glad to see the progress that is being made on the Five-Power defence talks in Singapore. So far as I know, they will be very similar to those which the Labour Government had in mind. It seems to me that the real difference concerns the provision of soldiers and frigates. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, what will be the position of our soldiers based in Singapore. I understand that a pledge has been given that they will not be used in an internal security role, but I am not certain whether they could be used in the event of (shall we say?) Communist groups that are now in South Thailand coming into Malaya, when one bears in mind that the majority of these terrorists are of Malayan origin. In a legal sense, one could regard that

1083
as internal security. I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me on that. In addition—and I am certain that noble Lords opposite would like to know this—do the Government intend in the next year or so to fulfil the pledge to build a fifth Polaris submarine? It seemed to me that the option quotation given by the noble Lord's Parliamentary Secretary in the other place has created a great deal of doubt.
There are two further points I wish to raise. First, there is the question of manpower. The noble Lord speaks as though he is the first Secretary of State to find a shortage of manpower. Perhaps he may remember the numbers game that noble Lords on this side of the House used to play with him when he was at the Admiralty in the Conservative Government leading up to 1964. I suspect that if it had not been for Northern Ireland he would have inherited a much easier position than did Denis Healey. That is not to say that there is no problem. If one looks at the graph on page 32 the problem, in my view, could get a good deal worse. Certainly the size of the field from which the Services are traditionally recruited is declining.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that on the present figures unemployment does not provide any major boost to recruiting. It is our view that the new pay structure of the Forces introduced by the Labour Government has provided the real incentive, and much of the 1970 improvement in recruitment is as a consequence. But what of the future? The Secretary of State says that improvement will come through restoring the Armed Forces to their rightful place in the life of the nation, and he speaks of confidence. Well, during the lifetime of the Labour Government we had only one Secretary of State, and I think he would be accepted as one of the best that we have had. During the previous Conservative Government I think there were some 10 or 11 in the 13 years. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be better than average, although I must admit that I have some doubts, since I see it gossiped in the newspapers that he is being groomed for the Foreign Office.
1084
The chopping and changing of political heads of a Department can have disastrous consequences to the morale of the Department and the Services. I have no doubt at all that pay, conditions of service and a feeling that there is a real job to do will continue to be the main attraction to Service life. Here, if I may say so, I am glad that the Government have decided to proceed with giving the other ranks the balance of their increases under the military salary arrangements. This was a new and radical approach, and again a great credit to Denis Healey. I should have thought that on this point one or two words from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would have been appreciated.
I now come to the last point. I do not intend to get involved in the murky atmosphere of target figures and long-term costings, for the simple reason that I have no knowledge of what they were, and because the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has not yet published those of the present Administration. It seems that, if one takes the target figures for the four years 1971 to 1975, the present Administration targets are some £100 million higher than those of the Labour Government. This is a large figure in itself, but small when one considers the over-all figure. We have new commitments. There is this £140 million to NATO over 10 years; there is the provision of jet trainers; there is an enlarged Reserve; there will be the cost—or there may be the cost—of the Gulf on top of the forces in Singapore; there is a new ground-to-ground missile, and there is the continuation of the "Ark Royal". I think it is a reasonable guess that over-all this will amount to some £100 million a year.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in November—and I must quote this—that he was bound to say that he could not see how the Labour Government could possibly close the gap without very serious damage to the forces' capability. That is the gap between targets and long term costings. I see from Hansard that Mr. Healey, having refreshed his memory, said in another place that the gap, so far as he was concerned, represented some £100 million. If the gap existed when Mr. Healey left office, it must, therefore, have existed on the day that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, became Secretary of State. In view of his charge, I think

1085
we are entitled to ask how the gap has been closed, if it has been closed, without endangering the forces' capability, while at the same time having accepted even heavier financial commitments. True, we had the decision not to proceed with the C.5 aircraft. I hope the noble Lord will tell us how the gap is being closed; how the economies have been made; and how it is possible, within the ceiling of public expenditure of the Labour Government, that the present Government have been able to increase their commitments.
3.47 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, the principal duty of the Opposition, I have always heard, is to oppose. Therefore, we must naturally keep a very sharp look-out for any weak spots in the Defence Estimates submitted to us now by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for whom, as a person, we nevertheless all have the highest regard, and whose presence as Minister of Defence in this House we, on these Benches at any rate greatly welcome. Most of us too will, I believe, feel that the European convictions of the noble Lord will not allow him to depart substantially from the principle that Britain's main concern is, within NATO, the defence of our Continent, even though he may have political reasons for making it look as if he had at any rate partially reversed the policies of the previous Government in the area known as East of Suez.
As for the defence of Europe within NATO, we must all be happy, I am sure, that there was agreement last December on the document known as "AD 70", which we may note contemplates the use, among other things, in the event of aggression, of the so-called "theatre"—that is what use to be called tactical "—nuclear weapons. If you read it with attention, you will see that that is what the document says. I imagine that the order for the use of these weapons would be given by SACEUR, after having obtained the personal authorisation of the President of the United States. But would SACEUR be able to give this order over the declared objection of any other member, or rather any other major member, of the Alliance? It is, after all, important to be clear in what precise circumstances such weapons would be used. I should therefore be grateful if the Government would answer my two questions, because if the Russians
1086
believe that these weapons may not be used, I am afraid they might very well be tempted to go for what might be called a "nibbling-off" operation somewhere on the flanks of the Alliance—this has been suggested by one noble Lord already today—and to perform this "nibbling-off" operation with conventional weapons only.
It is also highly satisfactory that the United States Government, in the context of the paper known as "AD 70", gave a pledge—and here I quote from paragraph 14 of Chapter I—that:
"Given a similar approach by its allies it would maintain and improve its own forces in Europe and would not reduce them except in the context of reciprocal East-West action."
I imagine that the phrase "a similar approach by its allies" means the action mentioned in the same paragraph which the ten European allies propose to take over the next five years; in other words, that this is all that the United States Administration expects in return for its pledge. But I should be grateful if that, too, could be confirmed. More importantly, however, does the American pledge—as it might appear from the context—relate to the year 1971 only, or is it of longer duration? After all, no Administration can pledge any action on the part of its successor. So is it only for 1971, or is it for some unspecified period? Here, also, I should welcome some precision on the Government's part.
Six years ago I led an assault on the Labour Government's East of Suez defence policy, maintaining that land bases in that area no longer made any sense, and asking for a substantial cut—I think I suggested much too large a cut, but that is neither here nor there—in the funds available for the maintenance of land bases. I had in mind primarily Aden and the Gulf; and I seem to recall that I admitted that, as regards Singapore, we might come to some arrangement for a common defence plan with our Commonwealth colleagues and possibly also with the Americans. We no longer have a base at Aden, and though we shall, it seems, have to wait before knowing whether we shall have any remaining presence in the Gulf, it looks very much—and here I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—as if the correct decision of the Labour

1087
Government to clear out will not be substantially called in question. So far, so good.
But there remains Singapore and the apparent intention to activate staging facilities at Gan and Masirah—little islands in the middle of the ocean—to make use of a naval communications station in Mauritius and to help the Americans to develop what is called "a small facility" at Diego Garcia. As regards Singapore, the proposed arrangements seem on the whole sensible, though I must say it remains a little obscure against whom Malaysia is to be defended. Since our undertaking—which, as has been already mentioned, was a purely consultative one—is only as regards external aggression, we must presumably contemplate the possibility of an attack by all or any of the following countries: Thailand, Burma, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Indonesia—conceivably with the general encouragement of China in the background.
In other words, when the interesting exercise known as "Bersatu Padu"—I am afraid I do not know what that means—referred to in Chapter II, paragraph 65, was held last year, whom were the Royal Marine Commando and the Gurkha Battalion, who acted as "the enemy", meant to represent? I imagine they were supposed vaguely to be "Reds". But—and here I develop the thought of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—might not coping with "Reds" of this sort come near to taking part in the repression of internal rebellion? And it is just this danger of being sucked into a jungle war that continues to worry us slightly in connection with the maintenance of the battalion group.
At the moment, of course, aggression by a neighbouring country seems highly unlikely; and even if some sort of communism should triumph in any of the countries mentioned, is it not probable that an offensive action would be much more likely—as I think the noble Lord Lord Shepherd, said—to take the form of an infiltration of guerrillas into Malaysia and the encouragement of internal subversion generally? Are we to assume that in such circumstances our forces would remain confined to barracks? I must say I find this rather difficult to believe. And, arising out of this point,
1088
what are the "support facilities" mentioned in Chapter I, paragraph 22, which states:
"British, Australian and New Zealand staffs are now planning together for the establishment of support facilities which will so far as practicable be provided on a joint basis."
I should rather like to know what exactly they are, because the word "facilities" can mean anything or practically nothing.
During the last few years the strategic situation East of Suez has admittedly been changed by the arrival of a few Soviet warships, and if these can be based on, say, Aden or Socotra—or even, though I should certainly hope not, on the Seychelles or Mauritius—they might form a potential threat to our communications with the East. They will probably constitute a purely naval threat; the Russians will almost certainly not follow our example of putting land garrisons into the States in which they have these naval facilities. But it is also true that a considerable Russian presence in the Indian Ocean, if it is not countered by an equivalent Western presence, might in certain circumstances have an unfortunate effect in such places as Mogadiscio, Mombasa or Dar-es-Salaam. I do not deny that.
There may, therefore, be a case for another British frigate in the Indian Ocean, though, frankly, I do not quite see why we should not have held over the decision about another frigate until the Eight-Power Commission on the security of maritime trade routes has reported; if, indeed, after the rather unfortunate announcement last Monday, it ever manages to operate. Here we come up against the whole vexed question of arms for South Africa; and here may I just say that not only do I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but that, although we know that all political Parties are divided on many issues, this is an issue on which the Liberal Party, at any rate, is absolutely united. We think that even if there were a strategic reason for sending arms to South Africa, which we doubt, the arguments that any such action could be counter-productive are overwhelming. But no doubt we shall debate this issue when we come to it.
Generally speaking, I hope that we shall not be unduly alarmed by the arrival of these Soviet warships, which,

1089
as I see it, are primarily designed to show the flag and to keep the Soviet end up in what is obviously a global struggle for communist primacy between Moscow and Peking. If I were the Government I should be much more alarmed at the enormous increase in the Soviet fleet in the Mediterranean, to say nothing of around these Islands and the Western approaches, than I should be about any build-up in the Indian Ocean. And since we can hardly contemplate the possibility of a conventional war—that is to say, a non-nuclear war—between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union—we must assume that our communications with the East will not be cut by a few Russian frigates and submarines in this vast area.
Let us face it, my Lords: if war does come it will be nuclear, and I fear that we should hardly be in a position to bother much about communications with anybody. All our energies would be bent on keeping some small proportion of our population alive. But even assuming per impossibile a conventional or nonnuclear war with the Soviet Union, would it not be evident that the blockade, whether of our oil or of our other supplies, would be exercised chiefly around these Islands, in the North Atlantic and the Western approaches, in which area would be assembled the whole great fleet of Soviet nuclear-powered submarines, based on the White Sea and even, if we were unlucky, on the Baltic? And since the giant tankers bringing the oil to our waters from the Gulf would be largely owned by countries other than Britain, would it not also be obvious that if the Soviet blockade were to be effective, or even if it were to be attempted, it would have to be generalised; in other words, that in such circumstances the Soviet Union would also be at war not only with America but with a great many of the countries in Western Europe and probably also with Japan?
No doubt all these possibilities have been worked out in the Ministry of Defence in war games based on computerised information. At least, I sincerely hope so. And I can only imagine that the conclusion reached is, broadly speaking, that war, if it ever did come, would be the final absurdity and would make absolutely no sense at all on the one side or the other. But, my Lords,
1090
if it really is necessary for us to increase our own Naval presence in the Indian Ocean (and I have said that I recognise that possibly another frigate might be desirable: it may be, for instance, that we fear instinctively that there might be an unheralded attack by the Soviet Union on our small force at Singapore), must we not ask ourselves whether the interests of the Free World are really best served by a continuing blockade of Beira, which does not on the face of it seem to be having any very serious effect on the rebel Government of Rhodesia?
My Lords, it is not that I or any member of the Liberal Party desires in any way to encourage Mr. Smith or do anything which would maintain him in power. If it can be shown that the blockade really does have an effect, then we should be unanimous in wishing to continue it—of course we should. But would the Government just remind us of how many British Naval vessels are now engaged on these duties, and say whether, if by any chance it were possible to relieve them of these duties, it would really be necessary to send another British frigate to the Indian Ocean at all? In any case, if the blockade were lifted—and, as I say, it would be lifted only in circumstances which would not aid Mr. Smith—might we not be able to persuade the Portuguese to give a binding undertaking that they would not send oil through Beira, through the pipeline or by other means, up into Rhodesia? I should have thought that a certain effort might have been made to persuade the Portuguese to agree, and that we might then lift the blockade.
My Lords, I have one final slight apprehension about our defence policy East of Suez; and I have given expression to it before. It is this. If things get really tense in that area and a warlike situation develops, more especially if one develops in which the super-Powers may be thought to be involved, is it certain that our air communications with Malaysia, on which we depend for reinforcing our defence contingent in accordance with our announced plan, could be maintained over a potentially hostile and, on the best assumption, neutral North Africa and Middle East? In other words, would the promised reinforcements ever be likely to arrive?
It may be said, I suppose, that Turkey would always grant us over-flying rights.

