Sitting of 19 January 1971

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

  AMOCO(U.K.) BILL [Lords]
  [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  NATIONAL TRUST BILL [Lords]
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Food Prices (Increase)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the rise in the prices of vegetables, fruit, nuts and meat between 1st December and 24th December, 1970.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): No prices were collected for the two dates quoted by the hon. Member, but my information indicates that there was some upward movement in the retail price of some fresh vegetables, meat and apples during December.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that upward movement was very considerable indeed? Cannot something be done to protect the housewife? Must the Government always be on the side of the producers and profiteers? Why cannot something be done to help the ordinary housewife, particularly at seasonal times, and, from the point of view of the coming months, in regard to prices charged between the middle and end of the week?
    Mr. Prior: There were the normal seasonal increases in the prices of some fresh fruit and vegetables, but many other foods showed no change in price. As for chickens and turkeys, prices started at a rather high level but came down as Christmas proceeded, which shows that the hon. Gentleman's case is not made out.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the increase in food prices from June, 1970 to the latest available date.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the movements in retail food prices which took place during the second half of 1970, for items other than those showing significant seasonal variations.
    Mr. Prior: Between 16th June and 15th December, the Food Index rose by 1·8 per cent. and the sub-group covering items other than those which show significant seasonal variations rose by 5·5 per cent.
    Mr. Eadie: Do not the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have a bad conscience now in the light of the fact that they made promises to the electorate, which are now proved to have been grossly extravagant, in order to be elected?
    Mr. Prior: I never cease to wonder at the Opposition's attitude. In the five years from June, 1965, to June, 1970, the food index rose by 25·9 per cent., whereas in the previous five years, from June, 1959, to June, 1964, it rose by only 11·4 per cent. Surely our policies have been seen to work in the past, just as they will in the future.
    Mr. Barnes: Is not the 5·5 per cent. rise in non-seasonal foods, which, after all, form the bulk of purchases for the vast majority of families, very ominous in view a the fact that the Grocer reports that decimalisation may be followed by a trend of rapidly rising prices? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the evidence is that there is possibly too much competition in food manufacturing, especially bearing in mind the great bargaining power of the big supermarket groups? How can competition without Government intervention stabilise prices?
    Mr. Prior: There is not too much competition in food manufacturing at present. On the whole, the competition there is responsible and is good for the consumer and the housewife. Broadly speaking, the same applies to the big multiple retailers. On decimalisation, I always thought that one of the reasons why we had an early election was so that the Labour Party would not have to face the increased costs when decimalisation took place.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in all these inflationary tendencies, the present demand for a 9d. post by the Post Office workers and the demand for a huge increase in pay by the power workers will greatly afflict the food-processing industries and hasten inflation? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend resist these extravagant claims?
    Mr. Prior: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Inflation is the biggest single factor in putting up prices.
    Mr. Strang: In view of the Government's cynical betrayal of their promises on food prices before the election and the continuing rapid increase in food prices, will the Minister say when the present increases will be blamed on the last Labour Government, or is it now time to blame the trade union movement?
    Mr. Prior: Most of us recognise that this is a serious problem for a great many people. I am not certain that either side of the House gains a great deal by bandying about phrases such as "cynical betrayal" and so on. Hon. Gentlemen opposite must look to their own record in these matters before they start accusing us.
    Mr. John E. B. Hill: Is it not elementary that the rise in food prices complained of was due to comparatively slow acting factors which first arose under the previous Administration?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. The increases in the price of food in the last year fell nearly all before June. Therefore, I cannot accept responsibility for them. But I know only too well that in the next few months we shall have some considerable increases to take into account.
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in view of rising food prices, what proposals he has to repeal legislation which adversely affects food prices.
    Mr. Prior: None at present, but these matters are kept under review.
    Mr. Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition stand guilty of bringing in legislation and taxation which have increased the price of food considerably? Will he take steps, particularly by amending the Transport Act and reducing taxation, to see that this burden is lifted from food?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. The effects of selective employment tax and the Transport Act have been contributory factors in putting up prices in the past few years.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister prepared to accept the advice given to him by Sir Roy Harrod, writing in the Bankers Magazine, that this country should put a freeze on prices, as this would go a long way towards solving the inflationary tendencies? Will he advise the Cabinet to accept Sir Roy's advice and give up the Industrial Relations Bill?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House and the housewives are bored with hearing his continual excuse about selective employment tax? If he does not like it, why does he not tell the Prime Minister to get rid of it, as he promised in the General Election campaign? Are not the Government guilty of dismantling the machinery which we set up to protect the housewife against rising prices? Why does not he bring that back?
    Mr. Prior: I am absolutely guilty of helping to dismantle the machinery which

    697
    the Opposition set up, because that machinery merely resulted in food prices going up twice as fast as in the last five years of Conservative Government. I am delighted to hear that at last the hon. Lady's constituents are telling her about selective employment tax.
    Mrs. Doris Fisherasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect of the latest increase in the price of petrol on retail food prices.
    Mr. Prior: Any such effect would be negligible: but all cost increases are an impediment to maintaining stable prices.
    Mrs. Fisher: Why does not the Minister give instances in which competition between trades and manufacturers is keeping prices down instead of bleating about how the housewife herself should shop around to keep down prices?
    Mr. Prior: This is the third increase in petrol prices which we have had this year and the Prices and Incomes Board did not seem to have any more effect on that, either.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take steps to reduce the tax on petrol in order to keep stable the cost of food?
    Mr. Prior: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

    Cattle Population
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total cattle population of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire at the June, 1970 census; and how this compares with the total in June, 1969.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The total cattle population of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Derbyshire at the June, 1970, census was 605,433 compared with 615,581 in June, 1969.
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Does it not show the complete failure of the Labour Government's alleged expansionist policy? May we be assured that his right hon. Friend is con-
    698
    vinced of the necessity to reverse this disastrous trend?
    Mr. Stodart: The figures which I have given represent a fall of 1½ per cent. compared with the national England and Wales increase of 0·5 per cent., which means only a marginal change. To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I should have thought that the action which we took in October, with the injection of capital, should do much to correct this situation.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the beef expansion programme is going extremely well and according to the targets set in the expansion programme? I am, of course, speaking about beef and not about dairy cattle.
    Mr. Stodart: I was asked in the Question about the whole of the cattle population. It is true that beef cattle show an increase, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is an improvement on the previous erratic performance.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Why refer to an injection of income of less than the increase in costs as an "injection of capital"?
    Mr. Stodart: I was not aware that I had used the phrase "injection of capital" in that context. I should have referred to the injection in October, and nobody will deny the value of what was equivalent to an extra £1 per cwt.
    Mr. Mackie: Is this not a false way to present figures? The United Kingdom beef cattle population is up and the dairy cattle population is about the same. Milk supply is up—and that is what we want. After all, we do not want an increase in the number of milk cows unless we get more milk from them. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a bad way to present figures? What conclusion can be reached based simply on figures for Nottinghamshire?
    Mr. Stodart: I have answered the Question.

    Food Prices (Import Levies)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to publish an explanatory leaflet setting out the effect of import levies on food this year so far as the consumer is concerned.
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 7th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 39–40.]
    Mr. Eadie: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that consumers are entitled to know what price increases will confront them when the Government begin to operate the policies of the Common Market countries? Does not he think that consumers are entitled to know what this means for them in the shape of increased prices?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, consumers are entitled to know what the increase would be both under the levy system when it comes in and under the Common Market system. At the right time and in the right way I will give that information. If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of reading the Question tabled by his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, he will find the answer there.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman referred to negotiations on levies which have been going on for some months. When does he propose to make a statement about them?
    Mr. Prior: As soon as the negotiations are completed.

    New Zealand (Official Visit)
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to pay an official visit to New Zealand.
    Mr. Prior: I have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Marten: With regard to our new levies on New Zealand lamb, will those levies be borne ultimately by the British housewife or by the New Zealand sheep farmer? When I was in New Zealand last week, I found that there was a lot of confusion about who would bear the final cost.
    Mr. Prior: The talks going on between ourselves and the New Zealand Government are confidential. We shall make an announcement about that as soon as we can. The objective of the levies is to raise the market price internally and thus to reduce the deficiency payment, which in turn will enable the Government to reduce income tax and other taxes.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is not it clear that the Minister intends to impose a meat tax on the British housewife by a system of levies which will be imposed without any of the benefits of entering the Common Market? Is he not jumping the gun on this issue?
    Mr. Prior: It is the hon. Gentleman who is jumping the gun. He had better wait.

    Meat and Livestock Commission
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Meat and Livestock Commission.
    Mr. Prior: As I indicated in yesterday's White Paper on the work of my Ministry, my right hon. Friends and I are satisfied that the Commission has a useful rôle to play at the present time.
    Mr. Strang: While I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the important contribution which the M.L.C. can make, will he assure the House that the Corn-mission will not be debarred from evaluating the products of livestock breeders, as it wants to do? If it is not to be debarred from this function, why is it right for the M.L.C. to evaluate the current market products of breeding firms but wrong for the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering to evaluate the machinery of agricultural engineering firms?
    Mr. Prior: I regret to say that I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman about this. It is a very technical matter and I require notice of it. As for the M.L.C., for the moment the position stands as it is set out in the White Paper. But I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that British agriculture has not always been able to practise good husbandry for the reason that farmers have not had good enough end prices? In future, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they have good enough prices?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. The need in British agriculture at present is for a higher end price. If it were not for a prosperous British agriculture, the housewife would have to pay a lot more for food than she does pay.
    Earl of Dalkeith: How much is the Meat and Livestock Commission costing the taxpayer?
    Mr. Prior: The only charges on the taxpayer are those for the salaries of the members of the Commission. The rest of the costs are borne by the industry by means of the levy.

    Good Husbandry
    Mr. Spearingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in modifying the system of public support for agriculture, and with particular reference to the policy of expanding output, what proposals he has for encouraging good husbandry and discouraging practices likely to harm soil structure or fertility.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is in the farmer's own interest to understand soil management and avoid practices that harm his soil. Assistance is available to him from the various services of my Department. In modifying the support system our aim is to enable farmers to get a proper return from the market and, within that framework to take their own farming decisions.
    Mr. Spearing: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, does not he agree that the soil is the nation's most important and vital asset? Does not he also agree that any statutory provision, whether it be levy or support, should encourage farmers to engage in sound systems of husbandry which maintain soil health?
    Mr. Stodart: I agree. The basic remedy for the deficiencies that were shown by the recent soil structure report, although we should not exaggerate them, is a more balanced and more prosperous agriculture.

    World Food Prices
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the trend in world food prices during the last 12 months, from information available from international services.
    Mr. Prior: Information published by the United Nations indicates that for food and feedingstuffs exports, prices on various world markets rose on average by about 4 per cent. between the second
    702
    quarters of 1969 and 1970; quotations on world markets for a number of important foodstuffs show that prices continued to increase during the second half of 1970.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that Answer, taken in conjunction with his Answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), suggests that arguments about a vast increase in the price of food which we shall have to pay as a result of joining the Common Market are, to put the matter at its lowest, extremely shortsighted?
    Mr. Prior: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Our estimate is that over 1970 as a whole world food prices may well show an increase of 6 to 7 per cent., at a time when the Common Market has kept its farm prices stable for the past four years.
    Mr. Golding: Do not the figures also show that the attacks on us by the Conservative Party last June were completely bogus? Do not they show that the increases in food prices occurring then were beyond the control of the then Government, but that food price increases envisaged in the coming year, because of taxes put on at the ports, will be well within the control of the present Administration?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The point of our proposals for levies is that we should stabilise prices this year at about their present level. This will be done through the introduction of a levy scheme. Over the past five years food prices and the cost-of-living index have risen to record levels.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: With reference to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), does my right hon. Friend accept that there is nothing shortsighted in recognising that the immediate increase in food prices will reflect itself in wage demands which may well disrupt the whole competitiveness of this country at a vital time in our history?
    Mr. Prior: Some of us believe that the longer-term advantages of joining the Common Market should not be judged entirely by the short-term disadvantages of higher prices for food.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the Minister agree that if he stabilises prices at the present level, the price of cereals, for example, will be at a very high level and will inevitably result in high feed prices and create difficulties, particularly for the stock farmer?
    Mr. Prior: Most of the higher prices to the stock farmer resulting from higher grain prices have already worked their way through to the consumer. Therefore, I do not think that there would be any major increase now resulting from the higher grain prices.

    Food Education Council
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to appoint a Food Education Council to advise consumers on nutrition.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. A number of organisations are performing this function.
    Mrs. Butler: Since a number of eminent nutritionists are very concerned about the lack of nutritive value in many modern foods, and since the Minister has responsibility for ensuring that the food we eat is nutritious, what more does he intend to do to advise consumers in general, and special groups like the elderly and those catering for children, who may be specially at risk?
    Mr. Stodart: My Department does a great deal of advising on nutrition. It watches things like food standards, food additives and so on. There are numerous bodies ranging from the British Nutrition Foundation and the British Dietetic Association, and separate organisations for practically every individual food, from fish right through to mushrooms. I do not think that any extra advisory body is called for.

    Tractors
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to refer to the Monopolies Commission the action of those tractor manufacturers who have declined to sell their tractors without a fitted safety cab.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: While I do not exclude this possibility, I prefer immediately to follow the course I set out in my speech in the debate on the Motion for
    704
    the Adjournment on 13th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 225–30.]
    Mr. Farr: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. I am grateful that he realises how repugnant is the attitude which certain tractor cab manufacturers and tractor manufacturers have taken. Has he had any success yet in his approach to those manufacturers?
    Mr. Stodart: I am very anxious to get a solution to the matter as quickly as possible. Although my hon. Friend's suggestion is not impossible, it would mean a fairly slow procedure. It would be much quicker and more certain if the manufacturers co-operated with us. They have been invited to see me next week.
    Mr. Buchan: How can the Minister say that he is considering the Monopolies Commission step as a possibility when in his White Paper issued yesterday he says that he will leave advice to farmers on their choice of machinery entirely to commercial sources? The two things are contradictory. Should not the hon. Gentleman rescind yesterday's White Paper?
    Mr. Stodart: There is any amount of competition between the various tractor manufacturers for the sale of their vehicles. This is quite a different matter.

    Dairy Herd (Size)
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the dairy herd size at the moment in view of the need to meet the milk supplies required this year and to help in the production of beef; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The number of dairy cows in the United Kingdom was 31,000 lower in June, 1970, than in June, 1969. This is one of the factors for consideration at the forthcoming Annual Review.
    Mr. Mills: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that owing to the large amount of slaughtering of dairy cows in the autumn there could in some circumstances be a shortage of milk this coming year? Certainly, he will not be able to get the expansion he wants unless something is done about this problem.
    Mr. Stodart: There was a reduction in the autumn owing to the high beef prices then prevalent, but my hon. Friend will

    705
    be relieved to learn that milk sales are likely to hold good and even be up. The count of heifers in June was up by 5 per cent.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: What will be the effect on milk sales and production of the Government's policy to destroy the principle of free milk in schools for our children?
    Mr. Stodart: Absolutely nothing in this financial year. It will be a matter for the Price Review.
    Mr. Brewis: Looking a few years ahead, is my hon. Friend satisfied that there will be sufficient margin for liquid milk consumption in winter, and sufficient over for increased butter and cheese production?
    Mr. Stodart: I think that there is a considerable margin for increased butter and cheese production. The levies which we propose putting on minor milk products will assist in raising the returns, and this will all help. I think that I can answer the first part of my hon. Friend's question in the affirmative.

    Eggs
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to limit the import of eggs during the height of the laying season, and to ensure that home-produced eggs are not priced out of the market by the export of eggs sold well below domestic prices at country of origin
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The home industry is protected against imports at unduly low prices by minimum import prices.
    Mr. Osborn: Has my hon. Friend had time to study the representations from the Sheffield and Rotherham branch of the N.F.U., members of which are finding it difficult to sell their eggs at this time of year against imports arising from barter agreements? Will my hon. Friend watch such barter agreements in the future and ensure that the products come into the country at prices that do not damage the home market?
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir. I have done so. I apologise to my hon. Friend for not replying to him sooner. He will get a letter from me this evening.
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will consider a rise in the minimum import prices for eggs and egg products, in order to preserve the stability of the shell egg market in the United Kingdom; and whether he will consider an adjustment in the ratio between the minimum import prices for dried egg and frozen whole egg.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The minimum import prices for shell eggs, frozen egg, and dried egg will shortly be fully reviewed in accordance with our understandings with overseas suppliers, and the minimum import prices for shell eggs are in any case due to be raised by 2d. a dozen in March.
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been received from levies on egg imports so far this year.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: £87,000 was collected between April and November, 1970.
    Mr. Howell: In view of his Replies, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he will consider reviewing the whole of the egg levy system?
    Mr. Stodart: I do not think that we can review the whole of the system, but there is a review of the minimum import prices in the first quarter of each year, and that will take place in the way I have stated.

    Farm Machinery Depreciation
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in calculating farm machinery depreciation for the Annual Price Review, he will allow a higher rate of early depreciation, and a lower rate of later depreciation, in place of the straight-line depreciation rate currently employed by his Department.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that straight-line depreciation at replacement costs is suitable for the Departmental Net Income Calculation.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Surely my hon. Friend wants to achieve some degree of reality so that the net farm income figures are meaningful? Is not it desirable that

    707
    the written-down value of machinery should bear some relation to what it actually fetches when it is traded in?
    Mr. Stodart: The alternative to the straight-line depreciation is the diminishing balance. The straight-line system uses current replacement costs and is approved by the National Farmers' Union, while the diminishing balance, although it is the traditional Inland Revenue method, does not take account of inflation, and therefore has grave disadvantages.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslopasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to inform farmers that they should make sure to enter all their machinery on the annual census form, so that depreciation on it all can be calculated by his Department for inclusion in its annual computation of the industry's costs.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that farmers do not complete their census returns accurately and fully, in accordance with their statutory obligation.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my hon. Friend look into this matter? If he wants to find out what the costs are—in other words, to run his Department on the basis of accurate information—he will find, if he examines the matter, that a lot of machinery which is not frequently used does not appear on the annual census form.
    Mr. Stodart: I absolutely agree, but there is no reason to suppose that the depreciation allowances are under-rated, because allowances are made in respect of machines that are not returned. I should be unwilling to add more questions to the already lengthy census returns. I would rather have fewer.

    Food (Consumer Expenditure)
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of consumer expenditure was spent on food in 1964; and how this figure compares with 1970.
    Mr. Prior: The proportion of total consumer expenditure which was spent on food for the 12 months to the end of September, 1964, was about 26½ per cent. compared with nearly 24 per cent. for the 12 months to the end of Septem-
    708
    ber, 1970, the latest period for which information is available.
    Mr. Morrison: I thank my right hon. Friend for that very interesting reply. Would not the proportion of expenditure on food have decreased further if more people had not spent more and more money on luxury foods?
    Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. Broadly speaking, as a nation grows richer—although over the past few years this nation has done so rather more slowly than usual—it spends a smaller proportion of its total outgoings on food. That is one of the reasons why it is possible at this stage to move over to the higher market price without its having a great effect on either consumption or people's standards of living.
    Mr. Barnes: Does not the Minister agree that overall figures taking in the whole population are extremely misleading as to the family circumstances of many people with below-average incomes? Could he give us comparative figures for 1964 and 1970 for families with earnings below the national average wage?
    Mr. Prior: I cannot give those figures without notice. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question, or I will write to him about it. But the information available to me shows that old-age pensioners, for example, who form one of the sections of society which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, are tending to spend a lower proportion of their total expenditure on food.
    Miss Hall: Can my right hon. Friend also give us figures for the amount of money spent on convenience foods in the period 1964–70? Although they are very useful, convenience foods are a luxury.
    Mr. Prior: Again, I cannot give those figures without notice, but if my hon. Friend puts down a Question I will deal with it. The point surely is that, as a nation becomes more prosperous, it wants to spend less time on cooking and more time on other things, and, therefore, everything we can do to encourage convenience foods, we should do.

    Brucellosis
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

    709
    Food if he will now make an announcement about brucellosis eradication orders.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the statutory Orders for this year's compulsory area eradication programmes. These will be laid, as necessary, after the areas themselves have been selected and announced in the spring.
    Mr. Morrison: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the N.F.U. about compensation? Has any agreement been reached about it?
    Mr. Stodart: We are, as my hon. Friend knows, to bring in a flat rate of compensation for this, and discussions have been held about it.
    Mr. David Clark: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, especially in areas of high distribution and retailing of milk, there is considerable concern and distress about brucellosis and that we welcome his decision to go ahead with eradication schemes? But this is also a human disease. Can he not complete the process and bring pressure to bear on the Government to make brucellosis a notifiable disease in humans?
    Mr. Stodart: In all my speeches on the subject I have tended to point out that the human disease has been underrated. I believe that it is considerably worse than it is held out to be. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Maclennan: What increase has there been in brucella-free stocks during the past year? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is such as to enable these eradication orders to be introduced soon?
    Mr. Stodart: We understand that the schemes will be able to go ahead with a sufficient reservoir of stock. If the hon. Gentleman would like precise figures, I will try to let him have them.

    Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he is proposing in the Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959 to take account of the increasing use of organic arsenical substances in animal feeding; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: None. The Arsenic in Food Regulations, 1959, strictly limit the amount of arsenic which may be present in food for sale for human consumption, irrespective of its origin.
    Mrs. Butler: In view of some of the high levels of arsenic which have been found in pig's livers by county inspectors in farms in various parts of the country, could the hon. Gentleman at least ask the appropriate committee to look at these regulations to make sure that they are adequate to cope with modern conditions?
    Mr. Stodart: I am prepared to do that, although my information is that the episodes to which the hon. Lady refers have been minute in number. However, I am ready to ask for the matter to be looked into.

    Meat Tax
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has made to the meat trade in respect of the Government's plans to introduce a meat tax; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: Details of the Government's proposed levy schemes have been given in confidence to meat trade organisations at a series of meetings held recently. Discussions with other Governments are still taking place. I am not in a position to announce details of the proposals at present.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Bearing in mind the Conservative Party's election pledge to halt the rise in prices at a stroke, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that his plot to impose a meat tax on the housewife's family joint is a scandalous betrayal of that pledge? When can we expect a statement telling us the facts of how this disgraceful meat tax will be imposed on the British housewife?
    Mr. Prior: The needle of the hon. Gentleman's gramophone record seems to get stuck in the same place.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: While I think that the right hon. Gentleman should answer the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) before attempting to answer mine, may I ask whether he

    711
    can give even a preliminary idea of the reaction of the New Zealand Government to these plans for levies on meat imports?
    Mr. Prior: The negotiations with New Zealand are, of course, confidential, but I assure the House that they have been extremely cordial.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is it not becoming increasingly obvious to hon. Members and to millions of our constituents outside that the Government are so deeply dedicated to taking us willy-nilly into the Common Market that they are deliberately seeking to increase the prices of food in order to bring British prices nearer to Continental prices so as to make entry easier from the political point of view?
    Mr. Prior: I make it plain that the interim levy scheme on which we are working is one that we shall introduce whether we go into the Common Market or not.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the disgraceful nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should give his notice in the conventional form.

    Home-produced Beef and Lamb
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of home-produced beef and lamb for 1971; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: As a result of heavy marketings of fat stock in the last quarter of 1970, home beef production in the calendar year 1971 is expected to be some 3 per cent. lower than in 1970. Lamb production is likely to be about 7 per cent. less.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is it not the case that, during recent years, the producers have consistently overestimated their contribution towards meat production in this country? Will the hon. Gentleman take more seriously the views of consumers
    712
    rather than the views of the vested interests of the N.F.U.?
    Mr. Stodart: I urge the hon. Gentleman to realise that his questions about calendar years can be extremely misleading. There were heavy marketings of beef in the autumn of last year, which will undoubtedly offset numbers this year, whereas lamb marketings were held back in the autumn and will not come through until 1971. Therefore, to use a calendar year as a basis can be most misleading.

    Food Contamination (Monitoring)
    Mr. David Steelasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to forbid the sale of tuna fish in the event of continuing evidence of possible contamination by industrial effluent.
    Mr. Prior: I have now instituted a scheme of monitoring for certain heavy metals, initially methyl mercury, in canned and fresh fish and certain other foods important in the national diet. I am circulating a detailed note on the scheme in the OFFICIAL REPORT and have made copies available in the Library. If, on the results obtained, my expert advisers consider that action is needed, I have adequate powers to protect the consumer.
    Mr. Steel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for letting me have a copy of the document. Is he aware that the public will welcome this reassuring step in view of the increasing anxiety about the side effects of industrial pollutions? This is a very good step forward.
    Mr. Prior: The primary sample will be of about 3,000 items annually. I hope that this will reassure public opinion. But if I think that further measures are necessary, I will take them.
    Following is the information:
    I have now organised, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Social Services, Scotland and Trade and Industry, a scheme of monitoring of canned and fresh fish and of a proportion of other foods which are important in the national diet.
    A primary sample of about 3,000 items annually will be analysed by the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, by the Government Fisheries Laboratories and

    713
    by the Plant Pathology Laboratory. The sample will be supplemented by further tests undertaken through offers of co-operation from local authority analysts. Some food research institutes and research associations may also be undertaking research in this area and will be invited to make results available for consideration with those resulting from the monitoring scheme.
    The monitoring scheme will concentrate on methyl mercury, but the opportunity will be taken to make checks for the presence of certain other heavy metals. The selection of these additional metals will be made when I have the advice on this of the Pharmacology Sub-Committee of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. The results obtained from the monitoring will be co-ordinated by the Ministry's scientists and associated with statistical information about the proportion of particular foods in the national diet which is available from the National Food Survey.
    The main monitoring scheme will be supplemented in two ways. In the first, there will be a random check of foodstuffs which are of minor significance in the national diet where it is nevertheless desirable to confirm from time to time that the presence of methyl mercury is at levels which cause no concern. The second approach will be to seek to establish the possible existence of small local areas of pollution which might affect levels of mercury in food and make special checks at such places.
    The results obtained by the main monitoring and by these supplementary checks will be submitted to the Pharmacology Sub-Committee and to the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee. The results will be published with the observations of these Committees at half-yearly intervals, and a first report should be made public by the autumn. If the monitoring scheme revealed cause for concern either in general or in a local area I should, of course, bring this information to the attention of my expert advisers immediately and announce the action which I was taking to protect the consumer if this proved necessary.
    Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, we have reached the end of Questions to the Minister of Agriculture today and, as he will shortly
    714
    be leaving the Chamber, may I ask your advice? He said nothing in his White Paper yesterday about the future of the White Fish Authority. He has consistently refused to give any answer and, in the unhappy event today of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) not being here to ask Question No. 9, we still have no answer. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make a statement on the future of the White Fish Authority, which is so vital to the fishing industry?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order, but no doubt the Minister heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

  INDUSTRIAL CONCILIATION (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister if he will reduce the number of Ministers concerned with industrial conciliation.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I have been asked to reply.
  No, Sir.
  Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no point in the Government preaching about "one nation" while they refuse to conciliate in industrial disputes, thus helping to create two nations? Will he learn from the growing bitterness of the power and postal workers, drawing the lesson that the Government's policy of calculated indifference will result only in encouraging calculated industrial disputes?
  Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's description of the Government's policy, which always has been that it is within the discretion of the Secretary of State for Employment to decide whether to use his conciliation services. I understand that a statement may be made quite soon about the Post Office dispute.

  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (ECONOMIC ADVISER)
  Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an economic adviser to the office of Prime Minister.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  No. My right hon. Friend already has access to a wide range of economic advice.
  Mr. Sheldon: Since it is clear that either the advice is inadequate or the Government are paying no attention to it, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about the figures released by the Department of Trade and Industry yesterday, which show that industrial investment this year will be less than for last year, which is the first time that this has happened since 1963? Is not this situation due to the fact that the Government changed from investment grants to tax allowances? Does it not show the failure of their policy?
  Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. I am certain that the figures do not fit with the timing of changes in investment incentives. We must recognise that continuing wage inflation absorbs the cash resources of industry and makes industrial investment very difficult.
  Mr. Hordern: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever economic advice the Prime Minister may care to take, he should take none at all from the Opposition who, while in power, achieved the worst record of economic growth of any of the O.E.C.D. countries?
  Mr. Maudling: It is unlikely that my right hon. Friend will look across the Chamber for economic advice.
  Mr. Golding: Since a tribunal has been established to declare what the national economic interest is, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us that, in future, when men are appointed to adjudicate on the national economic interest, the Government will not appoint a chairman who cannot understand detailed statistics or an employers' representative who cannot understand economics?
  Mr. Maudling: If the premises on which that supplementary question were based had any validity, I should be prepared to answer it.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: While it is true that wage claims are having a great effect on the cash flow of industry, is it not also the case that high interest rates plus bank squeeze together are bound to interfere with normal business invest-
  716
  ment? Is there any chance of having a slight relaxation of the squeeze, if not of interest rates?
  Mr. Maudling: I certainly would not predict reductions in interest rates, or in Bank Rate above all. It is true that the greater the rate of cost inflation, the more the need to restrain demand inflation.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is there any country in the world which has interest rates as high as we have?
  Mr. Maudling: I should need notice before I could answer about every other country in the world. Certainly I can think of few major industrial countries which have had such cost inflation problems as those which we inherited from the last Government.

  DIEGO GARCIA
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Australia on bases/staging posts in the British Indian Ocean territory.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  The Australian Government were informed about the proposed naval communications facility at Diego Garcia before the public announcement was made.
  Mr. Dalyell: What has been the AngloAustralian reply to the view of the Indian and Ceylon Governments that the Indian Ocean should be demilitarised?
  Mr. Maudling: I understand that the matter is being discussed at the conference in Singapore, and I cannot say anything about it at the moment. I gather that the proposal for this facility has been much welcomed in Australia.
  Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Soviet threat in the Indian Ocean is entirely a political one, not military, and, therefore, does not justify the Government's somewhat hysterical fears?
  Mr. Maudling: I thought that the photographs which we saw in the newspapers recently were more of a naval than of a political character.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister whether, during the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, he discussed with the New Zealand Prime Minister the effect upon New Zealand of Great Britain entering the Common Market.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  I must ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making on his return.
  Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government are fully aware of the disaster which would overtake the people of New Zealand unless we secure absolutely gilt-edged assurances for their sheep and dairy industries?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not believe that there is any difference on either side of the House about this. In all the discussions with Western Europe, we have always recognised the fundamental importance of the British market to the New Zealand economy, and no Government, of any complexion, would ever dare or wish to ignore that.
  Mr. J. T. Price: How is it that leaders of Government opinion are so ready to use the "kith-and-kin" argument when applied to Rhodesia yet, when we are talking about our kith and kin in New Zealand and Australia, they are so loth to regard them in the same light as being of our common stock?
  Mr. Maudling: That does not, I think, arise out of this Question. I have never myself used the kith-and-kin argument, and it is a phrase which I do not much like. No one on either side of the House has ever failed to recognise the deep and lasting ties between the people of this country and the people of Australia and New Zealand.

  PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech on wage inflation to the Young Conservatives on 5th December, 1970.
  Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech made to the Young Conservatives on 5th December on industrial relations in the House of Commons Library.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend did so on 9th December.
  Mr. Barnett: Is not the speech very much out of date now, in view of the 18 per cent. Chrysler wage settlement which has shown that the Government's attempt to make an example of the public sector is not working? In such circumstances, how can the right hon. Gentleman expect the generally lower-paid public employees to accept the Government's policy of less than 10 per cent., when it is seen to be so grotesquely unfair?
  Mr. Maudling: The question of comparabilities is complicated and they should be looked at in some detail. The experience of the previous Administration did not show that a rigid statutory control of all incomes was a great success.
  Mr. Sheldon: As the fight with public employees is manifestly failing to influence the private sector, when will the Government take responsibility themselves for economic action instead of leaving it to courts of inquiry?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not accept that the attitude which the Government have taken on incomes in the public sector has failed to influence the general attitude of employers in the private sector, too, in recognising that for everyone in this country there is a common interest in bringing a halt to the present inflation.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I thoroughly endorse the last part of my right hon. Friend's reply, but will he now apply himself fundamentally to wage inflation and understand that if, on the old-Etonian "palsy-walsy" network, Lord Melchett has a rise from £16,000 to £25,000 a year, it is utterly impossible to convince ordinary workshop floor workers that 5 per cent. is correct?
  Mr. Maudling: I still think that there is something in the principle of the rate for the job.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House at what point

  719
  the Government consider that a wage or salary settlement becomes inflationary?
  Mr. Maudling: This is more a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for me, but it must be generally and mathematically obvious that an increase in money wages which goes beyond the increase in productivity inevitably gives a push to inflation.
  Mr. Biffen: Reverting to the point made concerning the wage award by Chrysler (U.K.) Limited, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the size of that award is entirely within the competence of the commercial judgment of the management concerned, provided that the company does not subsequently come to the House and expect the taxpayer to bail it out of any difficulties into which it falls?
  Mr. Maudling: It is certainly within its legal competence, but I should not like to comment on that award without notice.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I have drawn the right hon. Gentleman's attention in advance of today to an interesting article which he wrote in the Spectator before the election. Does he recall that in that article just before the election, he said that in all the circumstances we need to have a prices and incomes policy? I recognise that he is not proposing a statutory policy, but will he tell us why the rest of his colleagues have taken no cognisance of his important views on this matter? Or does he think that they have a prices and incomes policy, and, if so, what is it?
  Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to tell me that he has been reading my article in the Spectator. I meant to look it up but, quite honestly, I forgot. The simple fact is that the Government have a policy about both incomes and prices. It has been explained many times in the House. It is very different from the policy of the previous Administration, and will prove to be much more effective.

  FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (RESPONSIBILITIES)
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will enumerate his responsibilities as First Lord of the Treasury.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  As the answer is somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Mr. Carter: Whatever the Answer be, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to note that certain new Members, believing the Prime Minister to have responsibilities in economic affairs, have tabled Questions to him but that these have been passed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If the Prime Minister does have responsibilities in this field, will he ensure that he answers such Questions?
  Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend's practice in this matter has been the same as has always been followed on Prime Minister's Questions save for the short and disastrous period when the previous Prime Minister was in charge of the economy.
  Mr. Thorpe: Arising out of this Question and closely related to Question No. Q6, since the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have a policy for both prices and incomes, could he tell us, in his opinion, on which of the two they have been the more successful?
  Mr. Maudling: The two must always march together.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's previous courteous remark is he aware that, as a result of the conduct of responsibilities by the former First Lord of the Treasury, we handed over to his Government a surplus of £600 million having inherited from our predecessors a deficit of over £800 million, about which the right hon. Gentleman was singularly frivolous at the time? Is not that the reason why—because the present Government do not have to face the speculative runs on sterling which were associated with an £800 million deficit—the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends can be so complacent about the economy today?
  Mr. Maudling: I thought that we might get back to the £800 million, although it is almost antediluvian by now. If it be a question of comparable confidence in sterling, I recall that, only a few months after the previous Prime Minister assumed responsibility for the economy, we had a devaluation.
  Following is the information:

  1. The First Lord of the Treasury is one of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury and may act as such in the exercise of any of the functions of the Treasury, but does not normally do so. Under Section 2 of the Ministers of the Crown Act, 1964, it is the First Lord of the Treasury who determines the annual salary of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and all holders of the office of Minister of State.

  2. The First Lord of the Treasury exercises certain powers of patronage. He tenders advice to the Sovereign on appointment to the Crown livings in the Church of England. The appointments of trustees (and director) of certain museums and galleries are made by the Board of Treasury on the First Lord's recommendation. These are the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, the Tate Gallery, the Wallace Collection, the London Museum, the Imperial War Museum and the National Maritime Museum. Similarly, the First Lord recommends for appointment by the Board of Treasury the chairman and members of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries.

  3. In addition, the First Lord is an ex-officio trustee of the Duke of Wellington's Parliamentary Estates, an ex-officio trustee of the Hunterian Collection, an ex-officio member of the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, an ex-officio Church Commissioner and an ex-officio trustee of the Duke of Grafton's Prisage Fund.

  RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATIONS (OFFICIAL VISIT)
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to the Government-sponsored research and development organisations.
  Mr. Maudling: I have been asked to reply.
  My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will cause grave disquiet within Government research and development organisations as the Government have, since the election, announced various cuts in research and development within organisations which have a vital bearing on the efficiency and modernisation programmes of British industry?
  Mr. Maudling: This is an important question. As the hon. Member knows, the Government are conducting a complete review of our industrial R and D activities to see what part is appropriate
  722
  to Government finance and what part should be paid for by industry.
  Captain W. Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Government research and development there is a great deal of flabby, useless expenditure?
  Mr. Maudling: I am sure that there economies to be made. A great deal of enormously valuable work has been done. Our basic principle is that work which should and could be paid for by industry should be paid for by industry.

ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY (COURT OF INQUIRY)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
45. Mr. HORDERN: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the submission of evidence by the Treasury to the court of inquiry into pay in the electricity industry.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to answer Question No. 45.
As the House knows the terms of reference of the court of inquiry appointed by my right hon. Friend referred inter alia to
"the interests of the public and of the national economy"
The secretary of the court of inquiry wrote to the Permanent Secretary to the Treasury informing him that the court had decided that it would be helpful to it if the Treasury could submit a document to it on the significance of the dispute to the interests of the national economy, and also asked whether representatives of the Treasury would be prepared to come to a public hearing for the purpose of clarifying points arising from the written material.
A memorandum was accordingly prepared by the Treasury and with my approval submitted to the Court. Copies were placed in the House of Commons library on 15th January and, for the convenience of the House, it has been published as a Government White Paper. Treasury officials will be attending a public hearing tomorrow for the purpose of clarification.
Mr. Hordern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country is behind

723
the Government in their determination to curb inflation and believes that it is right that the terms of the court of inquiry should have regard to the national interest? Is it not rather strange that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) should show such new-found enthusiasm for an incomes policy? What sort of incomes policy were his Government following six months before the General Election?
Mr. Barber: As to the first part of my hon. Friend's remarks, I am sure that he is echoing the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the nation. On the other part of his comments, no doubt in due course the right hon. Member for Stechford will explain why he changed his mind.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he decided that verbal evidence should be presented to the court by officials rather than by himself or another Treasury Minister, since the matters to be raised are bound by their very nature to be somewhat political? What instructions, for instance, has he given to officials about what they should say if comparative questions should be asked about the attitude to this claim and his own attitude to the doctors' claim during the General Election?
Secondly, will he tell the House what purpose he thinks has been served by abolishing the Prices and Incomes Board, with its experience in these matters, and setting up a special court of inquiry when two of its three members were reported yesterday as saying that they were unable to understand detailed economic arguments?
Mr. Barber: To take the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's question first, the simple fact is, as I should have thought by now he would agree, that the Prices and Incomes Board was associated with what has turned out to be a discredited policy of statutory control of incomes pursued by the previous Government, which they quite rightly abandoned in the light of experience. As to the appearance of officials, there is nothing new in this. If the right hon. Gentleman recalls it, it happened at the time when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred to the doctors' and dentists' pay
724
award. He has chosen a very good example, because within the last year of the previous Government, when he was Chancellor, officials, no doubt with his approval, gave oral evidence on considerations of the national interest as they affected the pay of those particular groups.
Mr. Thorpe: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we are creating a somewhat unfortunate precedent in that civil servants are being asked to express opinions which are essentially political in front of a body which is quasi-judicial, and that it would be preferable for Ministers to give those political opinions? Since it is a quasi-judicial hearing, are we to take it that those who give evidence, from whatever quarter, will be subject to cross-examination?
Mr. Barber: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the court will decide the way in which it wishes to pursue its inquiries. It did ask that representatives of the Treasury should be made available to clarify certain points which might arise on the written evidence which had been submitted. There is nothing new in this method which we have employed. I believe it is the right one, but it is for the court to decide who it wishes to call and answer questions. If it wishes to ask me I shall be delighted to attend, as will any other Minister.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: It will be accepted by the House that officials can give evidence—they often have—within the lines laid down by Government policy and proclaimed and defended by Ministers. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the difference here is that by this evidence he is in effect laying down what is an incomes policy for the public sector in everything but name and he should answer fully for that. Are we not now in great danger of having an incomes policy in everything but name in the public sector with nothing for the private sector, which is very near to the worst of all possible worlds?
Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I disagree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. The evidence was prepared by the Treasury and submitted with my approval. It is now published in a White Paper. I hope that he will take the view that it is objective evidence intended to help the court.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in difficulty today. Later there is to be a debate in which a great many hon. and right hon. Members are interested which must finish at 7 o'clock. I have a Private Notice Question, two statements and possibly one other matter of business. I think: we must go on. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES (PAYMENT)
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement as to the action he will take to secure the prompt payment of pensions, benefits and allowances, during the forthcoming interruption of postal services.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): Arrangements already announced by the Post Office provide for pension and allowance orders to continue to be cashed at post offices. People needing to claim sickness or other benefits should get in touch with their local Social Security office, or arrange for someone to do so on their behalf. My local officers will ensure that payment orders are made available for collection as quickly as possible.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Could my right hon. Friend say what those people, who will receive new order books in the next few weeks, and there are many thousands of them, should do to cash vouchers in them? Can his local offices help by making direct payments? In view of the very large number of people, many of them living near the margin, to whom this is of the greatest importance, will he consider making a Ministerial broadcast explaining what is being done?
Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friend is quite right to be anxious about such people, but as things are at present the sub-post offices will be open and, the country has been told by the Post Office, Crown post offices will be open on two days a week for a period of hours to cash such orders. If affairs deteriorate, then the Government would be ready to give advice to the people as may appear to be necessary.
Mr. Heffer: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that the post offices will be open to assist these people precisely because the trade union workers involved have taken steps to ensure that those concerned will receive their benefits?
Sir K. Joseph: I am told that announcements to that effect have been made and that is why I referred to it.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the most vulnerable groups in the community need to be protected against whatever policy the Government decide to pursue against inflation. Will he confirm that Post Office workers have agreed to co-operate as fully as possible in the payment of these sums of money to needy people? Secondly, would the right hon. Gentleman consider waiving the provision that pensions must be paid at a particular office should any local causes of hardship arise? This seems to be absolutely crucial.
Sir K. Joseph: If there is any case of hardship, the public are advised to get in touch with local Social Security offices, who will do their very best to help.
Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, in many parts of the country, local Social Security offices are many miles away from pensioners and that if there is a breakdown in the machinery which gets money to sub-post offices, great hardship could arise? Will he instruct his officers to make direct calls on pensioners?
Sir K. Joseph: The visiting services of my Department will continue. I cannot guarantee to make good any lack of cash in local offices, though I will take up with my hon. right Friend the danger to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who represents a large rural area, refers.

POST OFFICE (DISPUTE)
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement.
Officials of my Department yesterday had meetings with representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers and of the Post Office. These discussions showed

727
that both sides held strongly to the positions which each held when negotiations broke down.
However, in view of the serious situation, I thought it right to inform myself personally of the position, and I have therefore invited representatives of the Union of Post Office Workers and of the Post Office to meetings with me later this afternoon. I shall report to the House again tomorrow.
Mrs. Castle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement and for his promise to keep the House informed by making another statement tomorrow. May I, at the outset, inform him of how glad we are that he has yielded to the request which I made last night that he should come out of his hibernation—[Interruption.]—as the Government's conciliator, to meet the two sides?
May we have an assurance that, having met the two sides separately and having informed himself of the position, he will then go on to call them together jointly, in front of him, to explore whether there is any basis on which this strike can be averted?
Mr. Carr: I will continue to use my discretion, as it is my duty to do, as to when to see the sides in this or any other dispute, whether to see them separately or together and what to say to them. I can only assure the House that I will use that discretion without any preconceived prejudices one way or the other. I hope that the right hon. Lady will take care not to prejudice the position by, for example, inciting one side not to accept arbitration. [Interruption.]
Sir Harmar Nicholls: If this is the season for yielding, may I ask my right hon. Friend to suggest to the parties, when he meets them, that it would be sensible for them to yield to the commonsense decision of allowing an arbitrator to come in, as was laid down by the procedures, bearing in mind that one of the most dangerous things that is happening in this country today is the suggestion, fostered by people of some eminence, that we have nobody impartial enough—[Interruption.]—because they question the integrity of everybody in this country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that if sensible negotiations are
728
to occur in future, we must recognise that arbitration as voluntarily agreed is the only real way out?
Mr. Carr: I think it is better that I should, as I said, keep myself absolutely free to use my discretion as to what I say to each side and as to how I see them. However, I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that just as I will have to do this, so I am sure that the House and the country will expect both sides to keep in mind the interests of the whole community and not just their own.
Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the statement made yesterday by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that to grant an 8 per cent. increase would mean a 44 per cent. increase on the cost of the 5d. stamp and that if the U.P.W. claim for 15 per cent. was met in total it would mean a 92 per cent. increase in the cost of the 5d. stamp? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—and if so, will he say so—that those were fictitious figures and are considered by many experts to be absolutely ridiculous? May we be assured that they will not be submitted to any arbitration group or used in any discussions with the U.P.W. about its wage claim?
Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman seems to be in a helpful mood. I really believe that the House would be well advised not to enter into a discussion of this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] When it comes to any question of arbitration, I am sure that all concerned with such an arbitration inquiry will be quite capable of taking and sifting and forming a proper judgment of any evidence that may be submitted to them from whatever quarter.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my right hon. Friend explore with the parties the possibility of getting the recently agreed arbitration procedure moving and, in particular, give the details as to the problems arising in relation to the appointment of a chairman on this agreed procedure?
Mr. Carr: I assure my hon. Friend that all these things will be taken into account, but I hope that I will not be pressed on them at the moment.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: On the assumption that the Minister intends the discussions which he now proposes to have to be meaningful, may I ask him if he is aware that both the public and the postal staff generally will welcome his eleventh hour intervention? Will he keep at the forefront of his mind the fact that a long and protracted industrial postal strike would bring hardship to the community and the higher postage rates to which his right hon. Friend referred yesterday?
Mr. Carr: Of course I will bear all those things in mind, just as I shall bear in mind—and I am sure that the parties will bear this in mind, too—the fact that the greatest hardship in prospect to the community at present is the continuation of inflation.
Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members in all parts of the House are anxious that there should be a settlement of this dispute? However, so that the situation may not be prejudiced, could he not prevail on his right hon. Friends to engage in a self-denying ordinance not to make prejudicial statements about the situation—[Interruption.]—by, for example, the propaganda claim of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications that this would be called the "9d. letter strike"? That statement could not have been based on objective figures of any kind, because the right hon. Gentleman knew that a further 2d. on the stamp would bring in £50 million, whereas even if the claim was met in full it would involve only an additional £18 million on the offer already made. So I say to the right hon. Gentleman very seriously that it is this sort of prejudicial statement which is standing between the unions and an acceptance of arbitration. [Interruption.]
Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady should remember when she asks other people to show restraint that example is better than precept.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I suggest that the self-denying ordinance must begin now. The Minister said that he would make another statement tomorrow. On that basis, we must move on to the next business.
Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that we are probably on the eve of what may possibly be a major strike? Are you aware, considering the few minutes that we have spent questioning the Minister on this subject, that it is the custom and practice for the House to spend a little while asking questions when an important issue of this kind is raised?
I wish to represent to you the opinion that it might be advisable on this occasion to allow some other hon. Members to say a word on this matter before the Minister enters the talks which he is to have this afternoon. A matter of principle is involved here. There is a difference between informing himself and acting as the Secretary of State for Employment and trying to get the two sides together. Hon. Members should have an opportunity to get this point over to him.
Mr. Speaker: The Speaker is in great difficulty in a situation like this. We have a debate which is eagerly awaited and which has to finish by 7 o'clock and in which there are many varying views to be expressed. We also have one other statement and another matter of business to come. As the Minister is to make a statement tomorrow, I must ask the House to move on.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. Supporting as we all do your view that we should get on to the business as quickly as possible, and having regard to the fair point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), if no progress is made as a result of the Minister's meetings this afternoon or early this evening, will the Minister undertake to make a statement to the House on the interruption of business at 7 o'clock at the end of the three-hour debate so that the House may question him on it and, if necessary, press him to further activity? If the Minister makes no statement tonight, and if no progress has been made, the strike will go ahead. If he were to make such an offer now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the whole House would strongly support your desire that progress be made.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. I certainly note what the right

731
hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said. There is some difficulty in the proposition which he puts forward, in that I understand that my right hon. Friend will be pursuing discussions with both sides and may not be in a position to make a statement. He has promised one tomorrow and I think that is the best basis on which we can leave it at the present time.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will consider what has been said. I hope he will. He is sometimes quite flexible about these matters. He will recognise that there is all the difference in the world between a statement at 7 o'clock tonight and a statement tomorrow. If the Secretary of State cannot make a statement at 7 o'clock, will he make it at an appropriate time on an interruption of business, which is perfectly easy in Committee at any time later in the evening? Even then it might not be too late to avert the situation which the whole House wants to avert.
Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. I once again note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It would be quite wrong for me, in view of the various discussions which my hon. Friend will have, to make any commitment of that sort at this time. I think I am right in saying that I certainly note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

SCOTLAND (AGRICULTURAL SERVICES)
The Secretary of Slate for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about proposed changes in certain agricultural services in Scotland.—[Interruption.] The advisory services in Scotland are the responsibility of the three independent agricultural colleges grant-aided by my Department
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Scottish business should surely be treated with the same respect as English business.
Mr. Speaker: I certainly hope it will be.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In addition to farm advice they
732
are concerned with development work and also with higher agricultural education where they have close links with the universities. This system has worked well, but we need better co-ordination and economy of effort.
As regards the advisory side of the colleges' work, my general aim will be to secure savings in present expenditure by placing greater emphasis on cost-effectiveness and selectivity in the services provided to farmers and by introducing, where appropriate, a system of charging for certain specific services but not for general advice. The responsibility for implementing changes of this character rests on the governing bodies of the colleges and there will be full consultation with them and with other interested organisations.
Turning to development, with the agreement of the governing bodies of the colleges, I have now decided to establish a new three-college body, to be called the Scottish Agricultural Development Council, which will direct and co-ordinate this work in Scotland and enable the three colleges to work more closely together. Membership of the council will, in the main, be drawn from the colleges but will also include other interests concerned with agricultural improvement, and I have particularly in mind the research institutes. The council will be a small planning and directing organisation, with the colleges or other organisations as appropriate carrying out the projects and programmes. There will be further consultation with the governing bodies before the council is set up later this year. This new body will replace the former Scottish Agricultural Improvement Council and its subcommittees which had a purely advisory rôle.
As regards other services, I have decided that grants for the destruction of rabbits and other pests should be discontinued, but in order to allow the rabbit clearance societies to consider the implications, grant will be paid on approved expenditure up to 30th September of this year. Grants to fox destruction clubs will be continued. Arrangements for enforcement of pest control and for control of food infestation will be simplified. Advisory and publicity work on pests will be considerably curtailed.