1091
I suppose they would. But could we always rely on Iran and on the Sudan so doing? I wonder. If they did not, I would ask the Government this question—it is not entirely a hypothetical question. How would they propose to reinforce any troops in Singapore? Perhaps the Government will let us know what they think would happen in those circumstances. Hardly by sending them by sea through the Suez Canal, even if the latter is ever open to military traffic. It is for this reason that I have always thought it might be in our interest (and I remember saying this in this House five or six years ago now) at least to arrange for a supplementary West-about system of air reinforcement which could be put into operation at short notice if required. Would not this be at least a wise precaution? And, in any case, should not certain supplies and stores be accumulated in, say, Darwin and in Northern Australia, just in case they were needed for use, not solely in Singapore, but perhaps elsewhere in the region where trouble might be expected?
My Lords, one final question. Somewhere in the Statement the Government say that British support for CENTO and SEATO Will continue. Now CENTO has presumably a useful role to play, if only because it is important for us to maintain direct military contact with Turkey, even though Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Alliance, and also of course with Iran, which is becoming more and more the dominant Power in the Persian Gulf. SEATO, however, does seem to be rather a shadow organisation in which the French, and even the Pakistanis, play absolutely no part—or so I am told. And how active the Filipinos are, I should not like to say.
As for ourselves, I observe from Appendix (VI) of the Estimates that our total representation in SEATO is now down to ten persons—presumably two or three junior officers and one or two clerks. Is it therefore really worth while pretending that something exists when it has effectively ceased to be? And might it not therefore be preferable for us to follow the French example and, without announcing it, not take any further part? After all, why should we run even what is a slight risk of being involved in local wars if we simply are not prepared to put
1092
our backs into the organisation? Of course, if the Government can tell me that our ten men do perform a valuable function in return for the £39,000 that they cost the taxpayer, I will take their word for it.
My Lords, it will be seen that we on these Benches do not have any fundamental objection to the Statement on Defence as such. In default of some disarmament or some mutual reduction of forces in Europe—and here may I say that I share entirely the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that greater emphasis might have been placed in the Defence Paper on the tremendous and overshadowing talks known as SALT—it is obvious that, apart from this criticism, we can proceed only on the broad lines suggested by the Minister of Defence. I myself have always believed that if only we could form some European political and defence community within the Western Alliance in which, apart from the enormous advantage of harmonising our defence policies, we could save a great deal of money by simply standardising our armaments and arranging for reciprocal facilities, it would solve many of our difficulties. I only wish we could do that, and perhaps we are now approaching a moment when these things may be possible.
Even if—which God forbid!—the present negotiations for the extension of the European Economic Community should fail, it would still be necessary—indeed, some people may say it would be even more necessary—for the Western European democracies to streamline their defensive effort. That is surely something which even the most butter-conscious of the anti-Marketeers could appreciate. If, contrary to their present apparent intention, the Americans should begin to withdraw in the next two or three years—and, after all, no Administration, as I said earlier in my speech, can bind its successor—such an effort will indeed be a condition of our survival as a free people. And even if such fell possibilities are regarded as remote, would it not be a good idea to begin to reinsure against them now? Some very sensible recommendations in this respect were made the other day in London by the Parliamentary Council of the European Movement, happily organised by Mr. Duncan Sandys, and I

1093
earnestly hope that these will not, as I am afraid is usually the case with the recommendations of Parliamentary bodies, be put straight into the wastepaper basket, but will be given serious consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
For all these reasons, my Lords, we on these Benches, while congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in whom, I repeat, we have much confidence, are only prepared to give what might be described as a qualified welcome to his Defence Estimates.
4.10 p.m.
LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, I am very conscious of the wealth of military experience to be found in your Lordships' House, and I therefore intervene in to-day's debate with very considerable trepidation. But I trust that your Lordships will allow me briefly to refer to those parts of Her Majesty's Government's defence effort which relate primarily to NATO, of which I have had certain recent experience. In the Supplementary Statement on Defence Policy 1970 issued, I think, in October last year, Her Majesty's Government, under the heading, "Strategic Priority", had this to say:
"The security of Britain rests on the strength of the North Atlantic Alliance. The maintenance and improvement of our military contribution to NATO remains the first priority of defence policy."
In the 1971 Statement on the Defence Estimates which are before your Lord ships this afternoon, it is repeated in these words:
"Britain's basic security continues to depend on the strength of the North Atlantic Alliance."
Had Lord Ismay, first Secretary General of NATO, been alive to-day he would, I am sure, have rejoiced to find 20 years later Her Majesty's Government in such forthright terms re-affirming exactly those principles for which he had fought so hard.
It is difficult in a period of détente, or so-called détente, for the people of this country and the peoples of our allies willingly to accept the burdens and sacrifices required of them in the cause of collective defence. Ideas as to future Soviet intentions may differ. Indeed, as we all know, they do differ. But whatever their future intentions may be, the hard
1094
fact remains, as is pointed out in the Paper before your Lordships this afternoon, that the Russians over the years have steadily and very significantly been increasing their military capabilities, both nuclear and conventional. While we can only guess at future Soviet intentions, their capabilities are all too clear.
These increases in Russian military capability are by no means confined to their land and air forces. The emergence of Russia as a major maritime power poses a threat, a considerable threat, to the naval forces and to the seaborne trade of the West in all the oceans of the world. And in this connectiton, let us not forget that some thirty years ago Germany so very nearly won the battle of the Atlantic—and Germany started the war in 1939 with no more than 73 submarines; whereas to-day the Soviet Union disposes, I believe, some 350 to 400 submarines, of which about a quarter are believed to be nuclear-powered.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, reminded us of Soviet naval expansion in the Mediterranean and he gave the House figures showing the significant increase between their numbers five years ago and to-day. I think that if your Lordships were to look back some ten years, it would be true to say that in the course of a year there might have been an occasional Soviet warship in the Mediterranean on passage between the Black Sea and the Baltic, and that would have been all; whereas in the year 1970, let me remind your Lordships, on any one day the number of Soviet vessels in the Mediterranean was something in the order of 40 and there were sometimes as many as 70. This is the modern equivalent of "gunboat diplomacy".
In the light of increasing Soviet military capabilities it is, I believe, important that the people of this country and of our allies, and particularly the youth of our countries, should learn to realise that in this period of détente while we search—and we are searching in the NATO context—for a just and durable peace with the East, it is essential that NATO'S military capability and its political unity should be maintained. We must negotiate from a position of strength and not from one of weakness. To do otherwise would be the height of folly.

1095
The noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Gladwyn, referred to President Nixon's recent message to the NATO Ministers gathered just before Christmas in Brussels. President Nixon felt able to reassure his partners in NATO that:
"Given a similar approach by her allies,"—
this is the key to the pledge—
"the United States will maintain and improve her own forces in Europe."
This pledge is of the greatest importance, since the withdrawal of any of the very considerable U.S. forces in Europe would leave a gap which European nations might well be unwilling, if not unable, to fill. But this pledge lays a very clear obligation on the European partners in the Alliance; and the response of the European partners to what is described as "AD 70" (Alliance Study on Defence Problem for the 1970s) is, I venture to suggest, of enormous importance.
It seems clear, my Lords, from what is before us in the White Paper and from what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said this afternoon, that the United Kingdom is making every effort to play its full part in the NATO military context. Not only is the percentage of gross national product devoted to defence by this country one of the highest in the Alliance, but we can, I am sure, be proud of the very high quality of the highly-professional forces, land, sea and air, which we are and have been contributing to the common defence effort. So we are, I believe, justified, if we continue our own efforts and—if that is the intention of Her Majesty's Government—if we improve our contribution to NATO, in urging our European partners to contribute in terms of manpower, in terms of money, in terms of equipment and, in particular, in terms of length of conscript service, to the maximum of their economic ability. I suggest that we are justified in urging France once more to integrate her forces with those of her allies in the common defence effort.
But while supporting to the hilt Her Majesty's Government's intention of maintaining and improving our contribution to NATO—and it would be very remiss of me if I did otherwise—there is a role, an important role, that the
1096
presence of British forces can play in other parts of the world, in particular in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf. It is in such areas as these that we, and we alone of the Western nations, can by our continuing military presence play a very important stabilising influence. The more forces that we can maintain in other parts of the world, the greater the contribution they will make not only to our own national economic and political interests but also to the cause of world peace—and, I would add, in parenthesis, also to the cause of army recruiting. So let us maintain and indeed strengthen our military contribution to NATO on which, as the White Paper says, the security of Britain rests. Let us retain in other parts of the world the maximum forces that our economy can support. And, finally, let us continually remind ourselves of what The Defence Estimates rightly describe as:
"The shadow of the present and potential threat of the vast military resources of the Soviet Union."
4.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, it is good that it should fall to an ex-soldier to congratulate a sailor on his maiden speech. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Coleridge. He has only just retired, and although he has been a Member of your Lordships' House he has not spoken because he was a serving sailor, serving as Executive Secretary of NATO, first working under Lord Ismay. It was good to hear, in that clear, naval voice, concise and factual information. May we hear him often again!
My Lords, I must first of all apologise. A long time ago I accepted an invitation to go out to dinner to-night, to a "regimental occasion" down in Kent, and I must be rude and leave you shortly after making this short speech. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has left the Chamber, because when he was talking about noble Lords on this side of the House who "have a go" each year on the Defence Estimates, because they themselves have served, he was wearing a fantastic tie. I do not know whether your Lordships noticed it. It was, in fact, the Hong Kong confrontation tie; Army badges in the front and a white pig—which is what he must have

1097
been known as out there—and yellow running dogs, which is what the Allies were known as out there; and so the noble Lord was wearing a good "regimental tie."
I cannot say that all the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, were happily received by noble Lords on this side of the House, and in particular in this little corner of the Government Back Benches. He said that there were few differences between the Far Eastern policy of the last Government and that of the present Government, and particularly in the Malaysian part of it. He said that the real difference was that this Government were going to provide troops and some frigates. Some difference, my Lords! These are people on the ground and more likely to stop trouble, rather than a promise, and a promise pretty difficult to fulfil. Your Lordships will remember that last exercise, held just before the Election—a ghastly, dismal failure; an attempt to get people out in a hurry to a place that might be in trouble. No, my Lords, there is a real difference between the two policies.
I would refer shortly to the vexed subject of South Africa. Let us at least be clear militarily. Was Simonstown worth keeping? Who kept it during the last six years? Who supplied it with certain things and who continued exercises there? Presumably it was thought right to do so. Is it not still right to do so? Can you make use of a place if it is indefensible? Must its defence be continued? Even Churchill, when we "had a go" in the war, said that he would make friends with the devil to beat the Germans. When we made our alliance with Russia, we did not like what they had done then (and we do not like what they have done since) to Poles, Czechs, Jews and Hungarians. The South African question is not as bad as that. At least let us be honest. Is it right to have that place, or was it right in the last six years? If it is, then we must supply the necessary arms, or new troops and new forces for guarding it.
My Lords, it is good to see from the White Paper that there is a realisation that not only is NATO necessary for the defence of Europe—where so long as forces are kept wars are least likely to occur—but also that we British have a
1098
small but definite role to play in the world. It is our duty to help our Allies and our Commonwealth friends where wars are most likely to occur, in the Middle East; and where they are occurring in the Far East. I will not enlarge upon that because, first, I know that it has been said already; and secondly, it is the duty of a man who has made an apology to speak briefly. But may I go back to that spot at the crossroads of the world—Malta—and make one or two small points about it.
It was good to see that this Government are going to keep one British battalion in Malta. I am not sure whether that is really sufficient. Even with the excellent Malta land forces, I do not think that one British battalion is sufficient to guard Malta and do our duty there; to guard what is now a more dangerous place; to guard the naval facilities which are still used and the Royal Air Force squadrons which are still going to be there; to guard the United States Navy, which is still going to be there, and the NATO Naval Headquarters, which are still there. All that requires something more than the presence of one British battalion. There is danger, and not only from Soviet forces around there. Your Lordships will recall how close it came to Her Majesty's ship "Eagle" being sunk by the Russians in peace-time just off Malta. There are other countries equally dangerous which we have to watch and against which we must be on our guard. Malta is also a centre for intelligence, and a mass of information could be gained from that Island if the proper facilities were provided. In this respect one hopes that the rank of Brigadier will be kept for the Commander of the British Forces in Malta. It has already been reduced from Major-General to Brigadier. One star counts NATO-wise and liaison-wise in the surrounding country. Let us hope that the rank will stay at Brigadier.
In respect of the United Kingdom, my Lords, it is good to see that the Reserve Forces have been given a real boost of 10,000 men, and an extra Yeomanry regiment. If it is possible in the future to increase the number again, I suggest to my noble friend that it is the Yeomanry that should be increased, not necessarily as armoured troops—infantry would do just as well. It does not matter what role

1099
you give them, the Yeomanry will perform it. Above all, the Yeomanry are easy to recruit. There are still many Yeomanry regiments which are officially dead but which are kept going by the voluntary efforts of soldiers and officers, who pay for their camps and for their petrol. Surely that is the kind of spirit that the Government should seek to encourage, and I hope that, if all goes well, one day we shall see the Yeomanry restored. My Lords, this is a White Paper which has given confidence to the Forces. To be honest, there is a new sense of purpose that has been lacking for some time past. I only hope that this sense of purpose produces what it should: recruits to bring back the strength.
4.28 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the most exciting statement made in this debate so far was the declaration that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to the effect that the Liberal Party was united. What relevance that declaration had to defence strategy I was unable to discover. But the OFFICIAL REPORT will be available tomorrow morning and I shall meticulously engage in an analysis of Lord Gladwyn's observations in order to illuminate my mind on that very intricate and recondite subject.
It was refreshing to listen this afternoon, for the first time for several years in the course of one of our innumerable defence debates—in almost all of which I have participated, not only as a Minister of Defence but also as a keen student of defence strategy—to a realistic speech (apart from certain passages to which I shall refer) from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I venture to say that it was a speech of which at any rate 70 per cent. was wholly realistic, and the remainder somewhat contradictory and unduly optimistic. The optimism was hardly consistent with the facts of the situation.
There is, however, one significant omission from the Statement on the Defence Estimates. In the course of one of the defence debates between 1958 and 1963, during a somewhat prolonged period of Conservative administration, reference was made to the inadequacy of conventional power, and to its decline, in contrast to the appearance of nuclear power. Indeed, one of Lord Carrington's predecessors—a notorious predecessor, still
1100
alive and kicking on a variety of subjects, including defence—ventured to make a most remarkable and striking observation on this subject. I venture, with your Lordships' permission, to quote what he said. It was this:
"The West"—
meaning, of course, the NATO Alliance, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred in the course of his realistic speech this afternoon—
"relies for its defence primarily upon the deterrent effect of its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and its capacity to deliver them. The democratic Western nations will never start a war against Russia. But it must be well understood that if Russia were to launch a major attack on them, even with conventional forces only, they would have to hit back with strategic nuclear weapons. In fact, the strategy of NATO is based on the frank recognition that a full-scale Soviet attack cannot be repelled without resort to a massive nuclear bombardment. In that event, the role of the allied defence forces in Europe would be to hold the front for the time needed to allow the effects of the nuclear counter offensive to make themselves felt."
What was meant by "holding back" was the trip-wire, the process of moderate counter-offensive conducted with conventional weapons and conventional manpower, supplemented (although there were qualifications and reservations on this issue) by tactical nuclear weapons.
The noble Lord's speech this afternoon, which I ventured to say (and I mean it) was refreshing and partly realistic, omitted to mention this concept. Indeed, it does not appear anywhere in the Defence Estimates. It has been abandoned; and rightly so. It ought never to have been promoted at any time, because it was precisely the decision of Mr. Sandys on that occasion, sponsored no doubt by a Conservative Cabinet, and backed by the claque on the Conservative Benches (I do not use the term "claque" offensively; I mean those who are expected to follow, or else!) that led to the so-called run-down in conventional forces to which the noble Lord referred. For remember that we had just shaken off the embrace of National Service. During the period of National Service after the war we had something like 800,000 men of all ranks in all Services, and in the Army over 400,000. They had become a bit of a burden. We were unable to find capabilities for them, although we had commitments in all parts of the world—more so than now. But it held up recruitment,

1101
and recruitment has been retarded ever since.
One of my noble friends, when reference was made to the subject of unemployment in relation to recruitment, ventured to observe that when there is unemployment recruitment increases. He is quite wrong. All the records go to show that unemployment makes no impact whatever on recruitment. This question has been studied over and over again, and has been debated on innumerable occasions in the other place, and that fact has never been seriously challenged.
When I come to the question of manpower, what I am concerned with, what your Lordships' House should be concerned with, and what the Government and the Opposition should be concerned with, is recognition that some measure of defence is necessary. It is important to say that because, while there are variations of opinion in Opposition ranks, generally speaking the Labour Party—the Opposition Party in this country, and also on occasion the Government—have taken the line that, because of international tension, and because what has been for many years an obvious threat to our security, some measure of defence is essential.
What is that measure of defence? Let us take a look at NATO. I was myself associated with NATO as Secretary for War and Minister of Defence with the late Ernest Bevin. I recall the Conference in Brussels when there was high tension in Europe and we were faced with the Korean war, in which this country played a prominent part. I myself had the privilege and honour to alert a British Brigade for Korea and to assist in the alerting of a Commonwealth Brigade; and some of our naval vessels operated offshore during the period of the war. In that period of tension we held this Conference in Brussels to consider precisely what the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, is now considering, and must consider; that is, how to step up the strength of NATO, to which we make a contribution.
When we met at Brussels we decided that we must ask for more support from the United States of America. President Truman agreed on one condition: that we increased our strength and made a more effective contribution financially, in
1102
weapons and in manpower. We succeeded in obtaining the services of General Eisenhower, as Supreme Commander in Europe, as a result. An almost similar situation exists now. Let us look at NATO. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right: we are making an effective contribution to NATO in comparison to the contribution made by our Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Let us analyse it for a moment. Take France. France has for many years contracted out. And even in the period when France was in, how often in negotiations did they present us on paper with 15 divisions, and the rest of it, only for it to be discovered that it was a façade and had no reality? Take the case of Belgium and the Netherlands. With great respect to them, and with due consideration of the financial and other difficulties that confront them (in Belgium, for example, the internecine dispute has existed for many years and inevitably affects the behaviour of the country) they have made a contribution that is almost derisory.
Then take Germany. Take the latest decision of Willy Brandt: indeed, the matter is, in a sense, brought into the Defence Estimates. To what do I refer? The Germans have now agreed to be more liberal, more generous on the offset costs—and about time! Let it not be forgotten—and I have in front of me a paragraph from that very reputable newspaper the Daily Telegraph (I do not expect payment for the gratuitous advertisement) of yesterday dealing with this matter of the offset cost arrangements now entered into between the German Government and the United Kingdom Government—that our foreign exchange costs are £147 million. I know that that figure can be broken down in various ways, but the sum is still far too high. But let us deal with it comparatively.
What do the Germans propose? Willy Brandt, quite rightly (and this bears on the speech of my noble friend Lord Shepherd), is prepared to enter into some kind of détente, some arrangement which would lead to greater security for the West and reduce the threat. It is precisely because he is engaged in Ost Politik at the present time, seeking to come to some arrangement, that to some extent he is meeting with success. But it is to some extent only. This is apart

1103
from the situation in Berlin, which remains a problem and will continue to be a problem for some time to come. He is more generous with us for the simple reason that he prefers not to strengthen German defence, and says so in effect.
Anyhow, what is NATO, apart from the United States Forces in Europe? There is the Canadian brigade, which they are talking about taking out. Even some of the American forces may be reduced. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in the course of his speech, said something which has not been taken up by succeeding speakers: that there might be a run down for various reasons. Who can tell what is going to happen? I am not suggesting there will be isolation in the United States, but something approaching that. The result would affect their military behaviour and their response to Western needs. I warn noble Lords on this issue—and it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will concede my point, at any rate to some extent.
So what have we to rely on? It is the nuclear strength of the United States. Why not say so, and, having said so, face the issue realistically? Lord Carrington's disclosure in his narrative this afternoon about Soviet strength is familiar ground. We have been saying it for years. I would venture to put it in a sentence (with great respect to the noble Lord who had to speak at some length on this matter): the Soviet Union has now reached parity with the United States in nuclear strength. Let that not be forgotten. Of course they parade in the Mediterranean, and they reply in The Times with a remarkable article by the former London correspondent of Izvestia, Mr. Ossipov, who wrote: "Why should we not go to the Mediterranean? You go there. Why should we not go to the Indian Ocean? You go there." Of course they have a perfect right to sail in international waters—nobody can deny that.
But what is the game? Mr. Ossipov wrote with such charming simplicity and was so naïve. He said: "We have no ulterior designs on any country. We have no intention of being aggressive—it is the last thing we should think of doing." I suggest that noble Lords read
1104
the article. He wrote that you should forget about Czechoslovakia, for all that the Russians did was to inject tanks and let the population understand: "Either you obey, or else". But, apart from that, they have no ulterior designs. On the other hand, Mr. Ossipov wrote, they had to concern themselves with defence. But against what? Are we proposing to attack Russia? Is the Western alliance proposing to attack Russia? Is the United States, under Mr. Nixon, in a mood to attack Russia? Or is that so, even under any other President? Of course it is not. No, the Russians will penetrate everywhere and get away with it.
For many years I have not believed that Russia intended to engage in aggression in the West, for the simple reason that they secure everything they want without it. Consider the comparative position from a military sense of the NATO alliance alongside the East German strength—not the Soviet strength. I have been there, although not for many years, and for some reason I was permitted to look at the military installations and watch their manpower parading, to talk with Generals and the rest of them, and I conceived the notion that East Germany, from a military point of view, was as strong then as West Germany. I should not be at all surprised if they are stronger now. That is the situation.
In other words, we are up against it. We have to consider whether our defence is adequate. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in his Defence Estimates, made it quite clear that prices are going up. I understand that Mr. Chapman Pincher said in the Daily Express the day before yesterday that if you find in the footnotes, in small print, in the Defence Estimates that prices are going up for defence, then obviously they are going up for other things. Of course they are going up. The noble Lord opposite, in what I understand was a maiden speech, to which I listened with attention, said that the British public must be apprised of this, must understand what we are up against, for they may have to pay for it. Pay what? It is costing £2,500 million at the present time, according to the Defence Estimates. It would cost ten times that amount to match the formidable military strength of the Soviet Union. Even then I doubt whether we

1105
should equal it. It simply cannot be done.
What are we to do? Some of my pacifist friends would say: "In that case, why bother about defence?". But you cannot go to the people of this country and say: "We are going to abandon defence". They will not have it. Even if you say: "Look at what you produced in the Caribbean", it is so derisory. There is Anguilla, or Ulster. Our Army are engaged there in a police role. Or take our presence—just a presence—in the Indian Ocean. Most of that, in my opinion, is derisory. I am not troubled about the proposed gift to South Africa of some Wasp helicopters. It may be morally wrong, but I am not going to enter into that question now. It does not make an impact on our defence strategy, or the world defence strategy. Even an additional submarine is not enough. So what are we to do?
We have to consider whether we should undertake all these worldwide commitments. It is commitments that determine the military situation. We cannot abandon our commitments in Hong Kong, and the Chinese Republic does not want us to do so, for it suits them very well. If we were to do so we should have five battalions available. They would probably not be up to strength—they never are up to strength, in any case. If we did not have this apprehension about trouble in the Indian Ocean, East of Suez, or, alternatively, if the combination of five Governments, of which we form a part, could put up a fight, it would be different. But let us remind ourselves that the Americans have a responsibility in that area. They are part of the so-called ANZAC Pact—Australia, the United States and New Zealand.
What conclusion do we reach? Do we abandon defence? Of course not. I have ventured on more than one occasion to propose to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we should consider the Reserves position. I know some of my colleagues may not agree with this view, but I have the feeling that if we had here a measure of security, based broadly and individually (if I may put it in that fashion) on a vast number of men, and perhaps women, who had been trained and were ready to do occasional training, this would probably provide us
1106
with greater security than anything else. We have to make a stand of some kind. We have to retain NATO. It is weak; it is inadequate. It ought to be strengthened, and our allies should make a greater contribution. We ought to say so; be frank about it, and stand up to them. Well, let us make the best of the situation.
Finally, a word on the matter of disarmament. I listened to my noble friend Lord Shepherd. How often have heard these statements made! For sixty-odd years—you would hardly believe it. My right honourable friend Noel Baker has written innumerable treatises on the subject; became a Nobel Prize Winner on the subject. My noble friend Lord Chalfont was Minister for Disarmament. The father of my noble friend Lord Henderson, as Foreign Secretary, was Minister for Disarmament in my time. Ramsay MacDonald was also a Minister for Disarmament. I even shared in it myself. No, my Lords: that is not going to take a trick. Oh, yes: pass resolutions. Deceive yourselves about the strength of the United Nations and all the rest of it—not that I want to abandon it; we have to have ornaments, even on the mantelpiece sometimes.
There is a possible way out. Noble Lords may think I am indulging in fantastic and exaggerated talk when I make this proposition. There is a possibility—not a probability but a possibility. If the United States of America and the Soviet Union, despite their ideological differences, came together, it would make the greatest impact this world has ever encountered. That is what is needed. We ought to encourage them. I do not want to offend the Soviet Union. We just want to speak frankly to them. We want to encourage the United States to proceed with their talks: let them talk and talk. There is going to be no war in the immediate future, apart from a little bit of trouble here and there which we can tackle. Meanwhile, I say to the Government: carry on with NATO, build up your manpower, and let the people of this country understand that, if they want defence—if they really want defence—they must pay for it.
4.53 p.m.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, because

1107
he has such a racy and pleasant style and we all like listening to him. I should like first of all to apologise to the noble Lord the Minister of Defence because I shall not be here when he winds up, owing to a long-standing engagement. I intend to be brief and to stick to my own part of the world. Just before I rose yesterday to speak on the Roskill debate I received a note from my noble friend Lord George-Brown saying, "Stick to your own part of the world." I could not possibly do that yesterday, when we were talking about a third London Airport, but I will to-day.
Until 1969 the number of troops stationed in Northern Ireland was about 2,000. It was a quiet backwater and, by and large, one seldom saw the Army any more than one does in any other part of the United Kingdom. In August, 1969, the Army was used in aid of the civil power during the serious rioting which took place at that time. Since then its strength has varied between 5,000 and approximately 12,000. It must be stated that, but for that 1969 intervention, a civil war could have broken out. The reverse is also true: that if their numbers were to be reduced to a pre-August, 1969, level then it would be impossible to maintain peace.
I agree with every word written in paragraph 37 of Chapter II, on page 21, of the Statement on the Defence Estimates. The debt which we owe to the Army is quite incalculable. There has perhaps been a certain amount of (shall we say?) euphoria or self-deception in Establishment circles, both in London and in Belfast. The song which is sung is very comforting and goes something like this:
"Every day, and in every way, everything gets better and better."
I wish indeed that that were true, but personally I have my doubts. Too many people in too many places have a vested interest in keeping the pot boiling. Both fame and fortune would vanish if peace were to break out. So the Government would be wise to reckon on the necessity for maintaining a massive military presence for a long time to come. To look no further than this summer, the marching season is now upon us and will continue until the end of August.
1108
Moreover, there are so many ways of keeping the pot boiling. If rioting proves difficult, there is always the possibility of a well-placed bomb; or, alternatively, a little arson to vary the programme. Finally, of course, there are always assassinations, several of which appear to have taken place recently. It would then be realistic to assume that additional military strength must be maintained in the United Kingdom purely for use in Northern Ireland. I am only too conscious of the appalling burden which this imposes on the country; and certainly so far as I am concerned I should like to say. "Thank you very much indeed" to Her Majesty's Government and to the noble Lord, the Minister of Defence.
So, my Lords, my message, very briefly, is: There may be a long, hard slog in front of us. If, as I hope, I am proved wrong, then the troops will always be useful for some unexpected eventuality in some other part of the world. If I may finish on a wider note than the subject about which I have been speaking, may I congratulate the Minister on doing, or certainly appearing to do, so much with so little.
4.58 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I intend to confine myself to two points arising out of our decision not to withdraw East of Suez, and particularly to the deployment of our Forces in the Far East and in the Persian Gulf. I am sorry that the Statement on Defence did not lay greater emphasis on the extraordinarily humanitarian activities carried out by our Forces in the Far East, already referred to by my noble friend Lord Shepherd, especially after the East Pakistan flood disaster last November, and the floods that occurred in West Malaysia in January of this year. It is not always realised that our Forces there constitute no danger to anyone, and can exert a very valuable stabilising influence. But, even more, they can be the means of actually saving human life. This may be fully acknowledged at the time, but, unfortunately, it is all too readily forgotten once the emergency has ended. The resentment against even a benevolent force of occupation seems to break out immediately after its withdrawal. This is particularly so in Vietnam at the present time, and I am afraid it is already

1109
beginning to show signs of developing in Thailand.
I sometimes dread to think how much suffering would have ensued, and how many innocent civilian lives would have been lost, both in Pakistan and in Western Malaysia, had our total withdrawal from East of Suez already been an accomplished fact. Now I take it that the remainder of our defence Forces in the Far East will have to be pivoted on Hong Kong. Our small dockyard there has become an extremely valuable piece of property, facing as it does the mainland of China and being adjacent to the entrance to the new Hong Kong-Kowloon tunnel. Just as Kai Tak airport has had to be extended, so I believe that the dockyard must assume even greater importance in the future, and I would ask the Government to resist at all costs any temptation to dispose of even part of the existing dockyard, or to think of transferring it away from the centre of Hong Kong island. The presence of British naval ships right in the heart of the waterway, in full sight of the hundreds of thousands of tourists who flock to Hong Kong every year, especially from Japan and the United States of America (and this year more than one million are expected), has had an enormous effect in adding to our prestige and drawing attention to the tremendous amount of good we have been able to achieve in that colony.
It is all the more important that the Five Power defence arrangements should be established on an effective basis, so that our advice and experience may be made readily available to all our Commonwealth partners in that region. It is rather sad to think that the British jungle warfare school in Johore is shortly to become a Malaysian establishment, but I suppose that in the nature of things this is inevitable. Anyone who has visited that school must retain the liveliest memories of its quite brilliantly outstanding work. I hope, however, that we shall continue to play an active part in maintaining the stability of the whole of that region of South-East Asia. As the American withdrawal gathers momentum, the nations of that area are looking more and more to Britain for advice and assistance, and it is good to know that our economic help under the
1110
Colombo Plan is to be increased rather than diminished.
I turn now to the Persian Gulf. It was rumoured when I was in the Far East earlier this month that Britain was contemplating a total withdrawal from the Gulf, and I can testify to what an appalling impression this rumour created, certainly in the Press, and in several countries which I visited in the Far East. I should like to ask the Government: how far is this true? I hold no brief whatever for ally of the oil Sheikdoms of the Gulf, any more than I did for the Sheikdoms of Aden when we evacuated that area. I can well understand the harsh conditions and the thankless task facing our troops who have to operate in that part of the world. But are the Government fully aware of the issues at stake?
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked what is the Soviet navy doing in the Indian Ocean at all. What is the reason for its presence in that part of the world? Surely it is not there for fun. My noble friend Lord Shepherd said that the countries bordering on the Indian Ocean are not likely to give up their new-found freedom in exchange for Soviet Communism. All this is very true, but I would submit that the Soviet navy is in the Indian Ocean for one reason, and for one reason only: it is simply heading for the Persian Gulf, waiting for the moment of our withdrawal. And what will happen then? Exactly the same as happened at Aden. There our magnificent scheme for the Federation of Southern Arabia, that brainchild of Whitehall, disappeared overnight when 16 Arab Sheikdoms were overthrown, and Southern Yemen became a new sphere of Soviet influence.
I believe that the word "federation" is anathema to so many countries outside our own Islands. It failed in the Caribbean, it failed in Central Africa, it failed in Aden, and I believe it is bound to fail in the Persian Gulf. What will happen then? We all know that the economy of all the Gulf States is utterly dependant on their export of oil. They may stand out for a higher price, they may cajole or exert pressure they may even threaten to withdraw their supply of oil. But only for a time. Without their sale of oil, we know that they cannot hope to survive. What if we withdraw from the Gulf and these Sheikdoms are overthrown? This is quite conceivable. What if Russia steps