733
I also propose to discontinue the appointment of agricultural executive committees. This will require legislation. The committees have given good service over a long period, but it is possible now to make simpler arrangements to carry out their remaining functions. I intend that certain of the advisory and review functions of the committees should be undertaken by a single advisory body, to be constituted by extending the membership and functions of the existing consultative panel which at present is concerned only with the Winter Keep Scheme. In the past the committees have under statute been consulted by the local planning authority on planning proposals. I shall now ask local planning authorities to ensure that during the framing of the planning proposals they maintain close liaison with the local staffs of the Department of Agriculture who have assisted agricultural executive committees in the past.
Mr. Ross: It will be obvious to the House that in the statement made by the Secretary of State no figure has been given in respect of either savings or staff. This follows from the fact that the first statement that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been allowed to make is based on the acceptance of a philosophy completely alien to Scottish tradition and consequently inappropriate to what is required in Scotland.
Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what effect his announcement will have on the advisory work which has been the basis of the growing efficiency of Scottish agriculture of which we have hitherto been so proud? Will he tell us how he relates cost effectiveness to the saving of £72,000 a year on rabbit clearance societies which cover 4 million acres in Scotland, and what he is doing about pest control?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only one part of his statement is not in keeping with what was said yesterday, and that is the part dealing with the organisation of research in Scottish colleges? Is he aware that when I was Secretary of State I continued to resist this proposition for the simple reason—as he said at the beginning of his statement—that the colleges were independent agricultural colleges. How can they be inde-
734
pendent agricultural colleges when their research programme, scientific staffing and so on will be dominated by a new executive body, the Scottish Agricultural Development Council? I regret that this announcement was included in his statement, which had nothing to do with the matter but was a trailer of the statement which was made yesterday.
Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the first statement that I had been allowed to make, but I made one last week. In the parliamentary time I have been in office I have answered about twice as many oral Questions as the right hon. Gentleman did in an equivalent period of time. The only statement which he made during that period was an apology to the House for a mistake which had been made by his Department.
Because the advisory services come under the colleges and not under the Department, I cannot quantify savings before consultations with the colleges. In respect of the rest of my statement, I expect a saving of about £100,000. Other savings being made administratively in the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, and savings in the capital grants scheme, will amount to nearly £1 million.
Rabbit clearance societies have been doing very effective work, and most of them have been extremely successful. Where they are successful it is in the farmers' interests that they should continue with the work they are doing. They do not need a grant to help them with this. The pump-priming has already been done.
In my Department about 20 posts will be saved as a result of this statement. The advisory services are not staffed by civil servants, so these are not included. In this figure I expect a further saving of 20 posts from other administrative action which I am taking.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: As my right hon. Friend's statement is based on Cmnd. 4564, which was presented to the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will he, as the Minister responsible in Scotland for fisheries, give the House a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government have no intention whatever

735
of repealing Section 1 of the Fishing Limits Act, 1964?
Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend knows, arrangements for agriculture are entirely different in Scotland and, therefore, my statement today is complementary to but not included in my right hon. Friend's White Paper of yesterday. I did not touch on fisheries today, but in answer to a Question on 17th December it was announced that my right hon. Friend and I are not proposing to make changes at present in the machinery and organisation of support for the fishing industry.
Mr. Baxter: In view of the length of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and its grave implications for the agricultural industry, should not this matter be debated either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee? I ask him to consult the Leader of the House to see if time can be allowed for a debate.
Mr. Campbell: My right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said, as I do. Since the myth that I have been silent has been fabricated by the Opposition, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acquits me of this and mentions the length of my statement.
Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only this morning the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was castigating his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education for speaking too much? It seems that we can never please him. On the question of cost effectiveness and the provision of advice—which is a nice word—will my right hon. Friend say how the cost effectiveness actually works?
Mr. Campbell: We shall consult the colleges about this matter. I can assure my hon. Friend that, for example, advice on crofting in the North of Scotland will continue, but there will be a review of the effectiveness of advice of all kinds for farms.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Scottish colleges have welcomed the pressure he proposes to put on them to alter their present successful pattern of advice? If he has not yet consulted them, it is shocking that he should produce this
736
statement without first having found out whether they wish to change their pattern of advice. Secondly, has the Secretary of State pointed out to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture a curious aspect of Tory philosophy, which is to tell farmers to depend more on the market and then to cancel the grants for the Agricultural Market Development Research Council which is doing research into how better to use the market and whose work in Scotland on seed, potatoes, calves, and vegetable marketing has helped farmers in marketing their produce. Is it not folly to say that farmers should depend more on the market and then stop research on marketing?
Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has the hypothesis wrong. This has been discussed with the colleges and they have agreed to and welcomed the establishment of the development council. We are proposing a rationalisation of the advisory services which the colleges will continue to give. The hon. Gentleman suggests that various forms of technical advice may be discontinued. This is not so. Some advice will continue and the general advice will be free.
Mr. Gray: The Secretary of State will be aware that in the Highlands of Scotland the rabbit clearance societies have performed an extremely important function. Since the cost of subsidising these societies is only £12,000 a year, would my hon. Friend consider using his influence so as to allow the Highlands and Islands Development Board to take over this annual figure?
Mr. Campbell: As I said earlier, the rabbit clearance societies have been very effective in most of the work they have done, and I am glad my hon. Friend agrees, but I doubt whether the sum of money he mentioned is necessary in order that their good work should continue. It is in the farmers' interest to keep down the rabbit population. I shall continue to enforce my responsibility for ensuring that occupiers keep down rabbits if they increase to a great extent.
Mr. Buchan: Would the Secretary of State now answer my hon. Friend's question as to whether the colleges discussed the new rôle they will have to play in regard to their advisory capacity in relation to charges; and, if they were consulted, what was their attitude? Secondly,

737
has he considered the effects this action will have on the traditional rôle of the colleges in research, teaching and advice, because he is now beginning to push colleges into a financial and administrative rôle? What is the attitude of the colleges in that respect? Having consulted the colleges, will he issue a White Paper so that this whole sorry business can be discussed in full?
Mr. Campbell: It is not a sorry business. Discussions have taken place with the colleges and are continuing. Charges are a matter for further consultation with the colleges—
An Hon. Member: Will they be announced?
Mr. Campbell: I will announce the charges, but the services themselves and the manner in which this will be done are matters for consultation. I thought that since this involved a matter of principle these were all matters about which the House would wish to be informed at an early stage. This I have done.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: These are very important matters, but other ways must be found of pursuing them.

HON. MEMBER FOR FERMANAGH AND SOUTH TYRONE
Miss Devlin: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the imprisonment yesterday in one of Her Majesty's prisons of an hon. Member of this House for activities not considered criminal in Great Britain."
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that there is an urgent debate due to come before the House and that many Members are anxious to take part. Therefore, I shall attempt to be as brief as possible.
There are two main points of urgent public importance at stake. One is that this is the second hon. Member of this House to be imprisoned in the North of Ireland and, given the situation there at the moment, where it is necessary for two members of the Cabinet to go to the North of Ireland to try to find a solution
738
to the present situation, the imprisonment for six months of yet one more representative of the people of Northern Ireland is bound to lead only to further disorder, particularly in an area where as yet there has been no disorder.
The second point I wish to put forward, without bearing on the rights or wrongs of the matter, is that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), who is the Member in question, has been imprisoned at Crumlin for six months for an offence which is not a criminal offence in this country, namely, taking part in a demonstration and in the organisation of that public demonstration. Secondly, that person has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, whereas when that particular law in Northern Ireland has been broken on hundreds of other occasions the average penalty imposed has been no more than a £20 fine.
There are therefore two points at stake: first, peace in Northern Ireland; and, secondly, how much longer the Imperial Parliament of this country will stand by and watch legal corruption in the British Isles.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the imprisonment yesterday in one of Her Majesty's prisons of an hon. Member of this House for activities not considered criminal in Great Britain."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 Mr. Speaker is directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for his decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Member and what she has said today, but I have to rule that the hon. Lady's submission does not fall within the provision of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit the application to the House.
Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order. Could I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, if you would be prepared to give this matter further consideration? The position of an hon. Member who

739
is in prison and his rights as a Member of Parliament are basically involved, and Members in all parts of the House must be concerned. On that broader aspect—the hon. Member's rights to carry on as a duly sworn Member of this House—would you be prepared to give this matter further consideration and give a further Ruling tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put his point of order. I ruled in regard to what has happened today. The House will be aware of a recent report by the Committee of Privileges about these matters. I should like right hon. and hon. Members to consider that and then to take what action they think appropriate in the future. So far as today is concerned, I have made my decision.
Mr. Fitt: Further to the point of order. In view of the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, may be ignorant of all the circumstances attached to this case, particularly the fact that many people in Northern Ireland have broken the same law and have been given a minimum penalty, namely, a fine, would you not consider that, if evidence is produced to you during the course of this evening or early tomorrow morning, it would enable you to come to a more equitable decision?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical proposition which I should be very wrong to rule upon. I have made my decision. It is not debatable and no point of order arises upon it.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the fact that you are going to give continued thought to the problem, could we return now to the Scottish business that was interrupted?
Mr. Speaker: The answer to that is simply, no.
Later—
Mr. Heffer: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for holding up the House. It is a matter of grave importance that an hon. Member of this House can be put in prison for six months without the House having an opportunity to discuss the situation, particularly as it is now developing in Northern Ireland. May I now appeal to the
740
Leader of the House to consider giving this House the opportunity of an early debate on the whole question of Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the hon. Member who has now been put in prison?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a relevant supplementary question during the Business Statement on a Thursday. I can accept no more points of order arising out of my decision today.
Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. May I seek your advice, Mr. Speaker? Tomorrow I understand the House will be debating the European Economic Community on the Motion, That this House do now adjourn. Since hon. Members are deeply concerned about other matters than the Common Market. I take it that it would be in order for any hon. Member, either tomorrow or on Thursday, if he catches your eye, to introduce those other matters. Although we would not challenge your Ruling, and it would be improper to do so, in regard to Standing Order No. 9, would it be in order for hon. Members to raise such other matters as they think proper on the Motion, That this House do now adjourn?
Mr. Speaker: I will not rule on any particular speech until I have heard it, but what the hon. Member says is accurate: that it is the convention of the House that anything can be raised on the Adjournment. This is a matter in which the House must impose its own discipline. There are many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to debate the Common Market. I will not make a hypothetical Ruling. We must wait and see what happens.

CARLISLE AND DISTRICT STATE MANAGEMENT SCHEME
Mr. Ron Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I have not given you notice of the matter which I wish to raise. I wish to raise a point of order on a matter of great concern so far as my constituency and its people are concerned. Over the weekend a number of statements appeared in various newspapers regarding the future of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. I received telephone calls

741
from journalists from various parts of the country asking if I had any comments to make. I replied that I had no statement, other than what I had read in newspapers. I was assured by the journalists that this question would be answered and decided on Tuesday in the House of Commons.
When I arrived here yesterday, I searched through the Order Paper and no such Question was down regarding the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. I immediately placed on the Order Paper a Question, which is Written Question No. 73. My information is that at 3.30 today the Home Office released a statement regarding the whole future of the management scheme, and since I have been in the House I have been asked for my comments and I do not even know what it is all about.
Surely in a matter of great concern to my constituency, this should have been dealt with on the Floor of the House and not raised with the newspapers. Is this not another typical example of this Government overriding democracy in every way? I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Home Secretary should have come to the Dispatch Box to answer a Question on this matter. I assure you that many people in my constituency will take a dim view of the way they are being treated by this Government.
Mr. Peart: Further to that point of order. Is the House aware that this matter is not just confined to Carlisle? The
742
State Management Scheme extends down into South Cumberland, including my own constituency, it covers a large section of the constituency of the Leader of the House, and also parts of Scotland. Therefore, it is an important matter involving great State assets and the livelihood of many people. Is this not an odd way to deal with the matter? Would it not have been better to have had a proper statement on the matter, since the Home Secretary is now on the bench? This is no way to treat the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman have made their points. This is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am ruling on this matter at the moment. The point has been made, the Home Secretary has heard it, and there are various ways in which these matters can be pursued.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Rossi.]

ANIMALS BILL [Lords]
Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Rossi.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [8TH ALLOTTED DAY] [First Part],—considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. pym.]

  RUDI DUTSCHKE
  4.20 p.m.
  Mr. James Callaghan: I am sure that there would be a lot of gratitude if the House did adjourn—certainly before we got to the Industrial Relations Bill—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—because it is irrelevant to the problems with which it purports to deal. I will not go into that matter now. I have never known so much time wasted by the House on a Measure so irrelevant. But that is another question.
  What we wish to raise on this Adjournment Motion is the handling by, and the policy of, the Home Secretary in relation to the refusal to allow Mr. Dutschke to remain in this country as a student. We hope to get a satisfactory explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of his reasons and of his policy on these matters.
  A number of people say, "Why bother? Why waste the time of the House with an obscure, or not so obscure, student who holds extremist views, is very unpopular, clearly commands very little support, and to whom we owe no hospitality?"It is a view which has been expressed to me in a number of letters. However, I think that it misunderstands both the nature of the British tradition and the nature and quality of our democracy. If a simple issue like this, as it is regarded, is to be dismissed without taking up the time of the House, even if it is thought to be important—I believe that it is important—then, in a time when standards are faltering, when a number of our traditions are being undermined—a number of them very desirable traditions—we should be taking one more step on a path which would lead downwards, not upwards.
  It is important to go back to what the Home Secretary gave as his reasons
  744
  for excluding Mr. Dutschke, when he ORDERS OF THE DAY was asked as long ago as last August, especially in view of the developments which have taken place since and all the other new issues which have been introduced.
  The Home Secretary, on 25th August, in turning him down, said:
  "Jim made it a condition of his admission"—
  that is, Dutschke's admission—
  "that he should refrain from political activities and I should certainly not be prepared to withdraw any such condition. But I frankly do not believe that it is a satisfactory condition to make in any but the most exceptional circumstances. I think it is wrong in principle that people who come to this country should do so on the basis that they refrain from any activities which are lawful for the ordinary citizen. Nor do I think in practice that such a condition could be enforced. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot agree that Mr. Dutschke should now continue to reside in this country as a student."
  As I understand that, the Home Secretary was saying that it was not satisfactory to require him to refrain from political activities, that it was wrong in principle, that it could not be enforced, and, therefore, he could not agree to him remaining.
  That was the major issue which arose at that time. There was a subsidiary reason: that, as he is now fit enough to undertake full-time study, it is reasonable to conclude that his period of convalescence is complete and we should put a term to his stay in this country for that purpose.
  Those were the only two reasons which were adduced at that time: first, that it was wrong, except in the most exceptional circumstances, to try to exact an undertaking of this kind; and, secondly, that it was unenforceable; and, subsidiary to that, that his convalescence was now complete.
  Did the right hon. Gentleman have any other reasons at that time? If so, it would have been more open and frank if he had exposed them. Did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that the nation's security was at stake—the very procedure which he has invoked—because he did not say a word about it? The right hon. Gentleman did not even say that Dutschke had failed to observe the conditions which had been laid down. I really find myself wondering—I must put this to the Home Secretary, and I

  745
  expect a candid answer from him—why he did not at that time say that in his view the security of the nation was involved and that Dutschke had failed to observe the conditions.
  Even if the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not want to raise the first question—I can understand the arguments, though I should not think that they were right, and I do not agree with them—it would have been more frank to say to those sponsoring Mr. Dutschke's entry, "This man has not observed his condition." But the Home Secretary did not say that. The nearest he got to it was to say that in practice such a condition could not be enforced. The right hon. Gentleman did not say, "And, what is more, he has not endeavoured to abide by it."
  As far as I can see, this fact is hotly disputed. I shall argue in a moment that in my view—these are matters of judgment—Dutschke broadly kept to his undertaking. [Interruption.] If the argument is that he did not, then I should have expected him to be warned about it. I should have expected somebody to have said to those sponsoring him, "Look here, this man is having discussions in his study on political questions. He is sitting quietly at a meeting. We regard this as going beyond the bounds of the undertaking which he gave. If he is going to stay here, he should observe strictly the requirements which were laid down."
  But not a word was said—[Interruption.] I will come to my part later. There is no reason why I should not. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say anything, no doubt he will.
  That is the first question that I want to raise. I ask the Home Secretary clearly: on what grounds is he standing in refusing this man permission to study here?
  Many people do not need any grounds or reasons. They just want to rely upon their prejudices. I have had letters from them. There are those for whom it is sufficient that Dutschke is a German or, as they more usually say, a Hun, and, therefore, he should not be allowed to remain in this country.
  There are those who say that he is a student. That clearly condemns him out of hand—and a student who wants to
  746
  study here clearly has committed a double error.
  Then there is the—I should not dignify it by the word "argument"—prejudice that is exposed in some correspondence, "He is keeping our boys out of university. It is wrong that a German foreign student should keep a British boy out of a university."
  Then there are those for whom it is sufficient to say—it is getting nearer to an argument, but it is basically a prejudice—"The man holds extremist views. We owe him nothing. Let him get out."
  Then there are those who say, "We are in national danger. Our traditions are in danger of being undercut. Our values are being undermined. We do not want this man here to continue that process. Therefore, Dutschke should go."
  The Home Secretary has given some countenance to this by using the procedure of hearing part of the case in camera and involving the security of the nation. I would never accuse the right hon. Gentleman of beginning to get anywhere near a smear. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to smear the man, but he made a basic mistake in his handling of this case by introducing the state of the nation's security. It gives rise to all those who say, "The Home Secretary knows. There is never smoke without fire. There is much more to this than we think. He has involved the national security." It is that which is opened up by this reference.
  Where does the Home Secretary stand in this gallery? Does he espouse any of these particular reasons or prejudices which my correspondents have adduced to me as the reasons for not allowing this man to stay here? It is a pretty odoriferous brew when one adds it up compounded by a mixture of hatred of foreigners and dislike of students. That is what it comes to. Some people will get an awful shock if the Government get their way and we go into the Common Market. Just think of all those foreigners we shall then have trampling over us throughout the counties and villages of this country.
  What is the Home Secretary's attitude? We will hear later. I gather that one of the right hon. Gentleman's complaints,

  747
  so it is said by the newspapers in the kind of statements which we get, is that he feels that his case has not been fully deployed, although those who are opposed to him have had their full say. I have seen that said more than once in the Press. I understand what he means after listening to the Attorney-General in the Tribunal, when I heard him floundering as he did. There is no other word to describe the manner in which he dealt with Mr. Dutschke. I think that the Home Secretary has a point, and he now has the opportunity of making the case which has failed to be made before. I hope that he will take advantage of this opportunity to explain it. I understand his policy, but I find his handling of the matter unsatisfactory.
  The Chief Whip is sitting there looking as innocent as a new born babe. Was he responsible for the statement that the Whips were rubbing their hands at the prospect of a debate on this issue? Do they know something which the rest of us do not know? I understand that they do not, and I am glad to hear that. I should regard it as surprising if they did, but why are they rubbing their hands? Is it because they want to cash in on the anti-foreign feeling, the xenophobia, that exists beneath the surface in many people in this country? Do they want to do the job which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) did on race? Let hon. Gentlemen opposite know of the passions and prejudice which they are arousing on this matter, especially by their intolerant handling of it, and the Attorney-General did nothing in his intervention in the Tribunal to allay those feelings.
  Having gone very carefully into the facts, I do not know how much more we shall learn this afternoon about Mr. Dutschke and his activities, but I think the Home Secretary must take note of the fact that we shall learn a great deal about him. We shall learn what is his attitude and his approach to this issue. We shall learn, and it is important that we should learn, what is his future policy on these matters.
  The right hon. Gentleman will have received a letter, as I have, signed by a number of. I hardly dare say it, students at Cambridge, who write to say that they have always associated the idea of
  748
  tolerance of different political views with the United Kingdom and they ask the Home Secretary
  "to make explicit the limits and conditions imposed upon foreign students with respect to political association, discussion, and other political activities."
  They go on to say:
  "We hope that before Parliament enacts new legislation governing the entry and continued residence of foreign students you will encourage and participate in the widest possible discussion of it."
  That is signed by a group of students from many countries—Canada, France, the United States, Australia, Finland, Sierre Leone, Japan, Jordan, South Africa, Israel, Argentina, and so on.
  Perhaps they ought not to be here at all, and there are many people who think that they should not. There are about 24,000 foreign students studying in this country, but are any conditions laid down for them? I expect and hope to hear the Home Secretary say "No". We are, however, entitled to expect a certain reticence from foreign students living in this country in relation to our domestic affairs and there would be.
  An Hon. Member: What about Tariq Ali?
  Mr. Callaghan: He is not a foreigner. He is a Commonwealth student who is registered as a British citizen, but that is another question. I am referring to foreign students who come here. We are entitled to expect a certain reticence from them. I do not dispute that but, in relation to what they do at their universities, and because they traditionally associate this country with tolerance, I should not expect any interference with their activities at university.
  I remember that the first time I went to the Oxford Union I found that an American was president. I never had the good fortune to go there as a student—if it was bad fortune not to go there. The next time it was an Indian who was president. These students take an active part in our political affairs, and many of them hold different offices at our universities. What is to be the principle? We must return to this. The Home Secretary is nodding. He should tell us again whether the traditional view which has been observed in this matter will continue in relation to these foreign students.

  749
  I do not suppose that it will be altered at all, but it is going to make a little more difficult this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman's explanation why he refuses to allow Mr. Dutschke to stay here if there is to be no alteration in our traditional approach to these matters.
  Sir John Langford-Holt: Is it not a fact that it was the right hon. Gentleman, when he was Home Secretary, who placed conditions upon this gentleman's right to stay in this country?
  Mr. Callaghan: It is a slightly more complicated question than that.
  Hon. Members: Answer the question.
  Mr. Callaghan: I have listened to the hyena-like voices of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the last 25 years, and they get no prettier as time goes on. What happened was that when Mr. Dutschke's sponsors wrote to me originally they offered that he would not take part in political activities, and in the reply that I made I accepted the offer that had been made by him. In other words, I did not exact a condition from him. There is something to be said for the point of view that it is difficult to exact a condition from someone that he will not take part in political activities. The borderline is so difficult to draw. But if somebody volunteers to abstain from political activities, that is not such a difficult matter. After all, 95 per cent. of the people of this country abstain for five years from any political activity at all except for putting a cross on a ballot paper. They find no difficulty in abstaining, and if there is a voluntary abstenance, it is not difficult to carry out.
  Mr. Dutschke came here on medical grounds, and because he was being harassed by the Press and by photographers in the country in which he was staying. He was a seriously wounded man who was pretty close to death at the time. I believe that allowing him in was a compassionate measure, and I hope that no one will disagree—I know that the Home Secretary does not—with allowing him in for medical treatment, for which he paid. I have had letters saying what a disgraceful thing it is that Mr. Dutschke should have been treated under the National Health Service. Let me make it clear that he paid his own medical bills for the treatment that he received.
  Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: If there had been no medical grounds for Dutschke's coming to this country, and if he had applied to come here as a student in the first place, would the right hon. Gentleman have allowed him in?
  Mr. Callaghan: That is a hypothetical question. I do not know what the answer would have been, but I think that my answer at that stage would have been "No". Does that surprise hon. Gentlemen opposite? I think that my answer would have been "No", and I mean "No". But what has happened—and this is a material point which the Home Office ought to take into account, and always does take into account—is that the man has lived here quietly for two years. He has broken no law. There is a difference of opinion about this, but in my view Dutschke's keeping broadly within the terms which he had laid down for himself creates a different situation. This is a hypothetical question. I do not know what would have been my answer. I am being as honest as I can with the hon. Gentleman.
  If, without any knowledge of the man, just knowing what had happened, if he had not been wounded, if he had not needed medical attention, and so on, I had been asked to allow him in I should probably have said, "No, we do not need you, thank you very much. There are many competitors for our universities". But that is not the position today, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. The effluxion of time creates different conditions. That is my view, and we ought to look at the position differently, although I always made it clear that we had no moral obligation to keep him when he wanted to change his status.
  The right hon. Gentleman was ready to continue to allow him to remain here as a convalescent, but not to study. That is a difference which I find difficult to sustain.
  Mr. David Lane rose—
  Mr. Callaghan: This is a very short debate.
  Hon. Members: Give way. The hon. Member is from Cambridge.
  Mr. Callaghan: I do not care a damn whether he is from Cambridge or Oxford—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. There is widespread interest in this debate, but it does not help when interruptions of this kind take place.
  Mr. Callaghan: I was educated in a secondary school, and that seems as good as Cambridge in these matters. That has nothing to do with it: the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. I must pursue what I have to say on this. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to quote from the report, he will be able to quote it in his own speech later on, I hope.
  In my view, what has happened is this: Dutschke has kept his undertakings. The Tribunal did not define what his undertakings were, but they took rather a different view. They said:
  "It is clear from the Appellant's evidence that he has had meetings and discussions with a wide variety of people involved in political activities, some of whom he had not met before; some were British nationals, others were from overseas, who came to consult him, in his view quite naturally, when they visited Britain."
  I would ask, is to have discussions with people involved in political activities a political activity or a social activity? This is really the sort of level at which the Tribunal is arguing. I do not think that this is terribly important, the distinction between the two—this is the narrower point which I am now on—but I know that this is what the hon. Gentleman and others want to raise.
  But it seems to me that, if the Tribunal did not define it any more closely than it did, we are not entitled to pay the respect to it that I do to the Tribunal on some other matters on which it expresses its views. It goes on:
  "In our view these meetings and associations have far exceeded normal social activities and. whatever his intentions may have been, he did not abide by the assurance given by him and on his behalf not to engage in political activities."
  I wonder about that, I really do. I find it difficult to believe that whether a man stays here or goes should depend on whether he has been having political talks in his rooms or in his house. I regard political activity as a much more active pursuit than that, I must say. Otherwise, there would be plenty of people engaged in politics. What were his intentions? I notice that the Tribunal put in this qualification—"whatever his intentions may have been".
  752
  There is one item that I came across by accident the other day when looking through my cuttings which is illustrative of his intentions, and goes back as far as 7th January 1970. He was asked to join the editorial board of Black Dwarf. He did not make any public statement himself but the board did. Indeed, it was that dreadful character—as the hon. Member would probably view it—Tariq Ali, who said:
  "He has now considered the situation carefully and has decided that the legal conditions on which he was allowed to enter Britain do not permit him to take part in any political activity. Though he regards 'Black Dwarf' very favourably, he must therefore decline to come on to the editorial board."
  [Interruption.] What I think hon. Members find it easy to confuse is their dislike of Black Dwarf, which they are entitled to have, and the evidence of his intentions.
  It is quite clear that, on this count, having been asked to join the board in January, 1970, he said that this in his view conflicted with the legal conditions on which he was allowed to land. Is not that some evidence of intentions? It would have been more in accordance with our traditions if the man had been warned, if it was thought that he was exceeding what was regarded as the normal social activity to which he had undertaken to limit himself. So I hold the view that we are departing from a tradition which we have established for some time.
  But I want to put this to the Home Secretary. Is it the fact that he departed, or is alleged to have departed, from the promise which he gave when he came here not to engage in political activities which is the reason for getting rid of him? Is that regarded as good enough? If so, perhaps the Home Secretary would say why. Why does he think that taking part in political discussion, however revolutionary it may have been, however childish it may have been, however ineffective it may have been, makes it necessary to get rid of the man? Is it that he had political discussions or is it that the Home Secretary does not like his views? Which is it?
  I believe that, if this man held different views, we might not have heard so much about the case as we have done so far. I do not like his views. I do not wish

  753
  to go into this, but no hon. Member would assume that I would agree with practically anything which Mr. Dutschke had to say on these matters I do not think that is the issue. I would regret it very much if hon. Gentlemen opposite try to make that the issue. I think that the issue is broader and wider than that—the traditions of this country.
  So I take the view that it is not a sufficient reason for getting rid of him, without even a warning, to say, "You have been having discussions about these matters or have been attending meetings" He was not taking any active part, so far as I know.
  Second, what is clear from the Tribunal's report is that his activities were in no sense a danger to the nation. What was their careful phrase—
  "Up to the present time, the presence of the appellant in this country has constituted no appreciable danger to national security."?
  I do not know what anyone wants to make out of that, but a more unlikely spy I never saw.
  I agree with the Tribunal: there has been no danger in what he has done since he has been here. Nor, I would add, is there any likelihood of it. So why did the Home Secretary introduce this question of the nation's safety? It has been found that the man did not transgress. We know why those words were put in. They were not to deal with a case like this or with that of a man caught in flagrante delicto, but with the case of an agent who may land here deliberately to challenge the authorities, so that he could try to establish in open court what was known about him by the security services if they tried to get rid of him. It was not to deal with a miserable case like this.
  I complained about the Home Secretary introducing this issue in this way. It was a political decision. The Home Secretary on 25th August made it clear that it was a political decision. He may have been right or he may have been wrong, but I wish that he had stuck to it and not brought in this other question.
  Dutschke wanted peace and quiet when he came here. He may be unlikeable, his views may be repugnant to many hon. Gentlemen, he may show no sense of gratitude or understanding of our way of life, he may wish to use this country
  754
  as no more than a staging post—but none of that is sufficient reason for refusing to allow him to stay here as a student. That is the difference between us; that is my view, and it is important to state it.
  It may be said that we owe him no hospitality, that he has no claim on us. That is quite correct: we owe him no hospitality and he has no claim upon us. Nevertheless, he was here and he lived here quietly and had not broken our laws. In my view, it would have been more in keeping with our traditions if we had allowed him to stay here with his wife and family.
  I draw a clear distinction between this man and Dr. Hoch, who took part in those disgraceful scenes at the London School of Economics last year—an American student who was here, who was found guilty by the court and properly expelled by the Home Secretary. That was quite right. But if democracy cannot stand argument, if it cannot stand the expression of a contrary view, if our institutions are now so enfeebled that we have to deport a man who has done nothing to break our laws, so much the worse for us. I take a much more robust view of the health of British democracy.
  Has the cause of democracy been strengthened by shutting Dutschke out? France shut him out. He is not allowed there. Does anyone believe that democracy in France is stronger than it is in this country? Is it to be argued that we strengthen our cause when we shut out a man like this from this country? Our strength lies in a democracy countering a man's arguments and not trying to shut them out.
  The Times did us all a service when it published that full interview with him. When I saw his views set out there I could think of few arguments that would encourage me to accept what he had to say.
  Nevertheless, I take the view that a democracy is entitled to take undemocratic action to preserve itself if the threat is at the gates. I firmly believe that a democracy cannot sit back and allow itself to be raped and destroyed by those who merely wish to use it.
  Having said that, it must be accepted that nobody really believes that we are now at that stage. Our parliamentary system is under attack. It always is.

  755
  There is a good deal of cynicism and talk of extra-parliamentary activity nowadays, but there always has been.
  If anybody really wants to measure the strength of the revolutionary movement in this country, he should examine the handful of questions which the Attorney-General put to Rudi Dutschke—for reasons that are not quite clear to me—about his visit to Swansea, when he passed the steelworks at Llanwern[Interruption]—and I have no doubt that he passed the works at Port Talbot as well.
  He was going to stay with an international revolutionary Socialist—[Laughter.]—and he wanted to meet some strikers at Port Talbot. This revolutionary Socialist had to tell him, "I do not know any". He had said that he wanted to meet them to discuss the sociological implications of strikers' motives in this country. Whether or not he did I do not know, but what a picture it paints of the revolutionary nature of British workers at Port Talbot.
  Are we really saying that when the Left is so fractured and splintered that it could not even raise one striker for him to talk to at Port Talbot, we must get rid of Rudi Dutschke because he is a danger to our national security?
  Parliament has been under attack and perhaps it is under attack more than for some time. However, we have no right—in my view we are betraying democracy and our past—to behave as the Government are behaving now—with all the reactions of a nervous and frightened tabby pussy cat.
  4.53 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I shall compress my remarks as much as possible, though I know that the House will wish me to deal with this case thoroughly. I will do so myself because, first, this case has been the subject of the Tribunal and, then, I thought I should speak first in Parliament; I have not been able to put my side of the matter in public.
  As I understand that the Opposition intend to divide the House on the issue that my decision was wrong, let us be clear about why I took it and what it was.
  756
  In late 1968, Mr. Dutschke was in Italy, where he had moved after the shooting incident in Berlin. On 25th October, 1968, somebody applied on his behalf for him to come to this country to consult a specialist. It was also suggested that he would like to undertake translation work and study at a university. It was volunteered on his behalf that he would not engage in political activities if he were admitted.
  My predecessor agreed that he should come here for one month for medical consultations. His admission would be on the clear understanding that he would not engage in political activities and that he, the right hon. Gentleman, did not agree that Mr. Dutschke should engage in a course of post-graduate study at a British university. There was a little uncertainty when the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to questions at one stage, referred to what he had said on being asked whether Mr. Dutschke could engage in a course at a British university. In any event, the right hon. Gentleman said that he could not agree to his studying here.
  What were the stringent conditions? They were no doubt imposed in the light of his political activities, and the nature of those activities, and his open advocacy of the use of force for political ends, which had already caused him to be declared inadmissible not only to France but to Holland as well.
  Mr. Dutschke was admitted to the United Kingdom on this basis, which he freely accepted, in December, 1968. In January, 1969, my predecessor was asked to allow Mr. Dutschke to stay here for a further six months for convalescence on the continued understanding that he would not engage in political activities. This was granted, as was another six months' extension in July, 1969, on the same basis as before. It was clearly accepted on each occasion that Mr. Dutschke was willing to abide by the original conditions.
  In January, 1970, somebody wrote to my predecessor raising the question of Mr. Dutschke's taking a university course. This, it was accepted, would involve a change in the original conditions. My predecessor told him that he would allow Mr. Dutschke a further extension on the same basis as before and that if he wished

  757
  for a further extension to go to university, he should let the Home Office have full particulars.
  Permission to stay here as a student would, of course, mean a change of status, and my predecessor made it quite clear that he could not, at that stage, say what the decision would be. This was my predecessor's last word on the case. At no time did he release Mr. Dutschke from the original condition that he would not be allowed to study at a university.
  On 13th July, 1970, somebody wrote to me on his behalf hoping that I would agree that Mr. Dutschke should be allowed to stay in this country for the purpose of studying at a university, a clear change from the original conditions. I replied that I could not agree. I did not think that a condition of refraining from political activity was in principle desirable, or in practice enforceable for a long stay. That is my answer to what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about the activities of students in this country and whether, when they are here, they should be allowed to enter into political activities.
  If a man cannot be trusted to take part in political activities while he is here, why should he be trusted to be here at all? Political activities cannot be satisfactorily defined. They range from attending political meetings or making speeches to planning or even perpetrating violence for political ends. And if proof is needed that such a condition is unenforceable in practice, this lies clearly to be seen in the Report of the Tribunal.
  Mr. Callaghan: If a man perpetrates violence, is not the proper course to bring him before the courts? That has nothing to do with this procedure.
  Mr. Maudling: Naturally. I am saying that political activity in modern conditions ranges over a very wide spectrum, and I shall return to this subject later.
  I was not—any more than my predecessor was prepared to do—prepared to agree that Mr. Dutschke should reside here with full freedom to engage in political activities. Mr. Dutschke then exercised his right to appeal against my refusal to allow him to become a student. Under the Act of 1969 and the Aliens Appeals Order made under it, a special
  758
  panel of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal had been set up to hear any cases where the decision was taken in the interests of national security or on grounds of a political nature.
  This was clearly a case of the kind covered by these provisions. What other reasons could there have been, from the beginning, for insisting on the condition that Mr. Dutschke should not stay here for any but medical reasons? The main feature of his appeal was the claim that he had kept to his promise not to engage in political activities. I therefore referred his claim to the special panel of the Tribunal, which had been set up by the previous Administration, and four members out of its five had been appointed by them.
  After a hearing lasting five days, the Tribunal reached the conclusion that there was no essential reason for Mr. Dutschke to remain here on medical grounds; that he had not abided by the assurances given by him, and on his behalf, not to engage in political activities; and that if he were to remain for a further period as a student, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, there must without doubt be risk to national security in his continued presence. The Tribunal found that my decision was in accordance with the law and immigration rules and it did not consider that, in the exercise of my discretion in this matter, I should have exercised it differently.
  The effect of the Tribunal's findings—that is, of a Tribunal chosen by the previous Administration—is to confirm my decision not to vary the original conditions which Mr. Dutschke accepted when coming to this country. In other words, the Home Office has kept rigorously to the original agreement and sought no changes. Mr. Dutschke was asked no more than on his part to do the same thing and to leave, as he originally agreed to do when his health had improved. Those are the facts of the case. I should now like to turn to the merits.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has misquoted the Tribunal's findings? He has referred to a statement in paragraph 55 of the report that there would undoubtedly be a risk to

  759
  national security. No such phrase is used in that paragraph, which states that:
  "… there must without doubt be risk in his continued presence on a longer-term stay of this kind."
  Whatever that risk was, it was not stated by the Tribunal.
  Mr. Maudling: I said that if he stayed on that basis there would, without doubt, be a risk to national security. If the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Free-son) will look back at an earlier stage, he will find that they said that there had been no appreciable risk to national security in his presence to date—and this I entirely accept, because if there had been risk either I or my predecessor would already have asked him to leave—but that despite that, if he remained here, there would without doubt be a risk.
  I turn to the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I am a little surprised at his attitude in this matter. I have never criticised his actions in this case. I entirely agreed with them. What I have done is consistent with what he himself did. I followed the appeal procedure which he devised and put it to a Tribunal, most of the members of which were chosen by his Government.
  He admitted Mr. Dutschke on compassionate grounds, subject to the most stringent conditions, even when, as he said, he was a very sick man and his convalescence had hardly started, whereas now it has been completed. There must have been very strong reasons in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman for him to impose his conditions in the first instance and to continue to reiterate them on each subsequent occasion.
  The last occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman dealt with this case was in January, 1970, when he was not prepared to agree to Mr. Dutschke becoming a student. The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not say which way the decision was going, but if it were right, moral and proper for him to retain then the discretion to say "No", why is it wrong for me to exercise that discretion? He reserved his decision on the basis of the evidence available to him. There was a good deal more information available to me when I came to consider this case, in July and August, than there was in
  760
  January, six months previously, when it was last decided by the right hon. Gentleman.
  As the House knows, it is the constant tradition of Governments not to reveal the sources from which the security services obtain their information in any case. I should certainly not, nor would anyone else, dream of departing from that tradition. But in view of some things which have been said, I should make it absolutely clear that every scrap of information presented to me upon which I made my decision was collected under the personal authority and approval of my predecessor.
  So what is the right hon. Gentleman complaining about? The Tribunal was established by him. The personnel of that Tribunal were chosen by his Government. In a debate in November, in what I thought was a slightly intemperate speech, he urged me to accept whatever the Tribunal said and to go along with its verdict. Having used the discretion which he retained, on his evidence, is he now saying that, having used that discretion in the way in which I thought fit on the basis of information not available to him but collected on a basis of which he approved, I should overthrow the verdict of a Tribunal which he established because the Tribunal confirms that I was right?
  I turn to some of the matters which have given rise to proper concern over this case. Some of them are very genuine and important, and some are based on a misunderstanding. May I first clear up one or two misunderstandings? The word "deportation" is often used, and was even used, surprisingly, by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. There is no question of deportation. Mr. Dutschke came here as a temporary visitor for health treatment. No action of any kind has been taken by the Home Office to change the basis on which he came to this country. Sometimes it is said that this involves political asylum. There is no possible question of political asylum involved in this case. That has never been advanced on behalf of Mr. Dutschke, but it has been said on many occasions—and it could not possibly be advanced seriously—that the question of political asylum arose here. When coming here, Mr. Dutschke undertook that he would go away after medical treatment.

  761
  It is said that this decision is a threat to academic freedom. I do not accept that. I do not challenge for one moment the right of the universities to decide whom they would like to admit to their societies. But, equally, there can be no challenge to the right and duty of Her Majesty's Government, subject to Parliament, to decide who can reside in this country, if he is not a British citizen. I am sure that the universities would never wish to arrogate this right to themselves or, in any case, to claim special exemption from the normal law for those whom they have chosen as students.
  Two very important issues about which the public is concerned are, first, the proceedings of the Tribunal and, second, the question of freedom of speech. May I dwell on these to some extent, because I should like to give them the seriousness which they deserve.
  As for the proceedings of the Tribunal, no one is happy about this. I am sure that no one who has listened to and studied this Tribunal will think that it is the right answer to this problem. People are concerned especially about the fact that evidence put forward on behalf of the Government was not made available to Mr. Dutschke. This is a great difficulty which has been recognised by succeeding Governments. I have plenty of quotations from my predecessors concerning available and relevant information which comes from sources which cannot be disclosed without damage to the national interest.
  That is precisely why the special Tribunal was set up. No security service can possibly work if its sources are destroyed by publication. I recognise that there is an argument for having no security services, though I doubt whether many people in present conditions would regard that as a reasonable proposition. But there can be no argument for having a security service working for the State and then attacking or traducing it. There can certainly be no argument for having a security service and then making it ineffective by forcing the disclosure of its sources of information upon which its effectiveness depends. This problem is well understood by both sides of the House.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that argument with the fact that,
  762
  in treason trials or trials involving breaches of the Official Secrets Act, when evidence has to be given in camera it is given in such a way that a defendant can answer it and cross-examine the witnesses who are giving evidence?
  Mr. Maudling: That is my next point. In this case, there is no question of a trial. The Home Office were not seeking a change in Mr. Dutschke's position. The case arose from his desire to challenge my refusal to vary the conditions which he originally accepted for entry. All that could happen to him, if the Tribunal found against him, was that he would be held to what he agreed to do less than two years ago.
  If sources cannot be disclosed without damage to the national interest, it is important that provision should be made for the reference of these matters to independent and judicially-minded people in whom the appellants can have confidence and whose advice will carry weight.
  It is against that background that this Tribunal was chosen by the previous Government, and what happened was to carry out precisely the solution which they had proposed for what I entirely agree is a very difficult problem.
  If we can find ways and means of preventing that situation, I for one would be happy to do so. Both sides would wish to reconcile what are genuine considerations of national security and the position of individuals.
  I come finally to the basic issue of political freedom which has been raised in this instance. This is the issue of freedom of speech and political protest. Was my decision that Mr. Dutschke should not become a student here, like my predecessor's similar decision in the first instance, an affront to the rights of freedom of speech? By my unwillingness to allow him to reside in this country and take part in political activities am I, in fact, limiting the freedom of speech which our constitution should provide?
  These are, without doubt, issues of profound importance for any democracy. But all freedom of speech and of protest must be subject to some limitation within the fabric of organised society. For freedom itself cannot exist without law to protect it, and to use freedom of speech or protest in order to undermine organised lawful society is, in my submission, something that is unacceptable. If we want

  763
  to preserve freedom we must be prepared when necessary to protect it, and the freedom to impose by force one's views upon others is not a freedom that any democracy can accept. Freedom has traditionally been under threat from government, but it is also upheld by government, and in modern conditions particularly the threat to freedom may come from those who wish to overthrow or discredit democratic government itself.
  There should be no limit on any advocacy of any changes in our society or our constitution by peaceful means. There should be no limitation on the basic freedom to hold political views, to propose, to argue, to persuade, even to protest, and all these freedoms should apply equally to those who live in this country, be they British citizens by right, or foreign citizens, including students, whom we have agreed to admit here. But to promote and, even more, to organise, the use of force for this purpose is an extension of political protest that is not acceptable in our democracy. This has always been recognised by our law and by succeeding governments. Whatever may be true in a country where government is tyrannical, in a country such as ours where the people can choose their own Parliament and their own Government, force can be the weapon only of the minority to deny freedom to the majority.
  There can be no doubt that the concept of national security has been changing as the threat to our democratic society changes. The danger is no longer solely external. The most cursory look at the world shows the development of many groups of determined people openly devoted to the use of force in one degree or another for political ends. We have seen its advocacy and its use in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, and even in this country itself. And there can be no doubt that there are contacts between these various groups, whose circumstances may be different but who are united in the belief that they are entitled to promote their own political purposes, in which they passionately believe, by imposing their will on others. Any country is entitled to anticipate and forestall activities by such political groups. To do so is not to deny freedom but to protect it.
  764
  It seems to me, moreover, quite clear that countries are entitled to be specially careful when it comes to the admission of foreign citizens. This country has no obligation to admit anyone, leaving aside rights of political asylum which I agree must be inviolate. We have no obligation to admit anyone whose presence might lend itself to the activities of people hostile to our democratic system. There is no such obligation on any Government. Nor has any Government a right to take risks where national security is involved by admitting people as residents of this country who have no claim themselves upon our society and whose presence may be harmful or could be exploited by others for harmful ends. We believe in pursuing a liberal policy for admitting foreign citizens to this country, which has always been a soundly based tradition, but it is our duty to say "No" in circumstances where security considerations make this necessary.
  This is my statement of how I believe freedom can be protected and preserved in this country. Only if we are prepared to defend the rights of free democratic decision against any who may use force to impose their political beliefs, only if we follow what all Governments have always done on this point, and only if we understand that national security involves this, can we hope to guarantee freedom of expression against the inevitable backlash which will come from right-wing views and which many would like to stimulate for their own purposes.
  These are the considerations which I put forward. I was asked to say what I thought were the proper limitations on freedom of discussion in this country. I believe that this is the proper limitation on freedom of action, and it should not be used to undermine and take away the freedom of others.
  To return to the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that we are to have a vote. I welcome that. If the Labour Party disagrees with my action and consider that Mr. Dutschke should be released from the undertakings that he gave freely to gain admission here, in the light of the Tribunal's findings first that he did not keep his under- takings and secondly that if he were allowed to remain there would without doubt be a risk, I hope that right hon.

  765
  and hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote to that effect.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mrs. Judith Hart: My remarks will be brief, because I know that many other hon. Members want to take part in the debate.
  The debate is partly about a person, Rudi Dutschke, and the Home Secretary has given us his own account. It is partly about the principles of the matter, and the right hon. Gentleman spent a lot of time on his interpretation of the principles which he believes should govern his judgment in matters of this kind. I want to spend a few moments on both points.
  In the light of what the Secretary of State said towards the end of his speech about the need to avoid violence and to oppose the use of force in our society, it is necessary and important for those of us who have not met Rudi Dutschke, as I have not, and as I imagine very few hon. Members have, to pay some regard to what has been written about him in papers such as The Times by those who know him. I will make one brief quotation from an article by Mr. Richard Davy in The Times of Saturday, 9th January, that seems to challenge the Home Secretary's assumptions about Mr. Dutschke's attitude towards violence, and which seems relevant in this matter. Mr. Davy wrote:
  "Unlike many bored and frustrated middle-class students who gravitate to 'revolution' for the excitement of the game, he does not glamourise violence or advocate its use as a means of gaining power."
  In an interview with Dutschke which was published last weekend in The Times, he made his own views on this clear.
  One either accepts what someone states to be his philosophy or one does not. If one does not accept it, we are on completely different ground. The Home Secretary has indicated that part of his ground is his view that Dutschke professes to believe in violence. Dutschke denies that that is so. We can only take what he and others say are their philosophies.
  Having said that about Dutschke and leaving on one side the factors of his illness, that when he came to this country he had to learn English over again and, incidentally, to learn his own language
  766
  over again, and leaving out of account the hardship which followed from an incident in which he was a victim and not a protagonist, I come to the principle which seems to govern the Home Secretary.
  Listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I began on the assumption that we should hear something which was at least a reasonable interpretation of his stance in the matter. I ended, when he sat down, dismayed by what seemed to be a complete reinterpretation of the principles of liberty in this country.
  The first major change that the Home Secretary has made in the course of his handling of this case is that he has extended—he admits it and supports it—the whole concept of national security from those matters of State secrets, defence secrets and espionage which we have all understood to be encompassed by the necessary methods of State security. The right hon. Gentleman has extended the concept of national security to include political dissent and political militancy, whether or not force is used. He has extended it to cover merely the discussion of what principles should guide militants and dissentients.
  I was particularly interested in one remark, and I am quite certain that the Home Secretary could not really have meant what he said here. He was explaining the difference between a trial and the tribunal in terms of the evidence not being available to the defence counsel in the tribunal. If I understood him correctly, he said that it was not a trial in a court of law but a tribunal. The implication is very clear, that if it is not a trial justice does not matter, that totally different approaches can be used if it is not a trial with a possible prison sentence at the end. According to the Home Secretary, the question whether the methods used are just is apparently irrelevant. That was the implication—[Interruption.] I qualify that by saying that it clearly emerged from what he said that the principles of absolute justice, the availability of evidence to the defence counsel, which is regarded as a principle of justice in the courts, is not so regarded in the tribunal. Therefore, we are bound to recognise that the principles of justice can be bent a little, that they are not pure and right in themselves, but are

  767
  capable of adaptation to circumstances in the Home Secretary's view.
  Mr. Maudling: All this was established by the Government of which the right hon. Lady was a distinguished member.
  Mrs. Hart: I never heard, nor do I think I would ever hear, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Secretary of State, using the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman used this afternoon.
  Let us be quite clear about this. I believe that in redefining the concept of national security in this way the right hon. Gentleman is taking a dangerous path, which represents a serious departure in British justice, in toleration, and in what we might broadly call methods of political control, which I think would be the words the right hon. Gentleman might care to use. The matter is fundamentally a question of definition.
  The right hon. Gentleman has told us to some extent why he has taken the action that he has and adopted this view. He rightly says that the Government have a right to say who shall stay in this country and that they have a right to protect freedom of speech, but he added that the freedom of speech must be subject to some limitation. Indeed, it is already, subject to limitation by the laws of this country. There are many kinds of speech as a result of which police charges can be made, such as incitement to riot and to violence. We have our laws protecting us against any abuse of the freedom of speech, but the right hon. Gentleman said, and I think I quote him correctly, that freedom of speech cannot be allowed to undermine lawful society. I cannot believe even now that he understands the implication of what he says. If this is so, if freedom of speech is never to be allowed to undermine lawful society, the assumption is that whatever may be the concept of lawful society at any point of time is permanently to be so. Had this been the case we should not have had the social changes of the 19th century or this century. There were men and women, the predecessors of hon. Members on this side of the House, who sought to undermine lawful society as it
  768
  was seen then. Is what the right hon. Gentleman says a recipe for the permanence of one particular philosophy? That is what it sounds like to me, and it is extremely dangerous.
  The Home Secretary said that people from abroad who may be hostile to our country should not be allowed to stay, that people who discuss the use of force and violence should not be allowed to stay. I have dealt with that point as it concerns Rudi Dutschke, but our whole system of law gives plenty of opportunity to deal with anyone who either uses or threatens to use force. The Home Secretary must accept that I am sincere in what I say now. His speech can only smack of the beginnings of a trend towards the kind of McCarthyism that we must not permit to develop in this country.
  Mr. Angus Maude: The right hon. Lady talks about a threat to freedom of speech, but surely she recognises that it was not my right hon. Friend who silenced Herr Dutschke but his predecessor, who imposed the condition that he must refrain from political activity? All that my right hon. Friend has done is to confirm the original terms and conditions.
  Mrs. Hart: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the issue here, and the reason for this debate, is that we have a different point of view on what political activity is. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that his view of political activity is apparently very different from that of the Home Secretary, and therefore this is a relevant point to bring out in the debate.
  It has always been my view that there are two high posts in Government which carry more responsibility, outside that of the Prime Minister, than any other. One is that of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the other that of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, simply because both, aside from pursuing their own political policies, have a duty which transcends that to the whole tradition of Britain, which they have a duty to safeguard whatever their political party approach may be.
  It seems to me—and I think that the Home Secretary revealed this to be so in much of what he said—that he recognises that there is in this country at present

  769
  a wave of opinion that will undoubtedly agree with him. However, in playing to that gallery he is letting down his key post and the trust that we should be able to place in the Secretary of State for the Home Department even when he belongs to another party. He is making a great mistake about the reservoir of opinion, even though it may be a minority of opinion in this country, which totally disagrees with his approach on this case.
  I had a recent experience in which the case of Rudi Dutschke emerged into public discussion, and as a result I have had one of the biggest posts I have ever had in my political life in the House. I have never had such a predominantly favourable, supporting post. There is no doubt that if the Home Secretary feels that he can play to a dangerous gallery he can carry others with him and gain the majority in the Lobby. The Times has said that any Home Secretary can do anything as long as he has a majority in the House of Commons. Of course he can. The responsibility is therefore all the greater upon him. I am sorry that we have not heard anything from him this afternoon that could reassure us about the underlying factors in his mind and about his approach to a fundamental question stretching far beyond the particular case of Rudi Dutschke.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind the House of the strict time limit on this debate. Unless speeches are extremely short many hon. Members will be very disappointed when the debate ends.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Soref: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for enabling me to face the House for the first time in debate. In rising to make my maiden speech I ask the indulgence of the House. It is something of an ordeal for anyone to address the House for the first time, as many would testify, but on such a subject as we are now debating, with a great deal of emotion involved, I shall do my best to see that there is no undue strain on the generosity of the House, for which it is renowned.
  My predecessor was Sir Douglas Glover, who represented Ormskirk here
  770
  for 18 years with great distinction. He endeared himself to the House and is greatly loved throughout South-West Lancashire. It is something of a challenge to succeed a man of his integrity, assiduity, popularity and near-omniscience, particularly his profundity on parliamentary procedure.
  There are others in the House and in the other place who have represented Ormskirk. The predecessor of Sir Douglas Glover, the noble Lord, Lord Salter, was an illustrious Member for Ormskirk, and I understand that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), who has not lost his nostalgia for Ormskirk, an increasingly contiguous constituency to Huyton.
  I understand that it is customary for a maiden speech not to be unduly controversial. There have been modifications of this tradition during my short presence in this Parliament, but I am a traditionalist and I believe that it is a reasonable assumption that the maintenance of law and order and the security of the State are matters of equal interest to all three parliamentary parties. Therefore anything that I say on those matters surely falls within the parliamentary traditions of all three parties, which are equally wedded to a belief in parliamentary democracy, free speech, freedom of assembly, the right of political asylum and academic freedom. But it seems to me, as I am sure it did to many who entered the House after the last General Election, that of no less public concern than violent crime has been violence in politics and apprehension that certain people have a reluctance to condemn it unequivocally.
  There is increasing fear, reflected in many manifestations in this country, of a threat of the break-down of democracy and of anarchy and a collapse of authority. In this context, the subject must be considered from the point of view of the feelings of the people. There are revolutionary groups, including student revolutionaries, who are promoting revolution in an endeavour to undermine our society. I do not think that it is going too far to say that its culmination was the attempt on the life of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and his family last week, which symbolised the climate created by such people.