1111
in and exerts her influence on the successor regimes in the Gulf States? What if Russia ever came to exert control over the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf? This, too, is quite within the realms of possibility. Russia does not need the Gulf oil—she herself is an exporter of oil.
I would say only this. If Russia were ever to control the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf, this Statement on the Defence Estimates would not be worth the paper it is printed on. The whole of the economy of this country could conceivably grind to a halt. That is the real significance of the presence of the Russian navy in the Indian Ocean. How far are the Government alive to this danger? I am not by temperament an alarmist—far from it—but there is no excuse whatever for any of us to fail to be realists in this matter. Many of us are awaiting the Government's decision after receiving Sir William Luce's report. I suppose it is too much to hope that this report is likely to be made public on a matter of such extreme gravity, but I wish that the Government would use it as a justification for their future course of action in the Persion Gulf. Can the Government tell us what is the reason for the objections of Iran to our continued presence in the Gulf? Is Iran itself fully alive to the dangers?
What should be the course of action of this Government? I would suggest that it ought to be to increase our naval patrols in the Gulf and, if need be, to increase our naval presence there. I would be reluctant to increase the strength of our military presence there; they have a gruelling enough time as it is, and the increase might be wrongly interpreted. But our naval patrols are constantly engaged in tracking down smugglers in the Gulf; smugglers of gold, pearls and opium. Why not add to the strength of our naval patrols? Why not repeat a little more often our perfectly innocent naval exercises in the Persian Gulf? Surely that would make the Russians more aware of our presence there, and of our determination to maintain our continued presence in the Gulf, if only to protect our vital oil supplies. So I would urge upon the Government to think hard—really hard—and to think again and again and again, before taking
1112
any decision to abandon the oil Sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf to the tender mercies of the Soviet Union.
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I rise to welcome the White Paper as a possible turn in the tide of the affairs of our Armed Forces, of our security at home and the defence of our interests and commitments abroad. To those who say that this White Paper is much like the others, and that there is nothing new in it, I would simply say, as did the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, "Thank God!" If there ever was a time when the Armed Forces wanted a period of stability to settle down and digest the ups and downs of the last six years it must be now; and let us remember that all important decisions were taken and announced in the Supplementary Statement published in October.
But, my Lords, the whole tone of this White Paper is quite different from its predecessor. As the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, has said, it has a sense of balance, and it also deals primarily with men and not with money. This new attitude of mind, I sincerely believe, is a very good start in dealing with the major problem that affects all our three Services to-day, the short-fall in recruitment. Added to that, a period of stability will encourage confidence, and improved Service conditions may well make a Service career more attractive to our young men.
On policy, too, I believe there is a very important change of emphasis. In paragraph 2, the first sentence repeats our previous policy when it says, quite correctly, that our basic security continues to depend on the NATO Alliance. With this statement I am in entire agreement. But I do not wish to-day, particularly in the presence of my noble friend Lord Coleridge, to talk about NATO or the defence of the NATO area. And before I come to the main part of my speech I want to say how much I enjoyed Lord Coleridge's maiden speech, how pleased I am to welcome another sailor into this House. I would remind your Lordships that he has an almost unrivalled knowledge of NATO, so he should bring enormous strength to our counsels, and I hope that we shall hear him frequently again.

1113
The next few sentences after the commitment to NATO are a very considerable change, I believe, from previous Defence White Papers, and, if I may, I will quote them in full:
"But the first of the Government's objectives recognises that British interests and responsibilities are not confined to the NATO area. Britain's political and trading interests are world-wide and they can flourish only in stable conditions. She must be willing, therefore, to play her part, though on a scale appropriate to her resources, in countering threats to stability outside Europe. For British territories overseas, and for those to whom Britain owes a special duty by treaty or otherwise, there is a direct responsibility to provide protection."
It is on this aspect of policy that I should like to comment very briefly.
First a word about South-East Asia. I am quite sure that the concept of the Five-Power defence arrangements is right, and I have two particular reasons for saying this. I have sometimes over the last few years felt slightly ashamed that Australians and New Zealanders, who came to our aid so promptly and with such devastating effect in two world wars, are fighting alongside our American allies in Vietnam while we stand on the sidelines and criticise. The Five-Power arrangements do at least give solid proof of our solidarity with Australia and New Zealand in defence of an area vital to both of us. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was in some doubt as to why we required defence in this area. I believe it is not impossible that after the withdrawal of the American troops from Vietnam there may be a very considerable deterioration in the military situation out there. I can see Cambodia and Laos swallowed up by advancing Communist armies and those armies then advancing further into Thailand. Our small force in Malaya would then find itself on the flank of a major Communist advance, and we might well have to play a very important part in checking that advance before it gets to the frontiers of India.
On the Persian Gulf, I find myself in almost complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Segal, who has just spoken. I believe that our presence there is vital. But I am persuaded, by those who know that part of the world better than I do, that, having committed ourselves to leaving, and having given ourselves a date of departure, it is not wise to reverse this
1114
decision. My hope is that when we do get the final report of policy towards the Persian Gulf we shall hear that arrangements are being made to retain at least minimal naval and air facilities there, and possibly a certain amount of Army on the ground in an advisory or instructional capacity. I believe that our presence there is vital, and perhaps the Navy has the largest part to play in that.
I come to the Indian Ocean and the Cape route. I have spoken in this House on a number of occasions, and sometimes with considerable vehemence, on this subject. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, I find it very hard to follow the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and other noble Lords on the other side, on the subject of arms to South Africa. We were always told, when the last Government were in power, that we could not fight anywhere without allies. Here in a vital strategic place we have an ally able and willing to fight our battles for us and to bear the brunt of keeping open the Cape route, which every single day that passes becomes more vital to us. You really cannot hit a black man over the head with a sophisticated frigate or a mercantile aircraft. We must keep a sense of proportion over this matter.
I turn to the Royal Navy. The present Government, in my opinion, inherited three major weaknesses from the previous Administration. The first was that we had no modern or effective torpedo. The second was that we had no surface-to-surface missile; and, thirdly, when the aircraft carriers, as was then intended, were phased out we had quite inadequate air cover for the Fleet. I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to visit Faslane and was taken over one of our new Fleet submarines. I can assure your Lordships that they are the most magnificent ships, and their seakeeping qualities, both on the surface and submerged, are second to none. But they have no weapon. They are using a torpedo which is completely out of date. My first question to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is to ask whether he can give us any information on the progress of the Mark 24 torpedo, which when I last heard of it was in trouble. I see that to solve the lack of surface-to-surface missile the Government propose to fill the gap with the Anglo-French version of EXOCET. Could

1115
the noble Lord tell me when he hopes to fit the first of these systems into one of Her Majesty's ships?
To bridge the gap until the Navy can procure vertical take-off aircraft, the Government intend to retain "Ark Royal" in commission to the end of the 1970s. I thoroughly approve, and I only wish we could keep on "Eagle" beyond 1972, but I understand the difficulties here. She would require an expensive refit; she has not such a long life as the "Ark Royal". The recruitment for fixed-wing flying for the Navy has ceased and cannot be reopened. Lastly, and perhaps most important of all, to keep "Eagle" in commission might well require paying off two, if not three, frigates. Regretfully, I think that the Government have taken the right decision. In connection with the fixed-wing flying, may I ask the noble Lord whether, when the Fleet is indeed equipped with vertical take-off aircraft, those aircraft will be flown by Naval or by Air Force crews?
Finally, may I end by reminding this House once again of something which is so obvious, but is too often forgotten by politicians and by public alike. The United Kingdom is an advanced and overpopulated nation with insufficient natural resources to ensure survival. We are utterly dependent on the sea and the arrival of our merchant ships. It is the duty of the Royal Navy to ensure that the freedom of the seas is preserved. Any Government of this country which neglects the Fleet does so at its peril.
5.20 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, like the previous speaker, I welcome this Defence White Paper and I propose, after making three small comments on the Paper itself, to concentrate on the strategic side. My first comment is that I notice that finance is to be kept at 5½ per cent. of the gross national product. That is quite understandable, and I only hope that it is not to be reduced. My next comment concerns the Reserves. I am very glad that the role of the Reserves has been restated and that it now includes home defence or the defence of a secure United Kingdom land base, and is also to meet the unexpected. We can now, in my opinion, compare notes with our NATO allies, which we could not previously do. Lastly,
1116
manpower, which everybody is agreed remains the chief difficulty of the Secretary of State. Admittedly, this is a very difficult subject. Incidentally, it is not made any easier, speaking chiefly from the point of view of the Army, by the shuffling of troops between B.A.O.R. in Germany and Northern Ireland. Young men are having to go back for a second time to Northern Ireland. This is not a feature which attracts recruits.
On manpower I have only two suggestions to make. First of all, pay is not necessarily the whole answer; nor is likeness to civilian life. Once you begin to compare the Army, the Navy and the Air Force with civilian life, which is basically office or factory life, then I think you are making a mistake. You can perhaps compare the conditions but not the life itself. I think that the question of manpower is largely one of fashion. Women lower or heighten their skirts because of fashion. With the Army, the Navy and the Air Force it is fashionable to join the Services. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, when he said that this Paper gives one a sense of purpose, in that the Services have turned the corner. I should like to emphasise that particular point and to suggest that we concentrate the recruiting effort especially on those corps which are difficult to get into.
I should like to turn now to the policy on the strategic side of defence. It is only a year ago since the last Administration in their White Paper said:
"We look forward to the 'seventies as an era of negotiation."
In my opinion, it is now more realistic in that the White Paper says:
"… the Soviet Union has shown itself willing to negotiate …".
which is quite a different thing. I can distinctly remember taking part in 1950 in Four-Power Talks in Berlin, which were supposed to regularise and normalise Berlin. We did not get very far. Admittedly, things are better now, but I am not all that optimistic. In fact, I think the Communists are doing quite well in peace time.
I should like to illustrate that point. Peace equals advance in the Communist dialectic. Turning to the nuclear balance, the SALT talks are taking place because of the appalling cost to the two super-Powers of the anti-ballistic missile system.

1117
Even these two super-Powers want to reduce their weapons and so reduce their costs. This balance of nuclear power, which may have prevented World War III from taking place in the last 20 or 25 years, has certainly not stopped serious conventional wars, which are with us and which have been with us continuously; nor does it stop the advance of Communist influence by political methods—here I refer to the White Paper—backed up by "large and modern conventional forces", well described in the section on Western Security.
I agree entirely, and would like to refer to the Middle East as one example. We all know that the Arabs have been quarrelling for thousands of years. They have always been dominated by an outside Power. It has been the Turks, the French or the British, and now it is the Russians. Since we British withdrew 80,000 Army and Royal Air Force troops from the Suez Canal area, and also withdrew the Navy from North and South of the Suez Canal, we have been powerless to prevent war in the Middle East. I supervised on the mainland of the Middle East the evacuation from Akaba of the last 50 British tanks manned by the 10th Hussars. This was not a very pleasant exercise, nor was it very profitable.
Recently, not much has been made of our having to leave Libya. But it is more than an attractive training area, since it provides everything that one needs. It also possesses two first-class airfields in E1 Adam and Wheelers Field. I had to leave the Chamber for a short time, so I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if this matter has already been mentioned. To my mind this is a most important point. The Russians can move into E1 Adam and Wheelers Field at any time they like. If they do that, they will outflank the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean with land-based aircraft. It is an unfortunate fact of life that land-based aircraft have a better performance than carrier-borne aircraft: in other words, even if those U.S. carriers remain operational they will be faced by a land-based air force.
The Russians are not finding the Arabs easy partners; nor will they continue to do so. The fact remains that in 15 years, without firing a shot in anger, they have gained three things in the Middle East: first, they have gained access to the land
1118
bridge from Asia to the Continent of Africa; secondly, they could cut the established British air route to the Far East any time they like; and thirdly, they have now outflanked, or are in a position to outflank, NATO on its Southern flank. All this is in peace time. I personally think that the power vacuum has been filled with a vengeance.
Now may I turn to the Indian Ocean, which has already been referred to by previous speakers. I do not have to emphasise its importance. The White Paper refers to port and airfield facilities which can be exploited. There have already been quite a number of aggravations in the Indian Ocean. First of all, we withdrew from Aden. Aden may not be used very much now but the moment that the Suez Canal is opened it will be used as a small naval base, and as an air base, too. With regard to Bombay, we can no longer rely entirely on a friendly India. The Indian Navy, excellent as it is and based on British traditions, comprises not only ageing British ships, but also two Russian submarines and a Russian escort vessel. So that we cannot be absolutely certain that Bombay will be a friendly harbour. Simonstown is very much in our thoughts at the present time, but from the defence point of view it is absolutely essential. I will say no more than that. Mombasa and Mauritius are two excellent naval harbours and bases, now in the possession of independent Commonwealth countries. Both are friendly at the moment, but we must make quite sure that the Russians do not gain good peaceful relations with them and base facilities.
May I now turn to the Persian Gulf?—and here I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Segal. I should like to point out that if the Government's decision is to withdraw completely from the Gulf (which, incidentally, I was told when I went there last year ought to be called the Arabian Gulf; otherwise, they said, they would drop my letters into it), we lose Bahrain, Dubai, Qatar, Sharjah, Muscat, Masira, and Salalah, all either Navy, Air Force or Army bases.
The recent negotiations over the price of oil, which is ostensibly the reason we stay in the Gulf, represented a commercial transaction: it was bargaining and not affected, I admit, by the large British

1119
domination in the Persian Gulf area. Here I differ slightly from the noble Lord, Lord Segal. The oil is only as important as the way by which it is got out—in other words, by the Indian Ocean. In a war of a general character all the pipelines from the Gulf would be shut and we should have to rely on tankers going round the Cape. The stability of the Gulf area, which incidentally is given its proper place in this White Paper, is very important not only from the oil point of view but also from the Indian Ocean point of view.
In conclusion, I should like to go back to page 1 of the White Paper, which says that if Britain is to take her proper share in the preservation of peace and stability in the world—and most of us agree about that—two things are required. The first is to improve the capabilities of our small Regular Forces and Reserves on a sound financial basis. I am personally quite content to leave that to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Defence, and to his Chiefs of Staff. I think they are making a very good "fist" of that.
The second thing that is needed is to keep our Forces—to put them and to keep them—in the right places. We have seen in the Middle East the results of leaving the area and withdrawing without any disturbance of the peace: the Soviets now dominate the area. We are not making the same mistake in the Far East, in South Asia. Our policy is to stay until the relatively weak countries of Malaysia and Singapore are able to stand on their own feet. Admittedly there is no outside threat at the moment, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, said, the situation in South Asia could easily get very much worse. If the Vietnam war went wrong by any chance, not only Thailand would have to worry, but Singapore and Malaysia as well.
The timing of this is the essential ingredient: the timing of our stay and the fact that we must be asked to stay. Both Labour and Conservative Governments are agreed on this. In other words, my Lords, the present policy on South Asia is much better, because a presence is better than a promise. To my mind, the same argument applies to the Gulf, and indeed to any other small British bases that we still possess, particularly
1120
in the Indian Ocean. If Britain continues to withdraw from important areas we must not be surprised if an unfriendly Power takes our place in peace time. I very much hope that the wish and intention to stay in those places which is expressed in the White Paper will continue.
5.35 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the precise and clear description of the White Paper' given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State. I have listened to most of the debate, except for a short absence of 15 minutes, for which I apologise to the noble Lord who opened and to my noble friends on the Front Bench. I will try not to be provocative, but I must say that I have heard hardly a speech with which I agree. First of all, my noble friend Lord Shinwell seemed to get a great joke out of the failure of disarmament, and there seemed to be slight smiles. I was brought up to believe—perhaps it is old-fashioned—that we should still be trying for it. I am not a very good Christian, but I seem to remember that one Man was crucified when striving for peace some 2,000 years ago; and if people who may be sidesmen and members of churches and chapels feel they can have a slight grin at the faith of our young people in still trying to work for disarmament, and, in a serious debate like this, can pass over a remark that people have been trying to get disarmament for sixty years, then that is not the leadership that should be given to the nation.
Why, then, do the young despair? Why, then, do the young no longer listen to the voices of their Senates and Parliaments throughout the world? Like other noble Lords here, I have trod the footpaths of the world and sailed with some of the sailors on the seven seas. Again, I have heard more crackpot realism here in one hour than in six months anywhere else. It really is crackpot realism. This White Paper seems to have been written in 1910, when we were at the height of a great imperial range of power, when our ships sailed the seven seas. We seem to resent the fact that under-privileged people are now spreading their chests and wanting to govern themselves. But that does not mean that they are not our friends and do not want our help.