  771
  We in the House are increasingly aware of the danger of such guerrillas. Despite what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady this evening, Mr. Dutschke, according to the interiew in The Times last Saturday and his television performance last evening with Mr. Paul Foot and Mr. Tariq Ali—predictable, on Granada Television—shows that he has not changed his views at all.
  Mr. Dutschke is the guru of the guerrillas. He has shown, as evidenced in the document provided by the Tribunal, a history of turbulence and near-guerrilla activity. Both his appearance on television and his interviews in The Times show him to be a disciple of Professor Marcuse, who is the patron saint of the urban guerrillas and who is out to destroy the society we hold dear, even by the symbol of the oath we have all taken. It cannot be contradicted that Mr. Dutschke led student revolutionaries in Germany. He fomented demonstrations and advocated violence, and he is dedicated to the overthrow of our type of society.
  On the legal aspect, I do not think that anyone could add a word to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said this evening. He gave conclusive evidence for the wisdom of his action. Mr. Dutschke originally came here two years ago to convalesce for one month, and he has stayed under one pretext after another. Surely there is ample evidence from his behaviour and his activities that he does not have a suitable case for remaining in this country. When one reads the Report in 1962 of the inquiry headed by Lord Radcliffe into the alleged weaknesses in security provided in the public services, is that not an additional reason for the termination of the stay of Mr. Dutschke in this country?
  My right hon. Friend, in accepting the decision of the Tribunal, acted justly and surely in accord not only with the will of the nation but in accordance with legislation on this matter introduced by the last Government. Is it not unthinkable that any other Home Secretary would have acted otherwise? In taking the course he has done, there is little doubt that my right hon. Friend will enjoy the thanks and congratulations of a grateful nation.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: It is the custom of the House that the hon. Member who follows a maiden speaker congratulates him on his maiden speech. I do so formally to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref)—I am not in that sense being personally offensive. I imagine that the best compliment I can pay to him is that his opinions are as far from mine as they could be, and in that case I am not sure whether the Home Secretary will welcome support from that quarter. We shall see. We shall be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman in future debates in which he takes part.
  I wish to speak for a few minutes in the debate because I have been in the case from the beginning, but the whole case was expressed with such overwhelming effectiveness and force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that I only wish to make a few minor additions to what he had to say. I may add that, in my opinion, during the whole period when he dealt with this case, my right hon. Friend dealt with it in accordance with the highest traditions of this country and that it is the departure from those traditions by the Home Secretary which is the cause of the debate.
  The Home Secretary purported to give the facts of what had happened in this case, but he omitted to give many facts and he omitted to give any answer to the most serious question about the case itself which was posed by my right hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, when the letter of 25th August was sent, in which the Home Secretary stated the reasons on which he intended to deny Mr. Dutschke the possibility of staying in this country further, surely, if the right hon. Gentleman had objections then to the conduct of Mr. Dutschke in any sense at all, if he had any concern about national security arising in this case, he would have expressed them in that letter. Surely these matters should have been dealt with.
  But, as the Home Secretary knows perfectly well, the case is even stronger than that. After receiving that letter, I immediately asked the right hon. Gentleman whether I could come and see him, and he readily agreed. The conversation I had with him then underlines

  773
  afresh the point my right hon. Friend has posed because, as the right hon. Gentleman will confirm, I thought he treated me at that interview with the utmost candour and stated the position quite clearly.
  First, I told the right hon. Gentleman that I wished to remove any question of there being any doubt about a complaint on the ground that the basis of the application for Mr. Dutschke to stay in this country had been changed. I wished to persuade him that that change had been made openly and in good faith, both by Mr. Dutschke and myself. He concurred that there had been no breach of faith at all. Then we had a discussion on the conditions. The right hon. Gentleman made no complaint to me then, just as he had made no complaint in the letter, about any breach of the conditions. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman had raised any single case of a breach of the conditions, I would immediately have said, "I must take that up with Mr. Dutschke and see what is his retort." No such complaint was made by the Home Secretary, not in any sense whatever.
  The right hon. Gentleman now says to the House of Commons that he had a good deal more evidence than my right hon. Friend had. If he had a good deal more evidence when he saw me on 7th September, or when he made his decision on 25th August, he should have told us then and we could have looked at the matter again. Moreover, in the discussion with the right hon. Gentleman, there was no reference whatever to the term "national security". I do not think that national security had ever occurred to him in this case.
  As I have said elsewhere, I have seen earlier Home Secretaries on matters of this kind to try and persuade them to permit someone to stay in this country, and when matters of national security have been involved they have always said so. I remember Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, saying to me, "It is a matter of national security", or "National security is involved and therefore I am afraid I cannot discuss that." But the right hon. Gentleman made no mention whatever of national security. What he did say, perfectly in accord with what he has said today, is that he treated the matter as if it were an original application for a student coming from abroad.
  774
  That was the basis on which he was exercising his discretion and he said that he was doing so in a different manner from that of my right hon. Friend.
  I think that the right hon. Gentleman exercised that discretion wrongly. Most of us on this side of the House believe that he did so. He says that he exercised it rightly, but that is not the end of the matter, indeed, as he will also recall from our conversation on that occasion, the last discussion we had on the matter was whether the decision was final, because I did not wish to mislead Mr. Dutschke in any sense. The right hon. Gentleman said, "I will consider what you have said if you wish, but I think that you must take it as final. I do not think that it will make any difference to my decision." He never mentioned to me any question of the Appeals Tribunal or that he had rights under it. Nor did I mention it because I did not know that he had them. [HON. MEMBERS: "You passed the Bill."] We passed the Bill, but he was supposed to be administering the Act.
  I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman knew on 7th September that there was going to be an appeal, because I must say that, if he did know at that moment that there was going to be an appeal, I would have thought, particularly since we had perhaps four or five minutes in the conversation on the question of whether the matter was final, that he would have told me: "Of course, you are aware that there is a possibility of an appeal to the Tribunal." My belief is that, when he saw me on that occasion, first, he did not believe that there was anything wrong in the way in which the basis of the application had been altered; secondly, he did not believe that Mr. Dutschke had broken any of his undertakings; thirdly, he did not believe that national security was involved in any sense; and, fourthly, he did not believe there could be any appeal. I think he believed that he was just exercising his discretion.
  If the matter had been left there, it would have been solely a wrong exercise of his discretion by the right hon. Gentleman and the case would not have been so sinister as it has become, because the case against Mr. Dutschke has derived from the period after the interview of 7th September. If we put it the other

  775
  way round, then the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of the gravest possible deception and bad faith.
  Of course if the right hon. Gentleman had a complaint he should have said so. Of course if he knew there was to be an appeal to the Tribunal he should have said so. What was the purpose of our having a conversation if we were not to try to settle the matter? I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this was a proper course for him in discussing the matter in those terms. I thought that he was dealing with me in good faith. If his defence now is that he knew that there were breaches of the conditions, that there was a good deal more evidence than he made available to me. I suggest that he has, in fact, cooked it up for this debate at this late date in the proceedings. If he really had such evidence, he should have said so then and not after the proceedings have gone to this length.
  The result is that, if other countries and people throughout the world believe the Home Secretary and the Tribunal and their evidence, if they believe that Mr. Dutschke is the kind of man who breaks his undertakings for malevolent political purposes and that he is a danger to Britain's national security, Mr. Dutschke and his family—one of his two children, let us remember, was born in this country—are going to be harried from one country to another, are they not? For are there countries much more secure than we are which can withstand these perils?
  The Home Secretary and the Tribunal have brought about a lamentable state of affairs. They have committed an outrageous defamation of character against Mr. Dutschke, a form of judicial defamation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. What about the individuals concerned? Individuals have rights. One of the great things about the House of Commons is that we should seek to protect the individual.
  Echoing the remarks of my right hon. Friend, I believe that the Home Secretary has made the situation still worse by his speech today, not only by his failure to answer the question which was put to him by my right hon. Friend and which I have sought to reinforce by a description of our interview, but by the philosophical peroration which redefines supposedly
  776
  the kind of people who may be allowed into this country and the kind of surveillance which may be made upon them. If that surveillance is to be carried out to the extent described by the hon. Gentleman, then the Special Branch will have to become a much more expensive affair. Public expenditure will have to go up on that account at any rate. The telephoning tapping which must be tolerated will have to be on a very much more extensive scale.
  If this kind of definition of British freedom had been applied in the nineteenth century, not only Karl Marx would have been excluded—some may say that that would have been fine—but Mazzini, Garibaldi, Kossuth and Alexander Herzen would have been excluded, and the list includes some of the most famous names of that century, people now honoured in their own countries from which they had been driven at that time.
  It is my belief that, thanks to the folly and worse with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this case, the name of Rudi Dutschke will be added to those famous names. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Yes. Hon. Members opposite had better read, if they can, the reports and articles which have appeared in newspapers like The Times by people who know the man.
  I say that a man should be dealt with fairly in this country, wherever he comes from. Mr. Dutschke has been dealt with most unfairly and if this new definition is accepted then, indeed, the restriction of British freedom which the Home Secretary is seeking to impose can be increasingly dangerous. I believe that this debate must be continued on later occasions so that we on this side can try to restore the freedoms which under right hon. and hon. Members opposite will be steadily eroded.
  5.48 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Dudes: As he sometimes does, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has overstated his case. He has sought to give us his reasons for believing, as he has said outside the House, that the case against Rudi Dutschke was concocted—that was his word—by officials in the Home Office. When I heard him deliver that charge on Sunday, I thought it disgraceful, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who often

  777
  stands here for the defence of the individual and individual rights, should make a charge of that kind against public officials not able to defend themselves.
  The hon. Gentleman has given us his reasons for believing that the case was concocted. They rest on the half-hour interview which he had on 7th September with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman makes one major error in the assumptions which he draws from that interview. He assumes that my right hon. Friend should have made plain to him the case which he had against Rudi Dutschke. The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware—I am sure that his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is—that even when Members of Parliament go to see Ministers at the Home Office and talk about personal cases of this kind they are not given the reasons held against the individual. That is an important part of Home Office tradition, and there is a good case for it. To give such reasons would be to be guilty of the very defamation of which the hon. Gentleman has just accused my right hon. Friend.
  Such disclosures are not made. Because they were not made in this case, the hon. Gentleman went away and decided later on that the information not disclosed to him on 7th September was concocted subsequently. He arrogates too much to himself on that. His argument falls because my right hon. Friend would not have made him privy to the reasons why Rudi Dutschke was to be excluded. And how wise my right hon. Friend was in so doing.
  I turn now to the place of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East in all this. It seems ironic that in this debate my right hon. Friend should be in the dock being arraigned by the right hon. Gentleman, for the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he had a big part in the background to it all. He is conducting an inquest into a mess partly of his own making.
  In my view, the right hon. Gentleman made two important mistakes, two misjudgments. His first was on the terms on which Rudi Dutschke was originally allowed to stay. He told us this afternoon that he agreed to allow him to stay only on those conditions, that is,
  778
  "provided that he engaged in no political activity."
  I can only say that the Tribunal put a slightly different gloss on those words. In his letter, the right hon. Gentleman said that Rudi Dutschke's admission would be on the clear understanding that he would not engage in political activities. Clearly, that was an understanding which the right hon. Gentleman extracted and expected—
  Mr. Callaghan: I did not extract it. It was volunteered by Rudi Dutschke and accepted by me. That is a very different matter.
  Mr. Deedes: But it went into the letter, if the right hon. Gentleman now says that it had no meaning, what was the point of keeping it there?
  What was the consequence of those conditions? What would the likely effect be? It would mean, in effect, requiring very close observation of Rudi Dutschke to see whether he fulfilled those conditions. In my view, it would have led to a requirement going far beyond the work which we normally carry out in relation to aliens allowed here on whom we keep watch. To ensure that Rudi Dutschke was not here engaging in political activity would have involved, if it has been faithfully carried out, telephone tapping, interfering with mail, and all the rest. In my opinion, the right hon. Gentleman was most unwise to accept those conditions in the first place.
  There is a second and, perhaps, more important aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's misjudgment. He was responsible for the 1969 Act. In framing that Act, he set aside—I do not say that he rejected—two important recommendations by Sir Roy Wilson in the original Report on which the Bill was based. I remind the House of what Sir Roy Wilson said on this very type of case:
  "Cases arise from time to time in which the Home Secretary feels justified in excluding a person from this country, or requiring him to leave, on grounds which are essentially of a political nature—for example, that his presence here is or would be harmful to international relations, or offensive to public opinion. We doubt whether the system of appeals which we are proposing would provide apt machinery for dealing with such cases. We would not therefore think it wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the proposed appeal system, to remove such cases from the scope of that system and leave them entirely to the Home Secretary's discretion subject to his responsibility to Parliament."

  779
  That was one recommendation. There was a second recommendation in which Sir Roy Wilson said that it does not follow from that that a case should be excluded from the Tribunal merely because it affects security, but he said that, if a security case goes to the Tribunal, the Tribunal could hold its proceedings in camera,
  "but there would be no question of withholding from the appellant particulars of what is alleged against him."
  I should like to know why those two recommendations of Sir Roy Wilson were omitted from the procedures on which my right hon. Friend had to work. In a sense, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East gave us the worst of both worlds. He took away from the Home Secretary the traditional discretion in personal cases of this kind in which a Home Secretary, if he takes a decision, becomes answerable to the House. This is no light imposition. No one who has stood at that Box and tried to defend the Home Secretary on a personal case would say otherwise. It is not agreeable to defend a personal decision on exclusion or deportation in the House of Commons, when the Minister concerned cannot give the reasons for what he has done. There is, therefore, that safeguard. But it was lost, and the Home Secretary. I understand, was left with no reserve discretion at all.
  The second point is even more important. None of us, I think, could defend the way in which the Tribunal was put to work. I say that with no derogation of the gentlemen involved. But the exclusion of Rudi Dutshke when the evidence was given in camera against him was something which, I think, no one could defend. Sir Roy Wilson recommended otherwise. What went wrong?
  I hold the right hon. Gentleman, for those two reasons, guilty of part of the mess which we are discussing today, for, if those two recommendations had been adopted, we should have been dealing with a very different situation.
  Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind me whether he moved any Amendments on those lines during the passage of the Bill? There are reasons—if the right hon. Gentleman had listened, he would have heard the Home Secretary himself gives them this after-
  780
  noon—for omitting those two recommended procedures. The Home Secretary see the difficulty of the situation, and so should the right hon. Gentleman; he was a Home Office Minister.
  Mr. Deedes: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of what my right hon. and learned Friend, as he then was—now the Lord Chancellor—said to him on the Second Reading of the Bill. He warned him that he was confusing an administrative process with a judicial process. That is precisely what has been done. We have produced a hybrid, and a very bad hybrid.
  The system devised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East has become a system which the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to exploit at the expense of my right hon. Friend. That is where the humbug comes in. The right hon. Gentleman should be eating humble pie about it, not complaining and accusing my right hon. Friend of all manner of sins in the Home Office. My advice to my right hon. Friend is that he should as soon as possible scrap that system and put something in its place on which he and his successors can rely.
  5.58 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Crossman: We have reached an extremely interesting stage in the debate. At least, we have now had an admission from the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that we are dealing with a mess. That is an advance. Also, we now have the alibi that this is really all the fault of the previous Home Secretary because of the structure of the 1969 Act and the Tribunal system.
  That is an interesting point, and I think that there is something in what the right hon. Gentleman said, but, in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I must say that the arguments normally used about security and the Home Secretary's difficulties in such circumstances apply strongly to both the changes which have been proposed from the back benches opposite, and I doubt that we shall this evening have a clear statement that both those criticisms of the Act are accepted.
  Next, the right hon. Gentleman took my right hon. Friend the former Home

  781
  Secretary to task because, so he said, he had created all the difficulties. I agree to this extent: I do not think that my right hon. Friend would claim, or that we on this side generally would claim, that what we did about Rudi Dutschke was tremendously liberal. We were not giving sanctuary to a famous revolutionary like Marx or Lenin. What we did was much more limited. Here was a fellow who had had two bullets in his brain. He was in Italy, he was unlikely to survive, he was desperately ill, and there were people in this country who could look after him. People wrote and asked whether he would be allowed to come for medical reasons. That was the only reason why he was brought to this country. The only issue was whether that request should be accepted. No one suggested that he should at that time come to do post-graduate work. The question was whether he could be taken to a place where there was a surgeon who could handle his problem. There was such a surgeon here who dealt with him, and his life was saved.
  What my right hon. Friend did—and he has had to say it twice—was to accept—not to impose—what was volunteered by Dutschke, namely, an assurance that if he came he would naturally not indulge in political activities. He was desperately ill and wanted his brain repaired. It was natural for him to say, "Of course I will behave myself if I come." That was accepted and, of course, written into the letter. There need have been only one issue for the present Home Secretary, whether after two years, in the new situation, he would make a new arrangement with the same conditions about political activities and allow him to convalesce, because he is not completely cured. He still has epilepsy, he is still near-blind, and part of the cure is a rest in the asylum of a university.
  It was obviously desirable that he should stay at one of our universities. He first tried to go to Oxford, and it was only because they did not have the right kind of tutor—I have a letter from the Fellow who interviewed him at Oxford—that he went to Cambridge. They had the right man for this thesis. It was looked at from this point of view, and this was seen to be the second stage in his cure. It could have been possible for the Home Secretary to let the situation go on quietly. One of the things this man needs
  782
  is not to be the centre of a political maelstrom but to be left to write his thesis, with the possibility that if he did he would not go back to being a revolutionary. These things happen to some people. In their lives they have a revolutionary period. I will go no further than that.
  But that was not the issue. The Home Secretary decided not to do that, and I am rather convinced by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It is possible that he was right about that. It was very odd of the Home Secretary not to mention the Tribunal, the appeal, but to discuss the decision as final. Anyhow it was not discussed—and suddenly there came the appeal. I am sure that the form of inquiry is not perfect but certainly it was used in a peculiar way, so that what should have been an inquiry, in a sense on behalf of the man, turned into a court in which he was a defendant. This is the point which many of us view with the greatest alarm—the procedure of the inquiry and the rôle of the Attorney-General, emphasising that slow, forensic procedure, as against an inquiry before the Home Secretary made up his mind or while he did so.
  What is even more serious is what the Home Secretary concluded. If he had merely had a different view on Dutschke, on what is necessarily a balance, I should have said simply that it was wrong and a great pity; but that is not the situation. The Home Secretary has developed or is developing a new doctrine to justify his view, and it is this which is causing serious alarm in academic circles. I mentioned Oxford. I notice the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) in the Chamber. He does not take quite the same view as does the Warden of his College. While the hon. Member jeers at Dutschke in a letter to The Times and quotes Lenin in 1932 to prove that Dutschke was wrong—
  Mr. Woodhouse: I did not jeer at Dutschke in The Times nor did I even suggest that the arguments which I presented in the letter to The Times had anything to do with whether he should be allowed to stay in this country. I think he should not be allowed to stay, but the reasons are quite simple.
  Mr. Crossman: I do not quite know why the article was presented in The Times dealing with Dutschke and why he should
  Mr. Woodhouse: The only reason why it appeared in The Times was that the interview with Dutschke appeared in The Times on the Saturday.
  Mr. Crossman: It is nice to know that this is not the reason why the hon. Member thinks that Dutschke ought not to stay and that he has a different reason to give. We had a remarkable occasion in Oxford last night when the Warden of his College and of mine addressed a meeting and emphasised this single point as an academic—the seriousness of the new doctrine that a person does not have to do anything to be subversive, that it is sufficient if he is known to be conversing and discussing.
  It is not denied that he has done nothing. He has not done anything that anyone would call "organization"; it is not denied that he has conversed a great deal. The hon. Member has not been a don as long as I was, but if a person is a student and is to write a thesis on revolutionary communism, it is a little difficult for him to do it without discussing revolutionary communism. He has to meet people and discuss.
  If we are now to say that intimate, passionate discussion, going about meeting people and discussing is in itself evidence sufficient to justify someone not being allowed to study at British universities, then the Home Secretary is right in saying that in his view we are now in such a grave new period of security that new counter-measures must be thought about. The new counter-measures are a means of forestalling, getting in before the organisation, before the action, when people are doing nothing but discussing. That is a very important development indeed and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that we should have another debate about it.
  Let us hope that when the Home Secretary made that ill-considered and brief statement he had not thought it out, like his original statement to my hon. Friend, and that he can change a little and advance new theories. If this is his new idea, and if we are to look at every one of the 23,000 foreign students and then, if we can show that they have revolutionary
  784
  thoughts, be able to disqualify, without stating reasons, anyone whom the right hon. Gentleman's security people say has had dangerous revolutionary thoughts and conversations, the right hon. Gentleman will destroy not only academic life in the country but the quality of liberty in this country and free discussion inside and outside universities.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. David Lane: The issue today is, how can we ensure that Britain, and my constituency of Cambridge in particular, remains a citadel of freedom and a haven for refugees without also becoming a Mecca for revolutionaries? This is an exceptionally difficult issue, just as the case of Rudi Dutschke is an exceptionally difficult case. It calls for cool thought and judgment rather than the paroxysms of indignation into which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and others have been working themselves during the last two weeks.
  I hope that the House will support my right hon. Friend tonight. To make my own position clear, I believe that on balance my right hon. Friend was wise to decide as he did, although I have several reservations and criticisms on certain aspects of the case. Over an issue of this kind I envy those who are quite sure that they know what is right and what is wrong, on either side of the argument. I have considerable hesitation before coming down on the side of my right hon. Friend. None of us can envy the responsibility of a Home Secretary in making these agonising human decisions.
  The majority of my constituents will be relieved that Mr. Dutschke is not to remain in Cambridge. However, there are a substantial minority inside and outside the university who are very critical of the decision, a minority ranging in political viewpoints from the extreme Left to the moderate Right. Academic opinion in Cambridge is divided. Yesterday, although several hundred students protested by forgoing study, the majority of the university continued to work normally. May I say in passing, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said when opening the debate, that there are many hundreds of foreign students who are welcome in Cambridge and I hope always will be. They make a great contribution

  785
  to university life, from all political points of view.
  I judge that the feeling in the country is broadly the same, a majority supporting the Home Secretary but an important minority uneasy. No hon. or right hon. Member of the House should under-estimate the extent of this anxiety or the need for reassurance that our traditional civil liberties are not being eroded by this decision. I hope there will be reassurance from what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon.
  In our concern with these wider issues I hope we shall not overlook the personal side, that is, the impact on Mr. and Mrs. Dutschke. I have had only one short meeting with them. They are people of charm and ability, and one cannot fail to sympathise with them in the predicament in which they find themselves, or fail to realise what an ordeal these last few months have been for them. Mr. Dutschke, although his health has been largely restored after the deplorable shooting, is and will remain less than 100 per cent. fit. For him, particularly, the strain must have been great. I am sorry that it has taken so long for his appeal to be heard and decided, and sorry, too, that the direction of my right hon. Friend—understandably, and I support him in this—that the appeal should be heard by the Tribunal was not communicated to Mr. Dutschke before, or at least simultaneously with, its publication to Parliament and the Press. I hope in any similar situation in future the Home Office will not lay itself open to criticism on points such as these.
  On the broader issues, we are dealing with this "grey area"in which Home Secretaries have to balance our liberal tradition with the needs of national security in the contemporary world. My right hon. Friend has already cleared up one misconception, the charge that Mr. Dutschke is being denied the right of political asylum. He also dealt with another, that the decision in this case is an insult to the judgment of Cambridge University and a blow against academic freedom. I do not see it in that light. Surely it is for the university to judge the acceptability of students on academic grounds and for the Home Secretary to look at other and wider considerations.
  The crux is the exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion in this case. I must remind the House, as was made
  786
  clear in the Tribunal's Report, of what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) wrote to his hon. Friend in 1968 when Mr. Dutschke was originally given permission to come here for medical treatment. He made it quite clear that Mr. Dutschke would not be allowed to stay for academic study. The right hon. Gentleman has been much less than frank with the House this afternoon in saying to my right hon. Friend that he should not have made the decision this way. He owes it to us to explain why he told his hon. Friend in 1968 that he would have taken precisely the same decision.
  The test for the Home Secretary is: is there a significant risk in Mr. Dutschke remaining here for a prolonged stay, not just for medical treatment but as a student? My right hon. Friend decided that there was a risk and the Tribunal came to the same conclusion in this key sentence:
  "Having regard to all the circumstances of this case there must without doubt be risk in his continued presence on a longer-term stay of this kind."
  Reluctantly, because I would have liked to give Mr. Dutschke the benefit of the doubt, I too foresee a risk, small though it may be. Critics ask, what on earth is this risk; on what grounds is his presence undesirable? There seem to me to be two grounds, maybe slight grounds, but we are dealing here with a fine balance of judgment. The first is what Mr. Dutschke might do directly. He has said to me and to others, and he says it very persuasively, that he has no intention of engaging in political activity. Against that we have the view of the Tribunal after weighing all the evidence, which we have not heard, that whatever his intentions may have been, he did not, in fact, abide by his original assurances.
  The second ground is the indirect effect of his prolonged presence here. There is a possibility, again small though it may be, that a number of individuals would be attracted to Britain to see and to meet Mr. Dutschke, whether or not he wished it, some of them active revolutionaries in a sense that he—I agree—may no longer be. So Mr. Dutschke might become, to put it bluntly, a magnet or focus for disruption.
  The last point on which criticism has centred is the charge that the Tribunal was a travesty of justice. We must

  787
  remind ourselves that its five members were men of great distinction and varied experience who certainly cannot be regarded as repressive reactionaries. Furthermore, it was the Home Secretary and not Mr. Dutschke who was, so to speak, on trial, because it was the propriety of the exercise of his discretion that was being questioned. Surely there is a distinction from a normal court of law. Also, from my reading of the Tribunal's Report, I believe it arrived at its conclusion mainly from the public evidence and was not greatly influenced by the evidence in camera.
  But having said that, we cannot be satisfied with the procedure in the special Tribunal as we have seen it operate. In the Home Secretary's review of the machinery I hope that he will not without careful thought decide to abolish the right of appeal. If the right remains, subject of course to what he said this afternoon about the security services, I hope a way may be found for the appellant and his advisers to be given at least a broad indication of the evidence presented in camera.
  It is quite wrong to allege on the basis of this one exceptionally difficult case that our civil liberties in Britain are being gravely threatened. For any of us who know my right hon. Friend and his general outlook it is absurd to picture him as a high priest of intolerance and repression. I am as anxious as anyone in this House to maintain our liberal traditions, to protect the rights of discussion, dissent and peaceful protest, and to defend academic freedom. Yet we should be foolish to ignore the threats to this very liberalism from the forces, national and international, which are dedicated to the overthrow of our system, by violence if necessary, and are only too glad to exploit our openness and our tolerance for this purpose. The British liberal tradition surely does not oblige us to offer unlimited scope to revolutionaries from overseas, and I do not think it illiberal to support a Home Secretary who, in an intensely difficult case such as this, gives the benefit of the doubt to the protection of our system and our society.
  6.17 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: I am happy to follow the hon. Member
  788
  for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), but I cannot possibly allow his arguments to stand, particularly that part of his speech in which he seemed to be accusing Herr Dutschke not of guilt by actual association but of guilt by prospective association. In other words, he was saying that at some time in the future rather unsavoury political characters may knock at his door in Cambridge and we shall all be threatened in our beds. That goes beyond any doctrine of McCarthyism which we may have heard in the debate this afternoon.
  I want to make clear the things I do not care about in this case. I care nothing for Herr Dutschke's politics, whether they are called revolutionary socialism or, by some of his more sentimental supporters, Christian Socialism. I do not agree with his views, but I do not find them dangerous. They are not, of course, capitalist, unless one defines capitalism by the principles of an offshore company, but I do not have nightmares at the thought that Herr Dutschke is thinking his dangerous thoughts. Nor do I suggest that he has a better right to be here than any other would-be immigrant, whether temporary or permanent and whether for reasons of study or health. Thousands of people with as much right to come here as he has have been kept away from our shores and have been denied their rights because of the immigration hysteria of both the present Government and the Opposition party. Nor do I suggest that he is a saint or that he is Christ on earth. He has certainly advocated some pretty ferocious direct action.
  What I care about is liberal Britain. I care about the preservation and propagation of liberal values, and my major purpose in this House is to preserve and propagate those values.
  The Report produced by the Tribunal is a shameful document—and not only those parts which deal with the tenure of office of the present Home Secretary. If one looks at pages 3 and 4 which deal with the conditions laid down by the right hon. Gentleman who is now leading from the Opposition Front Bench one can see that these are a damning indictment of a Government which pretended to liberal values. On 6th December, 1968, when he was approached in his capacity

  789
  as Home Secretary to allow Herr Dutschke to remain, he said:
  "I could not agree to admit Mr. Dutschke for a long-term stay to carry out literary commitments or to engage in a course of postgraduate study at a British university."
  As a result of those comments Mrs. Dutschke's solicitors wrote to the Home Office promising that Herr Dutschke would not engage in
  "political, literary or academic activities."
  I now turn to procedure. The issue of security was raised by the Home Secretary at a very late date. It was raised for no other reason than that he wanted to ensure that the appeal procedure would not back Herr Dutschke's appeal. He has even said that if it had backed Herr Dutschke's appeal he might have had to resign—what a terrible shame!
  The secret evidence, the private hearing, is utterly monstrous in this country. It is totally against everything that one has ever been taught about British fair play and British justice. The Home Secretary has said that the Tribunal was not a court, but it had the effect of a court. I should like to hear from the Home Secretary whether all the members of the Tribunal were able to hear the secret evidence. Were they all there when it was given, and had they all been given security clearance?
  How was the evidence, presented in camera, collected? It is impossible to believe that the evidence that has been leaked in the Press could have been collected other than by telephone tapping. If there were telephone tapping, who gave the authority for Herr Dutschke's telephone to be tapped?
  Who gave the authority for the intensive shadowing that must have occurred to concoct—or, if hon. Gentlemen do not like the word "concoct", to gather together—the evidence?
  I have said that this document is disgraceful. It runs totally counter to all the things which I wish to preserve when I talk of a liberal Britain. The whole procedure was a charade. We employed a quasi-judicial procedure to arrive at an undoubtedly political decision. The Wilson Committee separated political and security cases. If we are to have political cases of this sort, they must be held in public and they must be non-judicial.
  790
  In security cases, there must be a proper judicial procedure.
  The Tribunal expressed an extraordinary view in saying that, although Herr Dutschke was not an appreciable security risk nevertheless he might be in the future. This can be compared with the injunction procedure of a court where a court is asked to stop something happening that has not happened yet. If anybody wants an injunction of that sort in an English court, he must produce evidence very much more concrete than the evidence that was produced in this particular case.
  This case has proved conclusively to me the truth of Bertrand Russell's remark that
  "Men fear thought more than they fear anything else on earth."
  Secondly, it has proved that the Home Secretary is not a liberal. He is not even a National Liberal. No doubt that may please him. I am suggesting that part of the motivation behind his actions in this case was precisely to prove that point. It is very dangerous and uncomfortable to be labelled a liberal Home Secretary in the present atmosphere of the Conservative Party.
  In his concluding philosophical treatise he set up a total Aunt Sally—namely, the suggestion that Rudi Dutschke has advocated violence, and is still doing so. There is absolutely no evidence that he is still advocating violence, or indeed that since he came to this country he has espoused a philosophy of violence. It was easy for the Home Secretary to knock down such an Aunt Sally. But his was a monstrous performance this afternoon and it did no kind of honour to his office.
  6.27 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: I will be very brief since the winding-up speeches are soon to begin. There are two aspects of this case to which I want to address myself. The first is the question of what principles are involved. The second is the question whether Mr. Dutschke is or would be a threat to this country.
  We have heard and read an enormous amount of emotional stuff about the principles involved. I beg the House before coming to a decision to ask itself carefully how much of this is justified.

  791
  We are told that the rights and freedoms of the individual are at stake, and that the liberty of the subject, the principle of free speech and academic freedom are threatened. I submit that not one of these is involved in this individual case. I will try to justify what I say.
  The liberty of the subject cannot be involved, first, because Mr. Dutschke is not a subject and, secondly, because his liberty is not threatened. There is nothing here which involves or threatens the liberty of the subject.
  Then it is said that people's rights are being threatened. Mr. Dutschke has no rights here. And there is no country in the world which recognises the right of any individual to come and settle in that country of his own free will. Every country recognises, and keeps the right to decide, who shall be allowed to stay. There is no right involved here which has been threatened.
  On the question of freedom of speech, it was not my right hon. Friend who silenced Mr. Dutschke. This was done by, if anybody, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who put into his letter as part of the terms that he should refrain from political activities.
  There is no threat to academic freedom because it cannot be held, and never has been held, that by accepting somebody in a course of study the authorities of any university could ever arrogate to themselves the right to act as the immigration authority of this country, which function resides in the Home Secretary.
  The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) seemed to suggest that the present Home Secretary was being illiberal, whereas, apparently, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East would, if asked, have allowed Mr. Dutschke to come here as a student for a course of study.
  Mr. Crossman: What I said was that there was a new doctrine which the Home Secretary emphasised this afternoon. The Home Secretary said that he had enunciated new measures, new thoughts, because of new kinds of danger. These new things were completely new to his predecessor. Therefore, those were the things we were discussing.
  Mr. Maude: The point is that the Home Secretary's predecessor would not have taken Mr. Dutschke as a student. He has already said that he would not. Moreover, he made it very clear at the end of the first period of Mr. Dutschke's stay here as an invalid. The Home Office wrote in January, 1969, to the Dutschkes and said that the time was up and that they ought to go. The former Home Secretary made it clear that he would not have been prepared to allow Mr. Dutschke to come here as a student.
  Mr. Michael Foot: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? It is not the case that he took that view throughout. He did take that view originally, but at the beginning of January, 1970, when we asked the Home Office about the situation if a different application were made, he said that he would be prepared to consider the matter. That puts a different complexion on it.
  Mr. Maude: Any Home Secretary would say that he would be prepared to consider the matter; it would be unreasonable for him not to do so. The point is that he had not done so in the first place, and his attitude was fairly clear.
  We come to the question whether Mr. Dutschke is, was, or could be a danger to the country. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East must have thought that, with Dutschke's record, he would be a danger—otherwise why was he so careful to keep down the periods of his stay? Why did he put into his letter the terms that he must refrain from political activities and so forth? The right hon. Gentleman must have thought that Mr. Dutschke's record meant that he could be a danger.
  It is said that this is now all changed, that Mr. Dutschke has behaved himself here and has not been a danger. The Tribunal said so. But Mr. Dutschke was living life here for a period of one month to six months, and then for another six months, hoping to get a permanent permit to stay here. He has, of course, been extremely careful to refrain from political activities during this time. But my right hon. Friend has had to consider whether, when conditions improved, he could be relied on to

  793
  refrain from political activities. On the basis of his past record he could not be so relied on.
  Mr. Dutschke's interview with Mr. Davey of The Times has been mentioned in his support. I have read it carefully and it gives me no reassurance. On three occasions in that interview when Dutschke was asked whether he would renounce the use of violence, he refused in each case to do so. When he was asked for his views on the urban guerrilla movement, which we must remember threatens us as well as other countries, he went into a long, rambling, evasive sentence which suggested that he would be prepared to support it if the need arose.
  It seems to me that we are in a situation in which my right hon. Friend will be blamed very much if he now takes a risk in security matters. He must balance the two things: the risk of affronting liberals in this country, who believe that freedom is being endangered, and the policy of reassuring the overwhelming majority of people in this country, who believe that there is an increasing security risk—which has got as near as Northern Ireland and an explosion the other night on the doorstep of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I believe that the Home Secretary is right not to take risks. He will not be forgiven if he takes them.
  6.35 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I was interested to hear the concluding words of the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). I hope that he is not suggesting that Rudi Dutschke placed the bomb, which everyone of us deplores, on the Secretary of State's step. If he is making that suggestion, it is a smear and nothing else.
  There have been several extreme reactions to the Home Secretary's decision, none of which I share. I do not regard this as the first step on the way to a police State, as perhaps many of Rudi Dutschke's supporters would imply. But the Home Secretary's decision diminishes by a small amount the great reputation of this country for the way in which it treats not only its own citizens, but those who enter this country from abroad. I think that his position can be criticised on that ground.
  794
  I do not, of course, share the other extreme viewpoint: "Rudi Dutschke was a foreigner and German; he was young, a student, and probably long-haired, though to his credit he was white". These are all automatic reasons for some people to want to get rid of him.
  I do not subscribe to the view of many people in this country that it does not matter at all what happens, because this involves only one man and what happens to one man is of little importance. Of course, it is of importance. It is the very essence of democracy and is what democracy is all about.
  It is not the first time that this House has discussed the fate of one man and how his future has been decided, not only by a tribunal, but by a court of law. Reference has been made to the methods used by the Tribunal. I was a little distressed at the cursory way in which the Home Secretary, for whom I have a great respect, dealt with the intervention of my hon. Friend. Everybody in the House has said that nobody could condone the fact that Rudi Dutschke was not allowed to hear the security part of the evidence against him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) interrupted to ask whether it is not the fact that in Official Secrets cases involving espionage and the security of the State not only is the accused allowed to hear the evidence but also the accused's barrister and his solicitors as well. If the accused is allowed to hear evidence in those cases—which are far more vital in the security of a nation than anything Rudi Dutschke ever did or is likely to do—why was his counsel not allowed to hear the evidence in the case?
  We have not had a satisfactory answer from the Home Secretary. The trial might not have been a strict trial in that it was not conducted according to the strict rules of evidence, but so far as Rudi Dutschke was concerned it must have seemed very much a trial. The Attorney-General, for whom, again, I have great respect, was there in full panoply, so were defence counsel in wigs. gowns and the lot. If that is not a trial, I wonder what a trial is supposed to be? The fact is that this was the method by which the Dutschke case was heard.
  No court of law would ever come to conclusions such as those reached by this

  795
  Tribunal. Let me point out that I am not impugning their good faith or anything of the sort. One does not have to agree with what Rudi Dutschke stands for, or with his writings or his preachings, but one feels that an injustice has been done to him. I am not impressed with the arguments of those who say that if Rudi Dutschke were in charge of a State as Home Secretary he would not let in people who preached any sort of opposition to the regime. Of course, he would not, and 1 should not want to live in a State run by Rudi Dutschke. I should like to think that we are far more generous than France, which has turned him down. I do not see why we should be any less generous than Denmark, which has allowed him in.
  I do not think that I need go over the evidence which has been given. I think that in all the circumstances this was an illiberal decision by the Home Secretary. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman has tarnished what I had regarded as a liberal image. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will particularly appreciate that compliment, but he may take it in any way that he wishes. I hope that he will reconsider his decision.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: One of the most extraordinary features about the continuing debate on the case of Mr, Rudi Dutschke has been the changing path which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken. Before Christmas, in the debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, many right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House understood that the Opposition wanted an assurance that the Government would be bound by the Appeals Tribunal. However, when the Appeals Tribunal found for the Government, they changed their attack to the Appeals Tribunal, but not to its decision. Thus, we ended with the not-toounfamiliar situation of the Labour Party in Opposition attacking what had been done by the Labour Party in Government, for surely it cannot be denied that the Tribunal was a creature of the Labour Government.
  It is not the inconsistency of approach which I regard as the strangest feature of
  796
  this debate; it is the determination of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to be seen as the liberal defenders of an oppressed student. They call the Dutschke decision, as it was called just now by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), an illiberal decision. They pretend that it is a denial of justice. They say that a country which once housed Marx, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, could certainly afford Mr. Dutschke.
  Above all, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite try to imply that they are the true defenders of free speech in this country. But they forget that, in office, they did not allow Mr. Dutschke into this country without conditions, the main condition being one which went to the heart of the man himself. Although, as the Tribunal said, Dutschke was and is an exceptional, highly developed man politically, they made it a condition, or at least they accepted that it would be a condition, that he should not take part in any political activity. In other words, they told a politician that he should not take part in politics.
  Such was the so-called liberal policy of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that they could not steel themselves to allow him in without conditions, so they compromised. I suggest that that compromise was no more than a sham. First, because the condition is objectionable in principle. It made Dutschke, if not a second-class citizen, certainly a second-class resident. What is the definition of "second-class" in this context if it is not somebody prevented from doing things which are legal and proper for the rest of the population? Had Mr. Dutschke been allowed to pursue his studies, which I understand is the overwhelming feeling of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, they would presumably have been content to allow him to be a second-class student deprived of following his interest in one of the most natural places in which it could be followed.
  The second reason that the original condition of no political activity is objectionable is on the ground of practice. It is impossible to define "political activity". I suggest that the condition which was imposed on his entry could not be enforced. Therefore, it was a sham, for at one and the same time the Labour Government were saying that it

  797
  was desirable that limits should be imposed upon his freedom but that the method by which those limits were to be imposed was unenforceable.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Callaghan: With the leave of the House. I have only four or five minutes to speak if the Home Secretary wants 10 minutes in which to reply.
  This debate has been disquieting in some ways, but in other ways valuable, too, because, even in the intemperate speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman is just coming in. I was referring to his intemperate speech. But even that had the effect of focusing attention upon the defects in the tribunal procedure. It is all very well to be wise after the event. The right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend who conducted the opposition on the Bill in Committee made none of these points before the event which he has made after the event. However, they were fully in all our minds.
  The question is whether we can devise a better procedure. The Home Secretary has said that he would consider withdrawing these cases from the tribunal. I have considered that matter. We should consider whether the right hon. Gentleman should resume responsibility and the House be able to question him in the form of a debate like this. These are not open-and-shut matters, although the approach of the right hon. Gentleman would not assist a temperate discussion of the matter.
  There is, then, the question of the hybrid procedure, which again is a difficult matter to decide. I certainly should not hold it against the Home Secretary if, when we have got away from heat engendered by this case, he wanted to have further discussions on the matter. On the whole, at any rate for some time, I should prefer to carry on the appeals procedure, with all the obvious defects, until we have had more experience of it.
  I was alarmed at the way in which the procedure of the Tribunal was conducted. I did not think that it would go that way when we were discussing it in the House. I thought that the Tribunal would take charge of the proceedings, not the Attorney-General and defending counsel. I thought that
  798
  the Tribunal would be putting the main points. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and I were present. What was painfully disquieting, like a trial, was the fact that the Attorney-General was putting his case, bringing out the questions as he saw them, and Mr. Dutschke's counsel was doing the same. That is not the way that the House—I hope that the Attorney-General will forgive me—saw this appeal tribunal going on when it was discussed. This matter should be looked into. We want, not necessarily, to bring in the atmosphere of the courts, but, if possible, to do justice to the man. With respect to the lawyers, the two things may not be the same in the end.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will take the opportunity of spelling out again his philosophy on the matter. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman had thought about it carefully before, but he left the impression that in future the test is not what one does, which would be brought before the courts, but what one advocates and thinks. I cannot believe that the Home Secretary wants to go that way. I cannot believe that this would be it, although I see a philosophical difficulty where, on the one hand, a man advocates and instigates others to be violent and, on the other, he runs away and disappears behind the crowd when the trouble breaks out. There comes a moment when one has to say that the advocacy of violence can be more influential than carrying it out. I accept this, but I make two points.
  First, I take a more robust view of our institutions and State than do the Government. I believe that the impression created by Dutschke on television and in the columns of The Times, for those who read it, is in itself a strengthening of democracy, not a weakening of it. The fact that the views which he advocated met with such repugnance is, in my view, a strengthening of our position—which is not strengthened by shutting out the man so that he cannot advocate them. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to spell that out again.
  I believe that what the debate has revealed—and it has been an interesting debate—is that there is a difference between the two sides of the House. One side prefers security, while the other prefers our liberal traditions. I believe that

  799
  what hon. Gentlemen opposite have done is to elevate security to a level that is not required by our people at the present time. In that sense—and they will constantly need to be reminded of this—freedom is committed to their care, but they must not panic at the first sign of any attack that is made on it and give way to the sort of correspondence which many of us have been receiving. I believe that there is this difference, and it is right that the House should mark it out.
  On the issue as presented to us today, I am in no doubt that we should come down on the side of our liberal traditions, and that this country is in a position to withstand any attacks that are made upon it.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: I hope that I may have the leave of the House to speak again.
  I am not in very much disagreement with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on a number of things. The present situation with regard to the appeals tribunal is not right. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General feels that The situation is not satisfactory. He conducted the proceedings before the Tribunal with great dignity, and he took great care, in the way in which he conducted them, to see that everything that could be made public within the limits of national security was made public, but he feels, and he has so told me, that this is not working out as the House thought it would, and I think that further thought should be given to this matter.
  I do not think that there is all that difference between us on the big issue of the concept of national security. What I say is not that I intend to extend the concept of national security, but that events have done that. We have seen it in Northern Ireland. We have seen how national security can be threatened internally as well as externally, and the security services must be deployed to protect the peaceful atmosphere against internal threat just as much as against external threat.
  I give the House the assurance that as regards the activities of the security services there has been no change in policy
  800
  or practice between successive Governments, but I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's basic point that this is an issue between security and liberal tradition. The fundamental point is that without security one cannot, in practice have a liberal tradition.
  I propose to say a few words about the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) who attacked me in terms which I thought were a little intemperate and, I would say, out of character. I do not think that he means it, but he always says it. I am concerned to answer the points made by him, as they are important.
  The hon. Gentleman came to see me for what I understood to be a private discussion. Whenever I see an hon. Member I do not usually have anyone with me, and no record is kept. I therefore cannot quote the record, but my recollection is not the same as the hon. Gentleman's. I have not quoted from the discussion, because I thought that it was confidential.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why did I not tell him that an appeal was pending. The answer is that at that time Mr. Dutschke had not decided to make an appeal. He asked why I said that what I then thought was final. The answer is that I did not want to delude him, but to make it quite clear that, having listened to his persuasive and sincere arguments, I intended to adhere to my own view. He asked why I did not say that an appeal was possible. The answer is that he was a Member of Parliament when the 1969 Act was passed and I assumed that he knew that. Finally, he asked why I did not specify the ways in which Mr. Dutschke had broken his undertakings so that, those having been specified, Mr. Dutschke could refute them. The answer is simple. It is that it would be wrong for me to do so and I would not contemplate giving the hon. Gentleman information of a security character. Those are the answers to his questions.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman mention the word "security"? He did not mention it at all then.
  Mr. Maudling: I would not make known to him security considerations in

  801
  a case of this kind. I gave the hon. Gentleman the reasons for my decision, and they remain the reasons for it.
  I do not believe that it is right in principle, or enforceable in practice, to maintain a condition of no political activity on a person resident in this country, but when it was argued on appeal that Mr. Dutschke had kept his undertakings, when it was argued that this was the main reason why I was wrong, then it was necessary for me to produce the evidence, which I was able to get because of my position, to refute that argument.
  We are coming to the end of the debate. I understand that there is to be a Division, and I want to be quite clear about the issue on which the House will be dividing.
  There are many things on which we are agreed. There is agreement in our concern about reconciling national security with freedom of speech. There is concern about the way in which this Tribunal, set up by the House, has operated in practice. On what are we divided? I understand that we are divided on this specific case, and I understand, too, that my decision is being called into question, as it should be, by the House of Commons—because I believe that in matters of this kind the Home Secretary should take his decision on the information that he has available, and on the basis of what he believes to be right for this country, and that if he chooses wrongly, the House of Commons should condemn him.
  Let us see what the issues are here. This gentleman, Mr. Dutschke, was admitted to this country when he was still gravely wounded. That was in late 1968. He was admitted on very strange conditions imposed by my predeccessor, conditions which derived from his political record in the past and, in particular, on his advocacy of the use of force to obtain political ends. These conditions were imposed, I think rightly, and my predecessor was right, on compassionate grounds, to admit him for medical treatment.
  He came here for medical treatment, volunteering, and subsequently accepting in further letters, not to take any part in
  802
  political activities, accepting quite explicitly that he would not become a student at a university, and accepting quite explicitly that when his medical treatment was over he would leave the country. Those are the simple facts, which cannot be denied, of the way in which he came to this country by my predecessor's decision which, as I say, I think was a right and proper decision.
  On the evidence, upheld by the Tribunal, it appears that the condition of no political activity was broken. The decision which I took—not to allow him to depart from his original condition not to become a student—was based on information available to me from the security services, collected under the authority of my predecessor.
  I believe that political restraint is wrong in principle, and unenforceable in practice. I agree that it would be wrong to withhold political freedom and the freedom of discussion about which people are talking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler) said, people would be second-class residents if they were able to come here to study or to train but were not entitled to talk about politics. I think, therefore, that the condition of "no politics" is unacceptable, and one has either to admit Mr. Dutschke without any limitations on his political activities, save those of the law, or not admit him at all.
  This issue was submitted to the Tribunal appointed for this purpose by the previous Government in accordance with the legislation passed by the previous Government. The case was heard by a Tribunal of five people, four of whom were chosen by the previous Government. They found that I was right in my decision, that I was right in the exercise of my discretion. They found that Mr. Dutschke had not kept the assurances given on his behalf, and that if he were to remain there would be a risk to this country.
  The simple fact in this case is that the Home Office kept its part of the bargain with Mr. Dutschke. All that we asked him to do was to keep his part of the bargain with this country. If hon. Members of the Labour Party like to vote against that, let them do so.
  Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

  Division No. 58.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Albu, Austen

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Golding, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Ashley, Jack

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Ashton, Joe

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Barnes, Michael

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Barnett, Joel

  Hardy, Peter

  Orme, Stanley

  Beaney, Alan

  Harper, Joseph

  Oswald, Thomas

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Padley, Walter

  Bishop, E. S.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Paget, R. T.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Palmer, Arthur

  Booth, Albert

  Horam, John

  Pannett, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pardoe, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pendry, Tom

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hunter, Adam

  Pentland, Norman

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Probert, Arthur

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  John, Brynmor

  Rankin, John

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Cronin, John

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roper, John

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rose, Paul B.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Neil

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lambie, David

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lamond, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lawson, George

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

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Leonard, Dick

  Silkin, Rt. Hn John (Deptford)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Sillars, James

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Doig, Peter

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McBride, Neil

  Stallard, A. W.

  Driberg, Tom

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddarts, David (Swindon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McElhone, Frank

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dunn, James A.

  McGuire, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackie, John

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Swain, Thomas

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Ellis, Tom

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  English, Michael

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Evans, Fred

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

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

  Tinn, James

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

  Marks, Kenneth

  Tomney, Frank

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Varley, Eric G.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Foot, Michael

  Mendelson, John

  Wallace, George

  Ford, Ben

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkins, David

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Millan, Bruce

  Weitzman, David

  Freeson, Beginald

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  The House divided: Ayes Noes 295.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  William, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S)

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Langford-Halt, Sir John

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fidler, Michael

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Longden, Gilbert

  Astor, John

  Fortescue, Tim

  Loveridge, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Foster, Sir John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fowler, Norman

  MacArthur, Ian

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fox, Marcus

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Balniel, Lord

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Batsford, Brian

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Bell, Ronald

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Benyon, W.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Madel, David

  Biffen, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maginnis, John E.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gorst, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Blaker, Peter

  Gower, Raymond

  Marten, Neil

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mather, Carol

  Body, Richard

  Gray, Hamish

  Maude, Angus

  Boscawen, Robert

  Green, Alan

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Bowden, Andrew

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bray, Ronald

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Brewis, John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Molyneaux, James

  Bryan, Paul

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Money, Ernie

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Buck, Antony

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Hector

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hastings, Stephen

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Burden, F. A.

  Havers, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Hay, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mornis, Charles (Davizes)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Channon, Paul

  Hicks, Robert

  Murton, Oscar

  Chapman, Sydney

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hiley, Joseph

  Neave, Airey

  Chichester-Clark, R.

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

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Normanton, Tom

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Holland, Philip

  Nott, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Ogden, Eric

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Cooke, Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Oppenhelm, Mrs. Sally

  Coombs, Derek

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cooper, A. E.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Osborn, John

  Cordle, John

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hunt, John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Costain, A. P.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Critchley, Julian

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Percival, Ian

  Crowder, F. P.

  James, David

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Curran, Charles

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pounder, Rafton

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dean, Paul

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Dixon, Piers

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Kilfedder, James

  Raison, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Eden, Sir John

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Redmond, Robert

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

  Kirk, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Emery, Peter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Farr, John

  Knox, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Fell, Anthony

  Lane, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  806

  807

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburg, W.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Robersts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Stokes, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wall, Ptrick

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Rost, Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Royle, Anthony

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Sharples, Richard

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Temple, John M.

  Wilkinson, John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Simeons, Charles

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Sinclair, Sir George

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

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington

  Tilney, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Soref, Harold

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Speed, Keith

  Trew, Peter

  Younger, Hn. George

  Spence, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Sproat, Iain

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOSES:

  Stainton, Keith

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mr. Regional Eyre and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress 18th January]
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    Clause 1

      GENERAL PRINCIPLES
      7.10 p.m.
      Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to move Amendment No. 349, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from 'associations' to end of line 20.
      Not only does the Amendment seek to delete certain words from the Clause; it also demands an explanation from the Minister about the use of those words. I will do my best not to transgress on the ground which has already been covered by the Committee, but I wish at the outset to put on the record the fact that my hon. Friends and I take severe objection to some of the strictures which the Secretary of State tried to administer last night. We recall what he said on Second Reading, when he declared:
      "Clause 1 lays down the basic purpose and principles by which we ask the whole Bill to be iudged."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 14th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 963.]
      Having made that statement, there was little point in the right hon. Gentleman indicating last night that the Clause was a general statement of principle which had been agreed throughout the country. We part company with him over this. On the one hand he wants the whole Bill to be judged by the Clause, and, on the other, when we attempt to examine the meaning behind the Clause, the right hon. Gentleman declares, in effect, "We have already judged the issue. These principles are agreed and there is no point in debating them."
      I regret to have to mention the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He made a statement similar to that made by the Minister about judging this Measure. He also said that in days gone by these words might have been part of the Preamble to the Bill, in which case it would not have been subject to debate except on Second Reading.
      The Secretary of State raised objection to the inclusion of the words "voluntary
      810
      basis", arguing that they were meaningless. I turn that argument on him because the words we propose to delete are meaningless except, perhaps, in a social or public opinion context. If the Government wish to use words like "responsible" and "orderly" for anything other than a public relations exercise, we should be given an explanation to show that these words are not merely being used as a gloss on "free" or as something with which to bash the trade unions.
      Unfortunately, when hon. Gentlemen opposite use the words "responsible" and "orderly" in relation to trade union behaviour, they usually use them as a public relations exercise against the trade unions. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that free trade unions are not representative of those whose interests they represent?
      Mr. David Mitchell: Would the hon. Gentleman apply those terms to a union which prohibited members with a particular political persuasion from standing for office?
      Mr. Douglas: Membership of a political party has very little to do with any trade union representing a body of workers.
      I was asking whether the Minister thinks that some free trade unions are unrepresentative. If so, will he give examples? Can he give examples of trade unions which are irresponsible? Obviously "responsible" in this context reflects the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite consider the national interest. There have been occasions in the history of industrial relations when, in terms of the national interest, trade unions may have acted irresponsibly, but that is in the past.
      Mr. Raymond Gower: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman take this point of view. He will recall that there have been many occasions when small splinter unions have been generally opposed not only by well established trade unions but also by the Labour Party. Is he now saying that small splinter unions are wholly unrepresentative or representative of those they claim to represent?
      Mr. Douglas: That is not the way the Government see it. They are arguing for free and responsible trade unions within the context of what they define as the

      811
      national interest. There have been occasions, especially in the 1930s, when trade unions have opposed Government policy by arguing, for instance—as they might be arguing today—for high wages or opposing reductions in wages. The conventional Government wisdom of that period was to oppose trade unions which argued for increased wages or resisted reduction in wages. When we examine the history of that period we find that it was not the conventional wisdom of the Government at that time which was right but the trade unions. What right hon. and hon. Members opposite resent on the part of trade unions is that trade unions can have a view and act as an organ of countervailing power against Governments. That is why they use the words "orderly" and "responsible".
      Let me turn to the word "effective". The complaint which hon. and right hon. Members opposite are preferring against the trade unions is not that the trade unions are ineffective but that, in the context of the policy which the Government wish to impose on the nation, the unions are too effective. If one examines the statement in relation to the national interest submitted by the Treasury to the Wilberforce Tribunal, and if one examines the Chancellor's speech on 11th January, one sees that in relation to their members' interests the trade unions, from the Government's point of view, are being too effective. In looking at the words in the Bill, the Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot ask for trade unions to be responsible within their context but at the same time effective within the context of union membership.
      These words are a gloss, because hon. and right hon. Members opposite are endeavouring in the Bill to put trade unions into a legal and economic context. The Government refuse, in the latter quarters of the twentieth century, to recognise that the problem facing industrial relations is not one of legality or economics, but one of sociology.
      The words which the Government wish to have in the Clause add nothing in terms of meaning and in terms of elaborating the words that we wish to have in the Bill, that the trade unions should remain entirely free.
      Mr. Gower: I should have thought that far from demonstrating some desire on
      812
      the part of the framers of the Bill to produce some formula which would enable them to bash the unions, in the words of the hon. Gentleman, these words rather tend to reveal the care which has been given to the difficult undertaking of evolving a formula by which we can achieve the sort of trade unionism, and the sort of relationship between the trade unions and the employers' organisations, which will enable our future labour relations to be far more productive of economic advance than they have tended to be in recent years. The hon. Gentleman objects, somewhat surprisingly in some respects, to the term:
      "… representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers …"
      Take the word "representative". I should have imagined that nobody in this Committee would want to have associations of employees or of management or employers which were unrepresentative. To have such unrepresentative organisations, on either side, would be conducive to creating a sort of inertia or a complete failure to achieve any sort of relationship. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not pleading for unrepresentative organisations on any side of industry. Surely he and his colleagues would want trade unions and employers' organisations of the future to be as wholly representative as possible.
      Mr. R. T. Paget: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, why is it that it is to be only workers' trade unions which shall be independent? Apparently, the employers' associations do not have to be independent. That is rather odd.
      Mr. Gower: That is an interesting point, but it is not one taken up by the mover of the Amendment. We are discussing the words which the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) wishes to remove from the Bill. We are not discussing the words which he might have wished to include in the Bill.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) obviously has not read paragraph (c) which specifically states:
      "… trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations".

      813
      That seems to cover very fully the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      Mr. Paget: Paragraph (c) states:
      "The principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations …"
      The word "independent" applies to the trade unions, and not to the employers' associations. That is simply the grammar.
      Mr. Gower: That is a point of some interest, but, as I said, it is not one which has been raised by the mover of the Amendment. His point was that we should delete from the Bill the words "representative, responsible and effective"—not the word "independent".
      It is highly desirable, as I have said, that the bodies on either side, in all parts of industry, should be as representative as possible, and that in the same sense they should be wholly responsible bodies on either side. The best persons who participate in industrial relations in any part of industry would not wish to be associated with irresponsible bodies but would want to be associated with responsible trade unions and employers' organisations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment would also wish to see bodies on both sides of industry wholly responsible in this connotation.
      Finally, the whole country has a deep stake in this further wording. Our whole industrial and economic future demands that we must have effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers. Can it be suggested in any part of the Committee that this has been the case in the recent past, or in the years since the Second World War? We have had good industrial leaders; we have had great trade union leaders; and we have had enlightened management. But unfortunately our economic and industrial history in recent years has been disfigured by the kind of unnecessary, pettifogging, silly little disputes which have hampered the job of our industry in its desperate battle to retain the solvency and prosperity of our people.
      Mr. S. O. Davies: Has not the hon. Gentleman overlooked the dominant fact in the Bill, that the Government are obtruding into the relationship between organised employers and organised workers by laying down
      814
      certain financial limitations? What is the use of talking about freedom between organised employers and organised workers when we have a Bill of this kind before us?
      Mr. Gower: I have been generous in giving way to the interventions. I hope that the House will not think I am wasting time by apparently taking longer than I intended. The Government are doing nothing of the kind. As my right hon. Friend has asserted on many occasions, we are merely trying to provide a reasonable legal framework in which the parties in industries shall in future operate sensibly and freely. I have yet to hear anyone say privately, whatever he may allege in public, that this has been the case in the past.
      We want bodies which are effective for regulating these relationships in such a way as to ensure a greater degree of industrial peace than we have had. The country needs it desperately. We are up against the most formidable competitors in the world. We face serious economic competition from countries which are highly efficient, which have inherited different conditions, of course, and enjoyed certain advantages.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Neil McBride: The hon. Gentleman has talked about industrial peace. Can he explain why, in America, with the precise type of law that he favours, 400,000 men at 4,000 plants of General Motors lost more days in one dispute than we have lost in this country in two years?
      Mr. Gower: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make that important point himself. But this country less than any other can afford to let this state of affairs continue. More than any other country, more than the United States, Germany and France, we depend on our exports and imports. We are in a category quite different from that of almost all our competitors. I hope, therefore, that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that the Bill is a sincere attempt to arrive at a reasonable formula to achieve these laudable objectives.
      Mr. Paget: It appears to me that, to a considerable degree, the Solicitor-General has created his own troubles. As

      815
      the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said yesterday, this sort of Clause is neither within nor without the Bill, and I doubt whether it is of any help to anyone. However, if we are to make statements of general principle, economy of words has much to recommend it.
      What I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to say in subsection (1)(c) is simply
      "… the principle of free association of workers and employers for the purpose of negotiation."
      If he had said that, he would not have been in any trouble, and the words would have conveyed the same meaning, probably the meaning that he intended.
      However, there is a sort of rococo embellishment of draftsmen by which all sorts of oddments are added, and those oddments tend to incite suspicion. For no apparent reason, one finds first a reference to free associations of workers having to be in independent trade unions, whereas those words are omitted when it comes to employers. I am sure that there is nothing sinister in the omission, but it causes one to wonder why, and it makes one suspicious.
      That does not arise under this Amendment. However one reads on and comes to the words
      "… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies."
      The hon. and learned Gentleman finds himself in difficulties which were created for him by the Secretary of State. When the word "responsibly" occurred in paragraph (a), the right hon. Gentleman was not prepared to accept that it meant merely "duly authorized", which is what it means here. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman said that it had to go further and bring in the public interest. If we go in for negotiations in which representatives do not represent their clients but must have regard to what the Government consider to be the public interest, we are straying into totaliarian concepts.
      Sir Edward Brown: This is an extremely interesting argument, but two cases occur to me immediately. One was in 1970; the other in 1969. In those cases, two national executives negotiated a pay rise for their organisations, but their lesser brethren on the shop floor rejected them.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: Lesser?
      Mr. Paget: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those two cases, but to my mind they are too abstruse to be applied to the point that I am making, which is that if "responsible" in paragraph (c) mean "duly authorised to negotiate", no one can object. However, since the Secretary of State said that it means something else in paragraph (a) and that a representative is not free to negotiate since he has to have regard to what the Government consider to be the national interest, that would be contrary to the principles of free negotiation.
      The trouble arises because of the addition of superfluous and silly words to the Clause which do not improve their meaning, and any reference back to other words which have been given different meanings raises quite unnecessary complications.
      I hope that the Solicitor-General will deal with the difficulty by saying that he will look at the words again with a view to seeing whether they can be simplified. He does not need to say more than that. The principle should be the free association of workers and employers for the purpose of negotiation. Nothing else needs saying. It is quite unnecessary to hang round it all sorts of decorations which only create suspicion. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will consider what I have said.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: During the period of my enforced retirement from the House of Commons from 1966 to 1970, several interesting things have happened, not all of them to the good. As a result of one of them, we lost many of our Preambles, which is now causing some difficulty, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out.
      I want first to take up a technical point on the Amendment. I am sure that it was not intended to lose the word "and". As printed on the Notice Paper, the Amendment reads
      "… leave out from 'associations' to end of line 20."
      I am sure that that is not the intention and that the "and" should have remained.
      An Hon. Member: It does not make any difference.
      Mr. Fell: That may be the hon. Gentleman's view. However, in view of the amount of time that we shall spend discussing words on this Bill, it is not unimportant to get the words right. This happens to be one which, if the Amendment should be carried, will be lost, assuming that it is not corrected.
      Every morning, people listen to the news on their radios. As often as not, they hear the latest report on the current strike. It is not surprising that people feel strongly that steps should be taken to deal with the situation. It cannot be highly controversial to say that. Therefore, it is not surprising that this Bill has been introduced.
      We have an Amendment here which tries—
      Mr. Norman Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is saying that when he switches on the radio in the mornings he hears a summary of the strikes of that day. Will he refresh our memories and list the number of strikes about which he has heard in the past seven days?
      Mr. Fell: I do not want to be sidetracked. I want to make a slight contribution to this short debate on the Amendment, which I do not think is vastly important.
      Up to a point at any rate, I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. The ordinary person reads that:
      "The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations with the following general principles,"
      Principle (c) is
      "the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations, so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers;"
      The unbiassed person will see nothing wrong in that. But I of course take the point that people who are biassed and have a sort of persecution complex against the Government of the day will look in every line in an important Bill like this for what ghosts they can find and what damage they think will be done to their cause as a result of passing the Bill. The Opposition are right to do this; it is part of their job.
      818
      It may well be that a query can be raised about the words that the Opposition are trying to delete:
      "… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies …".
      We can see the point. Perhaps because I am not a master of words, I share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. I, too, do not see the necessity for the words, and I do not know quite what they mean. [Interruption]. I am not destroying anything. I also want to know, and I am entitled to ask these questions. I believe that we have already achieved what we want without the addition of that phrase. We shall have more organised, representative and responsible bodies in all negotiations. Everybody takes that as a matter of course; it has already been stated in the Bill and everyone knows that it will happen. If the phrase were a rococo embellishment of the introduction to the Bill, no one would worry very much about it, but because it is in the Bill it seems to have caused a lot of trouble. A lot of fuss is being made about very little. I am certain that the Minister will explain exactly what is meant by
      "… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies …".
      Mr. Roy Hughes: The free association of workers in independent trade unions is for me an important principle, sufficient to stand alone in the Clause. That is why I feel that the words covered by the Amendment have become unnecessary.
      I know that many of my hon. Friends will be very sceptical about what hon. Members opposite think about the term "representative". Hon. Members opposite probably think of a representative trade union as something like the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society or the staff associations in our principal banks and many other companies with staff workers.
      As to the word "responsible", we ask, "Responsible to whom and to what?" When the Secretary of State was challenged on the word yesterday he failed to give a satisfactory definition.
      The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has said that we are making up ghosts, but it is nothing like that. The Amendment is based on genuine fears.

      819
      We feel that the latter part of the Clause is in essence an attack on the freedom of the trade union movement.
      [Mr. HAROLD GURDEN in the Chair]
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Fidler: I am not wedded to economy of words, nor am I a lover of rococo embellishments. Much has been made about government at a stroke, but there are some people who would like to have government by a strike. The hon. Gentleman asks, "Responsible to whom?" I read the Bill as saying not "responsible to" but "responsible for". Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it in some way denigrates responsible trade unions and their leadership to say that they should be
      "… so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations …"
      between the two sides? If he would delete the words, is he saying that he does not want them to be so described?
      Mr. Hughes: My point was based on that raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown), who did not seem to understand that the rank and file of a particular trade union could overrule a decision made by higher executives.
      I regard the leading trade unions in this country as essentially responsible. I would not put in the same category as the hon. Gentleman, perhaps, the organisations to which I have referred like the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society.
      We should retain free and independent trade unions because they are the key to the voluntary system of industrial relations which has worked in this country so successfully, despite all the present misgivings, for a very long period. It is the free and independent trade unions that the Government are now so keen to try to undermine.
      When the voluntary system was defended earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State referred to the remarks made as "nit-picking". That was an unfortunate expression, particularly coming from the right hon. Gentleman, because the retention of the voluntary principle is vital to the preservation of a free society. The restrictive State agencies that the Govern-
      820
      ment envisage are anathema to our voluntary system. The proposal is nothing but an attempt by the Government to put the trade union movement in a legal straitjacket.
      Our record in industrial relations, based on the principle of the voluntary system, is not bad at all. It is far better than that in America, from which many of the proposals in the Bill have been stolen. I should have expected a Government apparently dedicated to the principle of historic freedom to be a zealous supporter of the retention of the voluntary system, and especially a Prime Minister who on 19th June last year, the day he was appointed to his high office, said that his essential wish was to build one nation. It does not look very much like that to me today.
      There is a national obsession about strikes, I think because of Britain's economic difficulties since the end of the war, with the decline of Empire and so on. Instead of tackling the fundamental problems affecting our nation, we have tended to look for scapegoats. The most popular scapegoat of all has been shop stewards and those workers who go on strike. There were some hon. Members on this side, and for that matter a right hon. Lady on our Front Bench, who contributed to that state of affairs. I very much regret that and the events culminating in the publication of "In Place of Strife". I opposed the statutory incomes policy and that document.
      The Press and the mass media generally have created an atmosphere in which trade unionists tend to be regarded as social outcasts, when really they are the people who produce the wealth of the nation. It is at this moment that the Government have chosen to tilt the balance in industrial relations even more in favour of the employers. They are keeping their promise to many great monopoly concerns which line the coffers of the Tory Party and enable it to pay for its elaborate and expensive election campaigns.
      Mr. Fidler: Will the hon. Gentleman show me how there is in the Clause a tilting of the balance away from the unions in favour of the employers?
      Mr. Hughes: I think that my arguments have been pretty clear and to the point.

      821
      The Bill is a fulfilment of an election pledge. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has said that what we say in a General Election campaign is irrelevant. Probably that is why he increased his majority at the last General Election, but, even in a good election for the Conservative Party, in Wales it was able to win only seven out of 36 seats. Part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is in Cardiff, and if he is there on Saturday he will see one of the most massive demonstrations against the Bill that we have had so far throughout the length and breadth of the land.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Hughes: I am just coming to the end of my remarks.
      Many people will fight to retain the voluntary system of industrial relations based upon free and independent trade unions. Before this fight is finished, millions of trade unionists will be aroused and awakened to what is happening to the fundamental rights which have been won for them over the centuries.
      Mr. David Mitchell: This is an extraordinary Amendment. It seeks to delete the word "representative" as defined in one of the objectives of the Bill. About 95 per cent. of our strikes are unofficial. This clearly indicates that, in terms of representing the point of view of the men on the workshop floor, there is a serious breakdown in communications. Surely hon. Members opposite wish to see built into the Bill a provision by which trade unions will be more representative than in the past.
      Mr. Douglas: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been in a strike. Nevertheless, surely he recognises that men do not come out on strike for nothing and that strikes blow up for a whole lot of reasons. The feelings of the men when they come out on strike congeal around a whole lot of grievances which are related to industrial practices and have little to do with their representation. Indeed, it has nothing to do with representation, but the hon. Member is using the word as a synonym for authority and order.
      Mr. Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to apply that thought to
      822
      some of the more recent prolonged disputes in which it was clear that there had been a breakdown in communication between the trade union leadership and the men on the workshop floor.
      The second extraordinary point about the Amendment is that it seeks to delete the word "responsible". Not long ago in this Chamber I heard an ex-Minister on the benches opposite referring to having made agreements on behalf of his trade union with employers which meant one thing to the employers and a totally different thing to the union. I have not heard a more irresponsible approach to the conduct of industrial relations and the making of collective bargaining than that admission. Therefore, we have seen reinforced in this Chamber recently the great need to ensure that we have a basis of both representation and responsibility and, indeed, effective bodies for regulating industrial relations.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Mitchell: I have already given way and I do not want to detain the Committee for long. It is extraordinary that we should be asked to delete from the Bill a proposal that trade unions should be "representative, responsible and effective", which is one of the crying needs of the present day.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. David Stoddart: I sometimes wonder whether the Conservative Party knows anything about the trade union movement. I am getting a little fed up with being lectured by hon. Members opposite on representative democracy. From a party which has only just learned to elect its own leader instead of allowing him to emerge, this is a strange doctrine. Furthermore, bearing in mind that until recently they expected a Speaker to emerge rather than to be elected, it is a strange doctrine that they now seek to foist on to the trade union movement. I will tell them something about it.
      I have been a member of a trade union for the whole of my working life. I have the honour to be a member of two trade unions. I will tell hon. Members opposite how I elect my officers. I belong to the Electrical Trades Union. It would be as well if hon. Members opposite realised

      823
      just how representative the leadership of that union is.
      Sir E. Brown: Now.
      Mr. Stoddart: Well, we are talking about reform. The E.T.U. is a trade union which has reformed itself without any legislation and that is precisely what we are asking should happen with the trade union movement. That is why we want things done on a voluntary basis.
      The members of the E.T.U. elect the leadership by direct ballot conducted by an independent organisation. I therefore elect directly my general president, my general secretary, my executive and my national officers. What could be more representative than that? This goes for most other trade unions as well, where the membership is directly concerned in electing its officers at national level and its own leadership. Now the Government seek to slander the trade unions by putting in words which have absolutely no meaning.
      Sir E. Brown: I agree readily that the E.T.U. is very much reformed, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was only through the courts that we were able to expose what was going on in the E.T.U. It was ordinary trade unionists like myself who got together and exposed that particular racket. The hon. Gentleman knows it. We had to get to a court of law to expose the racket going on in that organisation.
      Mr. Stoddart: I cannot recall the hon. Gentleman having anything to do with the reforms in the E.T.U. They were brought about, even through the courts of law, but nevertheless it was the membeirship itself which insisted that the reforms be made. We are back once again to the membership taking action and doing the job without any legislation. Indeed, in effect the hon. Gentleman is speaking against the Bill because what he is saying is that we have legislation already which can deal with abuses which might occur from time to time in the trade union movement. Let us look at the question of responsibility.
      Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman says that the description the Opposition propose to delete is a slander on the trade unions. I have not heard him say that he regards it as a slander on the em
      824
      ployers. Again I ask whether he sees an imbalance between employers and trade unions. Can he explain whether he regards this description as a slander on the employers?
      Mr. Stoddart: I do not know how the employers' organisations are organised. If the hon. Gentleman feels that they need some legislation to make them more representative, I am sure that he will say so, but I have no experience of them and, therefore, I cannot tell him.
      I turn to the word "responsible". Most trade unions, like my own, are concerned to represent the interests of their members. That is their job—make no mistake about that. Their job is to help the people who pay them, and the people who pay them work on the shop floor or in the offices, or wherever it might be. In this country we have been fortunate in having a trade union movement which is prepared in doing its job nevertheless to take account of the national interest.
      Who in this country has been shouting louder for better productivity and acting upon it than the trade union movement itself? Jack Jones has been calling for it; Hugh Scanlon has been calling for it; my own general secretary and general president have been calling for it, and, indeed, they have co-operated to get it in the electricity supply industry so that that industry is at the top of the productivity table. They have been acting responsibly. What have they got for it? They have been slandered and attacked at the behest of hon. Members opposite because they have acted responsibly and have got the electricity supply industry a better productivity record than any other industry in the country, thereby keeping the price to the consumer down.
      Mr. John Page rose—
      Mr. Stoddart: I have given way enough. I want to close my remarks.
      What I am seeking to show is that the trade union movement consists of a highly responsible body of people who have done more to improve the lot of all the people in this country than has any other organisation I know. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will act sensibly and responsibly and vote for the Amendment.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I want to deal to some extent

      825
      with the point raised by a number of hon. Members, not least by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—namely, an analysis of the objective and form of this Clause. There has been much historical analysis of preambles and what has happened to them. It is wrong to say that preambles have been abortive and have disappeared altogether. They have fallen out of fashion.
      The objective of this Clause and of these principles is twofold. First, to lay the foundation for the matters with which the Secretary of State should deal in the code dealt with in Clause 2, and, secondly, to lay down principles to which the institutions should have regard when interpreting, construing or applying the legislation. When points are in doubt in that area, the Registrar or the Industrial Relations Court, for example, have to consider the extent to which a trade union is or is not complying with its rules. It is in this way that the institutions would have regard to the extent to which the principle which the Committee is now discussing was being promoted. That is the objective of the Clause.
      The hon. and learned Member for Northampton advanced some criticism of, as he put it, the rococo extravagance of language in this modest little subsection, criticism which I regard as particularly misplaced. He asked a specific question about the function of the word "independent" and questioned why it was applied to trade unions and not to employers' associations. The answer is that at the relevant point in the Bill, a trade union, in order to qualify for registration, has to be independent whereas an employers' association has not, and the reason for that—this meets the point made by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes)—is to ensure that the trade unions are indeed independent and that bodies like the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society would not so qualify. Staff associations would have to demonstrate that they were free from employer domination before they could qualify as independent trade unions.
      We have not yet had it suggested that employers' associations are at immediate risk of worker domination, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton thought that the word "independent"
      826
      ought to be attached to that aspect of the matter, no doubt the question could be considered afresh. The phraseology here is, in fact, an illustration of the economy of language which we have tried to use.
      The objective of the words against which the Amendment is directed, namely, the principle of free association in independent trade unions and associations, is to be attached to the concept that those bodies should be
      "so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations".
      It is worth bearing in mind that in the last Government's published Bill, the whole of Part VI, running to about two and a quarter pages, dealing with the Trade Union Development Scheme—which had no particular friends on either side of the House—was designed to assist unions
      "in formulating proposals for measures of development with a view to securing improvements in efficiency, and assisting them in carrying out such proposals".
      All that is paraphrased in the present subsection by the simple word "effective" I dare say that the objective expressed in the word "effective" here is much in line with the objective which the last Government had in mind but which they expressed in as many Clauses in Part VI of their last Bill as there are words in this paragraph. If it be said that we are putting before the Committee a rococo provision, I can only say that the corresponding Part of the last Bill was a rococo revival revisited.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman identify exactly the passage to which he is referring in the previous Bill?
      The Solicitor-General: The whole of Part VI, the Trade Union Development Scheme. I was reading from Clause 64(1) (b). the first of the six Clauses dealing with that.
      Mr. Walker: That was never before the House.
      The Solicitor-General: No, and it is not before the Committee now, but it was what the last Government saw fit to bring to the light of day, as opposed to other provisions which were under

      827
      consideration, in various stages of gestation and abortion, in "In Place of Strife". So one may, presumably, attach some importance to it.
      Mr. Walker: I am sorry to keep bobbing up and down, but I am trying to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Is he suggesting that the form of words in the present Bill follows the form of words used in my right hon. Friend's Bill in 1970? If so, would he put his finger on the precise point? In response to what he has said so far, I have tried to find it, but I cannot.
      The Solicitor-General: May I deal with the substantive points on the four effective words here with which the Amendment deals and answer the hon. Gentleman in that way? The words here are:
      "so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective".
      The function of the words "so organized" is to acknowledge that in trade unions and employers' associations organisation is a matter of importance. One aspect of the matter is that such organisation should be effective. That was the point to which Clause 64(1) (b) of the last Government's Bill was directed-
      "… proposals for measures of development with a view to securing improvements in efficiency"—
      and so on. That is the first point I am making. The more general point is that it must be right for one of the principles set down at this point in the Bill to have regard to these three aspects, namely, that organisations and unions should be representative, should be responsible, and should be effective.
      The merit and importance of "representative", for example, is that a union which is being effectively representative will avoid the difficulties of shop-floor repudiation of negotiated deals.
      Mr. Douglas rose—
      8.15 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: Again, to be representative, a union must be effective and capable of taking up grievances of the kind to which the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) referred in one of his interventions. That is one of the aspirations, and that is what "representative" is designed to identify.
      Mr. Orme: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman advocating that members of a trade union have, or should have, no right to repudiate any negotiations which a union might take up on behalf of its members, that the members ought not to be consulted and ought not to have the right to accept or reject? Surely, that is democracy.
      The Solicitor-General: That is precisely the point I am making. A union which is effectively representative should be in touch with, aware of, and responsive to views of that kind; otherwise it would appear to be unrepresentative. The aspiration is the same.
      Mr. Roland Moyle rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I must be allowed to deal with the point. An illustration of what I am putting to the Committee is the point which the Donovan Commission itself made—it is familiar to hon. Members on both sides—about the difficulty of having effective communications between the shop floor and the unions' representatives or leadership. That is the aspiration here, that it should be representative in that way.
      Mr. Moyle: The Solicitor-General is talking about the need for the trade union leadership to be representative of its members, but is that what the Bill requires? Let us assume that the members of a trade union produce a set of rules designed to give them representativeness, and the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations disagrees with those rules. He has the right to overrule them or to amend them. In the ultimate, therefore, is not the effect of the Bill to say that a trade union shall be representative of the views of the Chief Registrar?
      The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I suppose that there could be a theoretical risk of the Bill producing that result if these words were to be deleted. The point is that the relevant Clauses—we have not come to them yet—about the matters with which union rules should deal and the way that certain of them should be dealt with, to which the Registrar will have regard, are designed to secure effective machinery for elections

      829
      and effective participation in elections. We believe that they are designed to help unions to be representative both in themselves and in their rules.
      Were there a danger of the Registrar looking at such rules and saying, "This rule may or may not comply with Clause X and I must construe it accordingly", he would say, "I must remember that the function which I am discharging is to see that the unions are representative, responsible and effective, so I must lean in the direction of a construction which will see that it is representative".
      Mr. Douglas rose—
      The Solicitor-General: I do not want to give way too often.
      Mr. Douglas: This is an important point. It seems to me that the Solicitor-General is construing these words in such a way as to indicate that the reason why the Government persist in their retention is that they give some support to the way in which the Secretary of State will draw up his code. Will he draw up his code along the lines which the Solicitor-General has been depicting? This should be made clear, because, if he does that, he will be embarking upon an extremely dangerous course.
      The Solicitor-General: I do not wish to be disrespectful, but, having tried to follow hon. Gentlemen opposite as best I can, I see different currents of criticism directed at the formulations which the Committee is now discussing. On the one hand, it is said that these are such impeccably right propositions that they are—to borrow the phrase used by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) yesterday—no more than a fig-leaf of respectability for disreputable intentions. That is one argument, that they are too good to be true. The other is that, construed in the most sinister way, they are very menacing words.
      I put it to the Committee that the aspiration that unions and associations should be "representative, responsible and effective" is no more than the common ground among almost all informed critics on both sides of the debate who have looked at this part of the problem. I do not want to be tendentious.
      Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: The Solicitor-General has explained how the Bill will seek to ensure that the trade
      830
      unions are representative. Can he explain how it will seek to ensure that employers' associations are representative?
      The Solicitor-General: It will do so within the corresponding provisions of Part IV of the Bill which are applied by Clause 65 to employers' associations. The same principles apply. It may be that the question will arise in a different form and that is why we have this general proposition because, as the Committee will appreciate, there will be different structures.
      I think that I have dealt with "representative" and "organization". "Responsible" is a word upon which several hon. Members have touched. It is not a word which anyone would criticise in saying that organisations, unions or employers' associations should conduct their affairs with responsibility, not irresponsibly, having regard to the great importance and effectiveness of trade unions and employers' associations in any area, particularly in good industrial relations with which the legislation is concerned.
      Again I do not want to be tendentious but if I may take an example from the paragraphs in "In Place of Strife"—[Interruption.]—I apologise for troubling hon. Members opposite by referring to that document. I will do it shortly. A good illustration is the section in that document dealing with the necessity in the last resort for the Secretary of State, as it was then, perhaps to make an order to require a union which used coercive action against the implementation of the C.I.R. recommendations on recognition to accept the recommendations. It is when one comes to the argument set out in paragraph 60 identifying the extent to which it is possible for a union, as for any individual or employer or association to act irresponsibly, that one comes up against the question of responsibility.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman will not get away with this. Surely he acknowledges that there is a world of difference between the language used in a White Paper and that which has to be used in a Statute and subsequently interpreted by the courts according to the letter of the law. He surely acknowledges that it is unfair to try to draw comparisons between the language he is using in the Bill and the

      831
      language used in the White Paper. He has twice tried to do this, unfairly, improperly, even misleading the Committee, making comparisons between the language used in the earlier Bill, when there was no common ground, and now comparing what was in the White Paper with the wording in his own Bill. He must accept that if he does this we shall keep on interrupting him to ensure that he gets it right.
      The Solicitor-General: I hope that I am getting it right. I am not comparing the language of "In Place of Strife". I seek not the word "responsible" in paragraph 60 although I daresay that I could find it. I am not concerned to make that kind of argument. I do not wish to mislead the Committee. What I am saying is that these three words "representative", "responsible" and "effective" identify concepts which are common ground to the diagnosis made in a document like "In Place of Strife" and in Donovan, and it has not been suggested by anyone that it is an unworthy or wrong aspiration for trade unions or employers' associations to be "representative, responsible and effective".
      Part of the argument, which is the ambiguity that has to be met, is that the words are unnecessary because such organisations are "representative, responsible and effective". It is only to make sure that those propositions are had regard to by the Secretary of State and the agencies when they come to be interpreted that these words are here and are an important part of the Bill. It is not something to be criticised that legislation which comes before the House and is considered here in Committee contains words which are simple and straightforward. Just as in many other situations, standards have to be assessed according to whether something is or is not reasonable. These are the objectives, part of the principle underlying the purpose of the Bill. It is on this basis that I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, on the basis that no case has been made in support of the elimination of these words, in principle or in detail.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Solicitor-General put his finger on the argument when he said that the main
      832
      point was that the general principles outlined in the Bill will be considered by the various courts established by it. The meaning of the words in the general principles of the Bill become of great importance. We would all be happy if everyone put precisely the same meaning on words, but we know that they do not. We know that lawyers—we have had many examples in the debate—have interpreted a number of words in different ways. If that is the position it is understandable that the Opposition does not want further to confuse an already confusing situation.
      That is precisely what would happen it the words in the Bill are left. That is the key to the argument. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Preambles had gone out of fashion. I wonder why and I wonder why in this particular Bill. I suspect that the basic reason in this case is because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wanted to slip through particular ideas and concepts without spelling them out in any detail.
      8.30 p.m.
      The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to ask his back-bench friends to refrain from making lengthy speeches in this Committee, not because hon. Members can be accused of filibustering but because every time some hon. Gentlemen open their mouths they indicate how anti-union they are. Several speeches have been made this evening which show the thinking of some hon. Gentlemen on trade unions. One hon. Gentleman said that what some of the Opposition wanted was government by strikes. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said that every time the housewife switches on her wireless in the morning she hears news of a strike, and she thinks that something should be done. That is why the Bill has been introduced. The Government think that it is electorally popular. It does not matter what the Bill does, it does not matter if it is totally irrelevant to industrial relations. The Government just think that they must do something. The right hon. Gentleman would be wise to advise his hon. Friends not to make speeches of this sort, although we welcome them. The more speeches of that sort there are, the more people will understand what is behind the Bill and see that it will not improve industrial relations.
      Mr. John Page rose—
      The Temporary Chairman: Unless the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) gives way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.
      Mr. Heffer: I am not discourteous to hon. Gentlemen. I regularly give way, but we are trying to make progress and I hope that there will not be too many interruptions.
      The view of my hon. Friends is that the Electrical Trades Union acted completely responsibly from the beginning to the end of the power workers' dispute, which is not finished even now. An hon. Gentleman opposite took part in a radio programme with me in which he said that the electrical workers were acting totally irresponsibly. He said that it was like a person standing next to someone who was on a kidney machine and saying to that person. "If you do not give me your wallet I will pull out the plug." That is the attitude which is adopted by some hon. Gentlemen. Who was making irresponsible statements? If a dispute is taken to a court of law what interpretation will be put on who was or was not responsible? It is open to interpretation.
      Mr. John Page rose—
      Mr. Heffer: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, as it is he to whom I have been referring.
      Mr. Page: On that occasion the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was supporting the Electrical Trades Union in its fervent refusal to go to arbitration, although arbitration was included in the recent agreement. It was
      the union's refusal to take the constitutional steps which made me say what I did, and I do not regret it.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said on 15th April that the unnecessary and damaging disputes of which we have seen all too many recently are totally incompatible with our economic objectives. Does the hon. Member for Walton agree with that?
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman proves the point I am making. It is a question of the interpretation of responsibility. After almost a year of negotiation the Electrical Trades Union reached a state where it felt it was necessary to take official—not unofficial—and responsible action—
      Mr. Page: Irresponsible action.
      Mr. Heffer: Irresponsible to the hon. Gentleman and, therefore, if it had come before a court the argument would have been on whether the action was responsible or irresponsible. My hon. Friends feel that it is essential that these words should be excluded. The principle of free association of workers and independent trade unions and of employers and employers' associations is sufficient. Once anything is added all sorts of interpretations are possible and the situation becomes confused. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to vote for the elimination of these words.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 243, Noes 279.

      Eadie, Alex

      Kelley, Richard

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Kinnock, Neil

      Prescott, John

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lambie, David

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lamond, James

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Ellis, Tom

      Latham, Arthur

      Probert, Arthur

      English, Michael

      Lawson, George

      Rankin, John

      Evans, Fred

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Leonard, Dick

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Feltcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Foley, Maurice

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

      Foot, Michael

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Ford, Ben

      McBride, Neil

      Roper, John

      Forrester, John

      McCann, John

      Rose, Paul B.

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Freeson, Reginald

      McElhone, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      McGuire, Michael

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

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

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mackie, John

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

      Ginsburg, David

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Golding, John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Sillars, James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Silverman, Julius

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Small, William

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hamling, William

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Hardy, Peter

      Meacher, Michael

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Harper, Joseph

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mendelson, John

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mikardo, Ian

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Millan, Bruce

      Swain, Thomas

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Taverne, Dick

      Hilton, W. S.

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

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

      Horam, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Moyle, Roland

      Tinn, James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Tomney, Frank

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ogden, Eric

      Varley, Eric G.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Malley, Brian

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Oram, Bert

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

      Orbach, Maurice

      Wallace, George

      Janner, Greville

      Orme, Stanley

      Watkins, David

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oswald, Thomas

      Weitzman, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Padley, Walter

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      John, Brynmor

      Paget, R. T.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Pendry, Tom

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Body, Richard

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Astor, John

      Braine, Bernard

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkins, Humphery

      Bray, Ronald

      Clegg, Walter

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Brewis, John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Coombs, Derek

      Balniel, Lord

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Cordle, John

      Batsford, Brian

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Costain, A. P.

      Bell, Ronald

      Bryan, Paul

      Critchley, Julian

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

      Crowder, F. P.

      Benyon, W.

      Buck, Antony

      Curran, Charles

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Bullus, Eir Eric

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Biffen, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Blaker, Peter

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

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

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Dean, Paul

      836

      837

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Dixon, Piers

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Redmond, Robert

      Drayson, G. B.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Reed, Laurances (Bolton, E.)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kirk, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Eden, Sir John

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knox, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Lane, David

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Eyre, Reginald

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Farr, John

      Lewis, Kennet (Rutland)

      Robert, Wyn (Conway)

      Fell, Anthony

      Longden, Gilbert

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Loveridge, John

      Rost, Peter

      Fidler, Michael

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Royle, Anthony

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Fletcer-Cooke, Charles

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McLaren, Martin

      Sharples, Richard

      Foster, Sir John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

      Fowler, Norman

      McMaster, Stanley

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fox, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Simeons, Charles

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

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fry, Peter

      Madden, Martin

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Madel, David

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

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Maginnis, John E.

      Soref, Harold

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Speed, Keith

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Marten, Neil

      Spence, John

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Mather, Carol

      Sproat, Iain

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Stainton, Keith

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mawby, Ray

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Gower, Raymond

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburg, W.)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Stokes, John

      Green, Alan

      MisCampbell, Norman

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

      Sutctiffe, John

      Grylis, Michael

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Moate, Roger

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Molyneaux, James

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Money, Ernie

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Monro, Hector

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hannan, John (Exeter)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Temple, John M.

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      More, Jasper

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croyden, S.)

      Havers, Michael

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Tilney, John

      Hay, John

      Mudd, David

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Murton Oscar

      Trew, Peter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hicks, Robert

      Neave, Airey

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Normanton Tom

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Hill James (Southampton, Test)

      Nott, John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Holland, Philip

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Wall, Patrick

      Hordern, Peter

      Osborn, John

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Hornby, Richard

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Pardoe, John

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Hunt, John

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hutchinson, Michael Clark

      Percival, Ian

      Wilkinson, John

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      James, David

      Pike Miss Mervyn

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Jessel, Toby

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Worsley, Marcus

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

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

      Younger, Hn. George

      Jopling, Michael

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Raison, Timothy

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Kilfedder, James

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      [Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]
      Mr. Heffer: I beg to move Amendment No. 350, in page 2, line 2, leave out from 'safeguards' to end of line 3.
      838
      We regard this Amendment as of some importance. The issue will be debated in greater detail at a later stage, but we must raise this question now because we are dealing with the general principles

      839
      of the Bill. If we leave in the concept of unfair industrial practices we will be conceding from the start that there should be unfair industrial practices. Therefore, the Amendment, which is also concerned with general principles, is designed to remove the concept of unfair industrial practices, as defined in the Bill, whether on the part of employers or workers.
      Our view is that the unfair industrial practices proposed in the Bill are totally irrelevant to assisting better industrial relations. Not only are they irrelevant, but they are basically unfair to the trade union movement.
      The Bill sets out 13 or 14 unfair industrial practices which affect the trade unions, and about 16 which affect the employers. I submit that the two lots of unfair industrial practices cannot be equated, because those which would operate against the unions and the workers are basically directed against the unions, making it difficult for them to carry out legitimate trade union activities, while those which are supposedly directed against the employers are, in many cases, also directed against the workers and the trade unions, and will, therefore, assist employers against legitimate trade unionism.
      I am not saying that we condone unfair dismissals, because that is part of the unfair industrial practice. That is an issue which we think must be taken separately. It is dealt with in the Bill, as amended, by the use of the term "adequate safeguards". The provisions in the Bill which we presented to the House, but which was not considered by it, were much better than those in the Bill dealing with unfair dismissals, and we believe that the question of unfair dismissals can be dealt with at the appropriate place.
      It is clear that at this stage of the discussion it would not be possible for me to outline all the so-called industrial practices listed in the Bill, and again most of these will be dealt with in greater detail at the appropriate place. Nevertheless, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one or two of these unfair industrial practices which we consider to be of fundamental importance.
      The Bill says that it will be an unfair industrial practice to induce or threaten to
      840
      induce a strike to persuade an employer to discriminate against any worker or person seeking work on the ground of his membership or non-membership of a trade union. That is essentially part of the argument against the closed shop. It is also part of the argument against a 100 per cent. organised trade union shop, which is not necessarily a closed shop in the terms of one union only being involved.
      There are in this country about 22¾ million full-time employees. Nearly 13 million of them are in the trade union movement, and of those about 3 million are in post-entry closed shops, and three-quarters of a million in pre-entry closed shops. If the Bill goes through unamended and makes it an unfair industrial practice to induce or threaten to induce a strike to force an employer to agree, or to continue in force, a pre-entry closed shop, it will represent a serious attack on cherished rights of the trade union movement and could lead to chaos in certain industries. It could weaken the bargaining power of many trade unions, and could even put some trade unions out of existence. There are a number of trade unions, and two or three in particular, whose very existence depends on the pre-entry closed shop.
      Such so-called unfair industrial practices would deny workers the right to strike for 100 per cent. trade unionism. This is an attack on fundamental trade union rights and has nothing to do with improving or assisting industrial relations. It is not fair to the trade unions for the Government to pretend that this provision is fair and constantly to hide behind the mask of fairness.
      It is interesting to note that even the United States labour laws were amended in 1959 to allow for 100 per cent. trade unionism in industries such as construction, where the closed shop had been a long-established principle. This is another reason why we say that in some respects the Bill goes further than even the United States labour laws.
      These so-called unfair industrial practices—this point is linked to the last—would prevent trade unionists from taking solidarity action. It will become an unfair trade union practice for workers to carry out the blacking of goods, yet this practice and the practice of taking

      841
      solidarity action are long-established fundamental principles involved in the carrying out of legitimate trade unionism.
      Frequently trade unionists involved in disputes appeal to their fellow trade unionists for support. Indeed, a trade union could not hope to operate or win any battles unless it had the right to ask for this sort of support. Yet under the Bill and its unfair industrial practices provisions this fundamental right would be removed.
      As for the blacking of goods, consider the situation confronting Post Office workers today, and remember they have never before in the history of their union been involved in an industrial strike. They may find that to win their battle they will have to appeal for the solidarity of the trade union movement and ask workers to refuse to handle goods which they would otherwise have been handling.
      That is a perfectly legitimate trade union activity, but if this Bill is not amended the Post Office workers will, if they take that action, be acting illegally—and not in an unofficial but in an official dispute. I trust that this will be borne in mind. The balance of power in terms of unfair industrial practices is already weighted in favour of the employers. This further shift will weight it still further in their favour unless the Amendment is accepted.
      It will require a battery of lawyers on both sides of industry to interpret what is and what is not an unfair industrial practice. Consider the arguments that will arise in the industrial courts on this issue. I imagine that the lawyers are already licking their lips. Perhaps lawyers on this side of the Committee could be forgiven if they wished to support the Bill because they must be aware that they will make a fortune out of it, and the trade union movement will suffer as a result.
      9.0 p.m.
      I will give some examples of how this will work unfairly. My first example relates to the construction industry and to the agency shop. We had this, incidentally, during the Second Reading debate, it is worth repeating. It is proposed that it would be an unfair industrial practice if workers induce or threaten to induce a strike to force an employer to introduce an agency shop
      842
      within two years of a ballot in which employees rejected the agency shop. In practice, this means, for example, that at the very early stages of a construction site, the workers could be induced, or there could be some persuasion from someone, to have a ballot for an agency shop.
      There may be only a handful of workers at that stage, and most of them may not be members of a trade union. They could have the vote, and perhaps that would be that the majority was not in favour of an agency shop. Following that, despite the fact that the number of workers could build up to perhaps 2,000, for two years, the workers would not be allowed to take any action, and certainly not strike action, to force an agency shop, because that would be an unfair industrial practice. That is what we mean when we say that the Bill is tilted in favour of the employers and against the workpeople.
      All the airy-fairy talk and this wonderful sort of cottonwool atmosphere which has been created about the fairness of the Bill is unmasked when one looks at the realities.
      Second, also in relation to the building industry, one could have a situation where the main contractor decided to erect a scaffold which was unsafe. I can assure hon. and right hon. Members that that sometimes happens in the building industry. Those who look at the statistics of people killed or injured in that industry will know precisely what I mean by unsafe scaffolding. The painters' shop steward could say to his workpeople, "We will not allow you to use that particular scaffolding because it is unsafe". That is perfectly within the rules as laid down, and nothing could happen to him. But suppose that a sub-contractor was brought on to the site and then the painters' steward made such an approach to the sub-contractor's workers. Under the Bill he would be acting illegally. It would be an unfair industrial practice, and action could be taken against that steward. That is what it means in practice, and that is the reality of the Bill.
      The Amendment is absolutely necessary. The very term "unfair industrial practice" is borrowed from the Taft-Hartley Act, which refers to "unfair labour practice". In the Taft-Hartley Act there are six such practices concerning trade unions. I should like to quote

      843
      from the speech made by Professor Wedderburn at the recent great meeting in London on 12th January, when he spoke about Clause 87:
      "Two leading American professors at Yale Law School put it well when they said about the similar Taft Hartley law in the U.S.A., that curtailing secondary action makes unions 'enter the economic struggle with one hand tied'."
      That is precisely what the Bill does, and that is why we are opposed to this concept of unfair industrial practice. It would lay down a rigid set of conditions which are bound to be inappropriate on most occasions and are bound to be broken, and which will therefore create situations where legal action becomes possible.
      We call upon the Government to accept our Amendment. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite genuinely believe in fairness, they will see the fairness of the case being put forward from this side of the House. This is not a filibustering effort. We want to argue the realities of what this provision means to trade unionists and workers. We feel that we have put forward a fair case, and we ask the Government to accept the Amendment. If for some misguided reason they do not accept it, my right hon. and hon. Friends will divide the Committee and vote for it.
      Mr. Gower: I am sure that no hon. Member on this side of the Committee wants to do what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) seems to think. We have no intention of putting in this part of the Bill any provision designed to hurt individual trade unionists.
      The hon. Gentleman has made his case fairly, clearly and reasonably. But perhaps for a moment he will acknowledge that the words to which he objects are attached to a provision which is of the greatest importance. The Amendment seeks to delete from the Bill the words
      "against unfair industrial practices …"
      The phrase is attached to the principle of freedom and security for workers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want to express in the Bill our attachment to the idea of safety, freedom and security for workers. That is the basis of the insertion of this paragraph.
      Mr. Dan Jones: It is the bait.
      Mr. Gower: It is not the bait, as I shall explain in a moment. Surely it would be damaging to the freedom and security of individual workers if the words were deleted.
      The first freedom to which the hon. Member for Walton referred was freedom from dismissal. I am sure that he will concede at once that it is highly important for workers in any industry to have that freedom.
      He went on to explain the unfairness of forcing anyone to be a member of a trade union or of a named trade union. In theory, we should all like to see 100 per cent. trade union membership. That is highly desirable. If the Clause were designed merely for the convenience of employers or the Government of the day, it would be much easier to have compulsory 100 per cent. membership. For lots of employers and many Governments, it is highly inconvenient to have a multiplicity of unions representing one industry. One of the great assets on to which German industry has perhaps stumbled because of the last world war is that the workers in certain industries are represented by single unions.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: Would not it be more accurate to draw attention to the number of trade unionists in West Germany? The proportion of workers unionised is between 25 and 30 per cent. Would not that more accurately reflect the attitude of the Conservative Party to trade unions?
      Mr. Gower: I would prefer to see 25 per cent. of volunteers than 100 per cent. of forced men.
      Mrs. Renée Short: That is an Aunt Sally.
      Mr. Gower: It is not an Aunt Sally. It is an important matter. We want to see 100 per cent. union membership which is gained and earned by the effectiveness and efficiency of the trade union concerned. That is excellent. Provided that a union acts effectively, efficiently and fairly, over the years it should not be too difficult for it gradually to increase its membership on the basis of its performance as a union. We do not want a state of affairs where that is a matter of compulsion. I hope that hon. Members

      845
      will consider the freedom of the individual worker first. We all know the historical reason for such practices creeping in as a defence mechanism for unions which grew up in difficult conditions. In the conditions of today it is highly desirable that unions should achieve maximum membership by their effectiveness and efficiency, not by compulsion.
      There is another important matter. Some eccentric people for reasons of conscience cannot undertake the duties of membership of a trade union. That may seem absurd to me and to hon. Members opposite. They may seem to us to be misguided, but I hope that we do not dismiss, their reasons.
      Mr. Frank Tomney: In my long experience of workshop practice I have never known of such people, with an elastic conscience, who have refused to take the money the unions have earned.
      Mr. Gower: That is completely irrelevant. I know people who for similar reasons refuse to exercise the democratic power to vote, but they do not refuse to accept the benefits of the society in which they live. It is just as silly, but there are people who for religious reasons which we cannot understand do not wish to be trade union members. Is it right that there should be anything in the Bill which would make it possible for them to be driven out of their jobs? It would be infamous. Let us have the maximum freedom and security for the individual.
      Mr. Ronald Brown: If the freedom of the individual is involved, surely the Bill should not limit the freedom of other workers not to associate with such people?
      Mr. Gower: We want a system under which every person in industry is free to join a union of his or her choice, which we hope will be the best union to represent workers in an industry. We hope that it will do the job properly and by virtue of its performance will soon attract 100 per cent. membership in that industry. We see nothing wrong in that.
      Mr. Brown: There are many people in industry who just want the freedom to say, "We are fighting for the benefits in this firm. We do not associate with those who do not wish to be in the fight
      846
      with us." Under the Bill they will be charged with committing an unfair industrial practice. If we are to have freedom it must be freedom for all. Therefore the Amendment is right.
      Mr. Gower: But the kind of freedom the hon. Gentleman proposes is completely intolerant of the minority. I believe that all decent people, whether in trade unions or employers' organisations, would not want that kind of freedom, which is designed to suppress minority opinion. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel that the purpose of the Clause is to ensure, as it says,
      "the principle of freedom and security for workers,"
      but that is not to be achieved by gross unfairness for a minority who take a different view. Let the trade unions or employers' organisations achieve their success by efficiency. That will be good for them, for the effectiveness of their industry and the economy of the country.
      The hon. Gentleman dealt finally with solidarity action. It is easy to understand why those engaged in an industrial dispute should want others to take action to support them, although those others are not parties to the dispute. But such action can be grossly unfair. I have had conversations with people who have been involved in a subsidiary dispute, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that solidarity action is not always as popular as he would have us believe, and that many people who were involved in so-called solidarity action are very unhappy indeed about it.
      The Clause is designed for the freedom and security of those employed in industry without inflicting unfairness, sometimes of a very cruel kind, involving throwing people out of an industry in which they have been employed into a world in which they cannot find employment. This goes to the very basis of our democratic freedom. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. James Hamilton: I support the Amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who, like me, was engaged in the construction industry. It is most informative to learn from him that the United States had to retrace its steps on its own legislation. Those of us

      847
      who have been involved in the construction industry recognise the dangers that the industry can face if the words we seek to delete are left in the Bill.
      If the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) purports to be one of the torch bearers for 100 per cent. trade unionism, he and most of his hon. Friends should come right out into the open and make that clear to the country. If they did, we should not be considering the Bill now.
      When we talk about a closed shop we must get things in their proper perspective. The hon. Gentleman talked about minorities being looked after. Where there is a closed shop the situation is usually that the majority of the workers on a site or in a factory want to become members of a trade union. After the majority of the members have joined a trade union, it is incumbent upon the minority, for reasons which are obvious and which I hope to prove to hon. Members opposite.
      In many instances, a minority of the workers, encouraged by some unscrupulous employers, can do untold damage to the majority of the workers by carrying out practices and making decisions which are contrary to the interests of the majority of the workers in that industry or factory, whatever the case may be. The case is based also even on a Christian principle in that if, for instance, the minority are not prepared to join the majority on that basis, they should seriously consider their own situation because, in a closed shop, it is a prerequisite that, before they become employed in that factory, they either must take out a trade union card or be prepared to join a trade union.
      I ask the Government to give this matter serious thought. Let them prove to us at this early stage of the proceedings that they are prepared to listen to a reasonably stated case, one which they themselves so far have said could be acceptable to them. If they show that desire at the outset, there is the distinct possibility that we on this side of the Committee will give more serious thought to some of the Amendments on the Order Paper and we might manage to make greater progress.
      Mr. Ray Mawby: The Amendment would destroy the Bill—we
      848
      need make no bones about that. It seeks to remove completely the principle of fair industrial practices.
      Indeed, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer) made that point. He believes that there are no answers to any of the problems we face other than at least trying to establish a series of unfair industrial practices, whether operated by employers or groups of employees. Obviously, he sincerely holds that view. I do not agree with him. I do not think that one can make anything of the Bill unless one lays down that there are certain practices which will be frowned upon and treated in a proper fashion. The Amendment would remove from the Bill any opportunity for any tribunal or forum to consider any unfair practice, whether by an employer or by a group of employees.
      That would be going much too far and would remove the whole point of the Bill. That would serve the hon. Gentleman's purpose but not ours. The hon. Gentleman made one or two extremely important points. As he said, we shall probably have longer discussions on the specific industrial unfair practices later in the Bill, but he dealt with the general principle. However, he mentioned one which would obviously be an unfair industrial practice. This was the case in which a group of employees threatened direct action to coerce the employer to bring into union membership any employee in the factory who was not a member of a union. It is obvious that, if we did not make it an unfair industrial practice, the only way that that coercion would work would be if the employer gave the employee concerned the choice either of joining a union—and it might be a union which he did not particularly wish to join—or of leaving the factory, in some instances leaving the industry altogether. Therefore, it would be taking away the earlier part of the principle—that of freedom and security.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman mean freedom or licence?
      Mr. Mawby: This is a most important question. I have always made the point that, where people enjoy rights and do not exercise the responsibilities that go with them, that freedom becomes licence. That is my usual definition. I do not think that any hon. Member can put his