1121
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, on the Colombo Plan. That will be much more successful. I heard the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, say he was ashamed because we had not troops fighting in Vietnam, side by side with the New Zealanders and Australians. I am at the present time writing a book about Vietnam, and I have visited the country many times. I remember when General Gracie was in Saigon and we let the French in from Ceylon, although we had orders from over here not to. Noble Lords can read Lord Mountbatten's then secret papars—they are in the Library—on what happened in Saigon and how all the trouble started; how the Japanese prisoners of war were released and armed so that they could bring the French into South Vietnam, whereas Roosevelt—alack!, he died—wanted Indo-China to be neutral. That neutrality is what we should be striving for. But I had better not divert, because I promised to be brief; but there is enough material here to enable a man to speak for three years, if he wanted to go into the subject in depth.
My Lords, I beg of you to look at the White Paper. Let us take the three objectives:
"(1) to enable Britain to resume"—
and these are the operative words—
"within her resources, a proper share of responsibility for the preservation of peace and stability in the world."
I agree 100 per cent. I have heard suggestions that we want new ships, new nuclear capabilities, new points of active contact throughout the world. I then take the third objective, not the second, which is:
"(3) to establish and maintain a sound financial basis on which to develop and carry out defence policy and plans in the year ahead."
Well, we are creeping up to one million unemployed. Better give the postmen their increase in order to get a happier atmosphere in the economic system. The first thing, the base of strategy in getting the right fire-power in the right place at the right time and getting the logistics right, is to have a happy home base.
So far as the Middle East is concerned, why did Russia get success there? I was there when it happened. We were so foolish as to object to Nasser's objec
1122
tive of the Aswan Dam. The United States refused to give the money, so Nasser went to the Soviet Union to get the Aswan Dam built. That is absolutely correct. I do not want to be derogatory, but then we had the stupid Suez war in 1956. I happened to be in Cyprus a little later, and if you had looked at the logistics in Cyprus, and at its viability, you would have seen that we could not mount from Cyprus a procession for a carnival. Cyprus was not a viable point, and every trained military man knew it.
Now we come to a complete change. We saw in a little paragraph in The Times on February 3 that the British Petroleum Company, half owned by the British Government, agreed to refine Russian oil, 150,000 tons of it, in Britain. Nobody said anything about that. For 26 years the oil companies had an embargo on Soviet Union oil; why then bring it in now? The answer is as a pressure point on the Trucial States and the Shah of Iran in the oil struggle. We cannot expect to go on for ever in those areas. On the other hand, we must not break our hearts about it. There was a time when the Lancastrians married wenches in France, and we owned about three-quarters of France; and then we lost it. The English gained Scotland and Wales by trickery; but we lost France. If your Lordships go on at this rate and seek to take Welsh and Scottish soldiers into Vietnam in the name of democracy, Christianity, and peace, then you are living in a fool's paradise. I object completely to the cynical side laughs when my noble friend Lord Shinwell made a remark about the 60 years of effort to get peace, when every day we open this noble place with Prayers.
Finally, I took trouble to study in depth this business of the tactical nuclear weapon. It reaches a qualitative point which is controlled by the quantitive, where the difference between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon does not matter very much. Now I see the Institute of Strategic Studies have been holding sessions to discuss five possibilities because of the problems of manpower; and so we refine our defence in order to have the nuclear weapon. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, contradicted himself once or twice, but so do we all in our lifetime, and there is nothing wrong in

1123
that. However, he contradicted himself on an important point here. Who has the right to use these weapons? We see from the AD.70 Studies and others that it is the United States of America who will have the say. That Study, I would point out, if noble Lords will bear with me a little, is 10 or 15 years old.
Let us get to the realities—not crackpot realities. Over 80 per cent. of British industry, and a quarter of our population, are in ten major towns. Take the industrial coffin between Liverpool and London; there, virtually in about six hours if we were involved in a nuclear holocaust, Britain would be almost driven back to where Laos is at the present moment. A surgeon friend of mine told me this weekend that a friend of his who is nursing in Vietnam and Laos had come back and told him that there are more children amputees in Vietnam than in any major country in Europe. Six times more bombs were dropped on Laos in the name of democracy and fighting Communism than were dropped on the whole of Europe during the war. This is the politics of hysteria. We could have solved this problem by giving the economic aid that was necessary, not by putting troops in the field.
I knew Ho Chi Minh personally, and to the best of the French philosophers and politicians he was not a rampaging Communist. He wanted the independence for his country to which it was entitled. When I heard the noble Lord say that the Communists will get to India, I thought, "In the name of heaven, has anybody looked at a map?" I have flown over that area, and up to Tibet, and seen the mountains. Even the Japanese failed to get beyond Rangoon. Who is going to get up there? The Thais? The three million Laotians? That is all there are, and they have only 750 miles of road in the country. For heaven's sake, let us look at this in reality.
Right through this Defence White Paper the word "détente" has been mentioned about twice. I beg of the noble Lord who spoke to-day for the Government to realise that talks between the Warsaw Pact Powers and the NATO Powers are now necessary. If we can take Russian oil in order to try to blackmail the Shah of Iran, we should have the courage to institute talks between
1124
the Warsaw and the NATO Powers. I apologise if I have spoken in this House with a little feeling. However, I know what I am speaking about, and I resented the flippancy with which the efforts for peace were scoffed at. That does not mean that I think that the noble Lord who led opposite is any less desirous of peace than I am. I apologise if he felt that in any way I meant to speak in a derogatory fashion of him.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is very kind of the noble Lord to say that. I thought he was referring in his speech to his noble friend Lord Shinwell, and not to me, because I was taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for not having referred to disarmament.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Well, my Lords, I will leave it at that.
5.47 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I should rather like to start by throwing down the gauntlet to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and to say that it was no surprise to me that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in opening the debate, made no reference to disarmament. It struck me that there was no reason why he should have made any reference to disarmament. I appreciate intensely the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in his belief in disarmament, and I too, to a very large measure, share his desire for it. But I believe that one has to be a little more realistic about things. It was tremendous to see the noble Lord in full sail, as he was this afternoon. It was a delightful experience, and I thank him for it.
I should like to give credit where I think that credit is due, and that is to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, did as Minister for Disarmament. He undoubtedly worked hard for it. The relative lack of success that was achieved shows that we cannot put very great faith in any prospect of disarmament in the immediate future. That his success was limited was not his fault; circumstances were too much. If there is any reason why disarmament should have been left out of the White Paper and of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Carirngton, I think we received a very effective answer in the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Coleridge. It was a most clear and concise speech,

1125
closely reasoned, and completely unemotional. When that was backed up by a similar speech, with additional facts, from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, then the case for the Government in this respect was absolutely clear. However, if we accept the peroration of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and anticipate getting around the table—Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America—then I suggest that we shall have a good result only if, when Britain goes to that table, she is able to negotiate from strength. Let us hear no more about disarmament till we get around that table.
My original purpose in rising was to discuss the manpower situation and to draw your Lordships' attention to the diagram on page 32 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates showing the relative distribution of manpower. Under full-time education, comparing 1965 with 1975, there will be an increase of 400,000 young persons aged between 15 and 24 years. Over the same period there will be a decrease in those available for employment—that is, those available for other rank service, one might say—of 350,000. These are significant figures, and it is interesting to see how the decline in the population available for enlistment is going to get very much sharper. Therefore we must give the men who join the Services confidence that they can look upon their service as a profession.
Here I should like to give credit to the late Government for the improvement in the pay structure which they achieved. That seems to be having some material success both in retaining and in attracting. But it is absolutely essential that there should be stability in our defence policy, without talk of disarmament. In future we are going to be very dependent for our other ranks upon short-service enlistments converting to normal service, and they will not convert if there is constant denigration of the Services and threats of cuts. Confidence in the Government of the country is essential for recruiting to the Services.
My other point concerns the steady increase in the number of young men in full-time education. That is the "cut" out of which the Services get their officers. The reason why the Services, particularly Sandhurst, are so short of this type of entry is perhaps difficult to understand.
1126
There may be nothing positive on the side of the Services; merely the fact that a young man will prefer to go to a university with a grant, and hold off deciding whether to apply for a commission in one of the Services. But the shortage could in part be due to the education that is given to the young man who is training to become an officer. One should be watchful about what is happening.
But it roust be realised that we in this country cannot educate our officers in the same way as is done in other countries. The United States can support three Service colleges, with a four-year course at each college, where young men can receive both an academic education and the necessary Service training. In Canada, they have attempted to solve the problem by putting all the young men into one all-Services college. The late Government, I think rightly, rejected the idea of an all-Services college here, which would have been extremely costly and probably not wholly productive. Instead, a very interesting experiment is going on and it will be useful to see how each of the three Services compares.
Thanks to the inspiration and guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, the R.A.F. have branched out with a graduate entry for the majority of their officers—that is, going to university before they are taken on for their final training to become competent officers—and most of their long-term engagements are likely to come from this source. That scheme is closely associated with the R.A.F. College at Cranwell, in order that the young men are never out of touch; and I understand that the Commandant at Cranwell is to become responsible for the University Air Squadron. This seems to me a most interesting development and it is one which the other Services will certainly watch closely.
The Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst is working on a two-year course, one year of which is predominantly academic. Unfortunately, this scheme is starting off with a very short entry—little more than two-thirds of their entry in past years. One wonders how low in I.Q. level they have had to go to get their present entry into Sandhurst. It has been stated that the purpose of the academic education at Sandhurst is to enable a young man to convert five "O" levels into a sufficiency to help him get

1127
to university. I am not very keen on that argument, because if a boy of 17 or 18 does not have five "O" levels he gets bitten with the Army. However much his nose is put to the academic grindstone in his one year at Sandhurst, I very much doubt whether it will remain there when he gets out into the bigger and more adventurous life of the Army itself. Therefore the academic training at Sandhurst is of prime use for the young man who already has entrance qualifications for a university when he goes to Sandhurst. Then, having been commissioned, he is sent back by the Army for a three-year period at university.
My Lords, the other point about the officer supply to which I should like to refer concerns the military cadetships in the universities. The shortage at the present moment particularly relates to medical and dental officers and engineering officers. These university cadetships, which commission the young man in the lowest commissioned level while he is at the university and give him nearly £1,000 while he is there, plus his fees, are working well with the R.A.F. But they are not working so well with the Army or the Navy for their ordinary run of commissions, and they have not yet provided anything like a sufficient number in the engineers and medicals. I suggest that the Government should take a look at these medical cadetships. They are given, I think, only after the medical student has reached his second year. In other words, the ordinary university cadets can be awarded cadetships before they come up to the university, when it is known that they have their entrance qualifications and have selected their university. But not so with the medical. I believe that if some method could be devised to encourage the medicals from the beginning of their medical career, that would be quite a help. As regards getting more from the engineers, all I would say is that one has got to take off one's jacket in the universities and get down to letting engineering students of the right type have a better idea of what is open to them in the way of university cadetships.
There is one point about these university cadetships on which we have got to be rather careful. The Union of Students are at the present moment crying
1128
out for maximum grants for all students: that all students should get the maximum grant regardless of their parents' ability to pay. This campaign is on. Should it succeed, it will almost certainly put paid to the success of the university cadetships. It is unlikely that they will be working as well as they are at the present moment. Finally, on this subject, I would just say that for the success of the Service cadetships in the universities it is essential that there should be an effective presence of each Service in the universities. The presence of a small corps of men serving in the University Air Squadron, the O.T.C. or the R.N.R. is a remarkable leaven. Perhaps none of them, other than those who have the cadetships, intends himself to go full-time in the Service, but their presence there has a very great effect, and they should be reinforced. I regret that the very substantial increase in the university cadets, R.A.F., is leading to a diminution in the numbers of the non-university cadets who can get into the air squadrons despite the fact that there is an ample supply of young men wanting to join.
6.4 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to intervene in this debate and to begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Coleridge. I have had the good fortune to know something of the quality of the noble Lord's work over the last quarter of a century, and it is a happy thing that his eloquence should also have the same high quality as the great deal of planning, office and administration work that he did through all that period. I was particularly glad that he paid tribute in his speech to his preceptor—if I may call him such—that brave, wise and quiet soldier, Lord Ismay. I hope that we shall hear often from the noble Lord. Lord Coleridge.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, will, I know, forgive me for net following him in his expert remarks. I will concentrate more on the first 25 paragraphs of the White Paper, and I am sure that your Lordships will excuse me if I am too political and too little expert on defence. I will shield myself behind the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that defence consists of a mixture of foreign policy, diplomacy and armed force—and I shall concentrate somewhat on the first