      849
      hand on his heart and say that freedom has not become licence in certain specific cases. It is not general, never has been and probably never will be, but where there is one individual who loses his freedom and security by the action of people who have a right but do not exercise responsibility with it, then they are exercising licence and that freedom should be taken away from them.
      In this case, we are trying to maintain a balance. In the past—even now—there have been threats of direct action to coerce an employer to say to an employee. "You join a union or else." Is that in the interests of the trade unions themselves? In effect, one is saying to the employer, "You are now the recruiting agent for the union. We need no longer approach young people coming into the industry to explain the benefits we have to offer if you join our union".
      Mr. McBride: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point when he says that the employer becomes, in effect, the recruiting agent for the union. As there are two partners, management and men, is it not right that, where skill, status and qualification, to say nothing of the country's ultimate benefit, are involved, management in a closed shop situation should not be the sole recruiting agent for labour?
      Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman raises another important question. I freely acknowledge that in many factories managements will accept a full benefit card of certain craft unions as good evidence of skilled craftsmanship and as proof of apprenticeship, knowing very well that the union concerned still maintains high standards. But it does not follow that we should continue to allow a situation in which a group of people can say to the employer, "We do not care how high a man's standards of craftsmanship are or how good his bona fides are. Unless he joins our organisation, you must sack him". To say that is to take away one's own responsibility for at least "selling" the union to prospective new entrants.
      Fundamentally, that way of proceeding is as much against the interests of present members of trade unions as it is against the interests of anyone else, for it means that one is on the slippery
      850
      slope, and unions will no longer have to keep themselves abreast of what work-people believe they ought to obtain through membership of the union of their choice.
      The words of the subsection are quite specific, to give protection against
      "unfair industrial practices, whether on the part of employers or others".
      Without those words, we might just as well not proceed with the Bill.
      Mr. James Tinn: It seems to me that both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) are basing their arguments largely on two points: first, the importance of freedom for the individual to choose his own union, and second, the importance of unions having to justify themselves to prospective members and, indeed, to compete for members.
      We hear a good deal from hon. Members opposite about the great virtues of competition. It would be a logical conclusion of their argument that the restrictions on free competition among unions for membership imposed under the T.U.C. agreement, which has prevented so much industrial strife in the past, should now be removed and that unions should be allowed to compete with one another inside the same undertaking, with, perhaps, two or three unions competing in, say, the docks or the car industry. Do hon. Members want to see competition in militancy for membership?
      Mr. Mawby: No. The hon. Gentleman ignores other provisions of the Bill designed to go much further along the lines of the so-called Bridlington agreement than has ever been done hitherto, designed to take into account the historical basis of the union set-up in certain industries without at the same time doing anything to bring about greater proliferation. I believe that the Bridlington agreement has done a good deal not just to prevent the proliferation of unions but to reduce their number to a workable total. We are doing nothing to create the situation suggested by the hon. Gentleman. I have never proposed any such thing, and I never should.
      Mr. Tinn: It seems that the position is that this Clause gives certain freedom to the unions which the hon. Member says will not be used because the Government

      851
      intend to emasculate the unions later in the Bill—
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Mawby: The hon. Gentleman does not mean it but he is trying to put words into my mouth. There is nothing in the Bill which goes anywhere near trying to emasculate any union. What it seeks to do is to ensure that there will not be a proliferation of unions, that there will not be more than one union seeking to represent a certain number of employees. We know what difficulties there have been as a result of one union poaching from another. This is designed to prevent that happening, with the members of the unions having the last word by a ballot.
      The hon. Member for Walton spokeofunfairdismissal, and we must make provision for that. In many cases it is not the employer who decides on a dismissal. Under present circumstances there can be a situation in which an employee is dismissed, possibly against the wishes of the employer, because he does not fit into the pattern, because he refuses to join the union. He is just as liable to be unfairly dismissed in this way as he is because the employer does not like the colour of his hair or the look of his face.
      If we are to maintain freedom from unfair dismissal we cannot accept the Amendment and we must maintain the Bill as it is, balanced and designed to bring about greater freedom to everyone in whatever part of industry they serve.
      Mr. Orme: I want to underline one or two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). We note with interest that the Government appear to be encouraging their back-benchers to participate at great length in today's debate. The Solicitor-General might draw the attention of his right hon. Friend to this lest he intends making any fractious remarks similar to those he made last night.
      The Solicitor-General let something slip out when he was talking about Preambles no longer being in fashion and said that the principles of the Bill were embodied in Clause 1 because they would have to be used in a court of law later. In other words, the basic principles, and
      852
      no doubt these debates, will be taken into account when lawyers are deciding issues in industrial courts or elsewhere.
      The Solicitor-General: On a matter of factual accuracy it was the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and noble Friend the former Lord Chancellor who was seeking to advance proposals whereby certainly preparatory documents and perhaps debates in Parliament could be taken into account by lawyers. Fortunately, lawyers are not required to have regard to what is said in this House. They look at the words of the Statute, so that the hon. Gentleman may be assured that neither his words nor mine will be taken into account.
      Mr. Orme: Lawyers do not live in glass houses and there are a fair number of lawyers in the House of Commons. What would have been the preamble is now written into the Act in legal language, and this means that it will be taken into account in a court of law
      In talking of unfair industrial practices, my hon. Friends have mentioned closed shops and 100 per cent. trade unionism. Hon. Members opposite have been defending the rights of minorities not to be members of trade unions but have had little to say about the rights of majorities. When have these minorities ever refused an increment obtained by a trade union? The next increment to be refused will be the first.
      I have worked in a shop which was 100 per cent. trade union as opposed to the closed shop. A worker did not have to have a union card before he could start, but had to give an undertaking to join a trade union if he was suitable for the work. My experience was not that the unions bullied the management but that management often came to me as the senior shop steward and asked me to find out whether the man had the basic skill to do the job and had had apprenticeship training. The management consults the trade unions on these matters. I see that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is present. He will have had a great deal of experience from the management side. Where there are proper trade union agreements between management and employees and where there is 100 per cent. trade unionism or a closed shop in the majority of cases there are reasonable industrial relations. In a shop which is partially organised or

      853
      where the employer is trying to get people to work at below the normal rate and to work overtime at his behest, there is a large turnover of labour, bad workmanship and bad industrial relations.
      I was in America about 12 months ago when the General Electric strike took place. This was an official dispute throughout all the G.E.C. factories in the United States, and it lasted for six months. It was supported by the trade union, which had a long industrial battle for negotiated agreements. Other unions such as the teamsters told me that they were prevented by law from taking secondary action to support the strike. If a lorry had been driven in it would have cost them tens of thousands of dollars a day in fines. My reading of that situation is that by making this an unfair industrial practice the Taft-Hartley Act prolonged that dispute over many months. If that were to take place in Britain, in our precarious economic position, we could not cope with it. We should see a shift to long official disputes which would damage British industry and the economy much more than do the disputes which now get such publicity.
      At the end of the day, the only thing that will bring sanity to industrial relations is a strong trade union movement, with the employers recognising that the trade unions are here to stay and that they must negotiate on an equal basis with their workpeople so that in the 1970s workpeople will not be treated as they were in the 1920s and 1930s. Those days have gone for ever. What the trade unions object to in relation to these "unfair industrial practices" is that the actions which will become unlawful will be removed from industrial consultative discussions into a court of law. The Solicitor-General speaks of this in such nice tones that it sounds harmless, but the whole basis of industrial relations will be moved away from consultative discussions and normal day-to-day negotiations into courts of law. We cannot let the philosophy outlined in Clause 1 stand as it is without raising objection. It is important that Members on this side of the Committee should put their point of view.
      Mr. McBride: Does my hon. Friend contend that in pursuing the legal definition of "unfair industrial practices" it is
      854
      the Government's intention to encase the trade union movement in a cocoon of case law?
      Mr. Orme: This is the obvious conclusion. We all know that Mr. George Meaney, a prominent and moderate trade union leader, has said that at the end of the day there will be more case law here than in the United States or in any other industrial nation in the world. We will move in this country from free collective bargaining to a type of law-court democracy.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend knows that he has a reputation as a Left-winger and always speaks for himself or for the Left-wing trade union movement. Does he know of any trade union to the right, at the left, or in the centre as a moderate, which supports this Bill? To put it the other way, can he tell the House how many trade unions and their leaders to the right, to the left or in the centre are against the Bill?
      Mrs. Peggy Fenner: And against the Amendment.
      Mr. Orme: I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and also the point put by the hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner). I made the point to the Secretary of State last night that the trade union movement right across the board, irrespective of its point of view, was completely opposed to this Bill. The membership is also opposed to it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Mr. Orme: Hon. Members opposite will see that by the time we have spent several weeks or months of debate in this Committee, a more articulate and educated trade union movement will exist in this country which understands more about this issue than it has ever done before. My experience and that of many of my hon. Friends is of attending packed meetings on this issue, probably the best attended meetings they have seen for years. They are being attended not by the activists, but by the rank and file who want to know the facts about the Bill and want to oppose it. The Solicitor-General might feel at the moment that he is pushing along cosily, but the situation will change in the future.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: In the matter of industrial relations, nothing so illustrates the point that we are prisoners of our past than the present debate. I sympathise with the viewpoint expressed by so many trade unionists on this side of the House with regard to the provision in the Bill relating to unfair industrial practices. The view of the trade unionist is coloured by his experience and by his past. What is regarded by a person taking a detached view as an unfair industrial practice may not appear to be unfair to a man who has struggled for years to gain recognition and improvement of conditions on the shop floor. I am ready to concede that point.
      In my experience, union shops are very much better run on average than nonunion shops; the conditions are much better. It is not an invariable rule since I have known exceptions to it, but it is generally conceded that where there is 100 per cent. union membership, or a closed shop, the shop is well run and industrial relations are good.
      Nevertheless, having conceded that, I believe that there are such things as unfair industrial practices. The people who impose them do not recognise that they are unfair because, as I say, they are coloured in their viewpoint. Over the years I have had to appear for and against trade unions and have been involved in situations in which, undoubtedly, anybody taking a detached view would have said that an unfair industrial practice existed. But that did not prevent genuine, honest people being unable to appreciate that such a practice, which was thought to be in the interests of the union or indeed of the employer, was unfair.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman give it as his legal opinion that in future it will be unfair for work people or shop stewards to make a legitimate approach to a non-unionist and to ask him to join the trade union?
      Mr. Hooson: I would have thought not. When the Bill becomes law it will be interpreted according to the words used in the Clauses. If the words are not capable of ready interpretation, the
      856
      lawyers or the judges interpreting them will look at the first Section, as it will become, "General principles."
      In an exchange between the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) reference was made to Germany. The hon. Member for Bedwellty said that in West Germany trade union membership is 25 to 30 per cent. The hon. Member for Barry said that he was in favour of 100 per cent. trade unionism. It is an interesting reflection how much this country is a prisoner of its past that, with the state of trade unionism in Germany, the average German industrial worker is earning more than his opposite number here.
      There are many reasons for this. One is that, because their past was shattered by the last war, the Germans had a constitutional works law introduced in 1952. They created a system of industrial relations on a different basis, with particular reference to plant bargaining and good conditions at the plant and works. This has benefited Germany all round. Nobody in this country can put his hand on his heart, having examined conditions in both countries, and say that our industrial relations over the last decade have begun to approach those of West Germany so far as the achievement of productivity and happy relations are concerned.
      I put this as an illustration of the point that the debate is coloured by the experience of people in trade unions and by the anti-trade unionism attitude taken by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Experience shows that shops run in happy co-operation between management and trade unions are normally well-run. That is to be encouraged.
      Mr. Kinnock rose—
      Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a few moments. I say that there are certain unfair industrial practices which trade unionists themselves can recognise as such and from which the individual must be protected.
      Mr. Kinnock: I am sure that, with his intimate knowledge of industrial relations in West Germany, the hon. and learned Gentleman will want to record that much of the reason for the successful

      857
      pattern of well-organised industrial relations in the Federal Republic is due largely to the fact that it was designed by British trade unionists for German trade unionists.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman must not flatter me. I do not have intimate knowledge of German industrial affairs. I have some knowledge from reading and inquiry about them. I do not have intimate knowledge, but I understand that they had advisers from the British trade union movement, who must have given very good advice because the system has been very successful.
      I come back to the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I understand it, but I do not think that it will bear examination. I think that there has to be a residual power in the courts to which the individual can occasionally make his application because unfair industrial practices exist. My view is that, in a democracy, any individual is entitled to recourse eventually to some element outside the union or outside his employment to get the necessary redress—that is, to the courts. Therefore, I think that the words should remain in the Clause.
      Mr. Thomas Swain: I enter the debate briefly to deal with the Amendment and its possible effect on the pre-entry closed shop practised in the coalmining industry—[Interruption.] If the Liberal Party conference could be delayed until June, so that I can be heard, no doubt I shall be able to carry on.
      The mining industry is somewhat unique, and over the years there has been more malpractice in the industry than in any other in Great Britain. I say that, not with pride, but as a matter of fact. In 1926—and I must go back to that year without harking on the past and asking my dad—we came out on strike and all the other trade unions joined us. I was out for 32 weeks. I am not proud of that, but along with my dad and many others I was out for that length of time, and when we eventually applied for our jobs we were told—and I was only 15 at the time—that there were enough of our sort employed at the pit and under no circumstances would be allowed to work there. That system operated in the mining industry until 1942, when the country
      858
      realised the value of the mining community and the value of the coal that was being produced from our pits.
      Let us look at the function of the trade union in my industry. To do this I have again to go back historically, but this time only to 1947. The wisest thing that my trade union and the National Coal Board did in the initial stages was to agree that only certain trade unions should represent the men, both the professional men and the workers in the industry. There was an amalgamation of unions so that that could come about. There was an amalgamation between C.O.S.A., which was a strong union in its section of professionalism, and the N.U.M. which was sensibly formed in 1944. They set up a closed shop in 1944, and the N.C.B. agreed to meet the N.U.M. on behalf of the workmen, B.A.C.A.M. on behalf of the management, and N.A.C.O.D.S. on behalf of the officials.
      That was a wise thing to do, because from that moment all malpractices in the industry began to diminish. This was because we were meeting new employers with a fresh outlook. We were meeting on a different scale. We were having joint consultations, which can happen only if there is a 100 per cent. closed shop in an industry. One can have consultation at its best only when there is 100 per cent. trade union membership and the various sections, represented by different unions, are recognised by the employers.
      The mining industry has safety regulations which have to be obeyed by all members in the industry. These regulations could not be operated with anything less than 100 per cent. trade union membership. I say that because of my 25 years' experience as a pit negotiator, and three years' experience as an area negotiator as the vice-president of my union.
      If the Clause goes through in its present form my union, which represents men in an industry which is unique by comparison with other industries of a more dispersed nature, could deteriorate very rapidly, indeed. My old pit is the biggest in the Midlands, and in 1970 it produced 1¾ million tons of coal. If one man of the 2,900 employees at that pit were not a member of my trade union he could not expect, and would not get, representation by my union.
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Industrial Relations Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. John Davies.]

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
  Mr. Swain: I regret that interruption, one which we could well do without. I say that in all sincerity because there is far too much time-wasting with pomp and ceremony in this establishment and too little work as a consequence.
  If the Government have the wisdom to accept the Amendment, we can have happy industrial relations not only in the mining industry but in all our basic industries. This will further enhance the good relations that in most cases exist between trade unionists and good employers. I emphasise "good employers", of whom there are many in this country. They recognise the benefit of conducting negotiations with trade unions.
  There are, however, a lot of bad employers, too, and I suggest, from the speeches made today and yesterday by backbenchers opposite, that hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to represent a lot of bad employers. [Interruption.] I trust that if the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has something to say he will get to his feet and say it, rather than mutter to himself whenever he pops in to pay us a visit like a popcorn out of a bag.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was muttering words of encouragement to the hon. Gentleman. I was so enthralled by his speech.
  Mr. Swain: I am interested to hear that, but it is probably because the hon. Member's majority was increased at the last election.
  860
  Although the law does not permit pre-entry closed shop conditions, these exist in many establishments and, where they exist, productivity, wage levels, efficiency, safety standards and every other facet of industry is far better than where we have a haphazard type of organisation.
  I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that a few weeks ago we had a ballot in my industry for a strike, the first ballot since 1926. We had an 83 per cent. poll. On the day of the ballot there was 15·2 per cent. absenteeism throughout the industry. Thus, of the people who attended work, we had a 99·1 per cent. ballot. My members in the National Union of Mineworkers took part in a democratic vote on an industrial issue which was completely lawful and strictly according to the laws of the land and the rules which are registered by my trade union. Unfortunately for a lot of people, the ballot did not go the way we expected. Fifty-five per cent. voted against the strike and 45 per cent. voted for it.
  I would remind the Committee that if the Bill had been in operation as an Act of Parliament, we would now have been in the midst of the biggest industrial struggle we have had since 1926. That in itself proves the inadvisability of bringing in a Bill of this character.
  The Amendment was moved with the sole and very good intention of improving the Bill [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Peterborough is in class again. The Amendment was moved in good faith, with one intention and one alone. It was moved not with the intention, which the hon. Member so strangely applies in his mind, of wrecking the Bill; it was intended to improve the Bill. By God, if ever a Bill needed improvement it is this one. I should have objected to it from Title to the last full stop without attempting to amend it. It stinks. It is rotten. It is almost as bad in its philosophy as the people who have introduced it, and that is almost going to the impossible—that is giving credit to the Bill.
  I know that nobody on the Front Bench ever listens to back-bench speeches, but it would be courteous if they would be quiet. To expect some courtesy from the Front Bench spokesmen is expecting a lot. They seem to be having a conference between themselves all the time, so whatever we say on the back benches they do

  861
  not hear. People who have spent a lifetime in the trade union movement and who can argue from their own vast experience of the members of their trade union are not listened to by the Front Bench. They take more notice of the C.B.I. than they do of the back-benchers on either side of the House.
  I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment. I am certain that the Bill will be better for it.
  Mr. Tomney: This Bill has at last given us an idea of the complexities which industry and the trade unions will face. Without the advantage of a Preamble and without the double advantage of knowing what the code of industrial practice is to be, the difficulties that we are running into are becoming obvious.
  The reasoning behind the Bill is based on a lot of United States practice which differs from that in British industry in that most American unionism is based on industrial unionism, with each union negotiating its own contract for a specified period of time and renegotiating it at the end of that time. The practice makes it comparatively easy in American law to decide issues. But, even there, one find the most involved legalistic wrangles before new contracts can be agreed.
  The paragraph which we are discussing will lead to all kinds of complications. However, until we know what the code of industrial practice is to be, it is impossible to offer any reasoned judgment on some of the difficulties which may arise.
  In most British factories of any size, there are a number of different unions competing for the same membership. Each union appoints stewards who are responsible to their regional offices. There is a multiplicity of wage rates. In the factories of the General Electric Company with which I was concerned, there were no fewer than 1,024 wage rates and 29 rate fixers. Those were the kinds of difficulty with which one had to tangle day by day.
  Under the Bill and the proposed code, as it is carried through to the Registrar of Trade Unions and to the agency shop, it is possible to envisage a situation in which those who do the negotiation will
  862
  be faced with almost implacable difficulties.
  Let us consider for a moment a militant section of craft workers in a union in one factory which hitherto has forced the pace with regard to the conduct of the union in that factory. Suppose that as a result of a secret ballot, the moderates take charge of the negotiating procedure. What is to happen to the militant members of the union if they are denied the representation to which they think that they are entitled and which has special knowledge of their craft that is not possessed by anyone else? No code of practice containing general statements of law can possibly cater for this kind of objection.
  In different departments in one factory where the workers are represented by the same union, various rates of pay will apply. Operatives receiving different rates of pay are making the same union contribution. We already look for equality of rates. But, when this law comes into force, there will be a greater demand for equality of rates between different departments. Industry and commerce does not work like that. Different rates are bound to apply. However, the situation will arise where workers on productive employment are registered under a contract and, if the company proposes to transfer a man from one department to another under normal company practice, he will refuse to go. Will that constitute unfair industrial practice, and will it lead to his dismissal?
  That is the kind of case in which the law will become involved. Up until now there will have been discussions between the joint shop committee and the regional officers of the union. Any difficulties will have been ironed out, and a general code will have been accepted. Once it is put into a law of this kind, enormous difficulty will be encountered. I warn hon. Members that we had better watch what we are doing.
  It is one thing to generalise on certain principles which are applicable to the legal profession. It is another to interpret them. We shall face a situation in which every time that a new contract of employment is to be negotiated, even at workshop level, a lawyer will have to be

  863
  involved. That is but one reason why I am thankful to be no longer a leading convenor in a large works.
  10.15 p.m.
  Where this has spread throughout England, and differential rates apply from district to district, the matter becomes more complex. I was involved in negotiations with G.E.C. at Hammersmith, Brook Green, Brighton, Team Valley, Shaw, East Lancashire and elsewhere, and had to keep a watching brief over
  864
  them all to maintain equality of rates between members of the same union, all of them knowing from the annual conference exactly what rates applied. It was impossible to have a London, Manchester or Newcastle weighting built into the wage rates.
  Those are only a few of the matters that occur to me as I think about the problems of the Bill. We on the union side shall have to have a close look at how the code of practice will apply and operate.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Roland Moyle: I support the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), primarily because I think that many hon. Members opposit still do not understand what they are trying to do. We should get down to cases.
  It is not too much to say, summarising the two days' debate, that all day yesterday the Minister responsible for industrial relations tried to explain the Bill, and failed because he did not realise the legal implications of what he said, and today the Solicitor-General tried to explain the principles of the Bill and failed because he has no knowledge of industrial relations. This may be a fair reflection of what will happen in the country if the Bill ever becomes law, but it does not stop them from trying to push the Bill through.
  One of the
  "unfair industrial practices"
  concerned is the secondary action, namely, that if a trade union induces someone to break his contract when that person is not directly involved in the dispute it is an unfair practice and certain legal consequences could well flow from it. This results from what we can only describe as cerebration in the antiseptic atmosphere of Whitehall by the Secretary of State for Employment. We must examine what effect this will have on the ground.
  I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back briefly to the autumn, when there was an extensive official strike, the first for many years, in the local authority world. In so far as strikes can be popular either with those taking part in them or with the public generally, that was a popular strike. It was generally conceded that the men had a very fair case, and there was considerable public support.
  One of the reasons why the strike was so important was that although about 750,000 people were in dispute with their employers up and down the country the trade union sought to minimise the damage it inflicted on the public by pulling out only those sections of the labour force which had a direct impact on the settlement of the dispute. At the height of the industrial action about which I am
  866
  talking, of the 750,000 people concerned only about 85,000 were out on strike.
  In one part of the country the dustmen were out on strike on union instructions and the road workers were still working. Into this situation the local authority inserted a very unfortunate act. They had contractors' lorries bringing tar to the road workers, and when the tar had been emptied the lorries went, on the local authority's instructions, into the centres of the town to pick up the rubbish and take it to the rubbish dump. This was undermining the whole stand that the dustmen were taking on behalf of their colleagues, so the road men blacked the contractors' lorries. That was inducing the contractors to break their contract with the local authority. The result was that the lorries were not unloaded at the work site, rubbish could not be put in them, and the strength of the strike was maintained.
  We can draw several lessons from this. If the Act applied, what the road men did would be regarded as an unfair industrial practice. It would not be an unfair industrial practice that would protect the freedom and security of the workers involved. On the contrary, it would do very much the opposite; it would completely undermine their striking position and damage those workers and not protect them. That is one of the reasons why I support the Amendment.
  Second, the entire strike position of the union in that part of the country would be undermined.
  Third, the Government should bear very much in mind that there is a solution to the problem if the Bill becomes law. In addition to pulling the dustmen out on strike, the union could have extended the strike and brought out the road men. Is that the sort of thing the Government want to happen? Do they want to cerebrate in the higher reaches of Whitehall to produce a statement of principle independent of any particular facts, to apply it by law, put it into operation and produce a practical situation on the ground in which it is better for trade unions to extend strikes, making them as wide as possible, rather than restricting them in the interests of not inflicting the maximum damage on the public?
  That is the sort of problem to which the Government should be turning their

  867
  minds, but they are not. They are committed to a tremendously theoretical approach to the problem of industrial relations. If they are not careful, it will do the country more harm than good.
  The Solicitor-General: This has been a wide-ranging debate. A number of Labour Members have raised detailed examples of particular unfair industrial practices which are spelt out in detail later in the Bill. The Committee will forgive me if I do not deal with them all, since they are proper for further discussion later.
  I acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have said, the words now sought to be deleted are at the foundation of an important part of the Bill. They categorise in a general sense a number of the unfair industrial practices, and are the foundation for improved consultation, not for an extended application of law; they identify some of the matters which on behalf of the community Parliament rightly wishes to identify as unfair. This was the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.
  It is unarguable at this point in time that, in the course of collective bargaining and the conduct of industrial relations, both sides—if we must acknowledge the two sides to these negotiations—from time to time go beyond that which is reasonable and necessary in the presentation of their case. It is to that end that the Bill contains unfair industrial practices, which we shall later examine in detail. It is the whole concept of identifying unfairness, unacceptable activities, from the point of view of the community and of the people concerned in the industry.
  I can understand some hon. Members opposite rejecting root and branch the idea that one can identify anything in this way. I find more difficulty in understanding those right hon. and hon. Members opposite who reject this concept when, in their own proposals, canvassed in general or in detail, they themselves identified activities by both sides of industry which should be categorised as inimical to the community.
  868
  I take the trade union side first. They categorised activities by unions hostile and unduly hostile to their members and prospective members in respect of which remedies were being proposed in "In Place of Strife", and activities by unions hostile to the interests of the community when using coercive action to secure recognition to the point where the interests of the community were being destroyed. These are matters which both sides of the Committee, at various times at least, have regarded as unfair and in respect of which remedies ought to be provided.
  Similarly, at the other end of the scale, there were categorised discriminatory action by employers against union members such as unfair action in dismissing people without good grounds.
  Surely we are on common ground that any attempt to introduce, in this Bill and in the Labour Government's Bill before the election, remedies for legitimate grievances that will enable people to consult and negotiate against the background of fair guidelines at least involves the Committee in identifying certain matters which are unfair, and that is what we are seeking to do. What we seek to do, having identified these matters which are unfair, is wherever possible to provide alternative remedies for the resolution of legitimate complaints within a sensible foundation of principle, providing a clear framework of law against which people can conduct industrial relations themselves.
  Mr. Dan Jones: A lot of emphasis has been placed upon the word "intimidation" of a man or a woman to join a trade union. The hon. and learned Gentleman now repeats that charge. Has any research been done to show how much of that practice has resulted in any kind of industrial strife?
  The Solicitor-General: In an interjection by the hon. Gentleman earlier, his question was, "Is it or is it not unfair for a union organizer to ask someone to join a union, whether in an agency shop or a non-union shop?" The point is relevant to the one he has just put to me. The answer is that it is not unfair. Indeed, it is visualized as being fair and proper within the Bill that there should be an agency shop agreement whereby

  869
  the employer undertakes to use his best efforts to persuade workpeople coming into the work place to join the union. Not only the trade union official is free to persuade. The point at which this would become unfair is if someone, having been approached and invited to join the union, and having had the benefits of membership explained to him, declines the invitation. It would be unfair for coercive action to be used against the employer in such a case to secure that employee's dismissal because he had not responded to the invitation.
  Mr. Dan Jones: That is not the answer to my question. How much research has been done in order to justify the hon. and learned Gentleman in making that claim? I think that the answer is, "None".
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has surely read, as we have all read, correspondence coming to hon. Members and cases reported in the newspapers, not to be regarded as of general or universal application, but certainly situations in which individuals have been over-pressured and who believe themselves to have been threatened and intimidated in order to secure their membership of a trade union or else be deprived of their occupation. Hon. Members have all come across examples of cases of that kind. I am not suggesting that they are the generality but they are sufficiently frequent for this kind of protection to be introduced.
  Mr. Dan Jones: They are exceptional.
  The Solicitor-General: That may be so, but it does not destroy the validity of my case. I remind the Committee of the case made by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in "In Place of Strife", when she proposed the establishment of an industrial board to provide remedies in the case of people wrongly excluded or expelled from a union. She made the point in these terms:
  "This does not imply that there is any reason to suspect frequent injustice, any more than the creation of the Parliamentary Commissioner implies that maladministration is common in Government Departments. But it is right and healthy in a democracy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power can most harm the individual."
  870
  That is the foundation of the identification of unfair industrial practices in that area. It is only one illustration of the areas in which unfair practices are being identified.
  I put it to the Committee that it is not possible to challenge that central proposition once one accepts the idea of providing remedies for unfair activity on either side of industry.
  10.30 p.m.
  Several hon. Members returned to the suggestion that this concept of unfair industrial practices is of American origin and is, therefore, of wholly trans-Atlantic application. It is true, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) pointed out, that the American legislation talks in terms of unfair labour practices. It is not alone in that. Many countries have identified in a variety of ways practices in the conduct of industrial relations on both sides which—
  Mr. Orme: They copied the Americans.
  The Solicitor-General: Not necessarily. In many countries, the progress has been going parallel to that which has taken place in North America. Different formulations have been adopted, and the same words have not been used, but in many countries the idea of saying that this, that or the other action is unfair or is unacceptable is generally accepted. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says that other countries have copied the Americans. That is right in some instances. In the Commonwealth, the Australian law has been in existence long enough to have commended itself to Sidney Webb 50 or 60 years ago. Many countries have adopted that sort of concept because they have found such an approach of value in helping to identify unfairnesses.
  With respect, to say that my old friend Professor Wedderburn's denunciation of the American aspects of this proposal is to be taken as gospel foundation for not accepting it is to disregard Professor Wedderburn's skill as a committed political advocate as much as it is to pay respect to his skill as an academic student of this branch of the law. He is a committed political advocate in these matters, and one should not be too much

  871
  persuaded by that. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Solicitor-General is a committed political advocate, too".] Certainly. That is what this Committee is about. But hon. Members will not expect me to fall about and lie down overwhelmed by the force of reason at the mention of the name of Professor Wedderburn, much as I respect him.
  I move now from the general proposition that all analyses of this kind of problem have identified areas in respect of which industrial action on either side can be unfair to some of the more detailed points which hon. Members opposite have made. The foundation of those points as put by the hon. Member for Walton was that the whole idea of unfair industrial practices destroys things which are fundamental to legitimate trade union activities. If that were so, there might be more substance in the case which he put. In fact, there is here no threat to anything fundamental to legitimate trade union activities.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested, for example, that the closed shop, in contrast to the agency shop, was fundamental to legitimate trade union activities. We cannot accept that. We accept that it is fundamental to trade union activities that trade unionists should be free to persuade as many workers as they can in any industry or section of industry of the benefits of joining, and free, indeed, to persuade within the context of the agency shop; but we cannot accept that it should go so far as to enable a union, even taking into account the freedom of the other members in that workplace, to secure the dismissal or non-employment of a man who, for good reasons, does not wish to belong to the union but who is prepared, at the wish of the majority of his colleagues, to pay the cost of being represented by the union.
  Mr. Swain: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that where there is 100 per cent. trade unionism in a shop, mine, factory or whatever, the efficiency is in every way better than where there is haphazard organisation? Would he also accept that if there is infiltration of non-unionism through this Bill the efficiency of the 100 per cent. union establishment will inevitably deteriorate?
  The Solicitor-General: I have listened with much interest and sympathy to the speech made by the hon. Member, developing this case with reference to his long experience in the coal industry. I was slightly hurt at his suggestion that we were treating him with disdain by discussing something. I apologise if I appeared not to be listening but we were paying attention to what he was saying.
  Mr. Swain: All lawyers can talk and listen at the same time.
  The Solicitor-General: Maybe, but a number of other hon. Members can too. I fancy that it is part of the mythology of this place that lawyers can do so. The point he makes is that the structure of unionism in the coal industry, divided into three unions, has helped to spread stability in bargaining conditions in the industry. There is no gainsaying that. It is one of the incidental objectives of the recognition remedies recommended here, as it was in "In Place of Strife", to help produce better integrated situations.
  I pay tribute to the greater unity and harmony achieved by the three-union structure in the coal industry. We do not believe that that necessarily requires that total commitment, the obligation of everyone employed in the industry to be a member of one or other of these unions. It need not go that far to secure the orderliness and prosperity that can be achieved by good bargaining.
  To take the examples quoted by hon. Members, the achievement of the N.U.M. in balancing, in its bargaining with the Coal Board, the diversified interests of the many categories whom it represents, has been a substantial one. It has had to balance their interests and that was one of the problems. In the North American automobile industry the Union of Automobile Workers has had to undertake, and had undertaken, the same task, as a single union, throughout the industry, doing the balancing act more effectively for more workers and not operating upon the basis of the closed shop but in essence upon an agency shop principle, achieving good results and conditions for its members and long-term stability within the industry. We do not accept that to fulfil the legitimate objects of trade unionism in the sense the closed shop is necessary.

  873
  Hon. Members mentioned the difficulties of getting an agency shop on a building site and I acknowledge that point. That is why there is special reference to the construction industry at the end of Clause 8. It will be seen, in Clause 15, that the changing population of workers on a growing site would enable a subsequent application for an agency shop ballot to be held, even if an adverse vote had been recorded on the first occasion. [Interruption.] An application can be made within two years when the people covered by the application are of a different or larger category than was covered by the original application. I do not want to go into more detail save to say that we are aware of the point.
  The subject of the secondary, or sympathy strike, was raised by several hon. Members. The examples of the Post Office strike and the local government workers' strike were given. If hon. Members look at the Clause dealing with that they will find that it is narrowly defined, as it ought to be, and that any employer against whom secondary action is taken, who has taken supporting action in respect of any other party in the dispute can be struck against. So with the example given of the local government workers. If the haulage contractors—if I understood the example correctly—were supporting the local authorities by seeking to do their work for them, they would be legitimate targets of secondary action.
  Similarly in the example given by another hon. Member apropos of the Post Office situation. Any employer who gives support by seeking to do on behalf of the Post Office Corporation work which it would be doing would be supporting the primary employer, and, again, secondary action could be taken, because we recognise, perhaps to an extent which has not been appreciated, that supporting action, the use of borrowed strength, within reasonable limits, is a legitimate aspect of trade union activity. Some hon. Members may feel that we go too far in recognising that.
  Where, however, we get off the bus is in saying that, in that situation, or in the situation of industrial action directed against individual workers or union members, it is possible for such action to go too far; it is possible for secondary, sympathetic, action to be directed against
  874
  an employer, a customer, or another party, who is wholly innocent, and unconnected with the original dispute; and it is right to identify that secondary strike action as unreasonable, unfair, going beyond what is required by legitimate union activity.
  Mr. Orme: What about the employer, then, who, to break a strike, deliberately sends his work out to a sub-contractor, when there is an official dispute in the employer's factory? That is secondary action by an employer.
  The Solicitor-General: Yes. I do not want to deal with all the examples which have been given; we shall come to them when we come to Clause 87, but the same provisions apply to sympathetic lock-outs, and I hope that the Committee will recognise that they are reasonable, carefully constructed, and that exactly the same basic question arises. I come back to the point with which I began, that the foundation of this Clause and of this Bill is that there is a legitimate, well-justified place for trade union activities.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: On licence.
  The Solicitor-General: Not on licence. That is another, separate point. Equally validly it is possible to identify activities which go too far, and it is the function of the House, and of this Committee, a function which the Government have attempted to discharge, to recognise that there are innocent individuals, innocent firms, innocent members of the community, who can be unduly harmed if we do not identify certain industrial actions which are unfair. That is at the heart of this legislation, and it is for that reason that I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: The Solicitor-General's speech shows how impossible is the situation in which the Committee has been in dealing with this Clause, because what we have been trying to do is to examine the whole Bill in a couple of days' debate. I am not objecting to the Solicitor-General's reply because he was, with perfect courtesy to the Committee, trying to deal with a number of detailed points, but his reply showed how all that we have been able to do, in dealing with this Clause, is to scratch at the surface of the fundamental

  875
  issues which, as he himself quite rightly said, we shall debate in detail later in the Bill.
  Yet it is impossible for us on this side, and, indeed for hon. Members opposite, to ignore this Clause, because of the peculiar construction of the Bill. Indeed, it is almost unprecedented in having this omnibus, general purposes Clause at the beginning. It is a kind of moral statement of attitudes, very unusual in legislation, and yet not something which we can just dismiss as being irrelevant, as various hon. Members tried to suggest yesterday, because we have this quasi-judicial link between the general principles and the sanctions in the Bill. This is why we have had to challenge every one of these general principles and to probe and examine them to see exactly what are their implications. It is really an extraordinary situation to have far-reaching general principles set out and to be told that, by law, under the Bill, they must be guiding principles to determine the performance of the Secretary of State, the Commission on Industrial Relations, the courts and the tribunals. We were told in "Fair Deal at Work" that this would be the rôle of the code of industrial practice that was to be based on these general principles. We were told in "Fair Deal at Work" that a code of practice would lay down basic standards and guidelines by which the methods and behaviour of management, employees and trade unions could be assessed by administrators and courts of law given powers under the Bill.
  10.45 p.m.
  This is about the most important Clause in the Bill because it is so comprehensive. In view of the nature of the Clause it is remarkable that in a day and a half of debate we should have got so far with it. It is a bad sign for the future work of the Committee that the Secretary of State for Employment should say yesterday that in moving an Amendment to examine the meaning of a vital word in one of these principles we were "nit-picking." That is an indication of the arrogance of the Government's approach which the Solicitor-General has been wise to avoid. Hon. Members opposite today have shown just as much interest in examining these principles, and have
  876
  taken even more parliamentary time in doing so, than we have. So I hope that there will be no more talk of a nit-picking filibuster when we look at something which, as the Solicitor-General says, goes to the very foundations of the Bill.
  For the first time we have got the Solicitor-General to answer questions in detail and we want to encourage him in these good works. Because of the comprehensiveness of Clause 1 the Solicitor-General was compelled to take one or two illustrations of what he meant by these far-reaching principles.
  In dealing with Clause (1)(d) we are concerned with the principle of freedom and security for workers. We are not dealing with collective bargaining or with procedural agreements and whether they should be legally enforceable, we are dealing with workers' rights, and we have been examining just what this concept of unfair practices means. It is only because of the breadth of the debate that it has been possible for the Solicitor-General to suggest that an examination of "In Place of Strife" and the need for an independent review body to act as a court of appeal for a union member against the operation of his union rules, as advocated by Donovan, had anything in common with the "unfair industrial practices" which the Government are planning in the name of the so-called freedom and security of the worker.
  The sort of unfair industrial practice which the Solicitor-General should talk about in this context is the unfair practice which would challenge the ideological concept of the Conservative Party that a man has an equal and unqualified right not to belong to a trade union as he has to belong to one. The unfair industrial practice we are talking about here is the Government's determination to make it impossible in future for a trade unionist to say "I will not work with a non-unionist". It is the sort of unfair industrial practice which will ring round with new hazards the concept of borrowed strength, which is what the sympathetic strike often means.
  These are the basic traditional concepts of trade unionism that are being challenged by the Government in this Bill. It is no good hon. Members opposite denying this, because this is the great

  877
  divide that is between us on this Amendment. We know the sort of unfair industrial practices hon. Gentlemen opposite want to create.
  We accept, as the Solicitor General said, that people engaged in trade unions, as in any other activity, will go beyond what is reasonable from time to time. There is not a group or organisation—this applies even to a club like that composed by hon. Members in this House—in which this could not be said to be true of its members. But this is no justification for this apparatus of law and the new sanctions proposed by the Government through their concept of unfair industrial practices. In particular, it is no justification whatever to undermine, as does the Bill, the fundamental rights won by trade unionists through the development of democratic organisation and co-operation.
  The great divide between us is in our attitude to trade unionism, which is entirely different from that in the Conservative Party. We believe that collective bargaining is an essential part of democratic expression and, as Donovan said, one cannot have collective bargaining without the organisation of workers on which it depends. We believe that good industrial practice means encouraging, stimulating and promoting the organisa-

  Division No. 60.]

  AYES

  [10.55 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Albu, Austen

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Ellis, Tom

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  English, Michael

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Cohen, Stanley

  Evans, Fred

  Ashley, Jack

  Concannon, J. D.

  Faulds, Andrew

  Ashton, Joe

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnett, Joel

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Baxter, William

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Beaney, Alan

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Foot, Michael

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ford, Ben

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Forrester, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Booth, Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Deakins, Eric

  Ginsburg, David

  Bradley, Tom

  Delargy, H. J.

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

  Doig, Peter

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Buchan, Norman

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Harper, Joseph

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Eadie, Alex

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  of workers and that it is this on which collective bargaining depends.
  We cannot accept that there is an equal right in an industrial relations context to say, "You can contract out of this democratic organisation which has been developed over the years." This is to deny the whole of the history of trade unionism and the fundamental needs of society. We believe that what we should be doing in society today is to encourage people to organise themselves for collective action, to express themselves through it, and to work for their own needs and to defend them.
  Everybody knows that the individual is powerless to influence his environment in the context of modern industry. In entitling him to contract out all one is doing is merely weakening other people's freedom of expression. We say that people should positively be encouraged to join a union and that that union should encourage its members to participate democratically and fully in the control of that union. This is our way forward, it is entirely different from that of hon. Members opposite, and I ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 247. Noes 281.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Hilton, W. S.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Horam, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Roper, John

  Huckfield, Leslie

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

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

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

  Mendelson, John

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Janner, Greville

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Millan, Bruce

  Sillars, James

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Silverman, Julius

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Small, William

  John, Brynmor

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Spearing, Nigel

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ogden, Eric

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Orbach, Maurice

  Swain, Thomas

  Kelley, Richard

  Orme, Stanley

  Taverne, Dick

  Kerr, Russell

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Kinnock, Neil

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lambie, David

  Padley, Walter

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

  Lamond, James

  Paget, R. T.

  Tinn, James

  Latham, Arthur

  Palmer, Arthur

  Tomney, Frank

  Lawson, George

  Pannell Rt. Hn. Charles

  Urwin, T. W.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Leonard, Dick

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Walker Harold (Doncaster)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, George

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, David

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Prescott, John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  McBride, Neil

  Probert, Arthur

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McCann, John

  Rankin, John

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  McElhone, Frank

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Richard, Ivor

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mackie, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Mr. John Golding.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bryan, Paul

  Eden, Sir John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Buck, Antony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Astor, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Burden, F. A.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Farr, John

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Balniel, Lord

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bell, Ronald

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Benyon, W.

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Foster, Sir John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fowler, Norman

  Biffen, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Fox, Marcus

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cooper, A. E.

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

  Blaker, Peter

  Cordle, John

  Fry, Peter

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Body, Richard

  Costain, A. P.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Boscawen, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Curran, Charles

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Braine, Bernard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Goodhart, Philip

  Bray, Ronald

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

  Goodhew, Victor

  Brewis, John

  Dean, Paul

  Gorst, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Gower, Raymond

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Drayson, G. B.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  880

  881

  Gray, Hamish

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Rost, Peter

  Grylls, Michael

  Maddan, Martin

  Royle, Anthony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Madel, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Marten, Neil

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mather, Carol

  Simeons, Charles

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mawby, Ray

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Soref, Harold

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Speed, Keith

  Havers, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Spence, John

  Hawkins, Paul

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

  Sproat, Iain

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stainton, Keith

  Heseltine, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hicks, Robert

  Molyneaux, James

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Money, Ernie

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stokes, John

  Holland, Philip

  More, Jasper

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Morgan, Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hordern, Peter

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hornby, Richard

  Mudd, David

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

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Neave, Airey

  Tebbit, Norman

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Temple, John M.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hunt, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nott, John

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  James, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Tilney, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Jessel, Toby

  Osborn, John

  Trew, Peter

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Owen, Idris (Strockport, N.)

  Tugendhar, Christopher

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Jopling, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pardoe, John

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Percival, Ian

  Wall, Patrick

  Kilfedder, James

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Warren, Kenneth

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Weatherill, Bernard

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Kirk, Peter

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Knox, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wilkinson, John

  Lane, David

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Raison, Timothy

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Longden, Gilbert

  Redmond, Robert

  Worsley, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Younger, Hn. George

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McLaren, Martin

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Hector Munro and

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Walter Clegg.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): The next Amendment selected is Amendment No. 24, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
  (e) the principle of effective consultation in decisions affecting industry with those concerned at each level, and with full disclosure of relevant information so far as reasonably practicable'.
  I understand, however, that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment were to be discussed with Amendment No. 351. If the mover of Amendment No. 24 is agreeable and
  882
  the Committee agree, I suggest that we now call Amendment No. 351 and take with it Amendment No. 24.
  Mr. Peter Archer: If that meets the wishes of the Committee, I shall be quite happy to deal with the matter in that way. If I may speak subsequently on Amendment No. 24, I shall then suggest a course of action.
  The Deputy Chairman: Yes.
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. 351, in page 2, line 3, at end insert:
  'and
  (e) the principle of workers' participation in management'.
  This is another Amendment which calls for an extension of industrial democracy and represents yet another difference in view between the two sides of the Committee. There is the view of the Government, on the one hand, that the undoubted problems of industrial strife can be dealt with by regulation, penalty and damages and by some of the provisions of the Bill which go back to before 1906. Alternatively, there is the view, expressed in the Amendment, that it is possible to harness constructively the vigour and the involvement of workers' representatives, leading beyond consultation to joint decision-making and improving the state of industrial relations.
  I wish to take an illustration of how this works. Under the Government's proposals in the Bill, the shop steward, if he represents his constituents inside his factory, is at risk of being sued for damages. He is at risk for doing something voluntarily for the people he represents. That is likely to lead to a great deal of suspicion, resistance and hostility. One can take the positive view expressed in the Amendment that by an extension of industrial democracy by workers' participation, that kind of person can be involved more clearly in the environment of the workers whom he represents and in planning the surroundings in which they spend much of their waking hours.
  I argue acceptance of the Amendment on two grounds. First, it is good for the health of our industrial society generally to have a greater degree of democracy in participation. Secondly, industrial democracy and participation can make a more practical contribution to better industrial relations.
  Let me take the general case first. There is a danger in every industrial society that where power becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, where the exercise of power becomes more remote and where, sometimes, the decisions which are made become almost incomprehensible to the people to whom they apply at the end of the line, people suffer from a lack of involvement, life becomes
  884
  less meaningful and responsibility is then removed further away from the point at which somebody is working and the point at which people are involved in their daily lives. When responsibility is far removed, people feel less responsibility for their own surroundings, and eventually this leads to their behaving less responsibly.
  In a society which has many concentrations of power, particularly in industry, we have to provide some countervailing force which enables people to feel that they are more involved, that life is more meaningful, and that they have greater control over their organisations.
  Let us look at some examples of how this tendency has developed.
  Mr. Tinn: On a point of order, Miss Harvie Anderson. May I respectfully draw your attention to the fact that there must be at least a dozen conversations going on in the Chamber, which is making it extremely difficult to hear what my hon. Friend is saying.
  The Deputy Chairman: I think the whole Committee will agree that it is much easier to speak if there is less noise than there is at the moment.
  Mr. Fraser: Let us consider the people who work for the Rootes Motor Car Company. At one time the control of that company rested in this country. The control of the Ford Motor Company rested partly in this country. Those workers are now involved in an industrial system in which power and control over those companies is exercised, not in the United Kingdom, but in Detroit or New York. People feel alienated and less involved because control has gone out of their hands.
  One can see this situation at its most effective in the United States, which has a society where people opt out, and this leads to violence, a society, understandably, which has many more strikes than we have, and the sort of society to which the Government turn to borrow its legislation. It is significant that the Government have not learned the lesson of American society, that it does not improve industrial relations simply to formalise a conflict. We must have something more positive to fight against the alienation and the lack of involvement which people feel.

  885
  In the same way as political democracy developed as a way of diminishing the prerogatives of the mighty, as a way of providing peaceful settlements of differences of opinion and conflicts of interest, so we must try to do something about solving the conflicts in industry by having a form of democracy and participation which begins to bridge the gulf between different interests in industry and provides a more peaceful way, a harmonising way, of settling disputes. Just as democratic Governments eventually learned that they had to govern by consent, so must managements learn that it is no longer a question of exercising perogatives. That is no longer the job of management. The job of management, in the words of my right hon. Friend, has to be to win consent, just as democratic Governments have to win consent.
  There is an increasing recognition outside industry of the need for greater democracy, for greater participation. Local authorities recognise that when they become large and remote there is a lack of involvement and apathy, and therefore they break down the system and try to have community councils. That is the way it is going.
  One sees it, too, in even more positive fashion in the control of schools in London where, by involving parents and people associated with the education system, one not only bridges conflicts and removes misunderstanding, but one does something else which the Government, in this Bill, are not trying to do. One harnesses the forces inside people who want to improve their environment and to improve the situation in which they live.
  It is not just a question of providing a repressive framework and of de-limiting the size of the conflict. It is a question of harnessing people's experience and involvement to make a positive contribution to the improvement of our industry and our society, and that is the kind of thing that the Amendment suggests. The previous Government had the foresight to to do this in many of their nationalisation Statutes by trying to provide in those Statutes a system of industrial democracy whereby there was greater involvement and greater participation by workers. It was done in the lamented Docks Bill. It was done in some of the nationalisation Statutes, and it was done in some of the
  886
  mining legislation, too. The result may be seen in the industrial record of the miners.
  The Solicitor-General has acknowledged the Government's debt to the United States as though the establishment of a framework of law would improve industrial relations. Looking at the figures we see that nothing is proved by them. Much more interesting is the considerable experience of those Governments with a legal framework in industrial relations that they have created by winning the co-operation and participation of the workers. The United States have about three or four times as many strikes as we have, whereas Western Germany, Norway and Sweden—countries which have introduced their legislation with the consent and co-operation of the trade union movement, and have developed systems of democracy and workers participation—have far fewer strikes than we have.
  11.15 p.m.
  There is the lesson. It is not merely the cliché of a framework that provides the answer; it is the provision of a positive involvement and a winning of the people's consent. That is why we want to try to move towards a more positive approach in our industrial relations.
  We do not have to look to America to appreciate the results of not trying to win the consent of the workers. The Government are already learning, through the four major official stoppages that have occurred since 18th June, that failing to win consent and persuading people to participate leads to an escalation of industrial unrest. In their industrial relations policy and in this Bill the Government are going nuclear with the trade unions, and the results are being felt throughout the country.
  The argument used to be put forward that official strikes were less damaging and more predictable than unofficial strikes. The Conservatives were able to say that only because, under the previous Government, we did not have official strikes of any length. The Government are now beginning to learn, by failing to obtain consent and involving people in decisions affecting our economy, that the results of official strikes can be catastrophic, and that on many occasions they are not even predictable.

  887
  The first limb of my argument is that participation is good for the general health of our society. We cannot measure morale in pounds, shillings and pence, or the way in which morale is improved so that individuals feel that they have some control over their society. We cannot measure the increase in the prosperity of the nation that arises as a result. But anybody who has been canvassing and realises how alienated people feel will recognise that it is worth trying to experiment to try to bring about participation and co-operation between management and workers, so that people feel that they have more control over their own affairs.
  The second limb of the argument is that it will make practical improvements in industrial relations. I want to quote a short passage from the report of a Labour Party working party on industrial democracy. It says:
  "Our argument is not only that workers must have the right to determine their economic environment by participating in a widening range of decisions with management (and through public agencies), but also that the current situation in industry makes the recognition of that right and measures to secure it a matter of urgency.
  We believe that the extension of industrial democracy is important both because of its likely beneficial effects on the well-being of individual workers and because of the contribution it can make to the overall efficiency of industry by removing many of the existing obstacles to a genuine collective effort in industry by both management and workers. Both factors urge us in the same direction, and we do not choose between them. They are of equal weight."
  I now turn to some of the practical contributions which greater participation in industrial democracy can make. The first obvious one is in industrial health and safety—something that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) is dealing with in a Private Member's Bill which is to be published tomorrow and which I hope everybody on this side of the Committee will support.
  It is recognised that we lose many more days through illness and industrial accidents than through strikes. There was recently legislation in view to establish a form of industrial democracy and participation to deal with safety at work, but the Government would not give priority to it and that proposed legislation fell away. That is the sort of participation that could take place. When a
  888
  chap is injured, his mates know the suffering and loss that is involved. They can make a positive contribution inside their firm or factory to reduce industrial accidents. But this can happen only if there is sharing in decision-making and if workers are allowed to help control the environment in which they work.
  This is important in productivity bargaining. If we are to have long-term improvements in productivity bargaining, we need the active co-operation of workers and their representatives. We must have their initiative and imagination to ensure that these productivity bargains bring about rises in wages without increasing the cost of living. In all these things the workers' representatives inside factories and firms must have improved servicing facilities. In other words, management must co-operate more closely with them to ensure that they have all the necessary information to pass back to their members.
  Decision-making in disciplinary matters could be shared. Most workers appreciate that those who are constantly breaking the rules—by often being late and so on affect not only the employers but the workers. There is no reason why, instead of the present exercise of arbitrary prerogatives, decisions on discipline should not be shared by workers. Decision-sharing across the board can help workers and management to identify areas of mutual interest, to the advantage of both sides.
  Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman has given a number of interpretations of the Amendment by explaining how worker participation could take place in a number of ways. How could a court interpret such an imprecise proposal? Next, in view of his earlier remarks about equality of opportunity, if it is so good for workers to participate in management, what view would he take of management participating in trade union affairs?
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the weakness of the Government's case in the first part of that intervention. I do not accept that there should be a division, with the High Court in the middle, in an effort to foster the sort of co-operation and decision-sharing about which I have been speaking. As the second part of his intervention was meant to be flippant, I will not answer it.

  889
  The channel of representation must come from the workers and their representatives. There is no question of buying off the trade unions or by-passing them. This is a method of harnessing the initiative and co-operation of those who represent their fellows on the factory floor.
  It is inevitable that there will be conflicts in industry. This was summed up in the opening words of our White Paper when we said that there must be conflicts in industry. The purpose of an industrial relations policy must be to try to harness the conflicting forces and use them constructively. That is the purpose of the Amendment, in stark contrast to the analysis of conflict given by the party opposite and their solution that only by regulation and penalty can one solve it.
  I hope that the Committee can accept the Amendment.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I hope that the Government will reject the Amendment. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) made six points. His first was the great importance from management's point of view of securing worker involvement, and many of us would agree with that. But we do not need this Amendment, and the principle of worker participation and all that follows from it, to obtain it and to carry our workpeople in the company's objective.
  Second, I take issue with him on some of the extraordinary statements which he made. For example, he said that under the Bill a shop steward will be at risk if he represents the men who have chosen him. But he will not be if he is mandated by the union or if he works within the agreed procedure. On the other hand, if he chooses to work outside the agreed procedure and is not mandated by his union, he may find himself in a different situation. It would be a considerable distortion to accept the statement made by the hon. Member opposite as being a fair assessment of what the Bill contains.
  Thirdly, he spoke about the need for winning the consent of trade unions and trade unionists for the Bill. How right he is. [Interruption.] But although many trade union leaders may have expressed opposition to the Bill, as have many hon. Members opposite, a majority of ordinary trade unionists up and down the country are in favour of the Bill. [Interruption.]
  The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Hon. Members will not further the Bill by noise.
  Mr. James Sillars rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Members speaking from a sedentary position ask me to prove the case that the majority of trade unionists support the measures in the Bill. I have had meetings with my trades council on the subject of this Bill, as I did on the subject of the previous Bill. I am asked to prove the case that trade unionists, as opposed to trade union leaders, support the Bill. The Daily Mirror, which is not a Tory rag but a responsible newspaper, is often quoted by hon. Members opposite. It conducted an independent poll of trade unionists as to their views on the contents of the Bill. Seventy-four per cent. of them said, for example, that they favoured binding contracts. I can understand why. The people who suffer almost as much as anybody else are those who are put on short time or sent home, unable to work because somebody else is on strike, although they themselves are not involved in the strike. There is ample justification for my assurance to hon. Members opposite that trade unionists up and down the country support this legislation.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I am dealing with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Norwood. He added that in the United States they have three or four times as many strikes. That is not true. They have three or four times as many working days lost per thousand employees. What he did not tell the Committee is that 88 per cent. of the strikes occurred at the end of three-year contracts. Only 12 per cent. occurred during the contract. With legally binding contracts there are three years in which management and workers can bring bigger prosperity to themselves.
  An hon. Member opposite laughs, but I know that many workers among my constituents would like to have the wage packet of some of the workers in the United States. One of the reasons for their greater prosperity is that they have ensured that their firms are prosperous and can pay them higher wages.

  891
  11.30 p.m.
  The hon. Gentleman's fifth point was that the Government had failed to give priority to legislation on safety at work. But then he let out quietly that it was only last June that the Administration of which he was a supporter had got round to introducing legislation on that subject. In other words, it took them nearly six years, yet he says that it is a failure of priorities on our part that after six months we have not introduced what his Government had not introduced after 5½ years. I do not think that other hon. Members would regard that as a very fair assessment.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman called on us for worker participation. I hope that his hon. Friends, especially those who served in the last Government, will have a quiet word with him after the debate and draw his attention to the sort of participation in the steel industry resulting from the steel nationalisation Act. In every case in the nationalised industries or under the Transport Act where there must be worker representation it has been not participation of those who work in the industry but appointments by Labour Ministers of outside trade unionists from other industries.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: For example, in the steel industry—
  Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to give misleading and incorrect information to the Committee and then refuse to have it corrected?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Order. That is not a point of order. It is a matter of judgment and opinion.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Further to that point of order. I spent 16 years in the private steel industry as an employee of John Summers and Sons. In April, 1968, I was appointed a worker director of the British Steel Corporation, and in June, 1968, I was elected as Member for Sheffield, Brightside. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman makes a completely untrue assertion when he says that the employee
  892
  directors, or part-time directors, of the British Steel Corporation were not from the shop floor.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) has referred to sedentary interruptions. He has spoken of interruptions from this side being made in an improper manner, yet every time he refuses to give way. What right do we have on the matter of interruptions if the hon. Gentleman refuses to give way?
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair but a comment by an hon. Member in debate.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) for giving an instance in which there was promotion within the industry. But in the case, for example, of the transport industry—
  Mr. David Stodart rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech in his own time. Perhaps he will allow me to make mine. I am dealing with the inaccuracies of the hon. Member for Norwood, who in his speech, which was not interrupted from this side of the Committee, gave a whole series of inaccuracies which should not be on the record without correction. I hope I have succeeded in making my point.
  Mr. John Mendelson: We have had a typical example of someone who speaks without knowing the facts about the steel industry, who does not represent an area where people earn their livelihood in the steel industry, either in management or as employees, and who lacks the courage and decency to withdraw his remarks after he has been put right. It is not untypical of some of the ignorant contributions we are having to these debates from hon. Members opposite.
  I speak as the representative of a steel constituency in South Yorkshire and also as one who served on the Standing Committee which considered the Iron and Steel Act when it was passing through

  893
  the House. There must be other hon. Members present who served with me. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman who is now Chairman of the 1922 Committee was Chairman of that Standing Committee. I refer the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) to him. I am sure that he will respect the veracity and adherence to truth of the Chairman of the 1922 Committee in ascertaining whether we are correct in putting him to rights.
  Mr. David Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Amid the uproar amongst hon. Members opposite, he obviously did not hear me thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) for showing me one example where the general principle did not apply, but in the case of the Transport Act, when the Minister came to appoint a trade union representative he did not appoint one from within the part of the plant concerned. Therefore, my case is perfectly sound, despite the one exception which has been pointed out. I cannot accept the case the hon. Gentleman is making.
  Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has the brazenness to continue what he was saying before. I am not surprised. It is within the recollection of the Committee that he began by talking of the steel industry and that he only mentioned transport later. The steel industry was his prime example and he has not even the courage to say now, "I honourably withdraw". He stands convicted by his own admission.
  However, there are matters which are much more important than the dishonesty of the hon. Member for Basingstoke, because the steel industry is a major industry and when we passed the Act nationalising it we had long and important debates on this subject of participation in the running of the industry. I do not see the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) here at the moment—I am not saying that critically but inquiringly. He attends whenever he can and will be with us again on other occasions. All the worker-directors are drawn from the floor of the industry. The examples given are not exceptions, they are merely part of normal practice.
  People who talk so glibly of the major productive industries are so ill-informed
  894
  that they do not know what they are talking about. The problem of participation is not an easy one. The Committee which dealt with the nationalisation of the steel industry took great care to hear every point of view. What the hon. Member for Basingstoke does not know, because he has not read the Committee reports, is that there was keen interest among his own colleagues in the participation of employees. This was not a one-sided matter. The hon. Member for Hallam and several of his colleagues showed interest. They have a much better appreciation of the importance of this subject than the hon. Member will ever have.
  There is a debate going on about what should be the next step. We ought to be seeing whether we can go beyond the appointment of worker-directors, and whether the methods so far applied are best. The Government are deliberately putting the clock back in introducing this Bill. In spite of all the talk about wanting to strengthen trade unions and establish the principle so British trade unionism in what I called yesterday the "fig leaf" of the introductory Clauses, no one can hide the fact that the major parts of the Bill are deliberately designed to reduce the power and influence of the British trade union movement. It is all the more necessary that we should examine these Amendments carefully and try to create interest in worker participation in industry.
  In spite of the warnings that the Under-Secretary has received from his hon. Friends I can see no reason why he should shy away from this Amendment. He will have to make a good case to persuade anyone in industry that he is right to do so. I have worked with the hon. Gentleman before and I have always thought that he had a realistic approach. I start without any prejudice. He can begin now with a clean sheet and establish himself as a man prepared to examine an Amendment on its merits. I have no idea what he will say, although I can normally predict what his right hon. Friend will say in answer to certain Amendments.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): My record is quite good. So far I have spoken once only in this Committee and I accepted the Amendment.
  Mr. Mendelson: All the better. I thought that the hon. Gentleman had not spoken very often, and he is none the worse for that. Other hon. Members could be thought of as philosophers if they had spoken less often in the debate. I invite him to keep in mind two cardinal points. First, if the Government's protestations, which I do not accept, that they are interested in making a contribution towards creating more confidence in industry are to be believed, even by their own supporters—we know that there are many employers who are gravely concerned about the implications of some of the Bill's provisions and who are convinced already that they will lead to industrial strife rather than industrial peace—let the Under-Secretary of State explain how the Government feel about the Amendment, and let him accept the positive intention and purpose behind it.
  The second cardinal principle which he should grasp concerns the standing of industry in the country as a whole. There is a dangerous feeling developing—I say this in all seriousness—that we are moving into a period in which every sector, be it agriculture, banking, manufacturing industry or whatever it may be, is concerned only with its own selfish purposes and ends. This contributes a great deal to the cynicism which hon. Members meet throughout the country, particularly among young people.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood put in convincing terms a contrary view, a view offering something positive, particularly to younger employees in industry. The least the Under-Secretary could do to make us forget the impression given by the "abominable young snowman" behind him would be to give a positive response to the Amendment.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Mr. Gurden, do I understand aright that we are considering Amendment No. 351, moved by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), and we may discuss at the same time Amendment No. 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer)?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): That is so.
  Mr. Iremonger: Thank you very much, Mr. Gurden. Although I should go a long way with a great deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Norwood—no doubt, we might identify differences here and there—I am not altogether happy about the terms of the Amendment itself. But I consider that these two Amendments taken together should commend themselves to the Committee in their intention.
  We are considering the proposition that we should add one more to the general principles in accordance with which the Bill should take effect to promote good industrial relations. By Amendment No. 351, the hon. Member for Norwood would add:
  "the principle of workers' participation in management".
  Amendment No. 24, in the name of the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, is rather longer, but I think that every word of it counts:
  "the principle of effective consultation in decisions affecting industry with those concerned at each level, and with full disclosure of relevant information so far as reasonably practicable".
  There is something to be said for both, and I cannot see anything wrong with the second Amendment. It would, in my view, greatly enhance the possibility of acceptance of the sincerity of the professions of my right hon. and hon. Friends if it were adopted. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept it.
  Mr. Hooson: I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). I prefer Amendment No. 24. But we are in a difficulty here on account of the drafting of this Bill. Clause 1 contains the general principles, instead of their being in a Preamble. If we pass an Amendment of this kind, which I very much support, it will have no effect unless specific proposals are made in later Clauses, because the general principles are only an introduction to the Bill. If there is any doubt about the interpretation of later Clauses, then regard can be had to the general principles.
  What we are discussing now is the principle of the matter and I am very much in favour of it. I am very much in favour of a Bill to deal with industrial relations in this country and, in general, I have supported the Government on this matter so far. I am very

  897
  much in favour of the principle enshrined in both of these Amendments, though I much prefer Amendment No. 24.
  I suggested on Second Reading that it was a great mistake by the Government to go to the United States almost exclusively for their precedents, because, in many respects, the United States' background is very different from that of Europe and they have failed to pay sufficient attention to the developments in countries comparable to our own, particularly West Germany, Norway and Sweden.
  In their own way those three countries have a much better industrial background, at least in modern times, than we have. Their industrial production per capita has gone up at a higher rate than in our country, and it is of great significance that those three countries have encouraged worker participation in managerial and other decisions. A great deal of time has been spent in West Germany trying to ensure that a worker can be represented on the board of directors, by virtue of his status as a worker. If shareholders have a right of representation on a board, why cannot a worker have the same right by reason of his status as a worker? It is argued that a shareholder's capital is at risk, but a person's job is involved if he is a worker.
  If we are going to have greatly improved industrial relations in this country and break this tradition of strife, with the constant division of our country into capital on one side and labour on the other, we must try to bridge this gap. As I see it, these Amendments are directed towards trying to bridge this gap, and I hope that the Government can make a gesture and accept the second Amendment, in particular, because they are wrong in their basic approach to this whole problem. I prefer their Bill to doing nothing at all about industrial relations in this country, but I should have preferred to see the approach taken in Germany, where they began with a workers' constitutional law in 1952. That enabled plant in Germany to have very good industrial relations, by providing a statutory framework whereby, if any works employed more than, I think, 50 people, it was necessary for that works to have a works council on which workers had representation.
  898
  That is one of the secrets of the success of West Germany's industrial relations, and they tackled the problem not at the highest level as the Government have done, by laying down various rules for the unions and so on, but at the lowest level the plant level, where most of the trouble starts; where the friction between workers and management is likely to occur more often than anywhere else, and where, if there are no proper procedures available for dealing with a problem, it can get out of hand and spread from one plant to another and then throughout a whole industry.
  I hope, therefore, that the Government will very carefully consider the two Amendments proposed, and that they will come to the conclusion that it would be right to accept one or other of them, and that in the code of practice which is to be published eventually, under Clause 2, some kind of practical expression can be given to the spirit of the Amendments.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The reason I want to make a brief intervention at this stage is that hon. Gentlemen opposite have been blatantly unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). I shall come to that later.
  First I want to say a word on these two Amendments. I do not find them objectionable. I found some of the comments made on them objectionable, and quite unparliamentary—and I look at the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) when I say that. I rather commend the words of the Amendments. Anybody who understands anything about industry knows the strength which can be given to good relations in industry by having worker participation at director level, particularly if the workers at director level come from the floor of the industry in which they become directors. I agree with that.
  However, as my hon. Friend was saying, workers who have become directors have not generally been appointed directors in the industries in which they gained their experience. There have been exceptions, and we have had testimony to show that, and we want to see that practice grow properly, but we shall be blinding ourselves if we ignore the

  899
  fact that up to now there have been very many, perhaps too many, directors who have not been appointed as such in industries which they have really understood.
  However, if these words mean what I think they mean I hope that my right hon. Friend will look at them with sympathy and, perhaps by Report, find words which will bring us all closer together than have some extreme speeches we have been hearing in this debate.
  Now I come to the point which really brought me to my feet. The hon. Member for Penistone, as always, is able and articulate, and exaggerates, and he can be unpleasant.
  Mr. John Mendelson: No.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: To accuse my hon. Friend, who made a very proper contribution, of dishonesty is not only unpleasant but is unparliamentary, and he was allowed to get away with it.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. On two occasions the hon. Member has accused my hon. Friend of using unparliamentary language. With respect, Mr. Gurden, that cannot be true, because if it was true you would have stopped my hon. Friend. So would you please explain to the hon. Member that it is a reflection on the Chair to suggest, as he has, that you allowed my hon. Friend to use any unparliamentary language?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): Some accusations made in debate are matters of opinion. I am not sure exactly what the original remark was. I was not quite sure that I heard it correctly, but if it was a remark accusing an hon. Member of dishonesty I am sure that the hon. Member will withdraw, for such a remark would have been unparliamentary.
  Mr. John Mendelson: I have no intention of withdrawing. Mr. Gurden. The hon. Member, as will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow, started off by talking about the steel industry. He said nothing about industry in general, as the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) is now arguing. He talked about the steel industry, and then he mentioned the steel industry again, and, being caught out, he tried to make a general argument. It was to that that I directed myself.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Member for Penistone made a charge against my hon. Friend. Whatever mistake my hon. Friend may have made—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—whatever he may have said or done, the use of an unparliamentary term, calling him dishonest, within the hearing of the Committee, as the record will show, is wrong. That is not the first time the hon. Member has done it, and it will not be the last, and he never withdraws.
  12 midnight.
  Mr. Heffer: I understood that we were discussing an important Amendment and that the general view expressed by both Opposition and Government was that we should deal with it in a serious and intelligent manner without any filibustering or unnecessary speeches which have no relevance to the Bill. I ask, Mr. Gurden, that this should be drawn to the attention of the Committee.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Gurden): Decisions in these matters are for the Chair.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has neither the quality nor the qualifications to tell me how to conduct myself in a parliamentary debate. I am to some extent expressing sympathy with the Amendment put down by his hon. Friend, and I hope my hon. Friend will take that point into account.
  I am concerned with the conduct of the Committee, and that is why I am dealing with the hon. Member for Penistone and some of his hon. Friends who misconducted themselves a few minutes ago. The hon. Gentleman chided my hon. Friend that he was not talking with authority because he did not represent a steel constituency. The hon. Gentleman said that he represented a steel constituency. I represent a railway constituency, but I would not presume to be an expert on railways any more than he has any claim to be an expert on steel.
  My hon. Friend was maltreated. Four or five hon. Gentlemen rose in the middle of his speech to question him. Under the guise of a point of order it was said that because he said something which they thought was wrong he should automatically give way to them. We are in Committee, and that means that hon. Members can make any points they wish to make. The Mace is not on the Table—
  Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to be filibustering in this way?
  The Temporary Chairman: I detected nothing of the kind.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was trying to teach the hon. Gentleman some manners. If an hon. Member wishes to be called in Committee he is entitled to be called. On Second Reading an hon. Member is entitled to ask another hon. Member to give way. If hon. Members will remember that they are entitled to make a speech in Committee, this may restrain them from interrupting and so save time.
  I hope that the Amendment will be looked at seriously. It would be a good thing to encourage participation even up to director level, but we must do it by giving strength to organised trade unions and by taking away the power to interfere from the unorganised trade unionists who are usually led by the hon. Member for Penistone.
  Mr. Peter Archer: At this time of night I have no wish to delay the Committee by inviting a duplication of discussion. I agreed with most of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), and I am grateful to two hon. Gentlemen opposite who said that they preferred my Amendment No. 24. I hope they will not think me perverse if I venture to disagree with them, and I will say why.
  There are three differences between Amendments No. 24 and 351. Amendment No. 24 speaks of consultation "at each level". What I envisaged was not merely an attempt to solve the problem of appointing workers to the board. It has already been said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that many of the most important decisions are taken within the framework of the workshop. Where those decisions are taken, it is equally important that there should be participation. I hope it will not be thought that there is a legal alliance when I venture to agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Last night he called me a "blackleg", but certainly I wholly agree with him in regard to participation.
  Secondly, my Amendment No. 24 invited a full disclosure of information. I
  902
  do not resile from that for a moment. Where there is not a full disclosure, one party is negotiating with hands tied behind his back. We shall have an opportunity to discuss both those points subsequently. We are now on what has been called an extended Preamble to the Bill. I doubt whether this part of the discussion is necessarily appropriate at this stage.
  The third difference is that Amendment No. 24 uses the word "consultation", whereas Amendment No. 351 uses the word "participation." I prefer the word "participation" and it was only due to an oversight that I used the word "consultation". It would not be honest to invite the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 24 on the basis that I intended to make a distinction between "consultation" and "participation when such was not my intention. In these circumstances I do not propose to move Amendment No. 24, but invite the Committee to take the same point on Amendment No. 351.
  I make no apology for the imprecision in either the word "consultation" or the word "participation". The point was raised that these words would be difficult to construe as a point of law, but that point hardly lies in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite when, in the Clause itself, they are inviting the courts to construe the principle of
  "collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted".
  It will certainly be no more difficult for the courts to construe words like "participation".
  What was in my mind in proposing the Amendment was the essential principle that it is the right of employees to feel part of the undertaking in which they spend the majority of their lives. One of my objections to the introduction of traditional legal concepts into industrial relations is that those concepts themselves are in need of a certain degree of modernisation. The whole of the existing law on industrial relations is based on a concept of the law of contract which was developed to meet the needs of merchants in the City of London. It met them extremely well and continues to do so. However, I doubt whether it meets the needs of most of the situations that arise from day to day, and indeed from hour to hour, on the shop floor.

  903
  We are still beset with the feeling that, unlike the management and shareholders who are part of the enterprise, the employees are not part of the enterprise. They are people with whom the enterprise makes contracts for the supply of components in a workshop that may be a hundred miles away or with the customer a hundred miles away for the disposal of products. The employees are no more closely associated with the enterprise than any other suppliers in other enterprises.
  That is fundamentally open to challenge. To say that the employee may spend the greater part of his working life day by day and year by year in the service of an undertaking but is not part of it, but merely a party to a contract, whereas somebody who last week acquired a bundle of shares and does not even know what the company makes, is a member of the company is fundamentally wrong and until that is reformed, it does not do to try to bring the tradition—
  Mr. McBride: Is my hon. Friend making the proposition that where management is entitled to a fair return on capital investment, my fellow worker is entitled to a fair return because he has invested his life?
  Mr. Archer: I could not put it better than that.
  Sir E. Brown: If we are to follow that to its logical conclusion and we have a year where shareholders sustain a loss, is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that workers in that industry take a cut?
  Mr. Archer: Unhappily, there are employees or ex-employees in my constituency who found themselves in that position and their loss was much greater than that of the shareholders.
  I challenge the idea that it is a matter for the decision of management who shall be engaged as employees whereas those who find themselves working shoulder to shoulder with them day after day have, at best, a right to be consulted where appropriate overall.
  Surely their interest in the people over whom they work is at least as profound as that of management? The concept is that it is a function of the company whether they shall transfer production from a factory in my constituency to
  904
  Japan, but those in my constituency are at least as concerned in that decision as the people who take the decision a hundred miles away.
  In considering the Bill I was drawn again into reading a book which sent cold shivers down my spine when I first read it, the book by Ellen Wilkinson called "The Town that was Murdered", which partly impelled me to join the Labour movement. The theme was the remoteness of decisions from those employees concerned with the decisions.
  The book concerned the formation of a company called National Shipbuilders Security Ltd., formed to rationalise the shipyards. Its whole purpose was to buy a shipyard and close it down and deliberately destroy the equipment so that those employed there saw, not only the loss of their jobs, but the loss of their whole prospect of being employed for generations. This would be a harmless excursion into history were it not that the remoteness of decision-making is still with us.
  Mr. Derek Coombs: No one who has practical experience of decision-making would disagree that worker participation should be encouraged. I think it should be encouraged as much as possible, but I do not see how this can be given practical expression in the Bill. Participation is important and trade unions could play a much more active part but have not so far, in my experience, tried to relate increased profitability to wage increases and annual bonuses. If the party opposite encouraged the trade union movement in that direction, they would be doing a great service to the British economy.
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. Archer: At this stage we are discussing Clause 1, the extended Preamble. There may be opportunities later to discuss how we could write into the Bill some practical suggestions for furthering these ideas.
  If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to demonstrate their commitment to this principle, they might do worse, as my hon. Friend said, than accept the principle of the Employed Persons (Safety) Bill which is to be moved in due course by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan).

  905
  That sets out the whole idea of participation by those most immediately concerned, the employees, in an important sector of industrial relations.
  In fairness, I say at once that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) said something similar when we discussed the Employed Persons (Health & Safety) Bill on 2nd March last year. The hon. Gentleman said:
  "The improvement of safety standards must, in the last analysis, depend upon willing co-operation between management and worker." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March. 1970; Vol. 797, c. 70.]
  The only point where I suspect that we differ—the hon. Gentleman may be able to reassure me even on this—is that I do not see the distinction between applying this in the important sphere of industrial safety and in other aspects of industrial relations.
  I venture to suggest that there are obvious limitations to this kind of principle. Clearly I do not suggest that people should be invited to take technical decisions for which they are not qualified, any more than I suggest that the chairman of the board should take decisions which are properly taken by the electrical consultant as to which way round the power supply should be connected. I venture to suggest that the assumption is basically wrong that those who have contributed money are more intimately concerned than those who have contributed their life's work.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would, I think, be on balance an actual loss if the proposed new paragraph were added to this subsection. I want to tell the Committee briefly why I think so.
  I found myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), who moved the Amendment, when he laid stress upon the function of management—indeed, the necessity for management—to win consent. That was the important idea which the hon. Gentleman emphasised a number of times in his speech. In fact, that truth goes far beyond industrial management. In all spheres of Government or leadership, the winning of consent is of the essence. No enterprise of any kind can succeed as it should—indeed, it can hardly survive—without the winning of the necessary consent.
  906
  Sometimes I feel that in the language in which industrial relations and industrial disputes are discussed in this country there is a tendency to overlook the fact that the responsibility for the obtaining of consent is a prime responsibility of management. It is not something, as it were, shared fifty-fifty between employer and employee, between management and workers. It is at the heart of management. If there is a breakdown in relations between a company and its employees, between management and workers, then the first place to look for the cause and the responsibility for that breakdown must be with management, since, without the winning and maintaining of consent, management itself cannot function. To that extent I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Norwood. Indeed, I stress the point perhaps even more than he did.
  But just because this is specially the responsibility of management, I do not believe there are any general rules which we can lay down about the methods by which that responsibility is to be discharged. There was a good deal of talk in the earlier stages of the debate about representative directors and forms of representation of workers on the board. This may be, and no doubt is, one of the methods which may be used for the purpose of the winning of consent; but the ideal approach to the winning of consent is as various as the forms of enterprise themselves. Indeed, I would go further and say that it varies with the personality of the actual management of the undertaking. This, therefore, is a responsibility which we cannot seek to capture and frame within general rules or laws.
  The hon. Member for Norwood referred several times to conflict as the necessary environment of the relationship between management and workers, between employers and employees. There is here, I think, an important and a rather dangerous confusion. It is a confusion between conflict, on the one hand, and difference of function, on the other hand.
  There is a distinction of function between management and workers, as there is between supplier and customer, buyer and seller. The difference of function, however, which for efficiency may well need to be as sharp and clear as

  907
  possible, is not conflict. Indeed, that difference of function is itself an essential of co-operation. We falsify the picture when we introduce the notion of conflict into these economic relationships. That is another reason why, in the search for the particular form through which a management will win consent, we would be ill advised to go in search of general principles and general regulations.
  Having said that, I come to the question whether we should add the proposed paragraph to the subsection.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman has made the point that there is a clear demarcation between employer and employee. Will he indicate where this difference between manager and worker lies in a nationalised industry?
  Mr. Powell: If, in the nationalised industries, that distinction is blurred or is of a different character from what it is in private enterprise, that it may well be a reason why, as was brought out earlier in the debate, certain specific provisions on that head had been made in some of the nationalisation Acts. The hon. Member may well have a point there.
  I return, however, to the question whether we ought to add this paragraph to the subsection. I have indicated that I am no admirer of the idea of writing into the law of the realm the sort of generality which we find in the subsection; but at least we can say of the generalities at present in the subsection that they refer to matters which can be assisted, and certainly can be affected, by the legislation which follows in subsequent Clauses. "The principle of collective bargaining", for instance, is general enough in all conscience, but at least the Bill is about the framework of collective bargaining.
  If we introduce into the subsection the principle to which the Amendment refers, we are likely, first, to give the false impression that the responsibility for winning consent, which rests with management, can somehow be affected by legislation, can somehow be altered one way or the other by provisions in a Measure of this sort, whereas that responsibility will be the same after the Bill is on the Statute Book as it was before. So we obscure what ought to be
  908
  clear by the suggestion that the winning of consent can be facilitated by such legislation as this Bill. We also imply, which I believe is equally false, that deductions could be drawn from the necessity of winning consent as to what ought and ought not to feature in the remaining Clauses of the Bill.
  I submit, therefore, that in this context the paragraph would not merely be irrelevant but would be harmful, in that it would tend to imply that that can be made a matter of law and of regulation which is implicit and inherent in the responsibility of management itself.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: I could not help feeling that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) shifted from one foot to the other during his argument. At one time he seemed to be in favour of workers' participation, but when it came to the crunch he retreated as rapidly as he could from the conclusion of his own argument.
  We are dealing with a general preamble. The central purpose of the Amendment is the principle of workers' participation, and the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody does that in Germany where the principle of Gleichmerechtigung has been introduced, where the principle of participation has been made a reality, it has worked successfully. In West Germany the strike record is one which can be the envy of the Western world.
  As regards the practical illustration of this theme, I think the proof lies to hand in the fact that here there is direct worker participation in the direction of firms. So far from there being a conflict of tensions which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about, somehow synthesised in a working together of workers and management on two different sides of the table, here is proof that participation can work.
  There is one argument for participation which perhaps may not have been advanced this evening, and that is the fact that one of the most compelling reasons for strikes is the monotony of labour. In industrial cities such as Coventry we find time and again that men who are interested in their jobs, who are concerned for their families, are ultimately driven to strike simply because they feel

  909
  that their function is one of a helot, that they are turning a screw or moving a spanner, and they are doing things which are merely repetitious, which are soulless, and which divorce and alienate them from the function of the company as a whole.
  One of the essential things to do to create an effective system of industrial relations—and that should be the purpose of the Bill if it has any purpose at all—is to try to make the worker feel that he has some part to play in the operation of the company of which he is a member. For this reason the principle should be enshrined in the Bill that there should be worker participation, either in a constitutional form which would give workers access to the board, or give them the opportunity ultimately of becoming members of the board. Unless there is in the Bill some principle which enshrines the policy that a worker is not condemned permanently to sit on one side of the table, but that there can be an interaction between management and labour in such a way that the worker can aspire to and achieve the direction of his company in some measure, we shall perpetuate a system which dates from the first Industrial Revolution, in which there are two sides of industry, with one side completely alienated from the control and direction of the company of which it is a member.
  In their reaction to the progressive ideas which are represented on this side of the Committee hon. Gentlemen opposite have introduced a kind of Victorian workhouse politics. They would like to effect a return to the attitudes and principles which governed the first Industrial Revolution, but that simply will not do. What is really necessary if there is to be a constructive creative tension and not the conflict which hon. Gentlemen opposite claim they are interested in ending—if there is to be constructive co-operation between management on one side and labour on the other—is that there must be some hope for the men doing the soulless operations which mass industry requires today that they will have a direct participation in the control of the company.
  12.30 a.m.
  I will not use the word "management", because that evokes certain technical considerations. I confine my-
  910
  self to the idea of participation as an aspect of control. In the 20th century it must be clear that men who feel that they are merely objects in a consumer-producer society, and feel they have no opportunity of determining their own destiny, will ultimately react by engaging in precisely the kind of wildcat strike that the Bill is endeavouring to bring to an end.
  If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had the courage of his convictions he would not only have spoken in favour of the Amendment, as he did at the beginning of his speech; he would have come to the clear conclusion that he should support it by his vote. I hope that the Amendment will be pressed to a vote, because the theme of participation is clearly the theme of industrial democracy, without which there cannot be any kind of social democracy. Unless the worker in his place of work feels that he is participating not only in creating an end product but in the social action in which he is involved, we shall continue to have the conflicts and divisions that the Bill professes to seek to end.
  I hope that the Amendment will be carried, because unless we think in terms of industrial democracy—unless we give the worker the opportunity of feeling that the old regime of management and labour sitting in permanent confrontation on two different sides of a table is coming to an end—even if the Bill is passed I am sure that the resistance of the worker to being treated as a helot in his own place of work will continue, and will lead to the strikes that the Bill is seeking to end.
  Mr. Gower: I echo the sentiments of those of my hon. Friends who say that they approve of the motives which inspire the Amendments, but I share the misgivings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) at the incorporation of this kind of wording in the Bill. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) was right to describe the tedium of modern repetitive processes in industry, but I cannot believe that a person engaged in some process in the motor car industry will find that tedium any the less because one of his former colleagues is now on the board. Those processes are tedious; that is the nature of much

  911
  of industry today, but I cannot believe that the mere addition of a worker-director will in any way remove this unpleasant attribute of much of modern industry. To do that we must look elsewhere.
  Like my hon. Friends, I approve of any measure that will tend to lessen the harshness of those processes that have tended to separate employers and employees; but to do this we should look not to this kind of Amendment. We should consider some extension of industrial co-partnership and the introduction of fiscal measures to encourge the spread of that kind of thing in industry.
  There is another misleading factor about the Amendments. If we adopted the principle of workers' participation we should be giving blanket approval to the idea that it is the right solution in all cases. Our industry is so varied in size and character that it would be most inappropriate in some cases and very appropriate in others. It may best be achieved by the strengthening of workers' councils or by improved joint conciliation machinery. It need not necessarily always be satisfactorily achieved by putting a worker into management.
  Management can be a particularly imaginative function. Sometimes a certain genius is required. Often a firm will owe everything to the imagination of one man. For example, for Tesco's and other firms in the distributive trade the departure of one man from the board could be a severe blow.
  I agree that we want to narrow the harsh division that at present exist in industry. I do not believe that this will be done by this sort of blanket proposal which, if applied to some industries, could have disastrous results.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: Hon. Gentlemen opposite not only lack understanding of this subject but also lack imagination. When they can suggest, as the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) did, that worker participation boils down to putting one worker on a company's board, we begin to realise how little they know about this problem and why it is becoming such an issue in the nation.
  I have refrained from taking part in this discussion because I have not regarded myself to be an expert in Indus-
  912
  trial relations. But having heard some of the contributions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I see no reason to remain silent.
  I will give an example of a strike which caused me considerable concern. It occurred just before the last election. I went to a factory gate meeting at Rootes, now Chrysler, in Linwood where the boys said, "We're sorry, Norman. We appreciate that a strike at this time will be exploited, but it cannot be helped." And it was exploited, but that is not the point of my example.
  At that motor car factory many men work on the track. If there is a hold-up in the trim shop, there is a hold-up in the track. The same applies to every other department. With regular monotony, the vehicles roll on and off the track and the men who work on it are anxious to be put on to other individual work.
  The management were recruiting men and they were finding it easier to recruit people for the individual work rather than for the track, first because it is more attractive work and second because they need train the men only for the individual jobs they would be doing. Meanwhile, the track men were anxious that new staff should come in through the track and progress to the individual jobs, as they had to do. The strike arose simply because the management could not appreciate the desire of the men to get off the track onto more individual work. This is the kind of problem which can be solved if we have the right concept of worker participation at an earlier stage, not when they are coming to conflict and demanding meetings. Management should understand the feelings growing up among workers. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) will understand the track neurosis concept.
  A representative on the board is valuable, because workers can feel that they have a voice there of someone who understands. We have made a little progress. It has required intervention by Government to do it. We have had the example of the steel industry. Another example was the unfinished experiment at Fairfields. Fairfields was, unfortunately, absorbed in Upper Clyde Shipyard. But the failure of the experiment brought in participation in two ways. First, there

  913
  was a common purpose between Government and workers' participation—I remember hon. Members opposite sneering at the time—in the form of investment of trade union money. There was a lot of criticism about the way it worked out. Nevertheless, there was this participation of trade union money plus worker representation on the board. It was only a tentative experiment. Hon. Members should read Professor Alexander's book "Fairfields—An Unfinished Experiment". The experiment did not stop conflict. There is sometimes merit in conflict. There is plenty of conflict in the trade unions, but that does not stop them doing their job. There is plenty of conflict in management. At Fairfields there were conflicts, but they were resolved very often at mass meetings in the cinema when the entire work force was there sometimes, knocking hell out of the management, and vice versa.
  This goes well beyond merely the appointment of one member to the board. There is a point in what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) says. He distrusts the enunciation of general principles in a Bill. That is a matter for his Front Bench to decide. He distrusts further the writing in in legislative form of these general principles. Many of us on this side of the House distrust most of the legislative writing in of some of those principles too. Participation requires, above all, a lack of legislation in its handling. We do not use law to relate problems within a family. We do not need to use law to get the right kind of relationship in industry. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that there is some excuse because the Bill deals with industrial relationships, and sets out the method of solving disputes and so on.
  Hon. Members opposite must recognise the amount of open hostility and tension which they are creating and the lack of trust in the Government which exists. We see it in the statement of Mr. Chapple, who is not normally a very extravagant speaker, when he referred to the membership of the power inquiry yesterday. With the kind of distrust and hostility which the Government are creating, I have never known a nation to be divided in two so quickly by a Government.
  The acceptance of the Amendment would at least give us something to build
  914
  on for the future. If it cannot be spelled out in detail in the Bill, it can be spelled out in detail by practical methods. My hon. Friend suggested that it could be done in my Bill to be published tomorrow which would introduce workers' committees on the question of industrial safety. All hon. Members should support this, because something like three times as many days are lost through industrial sicknesses and disease as are lost through strikes. This would be a practical manifestation of the Government's serious and genuine concern about the problem of working days lost. I place great hopes in the Minister, both for my Bill and the Amendment. I appeal to hon. Members opposite to accept it.
  Above all, I ask Conservative hon. Members one other thing. There are certain trigger words which, when used in the House, set off a kind of reaction in hon. Members opposite that shows their failure to understand the nature of the people with whom they are dealing. I have heard the words "shop steward" produce giggles and sometimes jeers on the benches opposite. I think that below the surface of some of the Conservative back-benchers is a kind of contempt for workers, a kind of feeling that they cannot run their own affairs, and above all a profound determination to try to ensure that they are never given the opportunity.
  The Amendment will be a test of their sincerity, and I hope that they accept it. I hope that the first manifestation of their acceptance will come when my Bill is discussed in a couple of weeks' time.
  I appeal to hon. Members opposite, "Please have some imagination. Do not just restrict yourselves to the thought of one man on the board. If you are genuine in trying to create one nation, this is one way to try to set about doing it".
  12.45 a.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: These Amendments are interesting, but what has been most interesting in our discussion is the degree of harmony expressed on both sides about the spirit of the Amendments. There has not however been quite so much harmony about the wording.
  I thought that I would welcome Amendment No. 24, and I rather regret that the hon. Member for Rowley Regis

  915
  and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) confused the issue somewhat by saying that he no longer wished to press it because he had intended to incorporate "participation" in it instead of "consultation". If his Amendment were taken simply as it stands I should be more than willing to support it, because I think that it is constructive and helpful, and that its wording is most reasonable.
  I should like particularly to congratulate the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) on the fine, and in many ways luminous, way in which he spoke about the importance of participation when speaking to Amendment No. 351.
  Everyone who has experience of personnel management or has spent many years in industry will know that he is right. But, again, the precise definition of what the hon. Gentleman wanted to express seems to me to have escaped him. He referred to the situation in Germany. What he should have noted is that in Germany the board is divided into two halves—the supervisory board and the executive board. It is on the supervisory board that the Germans have established the principle of worker participation, not on the executive board.
  If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment had read," … the principle of workers' participation in supervision of management …", it would have been a really constructive and sensible suggestion. But as it stands it could only be confusing, and I would not be prepared to recommend my hon. Friend to accept it. It is very important to separate the supervision of the executive from the executive function itself. It is unfortunate that British company law has not yet followed the German example in making this clear distinction. Until it does, such an Amendment is bound to be premature.
  Mr. Sillars: I support the Amendment. Like every hon. Member on this side, I am anxious for the creation of harmony in industry. But we must look at industry dispassionately and objectively, analyse the situation on that basis, and after that analysis build a reasonable structure for industrial relations. Its foundation, to use one of the favourite words of the Solicitor-General, must be realism.
  916
  One of the first questions we must ask ourselves when considering industrial relations concerns the issue of conflict. Is conflict inevitable and necessary?
  I take issue with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who tried to relate the differences between capital and labour to the differences between a man selling a shirt for Marks and Spencer and a man buying it. There is a vast difference. It arises on the point that capital and labour involves political power in this country and the allocation of political power between the group holding capital and the group which sells its labour. There is bound to be conflict. There is necessarily a conflict of interest and we would do well to recognise that that fact will exist irrespective of the type of society one lives in. Poland is a Communist society but the recent events there clearly illustrate that there is a conflict of interest involved between capital, be it State capital or not, and labour.
  Industrial relations is no place for the do-gooder in industry. I used to work with the Scottish T.U.C. in charge of its Organisation Department. About 18 months ago, I had a letter from a religious organisation suggesting that the way out of our industrial problems was to give a Bible to every worker in the country and recommend to them the acceptance of the principles contained therein—two million Bibles in Scotland would resolve all our industrial problems.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: But would not my hon. Friend agree that, if the principles involved in the Bible, Christian principles, were lived up to by everybody in industry, we would not be sitting here at five minutes to one o'clock on a Wednesday morning wasting our time?
  Mr. Sillars: The only prize I won at a school was a Bible and I regard myself as a reasonable expert on the Bible. I bring the matter of the Bible up only because I want to bring home to the lawyers opposite the great difficulty of legislating in human relations. The Word of God, handed down thousands of years ago, has caused untold trouble through the different interpretations put upon it. If that has happened to the Word of God, God help us when we come to the word of the Tory Party contained in this Bill.

  917
  We are involved in a basic situation of life. One of my fundamental objections to the Bill is to the assumption that runs throughout it, and has been spelt out by hon. Members opposite—that the workers are like commodities, that somehow or other they can be treated by trade union officials and signed away to them quite happily like a bill of account. They are nothing of the kind. Workers do not divest themselves of their humanity the moment they clock in. They are the same people inside the factory as they are outside. They have a point of view. They have hearts and minds. They are flesh and blood. They can be quick to anger. They can have an off-day like anyone else. Any man who thinks he can legislate, through a framework or straitjacket of law, to take account of every human situation that arises in industry is a fool, because human beings are involved.
  But part of the trouble with the Conservative Party is that they do not want harmony in industry at all. They want to shift the balance of power in our society towards the employer whom, by and large, they represent. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot complain if we say that we do not trust them in this matter, because when one examines the employer's side of industry they do not even trust themselves. One of the biggest growth industries in Britain is industrial espionage, and one of the other big growth industries is anti-industrial espionage. They have the espionage men going where we sensible people in the Labour movement have Bridlington to resolve our problems. We do not really trust the Conservative Party at all, and I should be most surprised if they accepted this Amendment, which is concerned with the principle of participation.
  Perhaps I should spell out what I regard as being essential in participation. I do not want workers to be patronised by being handed a stencilled copy of what the managing director thinks they should have as information. When I speak of participation, I mean the right to an effective say in marketing policies, in pricing policies, in sales policies and, most important of all, in investment policies, because the worker is entitled to a say in investment since that determines his job opportunity and the job opportunity of his children. Last, but
  918
  by no means least, when I talk of participation, I mean the right to have the employers' books opened up to see whether we are dealing with honest men. Most trade unionists regard that as an essential ingredient of participation and I suggest that if the Conservative Party want to move towards a harmonious situation in industry, in order to remove as much of the conflict as possible, they will have to come to an effective worker participation scheme much quicker than they realise.
  It was Aneurin Bevan, one of the great leaders of the Socialist movement, who coined the phrase:
  "The need to take control of the commanding heights of the economy …"
  Since he coined that phrase, the commanding heights have become more commanding, and his commanding heights are now the foothills of some economies, both in this country and in European and world contexts. The position of the individual worker vis-à-vis his employer is relatively worse than it was 10 or 20 years ago, and he is much more isolated in his work situation than he has ever been before. Working people are now reaching out—vaguely perhaps—for a degree of industrial democracy. My grandfather, who took part in the General Strike and the rise of the trade union movement, put a great deal of faith in the political franchise, but, as events have proved, that faith was wholly unjustified. The political franchise is not enough. The worker needs an industrial franchise to have a greater degree of control of the power in industry, if he is to control his life and his standard of living.
  Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member has been talking about the very responsible jobs in which he thinks the worker ought to participate, such as marketing, investment, finance and so on. Jobs of that sort would be done at boardroom level, so I presume that he is talking about worker participation at that level. I wonder whether the hon. Member could answer a question. If there is worker participation at the boardroom level, then, presumably, in the hon. Gentleman's view, the worker will remain a worker. But will he remain a worker in the view of the other workers whom he has left?
  Mr. Sillars: Yes. Provided that the scheme for the introduction of worker participation is a sensible and voluntarily agreed scheme, I believe that he will. But I should confess that there are difficulties in constructing a worker participation scheme. It is a fair criticism of the trade union movement, that we have waited far too long and have been far too dilatory in moving towards the situation where the T.U.C. has recently set up a high-powered committee to examine the private sector. The last Government had a committee working which now, through the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations on the Railway Industry, has a contribution to study in the public sector.
  I regard it as essential to introduce and develop workers' participation. It is a thoroughly sound principle. The prerequisite for industrial peace in this country is industrial justice, and the prerequesite for industrial justice is a fair and effective say for the British worker in the place at which he earns his livelihood.
  1.0 a.m.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that I am not here to represent the employers. I am a member of the Government, and, for good or ill, I am here to represent my constituents as well. The sort of comment which the hon. Gentleman made does not help a debate such as this, which has been extremely serious and, if I may say so, one of the most interesting and one of the best discussions which we have had so far on the Bill. Apart from two spirited interludes concerning my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), all the contributions have been thoughtful, and, while there has been a diversity of opinion expressed, a great deal of interest has been aroused, as has been evident from the number of hon. Members who have taken part.
  I shall approach the subject with the same seriousness. Although I shall probably say things which hon. Members will not accept, I shall none the less mean them sincerely, for this is a subject in which I have a keen personal interest, as has the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). The hon. Gentleman once did me the honour
  920
  of supporting a speech which I made on a theme closely related to tonight's debate, that is, the soullessness of some kinds of work and the need for extra help for those who have uninteresting jobs. It is a great human theme, tied up very much with the principle of human dignity, and we should do ourselves a disservice, whatever our political party, if we did not recognise that it may present one of the big problems in the years ahead, probably during the rest of our lifetime at least. Those of us who have interesting jobs—even though we are still at it at one o'clock in the morning—sometimes tend to overlook that aspect of the matter.
  I shall not succumb to the blandishments of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), but I assure the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton that we shall consider sympathetically the possibility of adding a principle similar to the one which he expresses in Amendment No. 24:
  "the principle of effective consultation in decisions affecting industry with those concerned at each level, and with full disclosure of relevant information so far as reasonably practicable".
  Mr. Peter Archer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is encouraging when he makes that kind of approach. But, in that case, what is the distinction in his mind between participation and consultation which makes it so difficult for him to accept Amendment No. 351, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser)?
  Mr. Smith: I shall come to that. At this point, I am glad to tell the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton that we shall look at his point sympathetically. It is just coincidence that I happened to be concerned last night and accepted his other Amendment. It will not necessarily become a habit. But we are pleased to have his contributions.
  I entirely agree that we should encourage the idea that individuals who work in industry or anywhere else should feel part of the undertaking in which they spend so much of their lives. Employees must be encouraged more and more to be part of the enterprise in which they work. I am sure that enlightened managements agree with that, because it produces better results, it produces greater profits, and it creates a better standard of living for the community as a whole.

  921
  There is a point in the Bill which goes a little way towards encouraging better communication and that is the information which will be provided, in the larger companies, to employees. This will in many ways be akin to information provided to shareholders. The hon. Gentleman chided us a little, talking about a hand-out from the managing director. As we envisage it it will be useful and valuable information which will go a little way towards encouraging those working in industry to feel that they are part of the complex and know what is going on. It is important, it is a start, because there have been some managements who have failed to get even basic communications across to their workers. The Bill can be improved by a form of words such as that enumerated by the hon. Gentleman and that is why we will give due consideration to them.
  The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) spoke with forcefulness and a good deal of passion. He took a line different from what I anticipated. I must be honest and say that I am far less happy about his Amendment. He referred to the lack of involvement and the feeling of the individual, in isolation, in some of the complexes in which he works. I agree with him about that, but his Amendment goes far too wide. It is far too general to be accepted as a main principle in the Bill. I agree with many of his points. The individual must be protected from the big battalions. He must be protected from both sides of industry, from the excesses of employer and trade union. In many ways this is what the Bill is about, because it asks for equal responsibilities from both sides of industry. It is fair in its application and basically promotes good industrial relations.
  If we adopted this rather generalised principle we could well have a type of involvement advocated by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. He is entitled to his point of view, saying that he thinks that there should be worker participation in marketing and finance. I am sure that without the requisite skills this could be a recipe for disaster. We have to approach this carefully.
  Mr. Sillars: A moment ago the hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend's Amendment was far too wide. Can he explain how much wider it is than that
  922
  word "responsible" in Clause 1(1)(c)? With the best will in the world, at ten past one in the morning I cannot see the difference.
  Mr. Smith: If the hon. Member will listen I will try to develop some of the matters that this would raise. He said that this would involve workers in marketing and financial decisions which I think would be unacceptable to large sections of industry. I do not want to get into a debate about the question of "responsible". It has very definite meanings to me, if it has not for the hon. Gentleman. In the circumstances the Amendment cannot be acceptable even though we accept that it is put forward with a great deal of goodwill and sincerity.
  The hon. Member for Norwood also spoke about health and safety and said that we should be doing something about this in industry. He brought up the old chestnut of many more days being lost in industry through illness and accident than through strikes. I wonder how many factories have been closed up and down the country as a result of industrial accidents or illness. Perhaps very occasionally because of some very unexpected 'flu epidemic, or because of some terrible explosion which wrecked a factory, a whole factory has had to be closed, but we all know that, overall, the incidence of illness, as in the House of Commons or in offices or anywhere else, is spasmodic, whereas it seems to me that we have seen in industry, particularly in the British car industry in recent years, strikes occurring with regularity, in every other week in some cases, it seems, with various production lines closed. So I do not think we can equate health and safety with strikes in counting numbers of days lost.
  We do not ignore this question of sickness and accidents. It is very important. It is a human problem, and we are all concerned—both Governments have been concerned—with it. Indeed, we are actively encouraging the Robens committee of inquiry into health and safety which the right hon. Lady set up during her period of office. We gave approval and a general welcome to Part I of the Employed Persons (Health and Safety) Bill which was brought before the House. I myself did from the Opposition Front Bench at that time. I know that the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has introduced a Private Member's Bill which is virtually Part II of

  923
  that former Bill. He will know that, on behalf of the then Opposition, I expressed reservations about that Bill, though I admitted that there were good parts in it which could be of service; but I had a number of serious doubts, as did my hon. and right hon. Friends. What I would say to the hon. Member in all fairness is that we shall be debating this in extenso in due course when we can consider it on its merits, when the Bill comes up.
  Mr. Buchan: I do not intervene to speak of my Bill, but of what the hon. Gentleman called an old chestnut of a comparison between 23 million days lost in 1969 through industrial injury and disease and 6·8 million days lost through strikes in the same period. I think the hon. Gentleman said it was a chestnut and that it was not a proper comparison. There are two points to be made about that. In the first place it is a reasonable statistical comparison. There is an overall statistic of work days lost through sickness or injury, and through strikes. It is a reasonable comparison. Secondly, quite apart from the fact that some factories are closed altogether as a result of accidents, there is, surely, the point that very often after a strike the lost production is caught up with again, but that when people are off work because of industrial accidents or disease they are off a long time, six weeks or two months, say, and that loss of production is often not caught up with—and they may not be able to return to work at all. This is not chatter: it is a serious point.
  Mr. Smith: I accept that that is a problem, and it is an important problem and one which must not be overlooked in the context of the number of days which are lost, but my argument was that usually a whole industry or factory is not completely closed down because of illness, because its incidence is spasmodic, whereas debilitating strikes severely injure the economic performance and export performance of the country, when industry does go out of action almost entirely. That surely cannot be a good thing, and it is the unofficial strike which is so serious, and which is tackled by the Bill.
  Mrs. Castle: I just take up the earlier point about safety, health and welfare legislation which we introduced and which this Government have given no guarantee of reintroducing in its entirety. Hence my hon. Friend's Bill. Would not the hon. Gentleman accept, when we are talking about workers' participation, that rights and responsibilities for safety are among the most practical expressions we would have of workers' participation? If the Government are going to pay any lip service to this theme, they must accept my hon. Friend's Bill.
  Mr. Smith: As I said, we think the first part is sensible. On the second part, we feel that the voluntary concept probably can do as much as if not more than compulsion. The right hon. Lady anticipated her legislation by announcing the committee of inquiry which is far-reaching and may produce ideas which ultimately require further legislation.
  Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Norwood were generally agreeable, although I do not think they can be tackled by the principle which he proposed. I agree with his plea for enlightened productivity bargaining and that there must be much more consultation with the individual worker to make him feel part of the organisation. Again it is important that the wording of the Bill should be precise.
  The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) asked how the courts would interpret the principle put forward in the official Opposition Amendment No. 351. I agree that they would have great difficulty, and they would certainly have great difficulty in interpreting the phrase suggested by the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. John Fraser: Is not the point that the courts might have difficulty in interpretation but that a Commission on Industrial Relations would not? It is the introduction of the courts that leads to difficulties by having a uniform procedure imposed upon the parties instead of encouraging voluntary bargaining and imaginative and constructive attempts such as the one put forward in the Amendment.
  Mr. Smith: There are several authorities which have to take account of these principles, including the C.I.R. and the

  925
  courts, and the phraseology must be accurate to ensure fairness. The first principle in the Bill is the best approach to industrial democracy:
  "(a) the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted;"
  That is the best guarantee of worker participation. I know that "In Place of Strife" is anathema to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), but if he can bear with me for once more quoting from it, paragraph 49 says:
  "There are various ways in which workers can participate in management. The most effective is through membership of a trade union which negotiates with management on all questions affecting conditions of employment including, for example, the introduction of new machinery, manpower planning and deployment, and disciplinary and dismissal procedures."
  That is perfectly fair and leads one to the conclusion that participation is better achieved in that way than in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Norwood.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must admit that the Labour Government of which my right hon. Friend was a leading member passed legislation on the public ownership of the steel industry which introduced for the first time the formula of access to company papers and books being available to representatives of the work people. He is not prepared to go any part of the way towards such a definition in the Bill.
  Mr. Smith: I was coming to that point. The Donovan Commission also had doubts about worker participation outside the theme that it should be done by collective bargaining, which was put forward in "In Place of Strife".
  On the whole, it is far better to proceed on the lines of the proposals of the Amendment No. 351, bearing in mind that a carefully defined principle could perhaps be included, such as that put forward by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that if Amendment No. 24 was not to be proposed by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton, where else would it be supported in the Bill? I believe the code of conduct will probably be able to bolster up that particular concept.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Smith: No, I am sorry. I keep on giving way. I shall be accused of stringing out this matter. There may be something to be said for carefully worked out experiments of the kind currently going on in the steel industry, but it would be foolish and incautious to accept this form of participation as being so well validated as to justify the embodiment of these principles in the Bill. If we are to consider worker participation at that level, I have grave misgivings about it, but I do not throw it out entirely.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths rose—
  Mr. Smith: No, I will not give way. The matter should be considered separately since it has implications for company law. This Bill is not the vehicle in which to put forward worker participation where it might involve those who would go on to boards. Management decisions usually have to be taken at a high level and the art is a pretty skilful one. I know that there are bad managements and bad directors who do not deserve to be in office, but in modern industry the large majority of people involved are professionals and are in the job because of their abilities. I think that in some respects a worker-director might find himself a fish out of water, perhaps with divided loyalties.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Smith: This is true. In big industry today most of the directors have come up the hard way. I can think of some who have come up from the shop floor, but they may be experts in marketing or in finance. Unless one has these particular individual skills, it could be very difficult.
  The Industrial Relations Bill published by the Labour Government contained no provision for experiments involving worker participation. Indeed, in all the publications in connection with the Consultative Document put forward by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) there was no specific commitment to going ahead with worker participation. I believe that this is not the time to do it in the type of phraseology which has been put forward by the hon. Member for Norwood. Therefore, I must recommend to the Committee that, in spite of the good will behind Amendment No. 351 on many factors, we should reject it, but we

  927
  are prepared to look at the proposals advanced by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton.
  Mr. Heffer: The Under-Secretary of State revealed his position and that of the Conservative Party by saying that a worker-director appointed to a board of management would feel like a fish out of water. This shows the basic thinking in the Tory Party about workers. They must always be kept in their appropriate station and must never emerge from it. Their appropriate station is never to become part of a board of management because they would not understand it, would be out of their depth, and so on.
  It is a rather disgraceful remark, because at one time in this debate I almost got the impression, particularly from some speeches by hon. Members on the back benches, that the Government would accept the Amendments. At one time the olive branch was being held out and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), and other hon. Members were saying that there was a great deal in this Amendment. But when it comes down to it and the Government make their decision clear, the Amendment is too wide and could be a recipe for disaster and anybody who got there would be a fish out of water.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Would my hon. Friend give way? Would he not agree that one hon. Gentleman opposite has condemned the experiment of the British Steel Corporation with worker directors which has been going for nearly three years and talked about people being out of their depth. Ignorance shown by the hon. Member in dismissing this experiment in a few words shows how little he knows about the experiment which is the only one going on in this country in participation. In rejecting the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) the Under-Secretary has shown an ignorance of the position which has never been outdone in this Committee.
  Mr. Heffer: I will not disagree with my hon. Friend, but the Minister at least had some knowledge that there were worker-directors in the steel industry, while it was clear from the speeches of some hon. Members opposite that they had no knowledge of it at all. They
  928
  revealed complete ignorance of the matter.
  This is a serious business and I would like to dwell on the situation not only in our industrial society but in every industrial society in the world, whether in America, Russia or anywhere else. Increasingly, decisions are made by management which is remote from the shop floor and workers have become cogs in the mechanism of great industrial combines, publicly or privately owned.
  We have to recognise that there is a deep difference between the workers in the great mass production industries and the old-time craftsman who had a real stake in his craft and had something to get his teeth into, with a job that he carried through while the worker in the mass production factories merely carries out a number of operations without having anything to say about the decisions taken in that factory.
  To epitomise that, if we cast our minds back to that wonderful Charlie Chaplin film, "Modern Times", we see the type of problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) referred, of track psychology as the problem of modern industry. Workers feel alienated from their work because of this problem of having no function in the decision-making of their industries and factories. That is a problem we must face in industrial society.
  1.30 a.m.
  That is why we have put down this Amendment. We do not see it as something remote, something which is not real in industrial relations. It is at the very heart of industrial relations in a modern industrial society. That is why I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
  I should like to comment on one or two of the points which have been made during the dispute—[Laughter]—dispute. It was a dispute, and it obviously is a dispute. If there was no dispute hon. Gentlemen opposite would accept the Amendment.
  During the debate one of my hon. Friends pointed out that the Government were bringing in a Bill which would ultimately lead to bigger and better strikes. That is what the Bill means. It is supposed to deal with the problem of unofficial disputes. If the Bill was successful

  929
  in dealing with unofficial disputes, and if we followed the pattern of the United States' legislation, we would certainly get less strikes, but they would be bigger, longer and, in the long run, more damaging than strikes we get now. This apparently is what hon. Gentlemen opposite want. This is what lies behind their philosophy and thinking.
  If we have an extension of genuine industrial democracy with the workers participating in managerial decisions, obviously we shall be laying the real basis for the elimination of the conflict in industry which arises from the simple fact that managements, on behalf of owners of and shareholders in industry, wish to make the maximum profit and the workers wish to get the best possible wages and conditions in terms of modern industry.
  An important point was raised by one hon. Gentleman opposite during the debate. He asked: if the workers were involved in management, would they be prepared to take a cut in wages if the firm was doing badly?
  This is a fundamental question which must be looked at in the light of the experience of workers' participation in management in countries where they do participate. The answer is that the workers, as a result of their activity in management, would meet and discuss investment, marketing, how much profit should be used, how much should be ploughed back, the level of wages during a certain period, and so on. That is what it would mean.
  I am going to be a little heretical here. I believe that, even in a full socialised economy, we would need some form of competition to get the best type of product. My argument is not that there should not be competition; it is that the profits which are made as a result are

  Division No. 61.]