1129
two. I have just one comment on the White Paper as a whole and on one geographical aspect other than the Indian Ocean, to which I shall come towards the end of my speech. It would seem to me, being a rather prosaic administrative character and not a prophetic character like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that this is in fact a very balanced, moderate and clearly expressed White Paper, and it seems to suit the present situation quite admirably.
The geographical point that I would make is one simply on what I would advise the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to call "the Gulf" even if he thereby evokes the displeasure of all other gulfs. The Government have wisely waited until they have had time to consider the advice of that notable public servant Sir William Luce. I would only add one warning, if I may, to what may be in the Government's mind. It is only too easy, in an area like that, to get a few reassuring words from a few people and then to hope that that represents what is going to happen in the future. I would just hope that the Government, having listened to whatever the words are that they may be given from local people, will then, as it were, sit back and think them over and make quite sure that they are satisfied that those words represent not the past and the present but the present and the future.
I do not propose to follow the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in moving ships, aircraft and armies around the world, because that is beyond me and, in any case, I would have some considerable doubts as to how this would be done in world conditions of conventional warfare covered by the threat of the absolute deterrent. I think it is very difficult to try to predict this, and I shall not, anyway, make the attempt. Nor shall I follow the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who seemed to me to have a very fast and mobile surface vessel at his command. I want to make rather a deeper submergence in my frail submarine, and to get into some of the depths of these questions. I think I shall find myself on the seabed in many respects somewhere near the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
I think it is right that in this debate somebody (and I take this upon myself) should consider for a moment the "why" of all this. Are we really worried that
1130
the Soviet Union should have developed this great naval strength? Should we worry about it? We most of us assume that we should. Why should we? The answer, I think, is a two-fold one. First, if you serve Her Majesty anywhere around the world, you will find that the Soviet effort is to a considerable and disquieting degree directed against the interests of this country as conceived by Government and Parliament. Secondly, let me put it in very much the way of a concrete example. The Soviet Union is a great and strong country in which, fifty years after its inception, tinder its present Constitution, the present-day Tolstoys are mute and the present-day Dostoevskys inglorious. In fact, Soviet citizens cannot read their works. That again might not matter, but this State and its ruling Party is dedicated to the proposition that this form of Government must be spread elsewhere, and this combination of Soviet national interest and a rigid doctrine makes a vast increase in Soviet arms and the expansionism or imperialism of Soviet policy something which we must worry about.
And this is also the reason why once again, with a slight note of despair in my voice, I must protest against the too facile use of the word "détente". Certainly, as some noble Lords have said, there are matters of mutual interest between the Soviet Union and the United States or between Communist countries and other countries in which there can be agreement. I thought that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, underestimated what was achieved by Lord Chalfont and others in achieving some agreement in those respects. But there are a great many respects in which the Communist party of the Soviet Union have not the slightest intention of finding a common view with the Western countries. We must not go on belabouring ourselves in masochistic fashion for failing to find points of agreement when they are not there. So, while we must hope for détente and find places where there can be détente—and above all, must pray for the success of the SALT talks—let us not just say that there must be more détentes where the premises for such détentes do not exist.
Having said that much, I hope that I have succeeded in proving, without having to prove it directly, that we have an

1131
interest in power in the Indian Ocean. We must have. The questions we must ask ourselves are: "Why us?"; "Why us now?", and, "What for?". First, "Why us?" The answer to that is simple: nobody else is going to volunteer to be there. Some noble Lords spoke of the inclination of the United States these days to withdraw. This is correct. The question is, the degree of withdrawal. But, surely, the very notion of withdrawal means that the United States would not be prepared, at any rate at this moment, to take on a new strategic field which they have not claimed or wanted to claim before.
"Why us now?" The only alternative which has been suggested is that nobody should make any strategic move of any kind in that area until it is far too late; then everybody would come in together in some kind of manifest confusion. This is clearly not a sensible way to approach it. If anybody is to interest themselves in the Indian Ocean it must be now—and possibly it should have been sooner.
Then the question is, "What for?". I think the question has been somewhat bedevilled by the use of words; and although the words "security of trade routes" are used in the conclusions of the Commonwealth Conference, I feel that that particular wording has a slight unreality about it because of the reason I mentioned before; namely, that we cannot predict how, if there were to be warfare in the future—which, pray Heaven, there will not be—it will be conducted.
I think I would describe the two main objects at this juncture as follows. The first is observation, something which we are, in a small way, doing already and something that we should do better with a little more naval or air strength. The second is the political effect of just being there. You do not have to be there in any very great strength to have some political effect in the sense that, even in these days when we have all forgotten about the more ruthless forms of gunboat diplomacy, the mere presence of one of Her Majesty's ships at least shows that Her Majesty's Government and the British people have not lost interest in the particular country. If they are not there; but there are only Soviet ships,
1132
then the moral is obvious: the Soviet Union is interested in us, a developing country, and others are not. In some cases it is as simple as that. Thus there is a reason for being anxious about that area, a reason for being anxious about it now, and in a concrete way.
This brings us to the complexities of the diplomacy of this situation. The Government, if I may say so, have played a difficult hand during this winter with a considerable degree of skill. I hope that I do not sound patronising in saying that. What the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary achieved at Singapore were two very important things. The first was that certain things were said frankly to many of our friends in the Commonwealth which needed saying and which can best be said in private. The second is that the Government succeeded in bringing about the formation of a group to consider the safety of the trade routes in the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean. This is a much more notable success than it may appear in cold print; because some of those countries are countries whose policy has been roughly as follows: "This is a very tiresome question. We wish it were not there and we will therefore look in the other direction and pretend it does not exist." The formation of the group is, at least, an admission, with all the reservations, that a problem does exist and that it is a problem important enough to be discussed by a group of Commonwealth countries.
So far so good. Then comes the announcement of Monday about the sale of helicopters, or the readiness to sell helicopters, to South Africa. I think that the Government can argue that this is simply an announcement of the legal position. But I would urge Ministers, if I may, to realise that an announcement like that is not just what we think it is. In the highly sensitive atmosphere of Asia and Africa, people say, "Why make the announcement now? There must be something between the lines, something over the page, something in somebody's mind." And possibly an innocent intention of what is supposed to be a legal announcement will be construed differently in the countries which are sensitive to these things. I do not wish to be melodramatic about it, but we have had a news item from Nigeria to-day to this

1133
effect. I hope that if there is any slipping in the position about the group, it can be restored by the very able and experienced High Commissioner there.
But this is one of so many warnings on this matter. Unless the Government are prepared to concentrate, almost minute by minute, on sensitivities that are often unreasonable and which represent something which perhaps might not be believed in private but must be said and done in public, then the advantage gained in the Commonwealth Conference will be lost. The worst that could happen, if this is played carelessly or insensitively, is that we might get a ship or two more in the Indian Ocean and Communist-dominated Africa behind them. That is the extent of the risk. I beg the Government constantly to consider whether a little tidying up, a little crossing of a t here or a dotting of an i there, is really worth the risk that is taken when they do it. Because I am sure that our objectives are all the same: that we should be there in the Indian Ocean; that we should be a moderating, helpful influence; that we should keep our friends aware that we are interested in their future welfare. But if we play this carelessly, defiantly or rudely then we shall arrive at a position in which we shall have the means to do a little in favour of defence but shall find that the things we want to defend no longer want to be defended by us.
6.20 p.m.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, first I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Coleridge, on his admirable maiden speech. I shall certainly look forward to hearing from him again. When I first addressed your Lordships' House about 14 years ago I drew attention to the vital importance of the oil imports from the Persian Gulf. This certainly seems to me, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, a matter of such great importance that I make no apology for bringing it up again this afternoon. It has, of course, a direct relevance to our maritime defence. Since that day 14 years ago Europe's oil needs have been multiplied three times; but, as before, this country has to import practically all its oil, and over 60 per cent. of it still comes from the Middle East. That represents an
1134
enormous figure. Our consumption is now so great that it is impossible to stockpile any useful percentage of our requirements. In consequence it has to come in a continuous stream of tankers; and, my Lords, I emphasise that word "continuous".
As your Lordships very well know, those tankers have at present to come round by the Cape. More and more is our oil coming in monster tankers, each one of which carries a highly important and valuable cargo. Indeed, each one is equivalent to many of the tankers which we used to convoy home in World War H. Each is a large and well worth while target for an enemy submarine or aircraft. To persuade your Lordships that I am not exaggerating and that ii is not just I who am seriously bothered by this position, I should like to remind you of what General Goodpaster, the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, said last autumn, when he was speaking to the German Foreign Policy Association. I cannot quote his exact words, but, in effect, he said that Russian submarines could now seriously threaten the Western Alliance, and that perhaps the most important Soviet maritime threat at present was to the flow of oil from the Middle East.
My own information on this important matter necessarily comes from non-confidential sources, such as the White Paper which we are discussing this evening, and from Press reports and so on, and it is therefore somewhat limited; but General Goodpaster's information is not. He has, I should imagine, a widespread and elaborate intelligence organisation, and I have little doubt that it provides hint with a pretty accurate and complete picture. As I see it, my Lords, that picture is a pretty black one; or perhaps I ought to say a pretty red one, for the Red Navy is now in the Red Sea and in the Indian Ocean.
I should imagine that the U.S.S.R. could quite easily take control of the Suez Canal, if it wanted to. According to reliable estimates, the Russian Air Force has the use of six of Egypt's 30 operational airfields; and Alexandria, which, of course, was available to us and used by us as our main Fleet base in the Eastern Mediterranean in World War II, is now available to the Russian Navy.

1135
When the Canal is open again, Russian maritime flexibility will be greatly enhanced. She will then need only to get control of the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus and she will have a clear run through to the Indian Ocean for her Black Sea fleet. At present her ships in the Indian Ocean must come either from a naval base in the Far East, which I understand is where most of them do come from, or from the Arctic or the Mediterranean via the Cape. She already has quite appreciable forces and facilities in the Indian Ocean. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by giving a list of these forces and facilities now; in any case they are given broadly in the White Paper.
Bearing in mind our impending withdrawal from the Persian Gulf and our partial withdrawal from Singapore, it is clear that Russia has already established herself across our vital oil supply lines from the Persian Gulf down to the Cape. We have been told in the White Paper that the backbone of our defence strategy is NATO; and that our main, though not our only concern, is in the NATO area. I think most of us would agree with that. But, my Lords, if we do not pay very particular attention to our oil supplies from the Persian Gulf, and if we do not make proper and essential provision for their protection in time of war and strained relations, we shall soon find ourselves short of oil, whatever we do in the NATO area. This would quickly bring our defence forces, and indeed most of NATO, to a grinding standstill, and then we should be in no position at all to conclude any satisfactory terms with those who are working against us.
My Lords, it is a long time now since the First World War, and of course times have changed. It is easy to forget that for a very awkward period in 1914 our trade in the Indian Ocean was paralysed by the presence of the "Emden" and the "Konigsberg", two rather ancient and not very powerful German cruisers. How much more awkward would it be for us now with, say, half a dozen nuclear submarines and a dozen or so Russian maritime aircraft based on Aden? When I first addressed your Lordships on this matter 14 years ago, I ventured to say, I hope quite clearly, that we must have this oil from
1136
the Persian Gulf, and an uninterrupted supply of it. In this respect I believe that the position is just the same now as it was 14 years ago.
That brings me to one other matter—I shall not keep your Lordships for very long. I am really delighted—I am sure that the whole Navy is delighted—that we are to keep "Ark Royal" for a few more years. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he addressed your Lordships on November 5 last in the debate on the Supplementary Statement on Defence, I only wish that we could have kept "Eagle" too. Though one carrier is far better than none, with only one carrier in action, if she is in the NATO area obviously she cannot be in the Indian Ocean at the same time, and vice-versa. When "Ark Royal" is out of action for a refit or repairs, we shall be without a carrier altogether; and if a carrier is considered necessary at all—and of couse I agree that it is—she is necessary all the time. With our very limited base facilities in the Indian Ocean, and observing the vital importance of the oil flow from the Persian Gulf, I should have thought that that would normally be the most important area for "Ark Royal" to be stationed.
I realise, of course, that "Eagle" would be an expensive addition to our defence bill; but what an addition she would be to our maritime flexibility, with her mobile airfield which could be sent almost anywhere in the oceans of the world! If we had difficulty in manning and paying for her, as I am sure we should have, could we not possibly keep her for the time being in reserve with a reduced ship's company, so as to be available to man-up in times of strained relations? One last point, my Lords. Would not the retention of "Eagle" perhaps help to solve our present recruiting difficulties? Those difficulties, I believe, are no longer a consequence of low pay, because pay is no longer low. One seldom hears complaints on that score in the Services now. In the case of the Navy, anyway, I believe that recruiting difficulties are largely due to lack of foreign service. Nowadays (or at any rate it will be the case very shortly) it will be nearly all home service and NATO exercises—all work and too little play. I believe that more of the old peace-time foreign service cruises would

1137
both stimulate recruiting and also show the flag round the world. Keeping the "Eagle" might, in some way, help in these important matters.
The Americans are, of course, much richer than we are; but it is interesting to note that in a Press article, originating last year from the Office of the United States Chief of Naval Operations, who corresponds to our First Sea Lord, it was pointed out that since Korea the U.S. Navy has had a total of between 14 and 19 strike carriers, and one of their problems has been to decide how many carriers they should keep—unlike our problem, which has been, should we keep one carrier or none? It is clear from this same article that the U.S. Navy now wishes to keep a minimum peace-time total of 15 carriers. They say that, with the steady decline of air bases available to them round the world, even that number may have to be increased later.
My Lords, we, too, have experienced a steady decline in bases round the world; but, far from having declined, our vital imports from the Persian Gulf have increased and our essential seaborne trade around the world is as great as ever it was. With that in view, I should have thought that by the end of this year the maritime forces, particularly in the Indian Ocean, would be dangerously low; and that among other remedies the retention of "Eagle" would be amply justified. Apart from the comments I have just made, my Lords, I think that the White Paper is, on the whole, very good. So far as the Navy is concerned—and it is only the Navy that I have been talking about—it gives a clear and complete picture; and I am delighted to take note of it.
6.30 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this afternoon, as a break with a personal and unimportant tradition, I shall restrict myself to only one aspect of defence and no more than touch upon one other. In referring to the volunteer forces, to be totally scrupulous I suppose I should declare an interest, since I am the honorary colonel of the T.A.V.R. regiment which is, certainly through no virtue of mine, the largest manned-up unit in the British Army, Regular or volunteer. I mention this only as a kind of qualification for claiming to speak from the
1138
"inside" on the problems and enthusiasms and some of the anxieties of the officers and men of these units—the units both in existence and to be created or re-created.
The first fact to which I should bear witness is that to the eyes of all the horizon is brightening, and has been brightening for the past many months since the re-expansion of these volunteer forces was announced. The spirit had been shaken, but not uprooted, by earlier treatment—by the impression officially given that this kind of service and this kind of soldier were no longer required. What is most admirable—though in itself it raises a question which I shall presently pose—is that we shall now have a Reserve in fact as well as in name, able and ready, if required, to defend the homeland. As we all know, so far as concerns the present attenuated T.A.V.R., the "R" is silent, not to say deceptive. Every unit has been or would be assigned to make up existing deficiencies in the Order of Battle of Rhine Army. There would not be a man or a woman left, apart from the cadres remaining in existence from units dissolved in 1968. When I say that the whole of the existing T.A.V.R. is assigned to make up deficiencies in the Rhine Army, this also goes of course for the Regular Reserve. According to my mathematics, these cadres would have been 270 officers and 450 men, since the 90 cadres whose statutory birth was permitted on the morrow of the liquidation of T.A.V.R. III on December 31 were kept up to strength, and (with the exception of 15) have been given permission to double their strengths as from February I in preparation for the re-birth of these new units.
It is a fairly grim thought, my Lords, that even to-day the numbers available for home defence are a maximum of 540 officers and 900 men. All of them are no doubt energetically preparing for April 1, when enrolment of the new force officially begins. The danger of this total absence of home defence was frequently eloquently and accurately emphasised in the debates of 1965 and subsequent years.
From what I understand, the force now to be re-created will be kept separate from the existing T.A.V.R. The units to

1139
be brought into being are at present referred to as the "new" or the "expansion" units. This can clearly be only a temporary definition, and the only mnemonic which I have heard suggested so far—URSU, to stand for Uncommitted Reserve and Security Units—does not fall very musically upon my ear. What is more important than the name, or so I submit, is the role—the breadth of role—to be given to this new wing of the Reserve Forces, which, so far as I know, has not yet been fixed. There is a current, or perhaps an eddy, of opinion which favours limiting their role purely to home defence. I see two powerful handicaps being imposed by such a decision. It would inhibit recruiting, and it might prove a limiting and embarrassing factor in the light of possible events. It could tie the hands of a Secretary of State intolerably. I therefore ask my noble friend whether he can give some kind of assurance on this point, a fairly cardinal point in my own view. I believe that it is not the intention to re-create, as such, the T.A.V.R. III, but those of the same spirit may find an entirely rewarding task for their activities in the new sphere.
Although, as I hope I have made plain, I see the vital importance of home defence, I also hope that the whole incoming 10,000 will not be restricted to this over-exclusive role. It has, I believe, been a relief to the country at large that the Ministry of Defence should lately have amended the role of the T.A.V.R. as a whole, which is now—and I quote in full from page 29 of the White Paper, because I think it is important to my argument:

"a. to complete the Army Order of Battle of our British forces committed to NATO and to provide certain units for the support of NATO headquarters;

b. to assist in maintaining a secure United Kingdom base in support of forces deployed on the Continent of Europe;

c to provide a framework for any future expansion of the Reserves."

All these objectives are entirely admirable, but they concern the present T.A.V.R. and the task of the new units has yet to be defined, so that its naming may be of rather more than academic interest. Perhaps my noble friend will offer a prize for the most inspiring suggestion. In that event, mine will not win
1140
the prize, but it might serve to spur more gifted contributors into action, and it is, at least, I affirm, more inspiring than URSU. Without any really painful period of mental labour, I have come up with STWRT, standing for Supplementary Territorial War Reserve Troops, the principal dividend being that they could be called the "Stalwarts", which would undoubtedly and aptly describe them. It also seems to me entirely felicitous that, although four years younger that the T.A.V.R., they will celebrate their birthdays together on April 1.
One problem seems likely to arise as from that date, in a few weeks' time, and I should be grateful if my noble friend could give it sympathetic attention. As at present envisaged, combat dress will be issued to recruits on a personal basis after they have reported and their vital statistics have been recorded. The order for that week's recruits will then be sent to a central depot and the individual uniforms will be provided within a week or so. On the face of it this looks, and is, reasonable enough. In practice, it is not foreseen that the recruits themselves will feel deprived upon this first contact or revived contact with volunteer service. It is foreseen that when they go home, without a uniform, their brothers or friends who may be contemplating a similar, joyful and useful course may be put off by evidence that the Army cannot produce a uniform over the counter. I am told on good authority that this is a very real and thoughtful foreboding. It could be eliminated if mobilisation stocks were released to regimental depots. I concede that this would create additional carriage and bookkeeping, which would hardly seem worth while for the sake of a week or two's delay in delivery; but if psychology is taken into account, it may prove worth the unextravagant candle.
Inevitably the creation or re-creation of these new units of "Stalwarts" has impinged upon the interests of present T.A.V.R. units, as regards both barrack space and recruiting areas. There has been an instance of this in the case of one squadron of my own T.A.V.R. regiment in the North of England. It has been, in a sense, frustrating for those who have built up a squadron with purpose and patience to find that their accommodation and their territory must now

1141
be shared with a new and, in some eyes, more glamorous unit. It affects, in particular, the potential for expansion which, in practical terms, they had in mind.
The only reason I have for introducing this factor is to be able to say that in the correspondence which I have pursued with my noble friend on this relatively sensitive matter he and his Department have shown the greatest sympathy in search of alternative accommodation, and I am more than satisfied that in the circumstances they have done all they can. They were unable to help a great deal, but I know that they did all they could. I am in no doubt whatever that equal understanding has been shown towards the problems of other existing T.A.V.R. units. I am also clear that this cramping factor is the result of the hasty and often improvident disposal of existing drill halls, consequent upon the dark night of March 31, 1967, when the Terirtorial Army, as we knew it, was officially dissolved.
Up to that date there were 1,267 drill halls throughout the country. The following day about 800 were declared redundant, and orders for disposal were sent out. Out of those 800, about 100 remain in possession, either because nobody wanted them at any price for anything else or because the legal procedures of transfer have not been completed. There remain in use 462 drill halls. Within that compass my noble friend has to operate, unless he is to undertake the expense of buying back old drill halls or building new ones. It would be a poor service to the voluntary forces to undermine his efforts by complaints within the general endeavour.
The other separate matter on which I would have spoken, as many times in the past, was NATO. I was firmly and rightly deterred when I saw that my noble friend Lord Coleridge was to make his maiden speech in this debate. Having depended for many years so confidently upon his wisdom in that vital sphere, on successive annual visits to Brussels before defence debates, I knew that he would be making the second definitive speech to-day, and there would be no room for any contribution of mine. All I will attempt is a little modest embroidery, which is really part of the question I have concentrated upon to-day.
1142
I paid an habitual visit to Brussels last week, but not specifically in connection with NATO. However, in the course of my contacts, I had put to me a rather intriguing suggestion as regards the reserve forces. It was this. The participation of reserve units is a regular feature of the training year, and has been for many years, in B.A.O.R. It is valued, I believe, by the Regular forces, and certainly by the T.A.V.R. units. One squadron of my own unit will be going to Germany in July as their summer camp, and they are much looking forward to it, as is always the case. But they have known of this for months—for nearly a year. It is a training exercise, not a reinforcement exercise. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, rightly spoke of the need for credibility in NATO. Part of that credibility depends on our ability to reinforce, and I am thinking now of reinforcement from the Reserve. It was suggested to me that certain units of the T.A.V.R. might be called up from time to time at very short notice indeed and for a very short period, perhaps a long weekend, to take their place in Germany. It would cause personal inconvenience; at face value it would be opposed both by industry and by the unions, and without any doubt at all by the Treasury. It would be welcomed by NATO as a proof that very immediate, unrehearsed reinforcement is possible on a small scale. From what I know of the men involved, both officers and other ranks, if this could only happen to them at most once a year, they would meet the challenge with enthusiasm and an alert sense of purpose. It seems to me that these virtues should outweigh the objections. If Britain could set such an example, it is most likely that other European allies would follow it.
As I mentioned earlier, it had been among my alternative intentions to speak on NATO matters more widely—for good reasons I desisted in advance. That does not imply any decline in my interest, and before closing I feel compelled to mention one anxiety, expressed to me in NATO circles last year, and with the same emphasis this year. That was the place of Malta in the defence planning of NATO and the defence involvement of that Island on one side or the other. I am relieved of saying more than a word or two, thanks to the full way in which my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley dealt with it. It still seems worth

1143
repeating that with 70 Soviet ships in the Mediterranean, a force so easily reinforced at the will of the Soviet rulers, Malta becomes of critical importance—with no misuse of that often misused word "critical". Also, what I think has not been said, surveillance, if no more, at the other end of the Mediterranean, is a matter of intense import and advantage to one side or the other. Soviet bases already extend along part of the rim of the Mediterranean. There is talk of more such bases, possibly the use of the naval base at Mers el Kebir, being made available, which would threaten Gibraltar. In this context it makes sense, to state it no more strongly, that joint naval exercises with the Spanish navy should be resumed, because they may go hand in hand with an exchange of naval information. If this vital information can be obtained at no extra cost to ourselves, without any extension of effort by ourselves, such a bonus must commend itself.
I know that the new look at NATO by Her Majesty's Government and the new impulse which has been its consequences, is giving encouragement to the organisation as a whole, where fortunately our difficulties in Northern Ireland are understood, and the effect that they have on our manpower situation. Because my noble friend spoke himself so modestly of the influence he and his colleagues have had in persuading the United States Government at the very least to review and for the present to hold up their intended withdrawal from Europe, I feel it right for me to bear witness, recent witness, from Brussels. And I was frankly somewhat surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his speech, when speaking of another area of the world, question what use limited forces might be in deterring Soviet Russia with its vastly superior forces.
Apart from their intrinsic, active military effectiveness, which is nowhere to be despised, the effect of our forces is to hearten allies and uncommitted countries, with interests in any particular area. It is as the author and designer of realistic British intentions, backed by action, that a British Government can serve the cause of world security which is, of course, the cause of peace. My noble friend has shown clearly enough that he is serving that cause in the fullest practical measure.
6.48 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, before I launch myself into my speech, may I add my congratulations to those expressed by other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Coleridge, on his maiden speech? He is an expert in the nuts and bolts of defence. Most of us, with too little knowledge, fly into the stratosphere of high strategy, but he really knows what it is all about. I am certain that the whole House awaits with interest his next speech when he is no longer affected by the rules which inhibit a maiden speaker. We look forward to the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, both at the beginning and at the end of his speech, injected a touch of acid—perhaps a squeeze of lemon over the smoked salmon. In claiming at the end of his speech one of the credits that should be granted to the present Administration, he said that the present Administration had restored the Armed Forces to a respected and important role within our society. If I were a man easily aroused I should take exception to this remark, because in the previous Administration, among my colleagues in this House, and honourable and right honourable Members in the other place, the Armed Forces never lacked respect, and their role had never been doubted. I hope that this was just a political flourish to the noble Lord's speech.
There are three main points that I wish to make to-day. The first is of major importance; the other two are secondary, but worthy of consideration. As has been said by everyone, the concern of the Western Alliance, the NATO Alliance, is with the intentions and power of the Warsaw Alliance; and of course the presence of Russians ships in the Indian Ocean is as much an indication of the intentions and policies of the Warsaw Alliance as is their presence in the Mediterranean or on the North Cape.
We are all concerned with this problem. But part of our problem when we discuss it is this. While intellectually we realise that we are part of an Alliance, and must face this threat as an Alliance, many of us feel emotionally that we in this country are "facing it alone". This is a mistake. But it is right that we should ask ourselves how long the United States will be the main cornerstone of

1145
the Western Alliance. How many American divisions will be in Europe in 1980? How many in 1990? I myself believe that the American presence in Europe must logically diminish over the years. Nevertheless, it is the presence of American forces in Europe—and substantial forces at that—which maintains the credibility of the NATO Alliance.
We cannot, however, take this presence for granted. Europe must redouble its efforts in its contribution to its own defence, partly to persuade the Americans to continue here for longer than might otherwise be the case, and partly to prepare for the day when, I believe, they must reduce their direct interest in this part of the world. This is one important reason why we must enter Europe—because I share the view of the former Secretary of State, Mr. Denis Healey, that Europe can be defended only by Europe, and not, as now, by an Alliance of nation States. This particular fragmentation of effort which exists at the moment was touched upon by the noble Lord. Lord Gladwyn, in his speech to-day, and dealt with at greater length in an earlier speech. The situation is that all the Powers in the Western Alliance are trying to build up for themselves balanced forces: however great or however small our economy, we are trying to build up balanced forces, and trying to perform every military role, which is in fact a course open only to the super-Powers.
NATO is not a paper tiger; it is still a very powerful military force. But it is really a wolf pack rather than a single dangerous animal. We are running together; but we are not sharing the burden so that we can minimise the load that comes on each of us. As has been pointed out, this country is in fact contributing more to the defence of the West than any other member of the NATO Alliance, apart from the United States and Portugal. I think we shall also agree that it will be impossible at the moment to ask our own nation, or other nations in Western Europe, for more money and more men because in the short run politically this is not possible. But what we can do is to use much more effectively the resources that we have. Before anything else, we must create for ourselves a common logistic base. This is the great strength of the
1146
Warsaw Pact Powers: they have a unified command, unified weapons, a commonality throughout the whole of the Armed Forces of the Alliance which faces them. We do not have this advantage. Noble Lords, I am certain (it has been touched on), will realise that a German aircraft landing on a British base can do no more than refuel itself. It cannot rearm. This is the weakness that comes from the fact that each member nation of the NATO Alliance is trying to create for itself balanced forces—with the result that the Alliance as a whole is in imbalance.
We must prepare ourselves for specialising in the production of certain military weapons and performing certain special roles within the Alliance. We must not try to do everything. We must trust our Allies to do something for us, as they must trust us. I believe that Europe should entrust to us the role of building and maintaining a nuclear submarine force, whereas perhaps we should entrust to the Germans the role of creating and maintaining our tank forces. This., in engineering terms, would bring about a very much greater return on the investment we are all putting into the very expensive military equipment that we are buying—50 per cent. of the total budget, a great deal of the value of which is frittered away simply because it is not universally usable throughout the whole of the fronts which face the enemy. But, again, the commonality of weapons must depend upon a common strategic doctrine. Not all of us yet have a strategic doctrine, and of course weapons spring from such a doctrine. I believe that only a united Europe can have a common strategic doctrine. This again is another argument for our entry into a larger, international organisation.
We are, of course, doing several good things. The multi-role combat aircraft is the most important of the shared operations which we are undertaking with our Allies. There are many other projects listed in this White Paper. This is of the first importance. May I say how much I welcome the agreement that we seem to have reached with Germany on the maintenance of Occupation costs. We seem at last to be able to discuss this matter in an adult manner, arising perhaps from the fact that the present Administration have inherited a strong