  AYES

  [1.37 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Albu, Austen

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Booth, Albert

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Atkinson, Norman

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

  Concannon, J. D.

  Barnes, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Barnett, Joel

  Buchan, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Baxter, William

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

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Beaney, Alan

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgewood

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cant, R. B.

  Dalyell, Tam

  wrongly used under capitalism but could be properly used in a socialised economy.
  It is noticeable that, when we begin to deal with the problem of workers' participation in management, hon. Gentlemen opposite immediately lose interests. Apparently it is a matter which can be talked about in an airy-fairy way, but which they have no intention of putting into operation.
  We in the Labour Party began with our worker-director experiment in the steel industry. It was only a first, faltering step. We would obviously like to go much further. There are much more diverse methods of worker participation, and I think that we should try them all and not be bound to one concept.
  I accept the point, which has been made by some hon. Members, that if one merely takes a worker from the shop floor and puts him in as a director, it is possible that after a time he begins to accept the view of the management and does not represent the workers at shop floor level. Experience can teach us to overcome problems of that sort, however, and I believe that we could overcome them if we were determined to put them into operation in a sensible and intelligent fashion.
  Hon. Members may say that this is not the sort of debate that we should have on the Bill, but I believe that worker participation in management is fundamental and at the heart of industrial relations in modern industrial society. Because of that, I ask my hon. Friends to support the Amendment, particularly as the Government have decided to reject it.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 255.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Johnes, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lamond, James

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Latham, Arthur

  Richard, Ivor

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leonard, Dick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Eadle, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

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

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roper, John

  Ellis, Tom

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Evans, Fred

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Faulds, Andrew

  McBride, Neil

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  McCann, John

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McGuire, Michael

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Foley, Maurice

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sillars, James

  Ford, Ben

  Mackie, John

  Silverman, Julius

  Forrester, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Small, William

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spearing, Nigel

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Springgs, Leslie

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Stallard, A. W.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Ginsberg, David

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Strang, Gavin

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Hannan, Willaim (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hardy, Peter

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Harper, Joseph

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)

  Tinn, James

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Horam, John

  Murray, Robald King

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Wallace, George

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Watkins, David

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Oram, Bert

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hunter, Adam

  Orme, Stanley

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Janner, Greville

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  John, Brynmor

  Pardoe, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. William Hamling and

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Mr. John Golding.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cockeram, Eric

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Coombs, Derek

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Braine, Bernard

  Cormack, Patrick

  Astor, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Costain, A. P.

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brewis, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Curran, Charles

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balniel, Lord

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Batsford, Brian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Bryan, Paul

  Dean, Paul

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Burden, F. A.

  Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Benyon, W. R.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Dykes, Hugh

  Biffen, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Eden, Sir John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Blaker, Peter

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Churchill, W. S.

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

  Body, Richard

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Boscawen, Hon. Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Farr, John

  932

  933

  Fell, Anthony

  Knox, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lane, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fidler, Michael

  Legge-Boucke, Sir Harry

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Longden, Gilbert

  Foberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Loveridge, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fowler, Norman

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rost, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  MacArthur, Ian

  Royle, Anthony

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

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fry, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Scott, Nicholas

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Simeons, Charles

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Madel, David

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

  Gorst, John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Soref, Harold

  Gower, Raymond

  Marten, Neil

  Speed, Keith

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mather, Carol

  Spence, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawby, Ray

  Sproat, Iain

  Green, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stainton, Keith

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stoddart-scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Stokes, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Molyneaux, James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Money, Ernie D.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Havers, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Temple, John M.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mudd, David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Murton, Oscar

  Tilney, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Holland, Philip

  Neave, Airey

  Trew, Peter

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hordern, Peter

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hornby, Richard

  Normanton, Tom

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Nott, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wall, Patrick

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hunt, John

  Page, Graham (crosby)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wilkinson, John

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pounder, Refton

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jopling, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  Younger, Hn. George

  Kilfedder, James

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Redmond, Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Kirk, Peter

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  1.45 a.m.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 352, in page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): It will be convenient to the Committee if the following Amendments are discussed at the same time:
  Amendment No. 353, in page 2, line 6, after 'State', insert 'and'.
  Amendment No. 354, in line 7, leave out from 'Relations' to 'and' in line 10.
  Amendment No. 346, in line 10, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 14.
  Amendment No. 347, in Schedule 2, page 109, line 26, leave out Part II.
  Mr. Rose: Yes, Sir Alfred. It is in subsection (2) that we go to the heartland of the case against the Bill. The existing agencies are to be placed within

  935
  the context of the National Industrial Relations Court. It will thereby take on a new form and a new significance. It is the injection of this legalism into the hitherto voluntary framework of industrial relations, and the agencies concerned with industrial relations, that is perhaps the most objectionable feature of this irrelevant and irresponsible assembly of trans-Atlantic abstractions.
  Recently, in relation to the Family Incomes Supplement, we were told with some conviction by the Secretary of State for Social Services—and we listened with some incredulity—that what the country needs is F.I.S. If we are to continue with this "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through the Looking Glass" terminology, what this country does not need is E.N.I.R.C. It is ironical that this proposal should be made at a time when the French Government, on the other side of the Channel, have announced that intervention in such relations is damaging, and that there should be a movement towards a voluntary system of the type that exists in this country. Despite the Government's provocative actions, which have already doubled the number of days lost through strikes, we are, nevertheless, still only in the foothills of strike figures compared with the Himalayan peaks which prevail in those countries which have the kind of legal enforcement procedures and institutions which are now proposed.
  More sinister is the fact that at a time when the C.I.R. was beginning to get off the ground on its basis of voluntary co-operation with the trade union movement and employers, the Government are now sabotaging the voluntary action begun by the C.I.R. and they seem hell bent, in direct contradiction to all that was implicit in the Donovan Report, on recasting legislation and erecting enforcing agencies which are already in the process of destroying hard-won voluntary co-operation.
  Not only have the Government sabotaged the effectiveness of the C.I.R., but the bitterness in industrial relations injected by these proposals is already self-evident in the rash of industrial disputes deliberately fermented by the Government.
  936
  That well-known Left-wing militant Lord Robens summed up the fundamental fallacy of this proposal, and the proposal to create the N.I.R.C., in his Sir George Earle memorial lecture on 30th November last when he said:
  "On a more practical level, it must be agreed that the icy, iron precision of the law makes a strange bedfellow for the intimate, delicate fabric of industrial relations. Not many trade unionists or employers are versed in the disciplines or modes of thought employed in our courts. They are essentially practical men well versed in the arts of negotiation and compromise. By definition, these have flexibility and a pragmatism which cannot be reflected in a court, however informally constituted."
  What we are contemplating here is the creation of what is, in effect, a new branch of the High Court, even if it is without the Jacobean costumes, as they were termed by the Solicitor-General at the Industrial Law Society.
  That in itself is an action which ignores history. It conveniently shuffles off the traditional attitudes among the judiciary that led from the case of Regina v. Bunn via Taff-Vale, to Osborne and Rookes v. Barnard and Stratford v. Lindley. Throughout the history of industrial law, there has been sought the intervention of the legislature to prevent the disruption of trade unions.
  In 1872 we were told by The Times, just as Bunn and his colleagues were going off for their term of imprisonment, in terms that echo in this Bill 99 years later:
  "It is the office of law in such matters to maintain the rules of fair fighting."
  That was "fair fighting" in a situation in which the wealth, capital and the means of propaganda are concentrated in the hands of one of the combatants only. Lord Robens can see the damage that will be inflicted by the inflexible putative father of this Clause, conceived in the darkness of the pre-Donovan era in the shady confines of the Inns of Court—and more probably in the Inns of Court of the Conservative and Unionist Association. Like so many others in management, Lord Robens is aghast at the disastrous consequences of introducing the rigidity of law enforcement into industrial relations. In his lecture he pointed out that the imposition of the inflexible fabric of legally enforced rules into industrial relations could easily cause the downfall of the most moderate

  937
  elements in the trade union movement, and he said:
  "It is certain that neither employers, nor trade unions, nor Government, nor the people of this country can possibly benefit from such a situation. As far as good relationships and good manners are concerned, legislation and the law are not a suitable arrangement."
  Indeed, the N.I.R.C. is hardly likely to attract any trade unionist into collaboration with its panel.
  But it has laymen sitting on it. What we shall have in effect is a judge and an employer, and perhaps an academic with particularly reactionary leanings because nobody else will join it. This is the kind of body we shall be faced with. If the memory of Taff-Vale is remote today—some members of the Liberal Party might have been here, because some of their predecessors would be turning in their graves if they knew the turn their party was taking—the remoteness of the judiciary from any practical knowledge of industrial relations has not diminished over the last 65 years since Taff-Vale. In the United States and elsewhere it has become increasingly recognised that industrial arbitrators, rather than judges, are far better equipped to enter the field, as in 95 per cent. of cases they do. Judges are usually fair men. They are trained in the particular discipline—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: We all know how generous and methodical is my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). Did he give notice to the Liberal Party that he would mention this? He will notice that not one member of that party has taken the trouble to be here. To have it on record, I should like to know whether he thought that one might be here.
  Mr. Rose: Trying to give notice to the Liberal Party is like trying to give notice to a pin in a haystack.
  Judges are usually fair men, trained in a particular discipline—the same discipline as the Solicitor-General and I were trained in—and rewarded since I have been in the House by increases in salary at the High Court of £4,500 per annum. But it is a discipline ill-suited to deal with the complexities of industrial relations. There are the Lord Wrights, with decisions as in the Crofter's case, and the Lord Donovans occasionally correcting the bias.
  938
  The problem inherent in using the machinery of courts in industrial relations was expressed in that classic and frank admission by certainly a radical judge, the late Lord Scrutton, when he said:
  "The habits you are trained in, the people with whom you mix, lead to your having a certain class of ideas of such a nature that, when you have to deal with other ideas you do not give as sound and accurate judgments as you would wish … it is very difficult sometimes to be sure that you have put yourself into a thoroughly impartial position between two disputants, one of your class and one not of your class."
  The whole ethos of the Bar, with its pre-entry closed shop based primarily on ability to pay, heavily biased against the working class entrant, and the whole ethos and history of the higher echelons of the judiciary, is such that no trade unionist is likely to have confidence in the N.I.R.C. I do not know how many judges are members of working men's clubs, but I am sure that some share the same clubs as hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
  The creation of the N.I.R.C., with its proposed functions and framework laid down in this Clause challenges the soveignty of Parliament. Responsibility is taken away from the Secretary of State, a responsibility which is subject to the supervision of Parliament. Judges will assume responsibility for the interpretation of some very imprecise definitions—we have had some already—of an unpublished code, of a metaphysical concept of fair practices, and the correction of badly drafted definitions which leave the obvious impression of a completely arrogant ignorance of shop floor practice. Hon. Members only have to glance across the pages of the Bill to see some of the definitions we have already discussed and the problems of interpretation.
  Yesterday the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), speaking for the Liberal Party, was talking about the word "responsibly", and this part was debated. As yet we have not had a definition from the Secretary of State, because the definition will have to be made by a court of law, which will protect the right of any person
  "to be a member of such trade union as he may choose".
  Therefore, a miner may join the engineers' union, or U.S.D.A.W., according to the imprecise definitions in the Bill.

  939
  If we turn over the page of the Bill we find the words "deter", "penalize" and "discriminate against". "Discriminate against" was defined in the Race Relations Act, but it is not defined here in this context. No attempt has been made to define all these terms. This will be left to the N.I.R.C., which will have the remarkable task of interpreting 140 pages of what I can only describe as legalistic mumbo-jumbo. It will be for the N.I.R.C. to decide whether a trade union is doing
  "all that is reasonably practicable"
  with regard to the position that arises where an unconstitutional strike occurs.
  Mr. Fidler: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Race Relations Act, which is based on voluntary action but in the last recourse must go to the courts. Where does he draw the distinction between that and the Bill?
  2.0 a.m.
  Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman may know something about the Race Relations Act, but his past performance in the debate indicates a scant knowledge of industrial relations. What he has failed to understand is that "discriminate against" is defined in the Race Relations Act in relation to that Act. It is not defined here; there is no definition Clause. The definition of "discriminate" in terms of industrial relations will have to be left to the N.I.R.C. I think that the hon Gentleman has missed the point.
  It will also be for the N.I.R.C. to decide what is reasonably practical for a trade union to do when there is a so-called unconstitutional strike. What does that mean? According to the Solicitor-General's evidence to the Royal Commission at paragraph 5776, he expects trade unions to sue their members, to suspend them—indeed, to expel them. His evidence was so pitiful that it was no wonder he admitted that it was not a question of cutting down the number of strikes—I refer hon. Members to paragraph 5795—but merely altering the frontier at which they took place. He admitted:
  "We can all be demolished by such questions as, how effective is the remedy going to be?".
  The secret is in shifting the frontier. What we really have is a euphemism for weighting the scales.
  940
  They are to be held in the long arm of the N.I.R.C. The ultimate regulation of industrial relations is henceforth to be entrusted to courts and lawyers. A veritable lawyers' paradise is to be erected on the dismembered remains of the body that was once voluntary industrial relations procedure.
  What is more, so much of the legislation to be enforced by the N.I.R.C. is unenforceable that it will severly damage the prestige and reputation for impartiality that our courts of law have, because policy-making functions cannot be performed on the basis of evidence that would be admissible only in a court of law.
  Part II of Schedule 2 sets out the rules concerning the N.I.R.C. Judging by the debate on the Courts Bill and the problems with regard to the administration of justice, I think that we shall provide another millstone around the neck of those trying to expedite the administration of justice.
  I found it hypocritical yesterday when the Government accepted an Amendment by my hon. Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), who asked for an Amendment to deal with expedition, because the N.I.R.C. will do exactly the opposite. Yet another charge on the public purse has been created by a Government pledged to cut down public expenditure. Moreover, the court—and let it not be forgotten that it has the sanction of imprisonment for contempt provided for in Schedule 2, Part II, which makes it clear that the statutes of the court is to be equivalent to the High Court and the Scottish Court of Session—is to be left with these ultimate powers.
  There are matters here which will be debated in great detail at a later stage. I want only to deal with some specific matters in this context. One specific objection to the creation of the N.I.R.C. in this subsection is the basic one to reliance upon the enforcement machinery of a court of law rather than on the good will and co-operation that is so valid and vital to good industrial relations. The N.I.R.C. is so ill-equipped to perform functions which should properly be around a negotiating table, or performed by the Minister in conjunction with the C.I.R. and the parties concerned. It is

  941
  to be a policy-making body clothed in judicial robes charged with a rôle no less than that of re-shaping the whole of industrial relations in Britain.
  So a court and not the Minister is to become the arbiter of deciding the development and the maintenance of what are termed "orderly industrial relations". It is to decide what is and what is not an unfair practice in the light of subsection (1); it is to decide whether an employer has complied with the provisions on disclosure. And the functions of the court in relation to Clauses 32 to 39—deciphering, interpreting and now, in this case, creating collective bargaining procedures, creating "agreement" where no agreement has ever been arrived at—make the mind boggle. This is not the rôle for a judicial body. The rôle of the N.I.R.C. in imposing unagreed procedures on parties which are not in agreement is perhaps the most astonishing function ever imposed on a British court of law. The absence of Jacobean costumes will not alter that fact one iota.
  It was said yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that we have these things in the Sale of Goods Act. But, in that Act, the implied terms were laid down by Parliament and not by a court of law. They can be omitted by agreement and they are implied in a contract voluntarily and freely entered into by the parties concerned. So the analogy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who appears to represent the Liberal Party from time to time in this Committee, certainly does not stand up to scrutiny.
  There is also to be an appellate function in regard to registration procedures. The Solicitor-General was misleading in his speech on the Consultative Document, when he understandably refused to give way to me on four separate occasions. The appellate jurisdiction is in Clause 92. That function, in Donovan, was to be vested in a review body, with a chairman and two persons selected from a panel of trade unionists. That is to be found in paragraph 2658 of the Donovan Report. For the Solicitor-General to suggest that the N.I.R.C. in any way compares with the review body proposed by Donovan is a travesty, and it is understandable that he refused to give way to me on that occasion.
  Paragraph 1110 of the Donovan Report is worth looking at because of what
  942
  it says with regard to enforcement. It said:
  "… propose only one completely new permanent institution—the Industrial Relations Commission. … The existing industrial tribunals will be transformed into labour tribunals whose jurisdiction will be extended to include disputes between individual employer and employee arising out of the contract of employment and also complaints by employees of unfair dismissal."
  That is what Donovan favoured.
  The powers set out in Clause 90 are so immense and so unjustifiable that the proposal can derive no legitimacy from the Donovan Report. It is a spurious monster, deriving from the arid legalistic mind of rigid and obstinate lawyers who are industrially illiterate, cloistered in the Temple, and without any experience of work on the shop floor. Clearly, they are far more familiar with—[Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to intervene, let them do so in the normal way, not mutter from a sitting position.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Gentleman was not being very complimentary to his professional colleagues. Having listened to him for a little while, I have come to the conclusion that he must have written his speech in the Temple.
  Mr. Rose: I have not been uncomplimentary to my colleagues. I have been uncomplimentary about a certain section of them, those who are cloistered in the Temple and who have had no experience of the shop floor. Such people are ill equipped to deal with the problems of industrial relations. There are many lawyers who have a great deal of experience on the shop floor, of arbitration and of industrial procedures. But anyone reading the evidence of the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Society given to the Donovan Commission can only come to the conclusion that this was the creation of a particular group of lawyers cloistered in the Temple, in the serenity of the Temple, shall I say, instead of persons who have been in contact with the hurly-burly of the factory floor. A few months in a factory would be a better education for them than the period of tutelage which we all have to undergo.
  By the way they are dealing with this problem and by the superstructure of the N.I.R.C. which they have created, they are undermining the whole voluntary

  943
  effort which is being made in industrial relations. The N.I.R.C. is vested with powers in relation to the so-called cooling-off period—which many of us might call a hotting-up period. It is strange that it has a function in relation to that, just as it is strange that it has a function in relation to strike ballots. What good can a court of law do in the administration of these matters? It has to make policy decisions, on the one hand, in the guise of judicial decisions, and this is rivalled only by its assumption of a role in relation to enforcement of agency shops, a proposal so ludicrous that responsible employers are throwing up their hands in horror at the prospect of the disruption which will be caused on the shop floor, particularly, say, in the engineering industry, by the N.I.R.C. deciding on matters such as the agency shop. It is like trying to treat a stomach ulcer with a large dose of arsenic, and it is about as relevant to industrial relations.
  The Clause represents a constitutional change of such magnitude and significance that it is likely to cause turmoil in industry and do irreparable harm to our largely successful, though by no means unblemished, system of free collective bargaining and procedures. Already, the effects are being felt. Moderate trade union leaders, men like Alfred Allen of U.S.D.A.W., feel bound, because of this provision and hedging of it about by subsection (1), to resign from the Commission. Alfred Allen is a man who, with me, the other night, fought tooth and nail against suggestions coming from the audience that there should be industrial action against this Bill. A man like that has no trust in this Government, and, if such men can have no trust in the Government, what hope is there of their ever securing the voluntary co-operation of trade unionists?
  Coercion will take the place of voluntary co-operation. That will be the inevitable result of imposing the N.I.R.C. upon the voluntary structure of the C.I.R. The N.I.R.C. is a body clothed with power to subpoena, to order the production of documents to demand evidence on oath. It is hardly an informal helpful body.
  It is a court which will create as elaborate a body of case law as ever
  944
  filled the volumes of the All England Law Reports. With this kind of tediousness and legalism, conducted by the N.I.R.C.—and it is characteristic of a court of law rather than of a tribunal for industrial relations—we are to imitate in the field of industrial relations the sort of situation in the Chancery courts at the time of Charles Dickens.
  2.15 a.m.
  The position—and this was made clear in Answers from the Attorney-General to Parliamentary Questions which I tabled very recently—is that any Supreme Court judge may be nominated as a judge of the N.I.R.C., but he will not on such nomination cease to be a judge of the High Court or of the Court of Appeal, as the case may be. It was said that it is not possible at this stage to say precisely how many judges will be required. It is not possible to say at this stage what sort of salary will be paid to the judge and to the other members of the court. All we are told about this body is that it is capable of enforcing a code of law which has not yet been drafted, by judges who have not yet been appointed, at salaries not yet specified, and with complete uncertainty whether any legal aid will be available for those involved in procedures before it. It is astonishing that the Solicitor-General or the Secretary of State can come to this House and propose this Clause when these matters have not yet been decided upon. We are being asked to give a blank cheque to a body charged with deciphering almost undecipherable terms of the type in subsection (1) that we have been debating, which the Minister himself refused to undertake to define.
  It is interesting to compare the N.I.R.C. with its equivalent in, say, Australia, with its equivalent State and Commonwealth Arbitration Commissions. Perhaps they are more relevant because of their trade union structure, which is more similar to our system than the system in the United States. They have created a rise in legalism and delay, with lawyers soaking up considerable fees. We are all aware of the astronomical figures of days lost in strikes in Australia, compared with our own.
  Reference has been frequently made to Mr. Lowry and his study. He said that the legalistic nature of the procedure

  945
  in the United States, for determining which labour practices are unfair and how elections should be conducted, has led to massive case law to keep abreast of which, let alone to comprehend, must make life very difficult for those engaged in industrial relations in the United States. The same sentiment has been expressed to me by employers and managers at every meeting that I have addressed in the last few weeks, since I was pitch-forked onto this Front Bench, on the subject of industrial relations. So that the N.I.R.C., with its framework which is set out in subsection (1), will inject this new mass of legal technicalities into the already highly charged atmosphere of industrial relations, and the Bill with its attendant provocations, more particularly in the public sector, is already coming home to roost.
  If we turn now to the industrial tribunals, they are now saddled with the job of interpreting subsection (1), and this alters the whole concept of what I have found to be largely expeditious and very fair tribunals. I have no complaint against the industrial tribunals in the exercise of their present functions—I could not have, because I have never lost a case before one. The new framework, with new quasi-criminal functions for the industrial tribunals, will render them unacceptable and will destroy the good work that they have done. So, again, we see the sabotage of what have been relatively successful and informal tribunals which have expeditiously dealt with problems arising from redundancy and contracts. The concept of the industrial tribunal is of a speedy, non-legally oriented and informal body. It already has to deal with a fair amount of case law, but the function of the industrial tribunal is now to be changed in such a way that trade unionists will no longer have the confidence in it which they had before. Certainly, so far as expedition is concerned, it will not be able to get through the three cases a day which it manages to get through now.
  In a study undertaken by Mr. Charles McCormick from California on industrial tribunals, he says:
  "It may be questioned at the outset whether lawyers are really as neutral as might be hoped. By and large, their class origins, education, and professional practice will have brought them more in contact with employers than with ordinary employees."
  946
  I do not believe that this matters when all that they are dealing with are problems arising from a contract of employment or redundancy. But when they are saddled with the tasks which will arise in this Bill, when they are dealing with what is virtually criminal enforcement, however it is dressed up, against trade unionists, then it is time to take stock once again of industrial tribunals.
  Even if this Committee is foolish enough to allow this monster to be created, there is hope. As the magazine the Engineer acknowledged on 29th October last year, and as I have found in speaking to many employers, practically the whole of this legislation depends on employers taking cases to court and the chances are that any intelligent employer will be reluctant to take people to court because of the bitterness this will cause subsequently in his factory. Recognising this, it is interesting that the C.B.I. came forward with a suggestion that prosecutions should rest with the Registrar of Trade Unions. The C.B.I. sees the dangers inherent in this. It is not the good employer who will use this procedure, but the bad employer. It is revealing that the C.B.I. should make this suggestion, but in the long term only one thing is certain to arise and that is a growing market for industrial lawyers.
  We know that industrial relations are far better handled by those versed in such relations professionally rather than by labour lawyers, a fact acknowledged by Jack Lee, who otherwise is a supporter of legislation. We are now entering a time when we shall compare unfavourably even with the United States, where the National Labor Relations Board, while subject to the review of the Federal Court of Appeal, has powers vested in it similar to those of N.I.R.C., which are evidence of the origin of this proposal. At least that Board has specialised knowledge of industrial relations. This is not available to the new body here. The Commission is to have the powers vested in the National Labor Relations Board and also in the President of the United States as well as the powers of the Emergency Powers Act in this country.
  All these powers are to be covered by the umbrella of the Clause. The serious consequence of this Clause, particularly this subjection, is to devalue the one body recommended by Donovan and set up

  947
  under the aegis of my right hon. Friend—the Commission for Industrial Relations. I do not want to bore the Committee by reading from the Employment and Productivity Gazette of February, 1969 [Interruption]. If I am boring the Committee it is only a small taste of what will bore those who will be saddled with the task of interpreting the sort of case that members of the Bar will have to put forward in defence of their clients.
  When questioned in the Employment and Productivity Gazette George Woodcock said, of the C.I.R., that he regarded it as unquestionably the most important development in industrial relations in his lifetime. I think he knows a little more than does the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) about industrial relations. He said:
  "I find it difficult to imagine a case in which they will be desirable"
  —that is, the enforcement agencies in industrial relations—
  "or necessary. I shall be stimulated to prove that if it cannot he done by the C.I.R. through voluntary persuasive means then it certainly will not be done by legislation."
  The emphasis in that interview with George Woodcock was on the word "voluntary", because he knows the experience in other countries, like Australia, like Ireland, like the United States, of this kind of legislation—soaring strikes and days lost through strikes, acknowledged in answers by the Secretary of State to Parliamentary Questions. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member says "Rubbish" will he please turn to HANSARD to see the replies given by the Secretary of State, and he will find that not only in every single year in the last five years have strikes in those three countries far exceeded days lost in strikes in this country but they have been 10 times as high as in this country, and the worst years were 1957, under the Government opposite, and this year, again under the Government opposite.
  Mr. Coombs: The hon. Member makes many points by international comparisons which are not always relevant. There has been no international comparison in 1970. I do not believe there has been any for 1969. The number of stoppages in the United States for the year 1967–68 per 100,000 head of population is actually lower than in this country.
  Mr. Rose: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the figure he will see that the number of days lost in stoppages in the United States alone last year exceeded all those—and figures have been given for last year, if only he would bother to look at HANSARD and the Employment and Productivity Gazette, where it is possible to read them before coming into the Committee to debate these matters—
  Mr. Fidler rose—
  Mr. Rose: I do not want to give way because the hon. Member will have his chance to speak.
  Mr. Fidler: Since the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pay me the compliment of saying I know a little less about industrial relations than the eminent authority whom he quoted and since he referred to some of us on this side as having no knowledge of the factory floor, may I speak as one who has had experience over many years? I appreciate his reluctance to engage himself in learning the new law which this Bill will involve, but may I ask him a question? We have already here by a majority voted in the last two days for a great part of this Clause. We have accepted these guiding principles. Why do you not propose some substitution to balance them—
  The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton): Order. I have not proposed anything.
  Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman does not understand my argument. The argument inherent in this is that the imposition of the N.I.R.C. upon the C.I.R. will destroy all the value of that body and the imposition of a new task upon the industrial tribunal will destroy its acceptability. This is what the hon. Gentleman does not understand.
  I want to come to a conclusion and I want to ask the Solicitor-General a very pertinent question. That is the question of the overlapping jurisdiction. What will happen, for example, if the decision to impose an agency shop by the N.I.R.C., following a dispute, leads to action in the court? A curious situation may arise, where both may be involved, but the N.I.R.C. cannot deal with it. Shall we now have a third court to decide the jurisdiction of the various sections of the High Court in the middle of this jungle

  949
  which has been created since the Registrar was introduced? The Registrar has the final and ultimate weapon of deregistration, a weapon that was used against the Australian building workers and resulted in a new break-away. It will cause fragmentation and produce a system of State licensing of trade unions contrary to the I.L.O. Convention and the European Social Charter.
  The whole atmosphere of industrial relations will be poisoned by litigation, deregistration and conflict in which the scales are carefully weighted in favour of one party. The departure into the murky wilderness of N.I.R.C. and legalism happily will not be for 40 years but for four years This proposal will be consigned to oblivion and replaced by procedures of machinery consistent with the needs of the 1970s. Legal combat is no substitute for peace in industrial relations.
  2.30 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not intend to detain the Committee for as long as did the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose). In substance his speech covered most of the ground covered by many speeches on Second Reading and a good deal of ground beyond that. His general denunciation of Clause 1(2) of the Bill, founded on the proposition that it represents an injection of legalism from some cloistered source tainted by Americanism, is wholly without foundation.
  The analysis underlying the thinking of my right hon. and hon. Friends which is embodied in this legislation has gone on over many years. It has ranged outside the Temple and far outside this country and the United States. It spans the years of work of the Donovan Commission and has taken account of the proposals of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) during their period in office. In seeking to set that on one side he overlooks all the thinking underlying the proposals contained in "In Place of Strife".
  When the hon. Gentleman says that our strike record is of such a quality as to entitle us to reject experience from countries overseas and learning where we can around the world, he overlooks the central proposition contained in "In Place of Strife", that Britain's strike records are of a different quality and that
  950
  compared with other countries we have a large number of strikes in relation to our work force. It simply is not effective to set aside lessons which can be learned from other parts of the world—
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is not being fair in dealing with strikes. In paragraph 368 the Donovan Commission said that we have a large number of unofficial strikes over a short period but that official strikes are about 12 times longer and greater than unofficial strikes.
  The Solicitor-General: Donovan said that unofficial unconstitutional strikes were a serious problem peculiar to this country which urgently required solution. This contrasts with the situation in some other countries where strikes occur infrequently, predictably and in a situation in which people can plan for their occurrence. Because of that diagnosis, the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends brought forward their own proposals. It smacks of astonishing hypocrisy and naivety for the hon. Gentleman to get up and quote Lord Robens and neglect to mention the background of himself and his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  He said that Lord Robens seeks to reject the kind of solutions which we advance in this legislation because he rejects the icy iron precision of the law. If one analyses the memorial address to which the hon. Gentleman referred, one sees that Lord Robens no more rejects the icy, iron precision of the law than did the right hon. Lady in her own proposals introduced less than two years ago.
  Mrs. Castle indicated dissent.
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady may shake her head as much as she likes, but she cannot escape from the central fact that the proposals which she advanced in "In Place of Strife" involved substantial intervention by the law with precision on many points.
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot escape from the fact that in "In Place of Strife" we deliberately rejected the framework of law which hon. and learned Gentlemen are introducing in this Bill. As we go through the Bill, he will find it increasingly impossible to trot out his fig leaf behind which he is trying to hide.
  The Solicitor-General: I trot out no fig leaf. I would not begin to swap fig leaves with the right hon. Lady this morning. It simply will not wash for her to asssert here that there was no approach to legalism in her own proposals. We are now looking at whether the principles which the Committee has been debating for some time should be regarded as guiding principles for the Secretary of State, the Commission, the Registrar, and the National Industrial Relations Court and the Industrial Tribunals.
  What we find in "In Place of Strife" is not merely the independent review body that was proposed by Donovan. We find there the industrial board. What was that industrial board supposed to do? That board, alongside the Registrar proposed in "In Place of Strife", is there to enforce legalism.
  Mrs. Castle rose—
  The Solicitor-General: May I finish the sentence and I will give way? The industrial board was the right hon. Lady's equivalent to the National Industrial Relations Court. It was to determine whether people had been rightly or fairly treated by trade unions in expulsion or non-admission; it was to determine the penalties to be imposed on unions using coercive action in recognition strikes; and it was to determine penalties imposed on workers in the cooling-off period. The right hon. Lady may regret she ever uttered this, but she cannot ignore the implications of what she did.
  Mrs. Castle: I regret that the Solicitor-General, who is a man of considerable intelligence, should so debase the level of political dishonesty and debate as to distort the facts, as he has attempted to do and will continue to do so as long as he can get away with it. He knows perfectly well that the independent review body, which Donovan recommended and which was included in "In Place of Strife", had nothing to do with the national industrial relations court that my hon. Friend has described to the house. Its functions had nothing to do with the legal framework of this Bill.
  I will make a deal with the Solicitor-General. Since he claims that his framework of law is identical with what was proposed in "In Place of Strife", I suggest that if as we go through the
  952
  Bill, we find any proposal that was not in "In Place of Strife", he should withdraw his proposal. If he will agree to that, there will be none of this Bill left.
  Mr. Fidler: On a point of order. I rather thought that the Solicitor-General was being accused of political dishonesty. Is that in order?
  The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): That was not the hearing of the Chair.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not want to go over the ground again. I merely want, as briefly as I can, to remind the Committee of the summary contained in "In Place of Strife" of the right hon. Lady's proposals:
  "A new Industrial Board will be responsible for dealing with cases under the provisions proposed in paragraph 60. …"
  —which deals with coercive action and recognition situations—
  "as well as with those referred to in paragraphs 93–98 ('conciliation pause' and ballots), 109 (registration) and 115–116 (complaints against trade unions by individuals). …"
  There may he room for discussion about scale and detail in later parts of the Bill, but there is no room for argument about the principle of extensive intervention by agencies which was at the heart of her proposals, just as it is at the heartland of this legislation, and just as, even with Lord Roben's disdain for the icy iron precision of the law, his own pet proposals for removal of protection of the 1906 Act from unofficial strikers and for the withdrawal of picketing rights for unofficial strikes cannot be called in aid because they both involve the extension of the rule of law, icy iron or not. So it is wrong to take the view that there is a great distinction of principle about which any great heat can legitimately be generated. It is equally wrong that the National Industrial Relations Court or any of the agencies foreshadowed here are to be policy-making bodies in any judical form.
  The proposals discussed in the last debate identifying industrial practices are not at large. They are defined. The proposals for disclosure of information are defined almost along the same lines as those contained in the right hon. Lady's Bill.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley, referred to the rôle of the

  953
  National Industrial Relations Court in creating agreements, but there is no rôle for the Court in creating agreements. In so far as the parties cannot arrive at an agreement, the Commission could do that. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pointed out, many statutes contain model clauses which apply in many situations, and the 1959 Act applies to employers the terms of agreements to which they have not been parties at all, to the advantage of trade unions, so there is nothing novel about that. Donovan argued that that which is effective for substantive agreements can equally be effective for procedural agreements along the lines which we have suggested.
  I do not propose to detain the Committee much longer in discussing this frontal attack on the heartland of the Bill. We are trying to lay the foundations of order, fairness and reasonableness to be administered by the new agencies. It is a reasonable objective. It is a fulfilment of an aspiration of Sidney Webb a long time ago when he said—it is not an unworthy proposition—that he thought the time would one day come when the nation should no longer leave the resolution of conflicts of this kind in industry to the arbitrament of private warfare. He was looking at the Australian example. We do not seek to follow that, but we do not think that it is an unworthy objective. We ask the Committee to

  Division No. 62.]

  AYES

  [2.47 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Ellis, Tom

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  English, Michael

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Evans, Fred

  Ashton, Joe

  Cohen, Stanley

  Faulds, Andrew

  Atkinson, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Barnes, Michael

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Joel

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Foley, Maurice

  Beaney, Alan

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Ford, Ben

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Forrester, John

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dalyell, Tam

  Freeson, Reginald

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Booth, Albert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Ginsburg, David

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Golding, John

  Bradley, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

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

  Delargy, H. J.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Brwon, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Doig, Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Hamling, William

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunn, James A.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Eadie, Alex

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hilton, W. S.

  reject the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved—and moved with a curious sense of shame about the value of the law in our society. I do not stand here to defend every aspect of our legal system. I count myself a reformer of our legal institutions, but I count myself also as someone who has respected the rôle that the law, and the rule of law, can play in many spheres, including—not all my hon. Friends would agree about this—race relations. Just as I am prepared to argue the case for the reform of legal institutions, so, from this side of the House and from many parts of the country, people are arguing increasingly the case for the reform of the institutions through which our industrial relations are conducted.
  2.45 a.m.
  As part of that reform there is a legitimate rôle for the law to play. I have no shame in saying that. It is not wrong to say that institutions of this kind, handled in accordance with the principles which we are discussing by courts and agencies which are industrially sophisticated, have a major rôle to play in reforming our institutions to restore the dynamic which is essential to the restoration of prosperity to this country.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 214. Noes 250.

  Horain, John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Roper, John

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rose, Paul B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Meacher, Michael

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mendelson, John

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Mikardo, Ian

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Janner, Greville

  Millan, Bruce

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Sillars, James

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morgan, Elystan (cardiganshire)

  Silverman, Julius

  John, Brynmor

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Small, William

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Spearing, Nigel

  Johnson, walter (Derby, S.)

  Mulley, Rt, Hn. Frederick

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Ogden, Eric

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Orbach, Maurice

  Swain, Thomas

  Kelley, Richard

  Orme, Stanley

  Taverne, Dick

  Kinnock, Neil

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Lambie, David

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lamond, James

  Palmer, Arthur

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

  Latham, Arthur

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Tinn, James

  Lawson, George

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Urwin, T. W.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Varley, Eric G.

  Leonard, Dick

  Pendry, Tom

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Prescott, John

  Wallace, George

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Watkings, David

  McBride, Neil

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Wellbeloved, James

  McCann, John

  Probert, Arthur

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  McElhone, Frank

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  McGuire, Michael

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Richard, Ivor

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mackie, John

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, William (Conventry, S.)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

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

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clegg, Walter

  Gorst, John

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gower, Raymond

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Coombs, Derek

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Astor, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gray, Hamish

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Green, Alan

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Critchley, Julian

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Curran, Charles

  Grylls, Michael

  Balniel, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Batsford, Brian

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Dean, Paul

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Benyon, W.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Biffen, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Eden, Sir John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Blaker, Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

  Havers, Michael

  Body, Richard

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Boscawen, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Farr, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fell, Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Braine, Bernard

  Fidler, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Bray, Ronald

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Holland, Philip

  Brewis, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hordern, Peter

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hornby, Richard

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fowler, Norman

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fox, Marcus

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fry, peter

  Hunt, John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  James, David

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Jessel, Toby

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  956

  957

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Soref, Harold

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Murton, Oscar

  Speed, Keith

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Spence, John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Neave, Airey

  Sproat, Iain

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Stainton, Keith

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Normanton, Tom

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Nott, John

  Stodard, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Kirk, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stokes, John

  Knox, David

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Lane, David

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Pardoe, John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Percival, Ian

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Loveridge, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Tebbit, Norman

  MacArthur, Ian

  Pounder, Rafton

  Temple, John M.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  McLaren, Martin

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Prior Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Tilney, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  McNair-wilson, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Trew, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Raison, Timothy

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Maddan, Martin

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Madel, David

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Maginnis, John E.

  Redmond, Robert

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Marten, Neil

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Marther, Carol

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wall, Patrick

  Mawby, Ray

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Warren, Kenneth

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wiggin, Jerry

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

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Molyneaux, James

  Royle, Anthony

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Money, Ernie

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Scott, Nicholas

  Worsley, Marcus

  Monro, Hector

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

  Younger, Hn. George

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  More, Jasper

  Simeons, Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Mr. Hugh Rossi and

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Amendment No. 353 proposed: In page 2, line 6, after 'State', insert 'and'.—[Mrs. Castle.]
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment No. 346 proposed: In page 2, line 10, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 14.—[Mrs. Castle.]
  Amendment negatived.

  Division No. 63.]

  AYES

  [2.59 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boscawen, Robert

  Churchill, W. S.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Clegg, Walter

  Astor, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Braine, Bernard

  Coombs, Derek

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bray, Ronald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Brewis, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Balniel, Lord

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Critchley, Julian

  Batsford, Brian

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Curran, Charles

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Benyon, W.

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dean, Paul

  Biffen, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Drayson, G. B.

  Blaker, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Eden, Sir John

  Body, Richard

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill":—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 250, Noes 214.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rawllnson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

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

  Kirk, Peter

  Redmond, Robert

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Farr, John

  Knox, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Fell, Anthony

  Lane, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Fidler, Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Loveridge, John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fowler, Norman

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fox, Marcus

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rost, Peter

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

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Royle, Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  McLaren, Martin

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Galbraith Hn. T. G.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Simeons, Charles

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maddan, Martin

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Goodhew, Victor

  Madel, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gorst, John

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Marten, Neil

  Soref, Harold

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mather, Carol

  Speed, Keith

  Gray, Hamish

  Mawby, Ray

  Spence, John

  Green, Alan

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sproat, Iain

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stainton, Keith

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stokes, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Moate, Roger

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Molyneaux, James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Money, Ernie

  Tapsell, Peter

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Hector

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

  Hastings, Stephen

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Havers, Michael

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Temple, John M.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mudd, David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Murton, Oscar

  Tilney, John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Neave, Airey

  Trew, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hordern, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hornby, Richard

  Nott, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Wall, Patrick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Paisley, Mr. Ian

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pardoe, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  James, David

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Percival, Ian

  Wilkinson, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Jopling, Michael

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

  Younger, Hn. George

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Mr. Hugh Rossi and

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Booth, Albert

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Ashton, Joe

  Bradley, Tom

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Atkinson, Norman

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

  Cohen, Stanley

  Barnes, Michael

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Barnett, Joel

  Buchan, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Beaney, Alan

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

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  960

  961

  Dalyell, Tam

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Davidson, Arthur

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

  Prescott, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lambie, David

  Richard, Ivor

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lamond, James

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lawson, George

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leonard, Dick

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roper, John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Ellis, Tom

  Lewis Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  English, Michael

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Evans, Fred

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

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

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McCann, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sillars, James

  Foley, Maurice

  McElhone, Frank

  Silverman, Julius

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Small, William

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Garratt, W. E.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

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

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Ginsburg, David

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Strang, Gavin

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Swain, Thomas

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

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

  Hamling, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Tinn, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hardy, Peter

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Moyle, Roland

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wallace, George

  Hilton, W. S.

  Murray, Ronald King

  Watkins, David

  Horam, John

  Ogden, Eric

  Wellbeloved, James

  Huckfield, Leslie

  O'Halloran, Michael

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oram, Bert

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Orme, Stanley

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Janner, Greville

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. John Golding and

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Mr. Kenneth Marks.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    Clause 2

      CODE OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PRACTICE
      Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move, Amendment No. 388 in page 2, line 16, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 17 and insert:
      'appointed day on which this Act shall come into operation'
      The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it would be convenient for the Committee to consider
      962
      at the same time the following Amendments:
      No. 27 in page 2, line 16, leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.
      No. 389 in line 16, leave out 'one year' and insert 'three months'.
      No. 390 in line 16, leave out 'one year' and insert 'six months'.
      No. 40 in Clause 3, page 2, line 31, leave out 'one year' and insert 'two years'.
      Mr. Pardoe: The Amendment concerns the Code of Practice. I am aware that many hon. Members of the Committee will not be very concerned about that

      963
      They oppose the Bill in its entirety and the whole philosophy behind it. I take a different position. I do not oppose the Bill in its entirety, as I have already made clear in the debate on the Consultative Document. I welcome it as the first attempt to reorganise the chaos of our industrial relations. I want to make it work and to make it relevant and effective.
      Unfortunately, as the Bill stands, without the Code of Practice, it has little of a radical or reforming nature. It could be that this reform and radicalism will come in the code of industrial relations practice. It could be that when the code finally emerges after the period of gestation, it will be merely a list of biased platitudes and will never be possible to put it into effect. I hope very much that that will not be so and that the code will be relevant to the problems of industrial relations, and I hope that it will probably be the most significant part of the whole of this process of legislation. We know very little of what it will contain, and we are being asked to accept an undisclosed code in the Bill.
      What we are told about the code in the Bill is extremely sketchy. But we are told that although it will not be enforceable in law, nevertheless it will have to be taken into account by the Industrial Court or by an Industrial Tribunal, and that when it has been taken into account it can be used in determining the question, and presumably even determining the level of compensation if it is relevant to that.
      We are told more in the Consultative Document about the code than we are told in the Bill. In the Consultative Document, on page 2, paragraph 13, section b, we are told that its purpose is:
      "to encourage the establishment … of effective means of communication, including the provision of information, between management and workers at all levels so as to involve them more fully in the operations of their firms."
      I echo those words and welcome them. That is the nub of the whole problem.
      If one considers the suggestion that the code of industrial practice will set out ideas for better communications between employees and employers, one realises that this could be an extremely contentious issue. We have already dis-
      964
      cussed this to some extent on a previous Amendment, but if we are being asked to accept that this code will set out the practice by which communications can be bettered in industry on the shop floor, we ought to know something about it. What is more, the Bill should not come into force until we have that code printed and before us.
      Secondly, the Consultative Document states that the code will set out certain provisions for guiding employers and employees in the provision of information. Again, this will be an extremely contentious issue, both on communications and information, and there will be enormous argument between employers and employees, and between trade unions and employers' federations, about how much information should be divulged. All this will have to be tied up in the Code of Practice.
      The code could be the most relevant part of the whole Bill to the whole problem in industry. I regret that without it the Bill concentrates on the regulation of relationships between trade unions and employers' associations, which will at best have only a marginal effect on industrial unrest and productivity, and which ignores almost completely the establishment of a constitutional relationship between employers and employees within individual companies, which is considered by those experienced in industry to be the key factor in improving our industrial relations. Therefore, the code should be the most important part of the Bill, but we do not have it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "What is it?"]. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to ask that. I hope that we can have it much earlier than we are promised it in the Bill. I hope that we can have it before the Bill becomes law. I should like it now that we are deliberating upon the early stages of the Bill. At least we should have it before the Bill becomes law.
      We have tabled two further Amendments. In case the Government are not prepared to accept that somewhat radical suggestion, we offer them a three months' or six months' option so that they can buy forward.
      3.15 a.m.
      Much of the Bill depends on the code, and it is very necessary that we should

      965
      have it at an early opportunity. I hope that when this debate is answered we can also have some idea of what the code will contain. What will it say about communications on the shopfloor? Might it, for instance, provide for the setting up of works councils in firms? These are vital to the improvement of communications within the firm. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of this debate to give more details of what is likely to be in the code. I hope that he may also even try to explain the reason for the delay in its publication. Is it that the Government wish the Bill to stand for 12 months and to try to clear up its inadequacies, and perhaps even the mess created by it, in that strange document, the code.
      If they have any confidence in the ability of the code to do anything at all for our industrial relations, if it is not to be simply a list of pious platitudes, there is no reason why we should not have a draft code to study now, or at least before the Bill becomes law.
      Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Chairman, three weeks before Christmas the previous Speaker, Dr. King, ruled that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) had contravened a well-established practice of the House that the vote must follow the voice. We have on the Order Paper several Amendments by the Liberals, of whom only one is present. Is it in order for Liberal Members to put their names to Amendments and then not bother to turn up to vote for them? Should not their names be deleted from the Amendments in the same way as Mr. Speaker ruled that our names should be deleted from the Hare Coursing (Abolition) Bill?
      The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, but he probably knows that it is not out of order to do what he has complained about.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) gives a general welcome to the efforts behind the Bill. Rightly, he has raised questions about the Code of Practice because it is a relevant part of the Bill and is dealt with in Clause 2. In
      966
      effect, he asks, "How can the Bill become law without the Code of Practice?"
      I make it clear that the Government see the code as a valuable background to the operation of promoting good industrial relations, as specified in Clause 1. It is not essential in the short term in order to enable the Bill to become law to have a Code of Practice. Ideally perhaps it should be ready, and I shall explain when we expect it.
      The code envisaged by the Bill provides a long-term climate and an additional clarification of good industrial relations. Largely, I believe, it will become an educative document. As we heard in the long debates on Clause 1, there are a number of guiding principles for those concerned with this legislation and these will be backed up by the Code of Practice in Clause 2, which says, relating to the preparation and drafting of the code, that it shall contain
      "… such practical guidance as in the opinion of the Secretary of State would be helpful …"
      "Practical guidance" is the operative part of this provision, and the Bill can stand on its own, certainly initially, without the code actually being ready and published. Clause 3 provides that the Secretary of State has a duty to lay a draft of the code before Parliament, and it will be subject to approval or rejection by Parliament.
      I turn now to the legal part of the code. It will not be possible for anyone to bring an action on the ground that the provisions of the code have been broken. Actions will have to be based on the provisions about unfair industrial practices. Any of these breaches are the ones which will be liable to civil action in the courts. The code will not and cannot lay down precise rules to cover any and every set of circumstances. In the last resort, it will be for the courts to interpret the differences of views between the parties on particular points, having regard to any general provisions of the code which may be relevant.
      Indeed, the courts are always subject to that type of interpretation. Failure to observe the code will not in itself lead to any particular proceedings, but in any proceedings under the Bill it will have much the same force as the Highway Code, for instance, in relation to the Road Traffic Acts. The Road Traffic Acts

      967
      came into operation a long time before the Highway Code was drafted and refined, but that did not prevent civil actions taking place following from road accidents, and I imagine that the law was further clarified by having the Highway Code, which is a most valuable institution in relation to the Road Traffic Acts.
      Mr. Iremonger: What about complaints for damages which have been suffered? Will it be possible to bring a complaint in respect of a breach of the code?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: Not directly. It is specified in the Bill that the Industrial Court will take account of circumstances, on one side or the other, where it is alleged that there has not been compliance with the code. It is not a civil offence in itself not to comply with the code but it can be taken into account in deciding other particular issues. It forms an important and valuable background. The equation with the Highway Code, although these are entirely separate things, is the best illustration I can give to show how a previous code has come into being and has worked and is applied successfully in civil litigation.
      The Amendment, which was moved so courteously by the hon. Gentleman, is unacceptable, I am afraid, because there will not be any one day on which the Bill becomes operative. Clause 150(2) provides that different days may be appointed for the implementation of provisions of the Bill. This, of course, is very important. It would, perhaps, be wrong for the whole Bill to come into operation simultaneously, and a good deal of work will have to be done. For example, it will become necessary to set up the machinery for dealing with unfair industrial practices before bringing into effect those Clauses which provide for the presentation of complaints about unfair industrial practices. One has to take that into account, too.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would give a good deal of detail about the Code of Practice. I cannot do so tonight. It will cover a wide area. As he knows, my right hon. Friend will have consultations about it, and it would be premature to anticipate exactly what the
      968
      provisions will be. For instance, matters like management rights, the responsibility of management towards employees, the rôle of the supervisor, the relationship of management with trade unions, those facilities which management should provide to help unions in representing employees, the rôle of the trade unions, their rights, responsibilities and functions, collective agreements and guide lines on establishing effective agreements, dismissals and the establishment of the right of employees to know why they are being dismissed, joint consultations—in fact, a comprehensive survey intended to be genuinely helpful to both sides of industry will be carried out.
      As we know, the great advantage of this is that it will not be sacrosanct for ever more but it can be revised in due course, again subject to the approval of Parliament.
      Mr. Swain: The hon. Gentleman spoke of his right hon. Friend having consultations about the Code of Practice. Whom will he consult, and for how long?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: That will come up on a later Amendment, but perhaps I could give the short answer now: everybody who would like to may make representations. My right hon. Friend was very liberal when the Bill was originally published in the form of the Consultative Document, and he invited comments from all sections of society. Some responded, and some did not. Certainly, it is his intention on the Code of Practice seriously to consider all bona fide representations which are made to him. There is no question of trying to favour one group against another. He will welcome this information when it comes forward.
      I can tell the Committee that work is now in progress on the draft of the code, but a great deal remains to be done. Our current aim is to have the draft of the document available in the spring and to present the code to Parliament probably by the autumn. We cannot be absolutely final about that, and I should be misleading the Committee if I tried to be more definite.
      Mr. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman means 1971 or 1972?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: This year. I appreciate the aim of the other Amendments put down by the Liberal Party.