1147
balance-of-payments position: it makes discussion with the Germans a great deal easier. But I welcome it.
I welcome also the reassurance we have given our allies that work on the joint projects involving Rolls-Royce will continue and will have the full support of this Government. I should like to say to the Secretary of State, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee studying the future of the RB.211, that I believe that the death of the RB.211 would jeopardise many of these projects: because we must not forget that the RB.211 is not a "one-off" concept, but the first engine in a whole family of engines. Its survival is essential to the credibility of the British contribution to the military technology of Western Europe.
The second point to which I should like to turn is the problem of manpower in the Armed Forces. May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, for his kind remarks about the small part I played in the revised system of training for Royal Air Forces officers? I am certain that the present Secretary of State is as grateful to the noble Lord as I was for the work he has done in the Military Committees of Scotland. There he is a power to be reckoned with.
Reading the Statement on the Defence Estimates one can say that the manpower position is patchy. It is unsatisfactory, but not without hope. The encouraging figure is the rise in the percentage of steady enrolment. These figures are moving steadily in the right direction. The improvement is, I think, in the main, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said, due to the better pay and conditions that have been given to the Armed Forces, and particularly the impact of the military salary. I believe that when single men receive the full increment in April of this year it should have a further significant effect in the drawing power of the Armed Forces on the interest of the declining number of young men who are available for commissioning and service in the three Forces.
But, of course, in the long run what we want is a high rate of re-engagement. The concept of shorter engagements to start with, and letting the Services speak for themselves to the young men who
1148
come into them, is the right way to tackle the problem. Re-engagement rates are encouragingly high and we must be prepared to take a calculated risk on not tying young men for too long, so that they come in and learn what the Services have to offer.
However, the point I want to make is one that I think is too little considered; it is the role of women in the Armed Forces. I am not pleading that a wider employment of women in the Armed Forces is a universal panacea, but I do believe that they have a much larger role to play in the Armed Forces than is the case at present. As is known, in preparation for the review of the military salary scales we carried out a job evaluation of all the work within the Royal Air Force, including the work of women. This showed that women could perform almost all the jobs performed by men in the Royal Air Force. Why the evaluators were not able to give them the equivalent of 100 per cent. in that evaluation was the fact that they were not universally postable—that they could not be sent to Gan or Masirah, for instance. That, of course, has nothing to do with their competence; it is due simply to social attitudes. I believe that if we can accept the fact that a group of young women among a thousand men in Gan will be exactly the same as a group of 20 young women among a thousand men in Godalming, that inhibition disappears. The moral standards of the Armed Forces are higher than those of civilian life and there is no reason at all why the usefulness of women should be limited by the areas to which it is considered they may be posted. I believe that as far as is possible we should try to treat women as being interchangeable with men, as is the case in the Israeli armed forces.
During the evaluation there was an argument about whether or not women bore weapons. It was said that one could not treat women the same as men because they were not used to bearing arms. In point of fact they are perfectly used to operating weapons systems. They can and do, and they do it now. In fact, the White Paper itself shows that in many areas they are the equivalent of men. There is a note in the White Paper of the shortage of wireless operators in the Royal Air Force. There is a shortage of both men and women operators, and

1149
wireless operators of either sex are absolutely interchangeable. What I am arguing, my Lords, is that we should take advantage of the rest of the economy by implementing equal pay now and paying the x factor to women now instead of waiting for 1975, when I believe this state of affairs will come about. We shall then get the cream of the generation of young women who are coming forward, who could in fact fill a very wide range of the gaps which now exist within our defence establishment. Anyone who has seen, let us say, a woman officer of the Royal Air Force operating radar control and guiding fighter aircraft to intercept possible enemy aircraft will realise the skill with which an important control of a weapons system is being exercised by a woman.
So I believe attitudes will change. They change too slowly, as is indicated by the fact that in the attempt to recruit mature engineers and administrators into the Royal Air Force the men are recruited with the rank of squadron leader and the women with the rank of flying officer. This strikes me as being unwise. If a woman is good enough to be an engineer in the Royal Air Force, after experience in civilian life, she is worthy of the same rank, and I contend that this particular source of skilled human power should be considered and tapped more quickly.
The last point I want to make is the question of the better use of the manpower resources that we have in this country. I welcome the fact that the work of the Headquarters Organisation Committee is going on; I think it is an important operation. I welcome in particular the by-product of that Committee—or a linked operation—which is described at page 47 of the White Paper, namely, the decentralisation of two Commands of various activities within the Royal Air Force, engineering in particular, and the power that gives the commander in chief, or the staff of a commander in chief, to deal directly with an aircraft company for spares for, say, the VC.10, rather than having to go up to the centre, out into the company and back into the Command. This measure of decentralisation, giving the very able men who are in charge of the various
1150
Commands of the Royal Air Force the right to make decisions at that level and thus save them from the burden of going up to the centre for every quite minor thing that they want, is right, and it should become general practice throughout the Armed Forces. It would, of course, be welcomed by them.
But in this we must not forget the role of the Treasury, because whereas it is possible for the Royal Air Force to decentralise its administration, to make it effective I believe we must decentralise the financial control. This is a long subject, worthy of a debate in itself. All I can say is that the Treasury is still operating its controls as they were devised a hundred years ago, and it really must be altered if this decentralisation of functions is to succeed. There is one particular area I should like to mention where Treasury short-sightedness is still throwing a shadow over a most important organisation, and that is the future of the air squadrons. I had the pleasure of being with the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, at an air squadron dinner in Edinburgh quite recently, and I am sure he will support me when I say that the future of the air squadrons themselves seems to be uncertain. In spite of the fact that the number of air cadets has risen from 266 to 350, no one, so far as I know, has yet said that the future of these air squadrons in the foreseeable future is secure. If the Secretary of State could give that assurance this evening, I am certain that all the air squadrons of this country would feel a great sense of relief.
My Lords, those are the only constructive points that I have to add to this debate. However, I would say that in my view the noble Lord. Lord Gore-Booth, asked the key question: what is all this about? Why do we take so much trouble? Why do we spend so much money? I share his pessimism. I believe that until the Russians have Socialism with a human face we must not trust them. There is no reason for hope at all in the good of Russian intentions. Whenever men like Dubcek have tried to bring about a change in the nature of Communist society, we have seen that they have reached a nasty, brutish end. And that is what all this discussion is about.
7.9 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must say that I do not find myself too cast down by this debate. Generally speaking, I think there has been very little criticism, either of the Government's defence policy or of the White Paper, although I recognise that on various sides of the House some anxieties have been expressed—anxieties which in some cases I myself share and which I recognise, and to which it will be the concern of myself and my Ministry to try to find solutions. I think I agree with almost all the speech which has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and I shall certainly look into some of the very interesting suggestions that he made about manpower.
In my opening remarks I said that I should devote my closing speech to answering questions, and I will now try to deal with as many of the points raised as I can. Before doing so, I would join with others of your Lordships who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Coleridge on his maiden speech. I think it was to be expected that if the noble Lord spoke about NATO he would be speaking about a subject of which he knows probably more than anybody else in your Lordships' House. And of course he did, and we listened to it and profited greatly from it. I agree entirely with what he said about security and the strength of NATO. I was very encouraged, if I may say so, coming from so died-in-the-wool a NATO figure as my noble friend, by his going out of his way to say that we should also look further afield than NATO and that there were other parts of the world in which we had British interests and to which we should have regard. I hope my noble friend will also try further afield and intervene in debates in your Lordships' House on matters other than defence.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took me to task a little, saying that I and the White Paper should have paid more attention to disarmament; and what was the position of the Government over the European Security Conference. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in a splendid speech—with which I did not necessarily agree, but he expresses himself with such sincerity that one must always admire it—also took me to task. I believe in all sorts of things. I believe
1152
in truth and beauty and the inevitability of death, but I do not mention them in every speech I make; and therefore on this occasion I did not mention disarmament, but it does not mean to say that I do not think it a splendid ideal. It takes two sides to reach agreement, and I am sure that neither of the two noble Lords who spoke about this wished to advocate unilateral disarmament. As I indicated in my speech, and as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, indicated in his speech just before he finished, there is little sign of disarmament on the part of the Soviet Union—quite the reverse; though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, when he says that there might very well be specific issues on which it would be possible to reach agreement with the Soviet Union.
A European Security Conference sounds attractive, but I think we would really need to ask what subjects it would discuss if it was to be something more serious than a propaganda exercise. The only major topics which have so far been suggested have been the mutual balanced force reductions, and in spite of repeated invitations by the NATO countries there has been no real sign that the Warsaw Pact countries are ready to go to the conference table and discuss that subject I think we must be realistic as well as hopeful about these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me whether the sale of Wasp helicopters announced on Monday would be covered by the assurance that these would not be used for the purposes of apartheid. As your Lordships know, the Prime Minister, in agreeing to Britain participating in the study group on the Indian Ocean, said that he had received an assurance from the South African Government that it has no aggressive intentions and will not use any items of maritime equipment supplied by the British Government for purposes other than those for which they were supplied. I think that answers the noble Lord's point.
I know the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has had to leave because he has a bad attack of laryngitis. I think he did rather well in the circumstances; he did threaten at one moment that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, would read his peroration, but he managed to survive. Not unexpectedly, the noble Lord emphasised the importance to Europe of NATO in our defence policy,

1153
and I think I have made it very clear in the White Paper that we take that view as well. But I also take the view that security is indivisible, and while reiterating our support for NATO we should not turn a blind eye to what is happening in the rest of the world outside the totally artificial boundaries of NATO. There is no particular magic, for example, in the Tropic of Cancer as a line below which NATO will not operate. I am glad, and a little surprised, that the noble Lord thought that in Singapore and the Far East we were being sensible. I can assure him that our forces there can be reinforced not only through the routes he mentioned but by oilier routes, and also on the Westabout route; though I must say that I was a Idle puzzled to understand why he was so worried about that when he denied the existence of any enemy that our troops there could conceivably oppose.
I can also assure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the Beira patrol involves only one, or at the most two, ships, which would, of course, be available for other tasks in emergency. The only thing that bothered me about Lord Gladwyn's speech was that he said that he did not think there was any point in having ships in the Indian Ocean because any war would inevitably be nuclear. It seems to me that if you carry that argument to a logical conclusion, there is no object in having conventional forces anywhere, and I think that the noble Lord may, on reflection, feel that he went a little too far in suggesting that.
He also asked me about the position of United States forces in Europe, and I can confirm that the improvements made by the European members in the European Defence Improvement Programme are the counterpart of the American pledge not to make unilateral reductions of forces until at least the middle of 1972. He also asked about nuclear weapons in NATO. The answer is that the order to fire the weapons would be given either by SACLANT or SACEUR after release had been authorised by the nuclear Powers concerned, Britain and the United States, and in reaching their decision the President or Prime Minister would, in so far as time permitted, take account of the views expressed by other members of the Alliance. I do not think one should go into further detail on that sort of matter.
1154
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell was good enough to say that he thought 70 per cent. of my speech was—I am not quite sure whether he said common-sense or realistic. I would in return give him even higher marks. I thought that almost the whole of his speech was common sense and realistic. I have really no quarrel with anything he said, though perhaps I might have expressed some of the points rather differently. I have only one slight reservation. I think he was a little unfair to my right honourable friend Mr. Duncan Sandys when he said that the 1957 White Paper—I think that was the White Paper he was referring to—
LORD SHINWELL: 1958.
LORD CARRINGTON: —the 1958 White Paper—was the basic cause of our manpower troubles. I think in 1958 the "trip-wire" strategy, which was in effect outlined in that White Paper, was a credible strategy, because there was an overwhelming nuclear superiority on the side of the West because of the American nuclear superiority; but of course that superiority, as we have all said this afternoon, very largely disappeared. There is now parity, and a "trip-wire" strategy when there is nuclear parity is obviously no longer as credible as it was before. I think perhaps Mr. Duncan Sandys was being a little more logical than the noble Lord would give him credit for.
The noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Shepherd, asked me to explain more precisely the circumstances in which British troops would take part in operations in the defence of Malaysia and Singapore. Of course, ours are not the only forces there. There are Australian and New Zealand forces, as well as the Malaysians and Singaporeans. I do not think it right that one should try to forecast the sort of contingencies which might arise. We should have to decide each situation on its own merits and, of course, in consultation with our partners. But I confirm that the Five-Power arrangements will be concerned with the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore and not with internal security; and during our consultations we should all of us have to decide whether any particular situation involved the external defence of Malaysia and Singapore or was purely an internal matter. I think

1155
it would be quite wrong to lay down too precise guidelines at this stage.
My noble friend, Lord Balerno spoke, as did some other noble Lords, about the manpower situation, and I will study what he and others have said about it. There have been some valuable suggestions. I should like to associate myself with what Lord Winterbottom said about Lord Balerno and the efforts he makes in Scotland on behalf of the Forces. I myself have seen at first hand what he does at Edinburgh University with the cadets, and I think everybody should be very grateful to those public-spirited people like my noble friend who takes such an infinity of trouble to help the Services.
Several noble Lords have talked about the Gulf, and I have explained that at this present time I am not in a position to announce the Government's policy. The noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Segal, and my noble friend Lord Glasgow and several other noble Lords, spoke on this matter. I will study what they have said, and I assure them that the points of view which they have expressed are obviously being taken into account in the discussions which are leading up to the Government's decisions. I would also assure my noble friend Lord Ashbourne that we went carefully into the question of whether or not it would be possible to retain H.M.S. "Eagle" as well as H.M.S. "Ark Royal", but we regretfully came to the conclusion that the cost, both in money and in manpower, would have been too high.
My noble friend Lord Glasgow asked me three questions. He asked me when EXOCET would come into service. The answer is that it will come into service as soon as we can possibly get it into service; but I should not like to be more precise than that at this moment. He also asked whether the vertical take-off aircraft which he said would be serving in the Royal Navy would be manned by the Royal Navy or by the Royal Air Force. I must make it plain to my noble friend that there has been no decision to equip the Royal Navy with vertical takeoff aircraft. What is happening is that evaluation trials are taking place with the Harrier aircraft on board several types of ships in the Royal Navy, and we must see how these trials go before
1156
we make any decision. It has not therefore been decided who would fly these aircraft. But so far as both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are concerned, so long as they want the aircraft, the aircraft work and they get them, I doubt whether either of them would mind very much who flew them. The Mark 24 torpedo, which was the subject of the noble Lord's last question, did run into some troubles but we hope that it is now through the troubles and the development is proceeding quite satisfactorily. I hope that it will come into service some time in the early 'seventies.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, endorsed the tribute which a great many of your Lordships have paid to the troops in Northern Ireland. Of course he speaks with great authority. I agree with him that we should make it absolutely clear that the Army will remain in Northern Ireland in strength for as long as is necessary, and that it would be unrealistic to suppose that this will be for only a short time more. But it must be said equally clearly, and I certainly say it as Secretary of State for Defence, that this commitment places the most grievous strain on the Army's manpower, and especially on the discharge of our obligations to NATO. So we shall maintain the Northern Ireland force level only at the level at which the security situation demands, and we shall encourage the civil arm of the security forces to play their full part in the maintenance of law and order.
My noble friend Lord St. Oswald asked me three questions. First, he asked me whether or not the new volunteer units would be restricted to home defence. There is no question whatever of these units being tied to an inferior role or inferior status. Far from it. As I have said, their equipment will be on a lighter scale, but their training will prepare them for a variety and a full range of roles. One particular unit, the extra Armoured Car Regiment is being formed specifically for the purpose of reinforcing NATO, and the remainder will provide that most essential of all forces to which the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, referred—an uncommitted reserve.
My noble friend asked me about uniforms. Certainly it is our aim to provide the new units with their uniforms

1157
as soon as possible, but I hope he will appreciate that there are some administrative difficulties about this. However, we shall do what we can. Lastly, he asked me whether it would be possible for there to be some practice of rapid reinforcement exercises to Germany—for example, that one unit or another might fly out for the week-end. This is an interesting idea, because I am sure that reinforcement is one of the most important problems that we have to face. I should like to look at the suggestion my noble friend has made, and I will communicate with him later on.
My Lords, I do not suppose for one moment that I have answered all the questions your Lordships have asked me, but I have had a fair shot at doing so. If on reading through the debate I find that your Lordships have asked other questions that I have not answered, I will write to noble Lords individually. In the meantime, perhaps I may thank your Lordships for the most agreeable atmosphere in which this debate has taken place, and say that I think it has been a constructive debate and that we in your Lordships' House at any rate may feel that we have done something constructive for the Forces as a result of this debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AUSTRALIAN, MERCANTILE, LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED BILL
Examiner's Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on February 18 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past seven o'clock.