      969
      There would be too much restriction if we accepted them. With a little more time for preparation, and with the right type of consultation as a result, it is likely to be a better document. I stress that my right hon. Friend is most anxious to issue the Code of Practice as soon as possible. His aim is to prepare it and present it to Parliament before the time allowed in the Bill, that is, a year from the date of its coming into operation. We should be surprised and disappointed if we did not achieve it this year, 1971. We all realise the importance of speed in this matter, and we shall not drag our feet.
      I know that there is a genuine doubt in the hon. Gentleman's mind, but I hope that he will not wish to press his Amendment and will accept our assurances that we are pressing matters forward in good faith and with the utmost speed.
      3.30 a.m.
      Mr. Atkinson: The assurances given by the Minister are not quite good enough in the circumstances, because timing is essential here. The more one reads the Bill, the more one discovers that the Registrar will be absolutely dependent upon this Code of Practice for determining whether he is prepared to accept rule books lodged with him by various trade unions.
      As I understand it, the procedure will be that each trade union will be automatically registered once this Bill becomes law, and that preliminary registration will remain for some three months. At the end of that three months period, the Registrar will have to make some sort of recommendations to the various trade unions, telling them how to amend their rule books to make them comply with what I understand to be the Code of Practice. This will determine the whole question whether unions will register and under what conditions they will register, so that this question of the time scale is so important.
      I should like to pose one or two questions about the urgency which the Government attach to getting the Bill. One assumes that the decision to bring the Bill on to the Floor of the House means that the Government are looking to completion of it in, say, twelve months from this March. Perhaps March, 1972, would be a rough guess, on the basis of 15
      970
      hours per Clause. I do not know whether the Leader of the House would like to consider whether he is anxious to get the Bill this year, or whether it is the Government's intention to use the guillotine method and various other undemocratic practices in order to speed up the whole proceedings. The point put to us by the Minister is that he is hoping to accelerate the completion of this Code of Practice, the Highway Code as he called it—
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I did not call it a Highway Code. I gave the Highway Code as an illustration of the type of background to an Act of Parliament that the code of practice will be.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am not going into details about the analogy with the Highway Code. The Minister was suggesting that it was the Government's intention to accelerate the completion of this Code of Practice. What we now need is some assurance as to when we shall start to see the terms, the practice, because the Registrar has nothing else to guide him on the question of rules. There is nothing in the Bill which spells out in great detail what are the terms for the Registrar in regard to how the rule books of the trade unions are to be remoulded or reconsidered, and before very long we ought to have some idea of what will be contained in the code.
      Therefore, I suggest that the Minister's reply is not good enough. It is very important that we understand the content of the code, and I ask that the Government should begin to prepare some sort of preliminary draft of what they are thinking at the moment. Let us have a Green, a Blue or, preferably, a White Paper, so that we can see the terms and judge some of the other Clauses in the light of that knowledge.
      The Solicitor-General: On the question of registration, the provisions are already fully set out in Clauses 63 and 64 and Schedule 3. It is not visualised that the code will be adding substantially to these provisions because they are set out in great detail. The code is primarily concerned to give guidance to those who will be concerned with day-to-day conduct of industrial relations within industry and not with the point with which the hon. Member is dealing.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman because he has cleared up one or two matters. If we can take it that the two Clauses mentioned and Schedule 3 contain the whole of the recommendations to be made to the Registrar when he is appointed and that the changes will be within the terms of those Clauses and that Schedule, then our knowledge is increased, and with it our fears. We shall therefore intensify our arguments when we come to these parts of the Bill. On that basis we can return to the subject later, presumably somewhere near the end of July on the Minister's timetable.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has got it wrong. I do not see why we should hurry this. I should like to see it put off for a couple of years to give the Minister time to consult these hundreds of thousands of trade unionists who are supposed to be in favour of the Bill. If these people are to be consulted, then two years may not be enough. If two years is allowed to go by, it will give the Government time to think again and they might realise that they had made a mistake and withdraw the Bill.
      My hon. Friend is wrong to hurry the Bill. He is backing the Liberals who are saying, "Do it quickly". I say, "Do not do it quickly, take time over it". Let the trade unionists have an opportunity of discussing it, and if two years is not enough, let us make it five years. Then we could have a General Election and the people could decide whether they wanted it.
      Mr. Pardoe: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving us a little more information, although not by any means enough, about what is to be in the code. I should like him to reconsider the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) that we should have some kind of coloured Paper, either white with green edges or white all over. Having said that I do not think that it will entirely surprise hon. Members if I say that I do not intend to press the Amendment.
      I should like to answer a question raised why my hon. and right hon. Friends were not here to support this Amendment. I, and most other people in the country, would regard their absence at
      972
      this hour in the morning as being eminently sensible. I shall be the only member of the Liberal Party who will be thought to be completely crackers, being here at this time of the morning. The whole of the country regards this kind of exercise as mad and if the two Front Benches would get together in a reasonably civilised and democratic manner they could stop this nonsense and have this Bill debated without staying up all night. It would be much more democratic if they did.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, Amendment No. 355, in page 2, line 17, leave out from 'practice' to end of line 19 and insert:
      'which has been agreed with organisations of employers and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress'.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Harold Gurden): With this Amendment we take the following Amendments:
      No. 28, in page 2, line 17, after 'Act', insert:
      'to discuss with the Trades Union Congress, and the Confederation of British Industry to enable him'.
      No. 29, in page 2, line 17, after 'to', insert:
      'discuss with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and with their assistance and advice'.
      No. 36, in page 2, line 27, after 'may', insert:
      'after discussion and agreement with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry'.
      No. 37, in page 2, line 27, after 'may' insert:
      'after full discussions with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry'.
      No. 356, in page 2, line 27, after 'may', insert:
      'in agreement with organisations of employers and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress'.
      No. 395, in page 2, line 27, after 'may', insert:
      'on his own initiative or on the request from a trade union, the Trades Union Congress or the Confederation of British Industry'.
      No. 49, in Clause 3, page 2, line 40, after 'shall' insert:
      'first discuss same with the Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and'.

      973
      No. 359, in page 2, line 40, after 'shall', insert:
      'after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry'.
      No. 50, in page 2, line 42, after second 'the', insert:
      'Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and the'.
      No. 51, in page 3, line 2, after 'the', insert:
      'Trades Union Congress and Confederation of British Industry and'.
      Mrs. Castle: I must say that I thought the outburst of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was unwarranted in view of the fact that he is the only Member who has proposed an Amendment which he did not intend to press to a vote. If we are talking about wasting the time of the Committee, I suggest that he concentrates his attention on that kind of activity. When we in this party put down Amendments we have the very strongest desire to see them carried.
      Mr. Pardoe: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way, but she is talking the most arrant nonsense. She knows perfectly well that it is a normal procedure to put down exploratory Amendments. She has been a party to such Amendments to hundreds of Bills. I hope that she will have the good sense to withdraw that stupid remark.
      Mrs. Castle: No. I certainly will not. I have no intention of withdrawing that highly apposite remark, for the simple reason that the hon. Gentleman was talking about the conduct of the Bill and why we are here at this hour of the morning. I do not like being here at this hour any more than he does, but I strongly resent the suggestion that in some way we could avoid it by talks across the Table. It has been a characteristic of our discussions on this Bill so far that there has been no waste of time by anybody, on either side of the Committee. There have been a lot of speeches from both sides, because there have been a lot of very important points. It would not have been possible to curtail discussion without curtailing essential examination of the Bill.
      I am about to ask the Committee to accept an Amendment which is very important indeed. I would suggest, with-
      974
      out exaggeration, that it is one of the most important Amendments we shall be discussing. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North said some of us do not like the Code of Practice. We in this party certainly do not like this Code of Practice. We do not like its scope; we do not like the legal uses or semi-legal uses to which it is going to be put; and we do not like its authorship. Certainly we do not think expediting its coming into operation will contribute anything to the improvement of industrial relations. That is why we had no sympathy with the hon. Member's last Amendment.
      What we are by this Amendment seeking to do is to remedy one of the most extraordinary things about this Code of Practice. We have been told—and we have spent a lot of time discussing this—that the purpose of the Bill and the guiding principles is to promote good industrial relations practice, and that we need to have this Code of Practice issued so as to enable all of us to reach the desirable goal of good industrial relations practice.
      3.45 a.m.
      If such a code of industrial relations practice is to work, it must be based on agreement with the T.U.C. and representatives of employers' organisations. They are the people who run the industrial relations. It is unprecedented that in a Bill dealing with industrial relations, or with industry in any form, there is no word about the need for the Government to consult both sides of industry. There was no word in the Consultative Document either. There was a lot about the trade unions and what the Government would do about the trade unions, to the trade unions and against the trade unions, but not a word about discussion, consultation or dialogue by the Government with the trade union movement.
      In reply to the previous debate the Under-Secretary said that there would be consultations with absolutely everybody who cared to write in and ask for them. I am sorry, but that is not a good enough guarantee for us, when we have so clearly in our minds that the Secretary of State failed to consult the T.U.C. over the initiation of the Bill. That again is unprecedented. He had no consultation because he took the high-handed line that it was only worth while the T.U.C.'s talking to him about the Bill, which

      975
      had such far-reaching effects on its future, if the T.U.C. began by accepting his principles and discussed only their shape. No self-respecting consultee would agree to those terms, and we are, therefore, discussing a Bill which the Government have not discussed with the T.U.C.
      We are told that we are to have this Code of Practice covering all aspects of industrial relations, but nowhere in the Bill is there any indication that there will be consultation with the T.U.C. or the employers. This is a supreme example of the blind leading the blind. The Government, without any commitment to accept industry's views, will tell industry what it should do to put things right. This shows how ill-equipped the Government are to lay down principles for anybody. Anyone with experience knows that consultation is at the heart of good industrial relations and that consent is at the heart of good consultation and is what consultation should seek to achieve.
      The Government should have more humility. The first people to get cracking on an examination of the Donovan report were the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. who, when the Government were still examining the report, were getting together to discuss what practical steps they could take by agreement to improve the defects indicated in the Donovan Report. It is extraordinary that at this hour of the morning here we are discussing a Code of Practice in relation to which we are told "There will be consultation with anybody who cares to write in." What an approach! Central to the Government's whole attitude should have been the priority of getting both sides of industry into consultation and then presenting to the House a Code of Practice on which the two sides of industry had agreed.
      The Government came into office facing a number of economic problems, but certainly with a favourable balance of payments base from which to set out to win the co-operation of the unions and of the employers in tackling the problem of inflation. It was a very great opportunity and the Government will probably come to regret that they threw it away so lightheartedly. Instead of going out of their way as a priority to bring both sides of industry together and try to win
      976
      their co-operation, the first act of the Government was to throw down the gauntlet to the trade union movement by saying that a priority measure would be the publication of this Bill. And they then added further insult by snubbing the T.U.C. and being arrogant to the trade unions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—The Chancellor of the Exchequer never opens his mouth without blaming all the economic ills on the trade union movement and on their wage demands.
      The T.U.C. submitted a document to "Neddy" only a short time ago which said that the trade union movement does not like runaway inflation any more than anybody else does, and the T.U.C. said it had proposals to put forward on which agreement might eventually be reached. That was merely answered by a cold douche in the face. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could not wait to go into print as quickly as possible to denounce the document as a purely inflationary formula. There has been this long catalogue of arrogance towards the trade union movement.
      Therefore, in that context to talk about a Code of Practice as promoting good industrial relations is to make a mockery of this whole paraphernalia of legislation. We face a situation in which this Bill is to be imposed on the trade union movement, a movement which has complained bitterly because it has never been given the chance to convince the Government that one of their precious principles might be wrong. The trade unions have been told that they must take it or leave it and that the Government will slap down the unions if they get difficult.
      Now we are to have a Code of Practice which is to be imposed on industry without its agreement. How far are the Government trying to put back the clock? Do they not realize that in this day and age one can govern only by consent, not by coercion? One will get people to operate good industrial relations practice if in the first place one wins their agreement. In the Amendment we are coming to the Government's rescue.
      Mr. John Page: Just as an example, when the right hon. Lady produced her Bill just before the election, was there agreement between the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. on the terms of the Bill?
      Mrs. Castle: No. I am not asking that. It would be absurd to ask that the Government should get the agreement of the T.U.C. on its policies. We could never get any Parliamentary government that way.
      I am saying that a Code of Practice, a different thing, dealing with all these principles—fine-sounding principles which all reasonable people in industry should observe—should be agreed with both sides. There is not even a mention in the Bill of the need to consult both sides, in contradistinction to my Bill which had a different Code of Practice related purely to disclosure of information and which was not linked, as is this, with all sorts of sanctions and regulatory issues.
      Even with my Code of Practice, limited, as it was, to disclosure of information by employers, it laid down that it should be prepared by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the General Council and the C.B.I. There is not a breath of a word of anything similar in the Consultative Document or this Bill.
      That is a revelation of the Government's attitude of mind, one of those Freudian slips which is so revealing. We are coming to the Government's rescue so that at this late hour it can remedy some of the damage caused by its indifference and arrogance towards the trade union movement and towards both sides of industry. I seriously ask that the Government should accept this Amendment and that the code of practice must be agreed with the T.U.C. and the employers' organisations before it is put to Parliament for approval.
      4.0 a.m.
      Mr. John Mendelson: In many ways, although this is only one Amendment which deals with the principle of consultation, we are reaching the crux of the matter. The various methods which the Government have used to confuse their refusal to have meaningful consultations with the trade union movement over these matters will be those most hotly debated in years to come.
      There has always been an underlying agreement in our parliamentary practice that there are a number of policies on which one can expect the Government to say that they are in the best position to judge. I apply this to any Government and I used to argue the same point with
      978
      my right hon. Friends when they were in office, and will do so again. There are many policies, like the attitude towards the conduct of the war in Vietnam or some aspect of Commonwealth policy about which the Government are entitled to say, "There are various organisations, one the trade union movement, with 10 million members, which express a certain view on that war, and we respect that view, but we say that there is no reason why our conduct should be decisively influenced by the point of view expressed. We, as a Government, believe that we are entitled to say, 'We are in a better position to judge than you.' After all, this is something which we ask the nation as a whole to implement—that is, to underwrite our foreign policy. We must, therefore, come back for parliamentary sanction and sanction at a General Election, the final sanction of our foreign policy being a matter which only the whole nation can ensure. But when we are conducting our affairs and negotiations with other nations, we must reserve the right to say that we know better than you what our policy ought to be."
      However, the situation changes completely and radically when we come to industrial relations. It is monstrously unrealistic—I should say blind—for any Government to argue that they can, even with Parliamentary approval, impose a code of industrial conduct on the day-to-day business of about 44,000 individual enterprises and large publicly owned corporations. The proposition immediately becomes absurd. That is why I suggested at the beginning that we have in many ways reached the crux of the matter in this debate.
      What are the consequences of what the Government are trying to do? They have used the excuse for not consulting the T.U.C. that the principles embodied in the Bill are not approved by the T.U.C. How short-sighted. If they proceed without such consultations, how will they make anybody in industry feel responsible for the kind of conduct which they will expect after they have passed the Bill and issued their code of industrial conduct?
      Surely, it has always been common ground in this House and in all circles where industrial relations are discussed that the secret of getting anything done in

      979
      industry is the creation of an atmosphere of co-operation and consultation. The right hon. Gentleman incorporates in his work the functions of the Ministry and the Minister of Labour, the principal officer involved in these matters. The right hon. Gentleman knows, without my labouring the point, what I have in mind in saying that. In many ways, the Minister of Labour has always been apart from his colleagues. He has always been—I remind the Committee of Sir Walter Monckton and other past Ministers of Labour—the Minister who was not quite like some of his colleagues, because, although he has in his Ministry a chief conciliation officer, he always reserved to himself the right to supersede that officer and, when he judged it appropriate, to intervene and become the chief conciliation officer. This, in many ways, is one of his major functions.
      How can the right hon. Gentleman expect either that his function will be properly exercised or that people in industry will feel responsible towards the working of the code of industrial practice when they have not been consulted on the details of what he is going to put into it? This is a matter which the Government have never explained.
      We always get evasions from the right hon. Gentleman when we reach this point. On the one hand, the Minister argues that he at least has as much industrial experience as many others—I always accept what he says in that respect—and that, from his experience, he knows that these things must be done in a way which commits people to feeling that they have a reasonable interest in conducting themselves in a certain way.
      On the other hand, when we move on to the question of consultation with the T.U.C., the right hon. Gentleman produces a completely contradictory argument: that, in the absence of prior agreement on principle, he could not proceed to these consultations.
      Both propositions cannot be right. One or the other may be, but not both.
      As a direct consequence of the Government's conduct, another development follows which is already beginning to show itself. There is throughout the country a growing loss of confidence among the trade union movement in the
      980
      intentions of the right hon. Gentleman which will reflect upon the way in which he will be successful or otherwise in carrying out his duties as Minister of Labour. It is not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to separate himself into two sections.
      People in industry and in the trade union movement, and any Member of the House who has conducted meetings on the proposals of the Bill, as practically all of us on this side have done—and, I dare say, there must be hon. Members opposite who have also had such meetings or, at least, have been approached by trade union constituents even if they themselves did not take the initiative in holding such meetings, but I am sure that some will have done that as well—must have known about the growing doubts in the minds of active and highly responsible trade unionists, to return for a moment to the blessed word which was discussed so much yesterday, people who are known in their firms and in their plants, sometimes plants employing 5,000 to 10,000 people, as the most responsible partners of their own management in settling in so many ways difficult situations without ever having a major dispute arising from them.
      The right hon. Gentleman knows—he does not have to be told again and again—that 99 out of 100 industrial disputes are never brought to our notice because they are settled and resolved before they become a dispute in which the newspapers take an interest, although he, of course, with the resources of his Department, will hear about a great many of them. He knows, therefore, the calibre of the kind of people to whom I am referring. These very responsible people on the trade union side in industry, whose active work is greatly respected and recognised by so many enlightened managements in privately-owned corporations just as much as in publicly-owned industries, are now expressing more and more doubts as to whether they will be faced by a Minister of Labour who has reserved this position for himself.
      There will be another consequence of the way in which the Government are proceeding in this matter which gives force and additional weight to the argument so clearly put by my right hon. Friend. Even now, my right hon. Friend

      981
      has rightly invited the Government to call a halt to the way they are conducting themselves in this business and to accept the Amendment. All sorts of problems face major sections of industry. For instance, one with which I am concerned in my constituency has the prospect of considerable redundancy. My experience was that whereas the discussions between the shop stewards' representatives, the full-time officer of the trade union involved and the management have revealed serious disagreements, on certain aspects of the situation which is developing there is important co-operation in spite of the general disagreement. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) agrees with me. As an active member of his trade union, he will know that these situations arise from time to time.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Hon. Members opposite would do well, instead of smiling in such a smug manner, to look at the experiences of the late Iain Macleod, which support my hon. Friend's argument.
      Mr. Mendelson: My hon. Friend has great experience in industrial matters and, no doubt, felt that additional attention should be directed to what I was saying. I was quite satisfied with the attention which I was receiving. It is the argument that matters.
      The Minister and the Government know that we are far from satisfied—those who represent industrial workers are far from satisfied—with the position concerning redundancies. The secret agreements and arrangements that nobody is allowed to know about suddenly develop into mergers, and at short notice workers are presented with dismissal notices against which they no longer have any appeal. Difficult situations such as this call for an atmosphere in industry in which the trade union side feels very much committed to the kind of code that is obtained and is at work. If the Government refuse to accept the Amendment and change their attitude, there will be a growing loss of confidence about calling in a third party to help resolve industrial problems which arise when a merger develops behind the scenes and problems of redundance arise.
      I could give many more examples, but there is no point in doing that because
      982
      everyone knows that good relationships are essential between the people who do the work on both sides of industry and the right hon. Gentleman's Department if we are to produce the best solution in the difficult circumstances that I have outlined.
      I think that I have said enough to reinforce my right hon. Friend's argument and to ask the Government to consider the Amendment with the seriousness that it deserves.
      Mr. Douglas: I rise to support my right hon. Friend's argument and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), and also to pose certain questions to the Minister in the hope of getting satisfactory answers to them.
      In his reply to an earlier Amendment the Minister gave a comprehensive list of the items likely to be covered by this code of industrial practice. The list included many facets of our industrial life, and I should like to query how we can include in such a Code of Practice all these
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I did not give a comprehensive list, but an illustrative list, because I was pressed by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) to give some indication of what was intended. I said that it was not meant to be a comprehensive list. It was an indication of some of the areas which the Code of Practice would probably cover.
      Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let me rephrase my statement and say that it was a fairly comprehensive list. The kernel of my remarks is that the drawing up of this list ought not even to have been embarked upon without consulting the major bodies responsible for industrial relations, or at least the key organisations.
      There is no excuse for the Government's bringing forward this type of measure on the ground that industrial relations have become so important that something must be done about them, for their trying to persuade the key organisations of employers and trade unions that they are important in the national context, and then proceeding to insult both sides of industry by refusing to have consultations with them about a document which the Minister has said will form a valuable background to the new

      983
      organisations which the Bill seeks to create.
      4.15 a.m.
      There is no excuse for it. It is out of keeping with the history—certainly the modern history—of the Ministry of Labour, or the Department of Employment as it now is. I shudder to think of the great figures that held the office of Minister of Labour—people like Ernest Bevin—getting the co-operation of both sides of industry and then ignoring them, in terms of statutory provisions.
      In reply to a previous Amendment the Minister used the analogy of the Highway Code. I want to use the analogy of other legislation that the House has passed. Imagine our trying to embark on an annual Price Review and telling the farmers' representatives "Anybody interested in this matter can write in and make his observations known, so that we can concoct an annual Price Review". Imagine the uproar that would come from the farmers' organisations if that posture were adopted by a Government of any political colour.
      If the Minister is to resist the Amendment, I want to know whether it is on the ground that if we insert these words it might exclude other organisations from making representations. If so, his argument rests on a dubious legal foundation. Now that we have moved from the Preamble and the generalities we are saying that the House is responsible for seeing that the relevant Secretary of State has a direct and specific responsibility for ensuring adequate consultation and obtaining the agreement of the major representatives of both sides of industry for this code of industrial practice.
      The nation will have watched the postures of the Minister. He is very good at his public relations. We charge him to be good in his public relations not only from the point of view of the mass media but in terms of writing provisions into a statute which can be enforced in the courts.
      Mr. Dan Jones: It would appear that I was not entirely in order when I made an interjection during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). I still make the point that if the Minister wants to find the kind of justification for the Amendment that would convince him more
      984
      sensibly than any argument advanced from this side of the Committee he should consider the attitude of the late Iain Macleod, when he was Minister of Labour during the 1957 strike in the engineering industry, to what we fondly call the little T.U.C.—the Confederation of Engineering and Shipbuilding Unions. If the Minister will do so he will find all the justification he needs for accepting an Amendment of this character. He will lose much if he does not read of the experiences of that period—
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I happened to be the late Iain Macleod's Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry at the time. Naturally, close consultations took place. Nobody had to write anything into the Statute Book.
      Mr. Jones: That is hardly the point. The point is that that man had the breadth of vision and the wisdom to see that there were consultations with these people, because he knew that they had responsibility for handling these affairs, and before he made a move he had the sort of consultations that the Amendment asks the Minister to have. I ask the Minister to read of those experiences and to refresh his mind about them. I am aware of the position that the right hon. Gentleman held, but I held a position in the trade union movement and I well remember the experiences of that time.
      Mr. Atkinson: I wish to bring hon. Gentlemen opposite down to earth. There are no trade unionists waiting to get down to detailed discussions to create a code of industrial practice. It seems that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) may be giving hon. Gentlemen opposite the wrong idea. There will be no cosy chat between the trade unions and the Government on this matter.
      Hon. Members are under an illusion if they do not appreciate the bitterness that exists in the trade union movement over this proposed Code of Practice. [Interruption.] If the monocled hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has something to say, he should get to his feet and not mutter under his breath. I often wonder why he

      985
      closes the eye with which he is supposed to look through the monocle and opens the other eye.
      Is it any wonder why the trade unions are not anxious to formulate a code of practice with the Government, considering the way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite dismissed the T.U.C. as being virtually non-existent? Now we know that the Government are prepared to drive every postman into the ground and to extract the last drop of blood from them. This is their policy. How, in the sort of atmosphere which the Government have created, can they expect trade unionists to have anything to do with their proposals? It will be a long time before trade unionists have anything to do with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      Workers throughout the country are talking about taking general strike action against this legislation. They see it as a threat to their fundamental freedoms. Trade unionists have declared that they will never serve on these courts and other bodies and there is non-co-operation over a wide area. Indeed, the Labour movement is likely to disown people who serve on the bodies proposed to be established by the Government.
      My earlier remarks were designed to get the Government to produce a White Paper setting out the basis of the industrial practices they have in mind so that we may more easily interpret some of the later provisions in the Bill. I wish to make it clear, however, that there will be no co-operation with the Government over this and that in the last few days hon. Gentlemen opposite have declared war on the trade union movement.
      Mr. Orme: One of the extraordinary things about this Clause and the proposed Code of Practice is that we are being asked to buy something which we have not seen. In a previous reply the Minister said that he would give a few illustrations of what might be in this Highway Code, as he called it. He said that it would include the question of the attitude of management to redundancy and collective bargaining, and all sorts of factors. He said that the code is still being presented, and that it would not provide a reason for taking an issue to the Industrial Court, but that it could be used at the court as guidelines for the court if it were dealing with an issue arising from the Bill.
      986
      We are discussing a Bill of 156 Clauses and eight Schedules. We are being asked to accept, within the terms of the Bill, something which we have not seen but which will run alongside the Bill and will be guidelines in industry.
      Mr. R. Carr: It will help to shorten our proceedings if I make clear to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), in case he does not already realise it, that the code will have to have the affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. There is no question of this being something which hon. Members have not seen.
      Mr. Orme: The point was made earlier that it was hoped that by the spring the code would be prepared and perhaps dealt with in the House by the autumn. I do not deny that. But while we are discussing the broad principles of the Bill, we are asked to pass a Clause setting up a code of conduct, which is to run parallel and in unison with the Bill, with points we have not yet seen.
      In the engineering industry, with which I have had dealings, when a major agreement is concluded and issued, it is a very detailed agreement. It is interesting that both sides of the industry produce notes for guidance for interpretation by managers and shop stewards throughout the industry. The three-year package deal which is just coming to a close is a classic example. Fundamental points are explained and explored in the notes and guidance is given to negotiators in industry. This is accepted by both sides, and when there is a dispute about an agreement at a local works conference, or if we go to York, the notes for guidance are produced and both sides accept them as factual—but there is argument about interpretation. But there will be no acceptance with the code of practice because the trade unions have not been and will not be consulted about it and, because of their attitude to the Bill, would not take part in discussions in any case, having been originally thrown out through the door at St. James's Square by the Minister. Mr. Feather has gone on record about the very cursory manner in which they were told, "You can come here and discuss the details but you will have to accept the principles, whether you like them or not."
      The trade union movement will not become parties to this discussion. I

      987
      accept that it will not be invited, so there will be imposed upon industry not only the Bill, which the trade union movement opposes, but a Code of Practice which our side of industry completely refuses.
      4.30 a.m.
      How are any sensible industrial relations to be obtained on that sort of basis? We have difficulty with agreements, particularly in the engineering industry. A great deal of discussion and negotiation on the York Memorandum is going on, with a view perhaps to changing it. The passage of the Bill is holding that up. Even under that memorandum there is within our industry a broad acceptance of the good will that there is in the main on both sides of manufacturing industry.
      In future we shall have something imposed on industry from outside, from a Ministry, from a Parliament, which will have judicial backing. The law will be brought directly into industrial relations. If people cannot see that, they cannot see what all the argument is about and why we are discussing the matter in such depth and detail tonight.
      My right hon. Friend has stated the importance of the Clause and what the Government are doing. The Bill will not be in the hands of every trade unionist, but many will have it. If it is passed it will become the knowledge of people fundamentally involved from day to day in negotiations. But the Code of Practice will probably be handled by tens of thousands of people. It will be discredited before it starts. I want the Minister to think about that.
      Mr. Swain: When I asked the Under-Secretary whom he was going to consult, he said that he would consult all parties who made application for consultation. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) I warn him not to bother the postman with a letter to Victor Feather. I am certain that as a result of the attitude of the trade unions during the past months Victor Feather will steadfastly refuse to discuss a code of conduct in connection with a Bill to which the trade union movement is diametrically opposed.
      I illustrate the Minister's answer tonight in this way. It reminds me of a hangman spending the full night with the man who is to be hanged next morning, Practising
      988
      tying the knot around the victim's neck to see whether it is comfortable. Then the victim was hanged. That is the type of discussion the Government appear to wish to have. The only people I can see the Government taking notice of are their paymasters. The code of conduct is still hypothetical. According to the Minister, it is still in the abstract. But it should have been the meat on which the bones of the Bill were constructed. We should be discussing it in conjunction with the Bill.
      The Amendment moved so eloquently by my right hon. Friend is sensible and moderate. It is not a wrecking Amendment. It would bring some common sense into the Clause. She knows as well as the trade union movement that the word "consultation" coming from the lips of the Secretary of State, his colleagues in the Government and hon Members opposite, who are so loyally supporting him although some of them appear to be asleep at the moment, is nothing but Tory cant. "Consultation" does not mean genuine consultation to them; it means dictatorship by the Minister. It means his attitude, "I want you to come to talk to me but in the end you will have to do as I tell you."
      That is the sort of consultation we used to experience years ago. I am convinced that the Secretary of State is taking us back to those dark ages and the struggle which used to take place then between trade unions and employers. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that we could make progress instead of retarding.
      But I do not see us making any impression on the right hon. Gentleman. Yet we know of the success of consultation by his Department, as exampled in its conciliation officers when we have been faced with strikes, although the present Secretary of State has sent them out only half-heartedly to deal with issues after the unions have gone into the struggle. The result has been that, since last June, the consultations have been negative. They have yielded no positive results. Consultation as envisaged by the right hon. Gentleman is a waste of time and I am sure that Mr. Feather and the General Council will consider it as such.
      A few days ago, we had a national demonstration day. [Interruption.] I wish the joint political conference going on was over so that hon. Members who are

      989
      interested in the Amendment could listen to what was being said. I say that with all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who is playing a great part in the attempt to make this Bill better—or a genuine attempt to defeat it in toto. I say that with deference to him but none to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), who chatters away like a cage of monkeys in Regent's Park Zoo. Talking to oneself is one of the worst habits in the world.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was addressing the Chair and had his back to me, and I knew that he could not see me. I went over to ask the hon. Member whether I had lost some weight because he, like others, might have thought that I had faded away quickly and was no longer visible. But he assured me that I have not lost that amount of weight.
      Mr. Swain: Even if my hon. Friend were invisible, he would not be inaudible. I was saying that the hon. Member for Peterborough has been chattering like a cage-full of monkeys, and in Derbyshire people would say that a man who talks to himself consistently is on the road to Mickleover, that being where the asylum is.
      In the Minister's mind, the idea of consultation is just hypothetical; it does not mean consultation in the true sense. It means that the T.U.C. or other interested parties would trot along to the Ministry—there would be no tea and cakes at midnight at Downing Street for them, because there is no hostess there to entertain them—and, after spending hours of boredom listening to the Secretary of State, they would come away having learned nothing because the right hon. Gentleman could not teach them anything. [An HON. MEMBER: "The same goes for the Post Office workers."] I was coming to the question of consultation with the Post Office workers, the electricity workers and with the miners. When we were in a struggle with the employers only a few weeks ago, the consultation was meaningless.
      The Code of Practice should have been spelled out to us line by line so that we could have something tangible to talk about. In the event, the Code of Practice, when it is introduced, will be strictly
      990
      dependent on the success or failure of the Bill in the first month or two, yet that Code of Practice could disturb labour relations which have been built up over a great many years more than anything else could, more even than the Bill itself.
      Let the Secretary of State be honest with the Committee—that will be strange, coming from a Conservative Minister, to say the least—and let him tell us what his Code of Practice is to be. He has not made these proposals without some foreknowledge of what it is to contain. I understand that the Code of Practice will need an affirmative Resolution of both Houses, but that will be a mere formality once the Bill has become law. Therefore, it is fundamental to our debates, and fundamental to the Amendment now before us, that the Committee be made aware of the structure and framework of the Code of Practice, at least, if the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us what the details will be.
      4.45 a.m.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I feel that I do not make my best speeches at a quarter to five in the morning, but one of the penalties of sitting in the Chamber is that one sometimes hears provocative remarks or remarks which call for elucidation. We are talking about good industrial relations, but I admit that the Chief Whip never consults me about how long we are to sit, whether we can expect to get Clause 2, or which point in the Bill we are supposed to reach.
      I do not think that it is too big an intrusion to take up a few minutes of the time of the House on a serious point. The Under-Secretary referred earlier to the Code of Practice, and that has prompted me to make this contribution.
      I am quite sure he will now realise that he will have to explain what he means about this Code of Practice. He suggested that the Highway Code gives some idea of his approach to this matter. Obviously, there is agreement in the Highway Code that everyone should drive on the left-hand side of the road. There are certain rules there which are accepted by everyone, and the Highway Code would be meaningless unless that were so.
      The Under-Secretary used the phrase, "facilities for employees", and I should

      991
      like to ask whether those facilities will include accommodation for representation of the workers. Will they be granted the use of a 'phone? Does the hon. Gentleman know that there was almost a revolution in the Fairfield experiment on the Clyde, because the new management suggested to the shipbuilding people that there should be a room available for shop stewards, which was unheard of? Is that the kind of facility which will be included? What about meetings held during working hours? Will there be general guidance in the Code of Practice about the collection of subscriptions?
      These are all important points, and it is meaningless for a Minister to come to the House unless he is prepared to give some idea of what is going to be in the Code of Practice. Will there be a separate section dealing with the public sector where, before the events of the past few weeks, there might have been a possibility of getting a model Code of Practice? Has the hon. Gentleman destroyed that possibility, because of the handling of the industrial situation over the last few weeks?
      We are surely entitled to some information. Or is it, as I am beginning to suspect, that no matter how plausible—I put it no worse than that—or how reasonable Government spokesmen on the Front Bench are, they are afraid to give any indication that they are willing to consult anyone? Will their backbench Members stand for it? They are all howling for blood. Will their supporters outside stand for it? [Interruption.] This is a matter of opinion, and I have stated my opinion.
      The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope that the Committee will allow the hon. Gentleman to get on with his speech.
      Mr. Brown: The Government may have realised that there is a mood in the country which wants action against trade unions. The matter has not been thought out, but that mood exists and the Government are prisoners of the very attitude which they have encouraged in the public.
      I do not believe that when he replies the Minister will be prepared to indicate that he might even have to think about
      992
      compelling employers to make facilities available for trade unions. Are the Government willing to do that? They are willing to talk to some of the younger reactionary backwoodsmen that we have in this Parliament. Are they willing to spell out that they might even have to put pressure on employers? They should give us some indication about their Code of Practice. If they are not willing to accept the Amendment and to consult the major representative bodies, whom will they consult? Who do they think will write to them? Who will give them advice and information as to what might make a Code of Practice?
      Mr. R. Carr: I am delighted to have the chance of replying to the debate.
      Let me begin by assuring the Committee that there is no question of imposing a Code of Practice on industry without consultation. It has never been in our mind that such a thing should happen and I can give an unqualified assurance that I shall be taking the initiative in seeking discussions and views about the formation of this Code of Practice. I shall be making every effort to consult. What does alarm me, or it would if I believed that certain hon. Members spoke for anyone other than themselves, is the suggestion which came, for example, from the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) that the T.U.C. and trade unions generally would refuse to participate in consultation.
      Mr. Swain: The actions and words of the members of the General Council and of Mr. Victor Feather during the past week or two and the demonstrations that have been held—although some backbench Members think that the demontrations were not a success—were indicative of the attitude of the T.U.C. towards the Government. If the Government expect the T.U.C. to discuss with them in the climate of opinion created by this Bill I can say that I am speaking for the T.U.C. or at least for the Miners' Union, which is a very large and integral part of the T.U.C.
      Mr. Carr: In which case some hon. Members—I do not know whether the right hon. Lady is among them—are urging me to accept Amendments which

      993
      they are saying the T.U.C. will not observe. That is exactly what the hon Member has said.
      Mr. Atkinson indicated assent.
      Mr. Carr: I see the hon. Member nodding his head. When the hon. Member was speaking I could not help wishing rather strongly that our proceedings were televised and that all the people could hear the opinions he was stating. I have no doubt what the conclusion of the public would have been. I simply do not believe that a Measure passed by Parliament should suffer a deliberate attack to wreck it by non-co-operation, by a refusal to consult in accordance with its processes and participate in its machinery. It is not something which the public will understand or accept with any great toleration. Nor do I believe that that is what will happen. Only time till tell.
      Mr. Orme: If the right hon. Gentleman will not take either the word of my hon. Friend or of myself on this, has he seen what Mr. Hugh Scanlon, President of the A.E.F., has said about the possibility that non-co-operation, non-registration will be considered at least by that union, which is one of the major unions in Britain? That is the voice of the premier official of the A.E.F.
      Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed; and I am quite sure that the public at large will take note of it—
      Mr. Orme: They will.
      Mr. Carr: —and I am quite sure that that would be as untypical of the views and wishes of at least 80 per cent. of trade union members in this country as it would be of the views and wishes of 90 per cent. of the total population of this country. I do not believe that that will happen, because I believe that trade unions need, and understand the need for, public support, and want and respect public support and opinion, as much as any other body of people—in fact, I believe their history shows this at least as much as, if not more than, for any other section of public opinion.
      Mr. Atkinson: The Minister suggested that 80 per cent. of the trade union movement are supporters of the Bill, or have some sympathy with the Bill, and that the great majority of the people have
      994
      sympathy with it. I do not know whether he meant the great majority of trade unionists or of the people as a whole. If that is the case, would he name a union which, in its national conference, between now and 18th March will record a decision in favour of this Bill and publicly declare its support for the Bill in any respect whatever? Secondly, will he predict what the decision of the Trades Union Congress will be on 18th March? If he has faith—
      The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think there is a definite danger now of our getting on to the general principles of the Bill as a whole. I hope that the hon. Member will adhere as closely as possible to the terms of the Amendment.
      Mr. Atkinson: I was just finishing. I do not know why the Minister mentioned televising these proceedings and not other reporting of them. Surely the public know what is said here. This is a public rostrum. But on the question of the T.U.C., will the Minister say what the decision will be on 18th March?
      Mr. Carr: I do not think I shall embark on that because I should be out of order. I was not at that moment expressing any view of the percentage of trade unionists who support the Bill, although there is a great deal of evidence, whatever may be the views of the executive committees, delegate conferences, and so forth, that the majority of the rank and file trade unionists do support it, or something like it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] What I was saying on this occasion was something much less controversial. I said that I believe that 80 per cent.—I should be surprised if it is not a much higher percentage—of trade unionists in this country do respect an Act of Parliament passed properly through Parliament by a democratically elected Government, particularly one which had made it a major feature of their election appeal to the country. That, I believe, is true, and I believe that it will be seen to be true when the time comes.
      I repeat that I assure the Committee that I shall be seeking views and that I shall be seeking consultation. I only hope that I get it. I am going to expect

      995
      to get it. I am going to seek it, and I hope that this time the trade unions will feel able to come to consult me fully, as I very much wish they had done earlier this autumn. It could have been of great benefit, as other institutions and individuals have found.
      Mr. John Mendelson: Speaking for myself, I certainly take the view that it is for the trade union movement itself to declare which attitude it will adopt at any time. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I was very careful to stress that the Amendment which I am supporting demands that the Government get agreement with the T.U.C. and employers' organisations, not merely consultation. That is the argument to which he has to address himself.
      5.0 a.m.
      Mr. Carr: I certainly shall address myself to that argument. I stress the importance which the Government attach to this Code of Practice. We have always seen the Bill and the Code of Practice as central and complementary one to the other. The basic framework of the law in the Bill is the instrument by which we lay down the boundaries within which people are free to act. Because the Bill lays down boundaries of freedom it inevitably has to be to some extent negative rather than positive in character. By definition law is a restraining, restrictive instrument. But, within the boundaries, the Code of Practice can play an immensely important, positive, constructive rôle in giving guidance both to managements and to unions, particularly in individual companies, on what are in most circumstances the best practices to follow.
      The reason why we do not think that these practices can be laid down specifically within the Act of Parliament is that if we are to be as constructive and positive as this we cannot lay down precisely what should be done in each and every industry and each and every company. That is why we cannot make it obligatory, and it would be wrong to try.
      Moreover, the code must be flexible and capable of frequent revision or supplementation. That, again, is a reason for putting it forward as something which will be presented to Parliament in draft for approval by affirmative Resolution of both Houses, at the same time laying
      996
      down machinery by which the code can be easily revised, supplemented and changed as conditions change and as experience teaches us.
      So we pay enormous attention to the importance of the code and the flexibility of the procedure of guidance and help which it can offer in bringing up the average performance of British industry somewhat nearer the best. Industrial relations in Britain at their best are as good as if not better than anywhere else in the world. We need to bring up the average nearer to the best. We can include in the Code of Practice positive guidlines for management, trade unions and individual employees which will help to speed up the raising of the average level of the conduct of industrial relations, and that is why we regard it as so important.
      I think that it would not be the wish of the Committee, if I may say so with respect to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), that I should go through the details of what might be in this code, but I can assure him that I would expect the code to have many important things to say about the duties of management in providing facilities for trade unions and trade unionists. I would certainly expect this subject to be covered in the Code of Practice. These matters can make all the difference to the smooth working of plants and companies and these are the sort of guidelines and standards which we want to set down. So I repeat my assurance that there will be consultation.
      I have now to address myself to the group of Amendments. Essentially they deal with two different stages of the Code of Practice, namely, the stage of preparing the initial code and then the stage of adding to or revising. The code deals with different themes. The theme exemplified in the Amendment by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn demands that we should attain the agreement of industry, the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the employers' associations before coming forward with the code. Other themes in this group of Amendments merely ask us to discuss and consult.
      We cannot accept the suggestion that agreement must be obtained, nor would any Government of any party ever accept such an Amendment. It means that we should be giving to the C.B.I., the T.U.C.

      997
      or to any other organisation that might be named, an absolute right of veto over the production of this code in any form. I do not believe that that would be right and I cannot accept it.
      The question of consultation is a different matter. The only matter at issue there is not whether it should be done, but to what extent, if any, the requirement should be written into an Act of Parliament. I should like to distinguish between the two stages of producing the code, namely the first stage, the preparation of the initial code, and then what we shall do about making revisions and additions to it in the future.
      I regard the first stage, the production of the initial code, as a matter of great urgency in time as well as of great importance. In fact, I am beginning to proceed towards preparation, consultation and discussion on this matter immediately.
      I want to put this matter in its constitutional context. In the form as here envisaged, the code comes under this Bill—which is not yet, of course, an Act of Parliament. I wish to make it clear that I am going ahead with preparations and discussions about this code, not only because I hope that the Bill will become an Act of Parliament this Session, but in view of the fact that, even if it were not to do so, we should still want to publish a Code of Practice on industrial relations. Therefore, even if Parliament were to turn us down on this Bill, as I am sure it will not, we should still wish to publish a Code of Practice which in itself, we believe, would be of great value.
      I hope and trust that before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, I shall have had many deep and long discussions and consultations with everybody who wishes to speak to me on this point. That includes not only the T.U.C. and the main unions, but the C.B.I. and the main employers' associations and companies. It also will include bodies like the Industrial Society, the Institute of Personnel Management—and I could go on. There are many bodies which have important views to put forward, and there are many people involved—including some who do not agree with some of the legislative provisions but who nevertheless strongly agree with the great potential value of the Code of Practice and wish to contribute to its form. I shall very much welcome that contribution.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that to some extent he is destroying his own case? He said that he could not seek agreement with the bodies involved and that the Government had responsibilities. Most of us would accept that. Does the Secretary of State not realise that he is in a peculiar situation in not having a mandate for this Bill according to the interpretation of democracy in his own Bill? He has only 32 per cent. of the people eligible to vote and has to use persuasion to get agreement. He certainly has no mandate in Scotland even if he has in this country.
      Mr. Carr: I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was a Scottish Nationalist who believed that Scotland should be ruled separately from the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that he is trying to pre-empt a debate which we shall be having on a later Clause. I hope to seek agreement, but the Government are not prepared, nor would any other Government be prepared, to subject an important matter of this kind to the veto of any one section or interest in our society and economy. Consult, by all means. Seek agreement, by all means. But no Government should accept a right of veto imposed from outside in that way.
      I shall be consulting and discussing on the initial code and I hope very much that the trade unions will join in. I shall do my best to persuade them, but I cannot subject what I believe is a vital matter in the improvement of industrial relations in this country to the possible refusal by some body to consult with me, and I must therefore maintain the right to produce this initial code in the form in the Bill.
      When we come to the revision of the code, it will be within the power not just of this Secretary of State but of all my successors to lay down that the C.I.R. should be given the opportunity to be consulted and to advise before revision, which also includes additions. When we get to that stage, we shall have flexibility and, I hope, time, and I hope that by then all these things will be working in a much smoother manner. It is right that that should be so.
      I have then to consider, as I have mentioned, the C.I.R.'s place in the Bill, and taking account of the well-established

      999
      practice to consult with all the sorts of bodies which hon. Members have in mind, to consider whether I should not specifically mention certain other bodies in addition. I am in genuine doubt because I am sure that it is the C.I.R.'s job to be corporate advisor to the Secretary of State in these matters. That is why, and the only reason why, the T.U.C. or the C.B.I., or words implying those bodies, were not written into this Clause.
      I am sympathetic to that feeling. When the C.I.R. has advised the Secretary of State on continual revisions of the code, the Secretary of State of the day must be quite open to hear and to take account of representations which bodies such as the T.U.C., and the C.B.I. wish to make to him.
      If it helps the House, while I cannot accept the wording of any of the Amendments, I will consider whether, in relation to the revisions Clause, Clause 3, I can on Report import some words which give substance to the assurance which I have given to the House in respect of formal recognition given to the rights of bodies like the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to have their views taken into account.
      I want to do this in a way which must not overrule the responsibility, the authority and the influence of the C.I.R. That is why I am somewhat reserved about giving a specific promise. But, for what it is worth, I give the undertaking that I will consider this matter to see whether, on Report, I can find some words to import into Clause 3 which will meet the wish of at least the other side of the Committee.
      5.15 a.m.
      Mrs. Castle: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having at last overcome his reluctance to rise and wind up

      Division No.61.]

      AYES

      [5.20 a.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Booth, Albert

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Bradley, Tom

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Buchan, Norman

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Barnes, Michael

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

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Barnett, Joel

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

      Beaney, Alan

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Cant, R. B.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Carmichael, Neil

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      the debate. The enthusiasm of the Government for encouraging verbosity, not least on their own side, hardly accords with the kind of aura of urgency which they have endeavoured to give to the subject. It is duly noted, and the significance of the right hon. Gentleman's slow motion activities is, I think, clear to us.
      When the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet, he took a great many words indeed, despise the lateness of the hour, to tell us simply that he was not prepared to import any element of democratic participation into the drawing up of this Code of Practice.
      The right hon. Gentleman need not trouble himself or waste any time or sleep worrying whether, on Report, he should import a provision that there should be consultation on the revising of the Code of Practice when the C.I.R. is brought in. We are asking for something different. I agree with my hon. Friends that if the Code of Practice is to remain unagreed, is to come straight from the Government without anybody else having a chance to influence and mould it, the T.U.C. will not be interested in the kind of consultation which the right hon. Gentleman is offering, because it has no impact, no influence.
      The right hon. Gentleman goes through the motions. He does not believe in it; he is not influenced by it; he does not listen to it seriously. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends to divide the Committee on the Amendment so that we can get on with more important business, because we want to make progress even if the Government do not.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 212, Noes 246.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Deakins, Eric

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Prescott, John

      Delargy, H. J.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Kelley, Richard

      Probert, Arthur

      Doig, Peter

      Kinnock, Neil

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lambie, David

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lamond, James

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Latham, Arthur

      Richard, Ivor

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lawson, George

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Dunn, James A.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Roper, John

      Ellis, Tom

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rose, Paul B.

      English, Michael

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Evans, Fred

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

      McBride, Neil

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

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McCann, John

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Foley, Maurice

      McElhone, Frank

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Ford, Ben

      McGuire, Michael

      Sillars, James

      Forrester, John

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Silverman, Julius

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mackie, John

      Small, William

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Garrett, W. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Gilbert, Dr. John

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

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ginsburg, David

      Marks, Kenneth

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Strang, Gavin

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Meacher, Michael

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Swain, Thomas

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mendelson, John

      Taverne, Dick

      Hamling, William

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Millan, Bruce

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hardy, Peter

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Tinn, James

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Hilton, W. S.

      Moyle, Roland

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Horam, John

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Murray, Ronald King

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Ogden, Eric

      Wallace, George

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Watkins, David

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Oram, Bert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Orbach, Maurice

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Hunter, Adam

      Orme, Stanley

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Janner, Greville

      Oswald, Thomas

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverool, Exchange)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pentland, Norman

      Mr. John Golding.

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

      Perry, Ernest G.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Brewis, John

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Drayson, G. B.

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Dykes, Hugh

      Astor, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Eden, Sir John

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bryan, Paul

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

      Balniel, Lord

      Carlisle, Mark

      Eyre, Reginald

      Batsford, Brian

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Farr, John

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fell, Anthony

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Benyon, W.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Fidler, Michael

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Churchill, W. S.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Biffen, John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Blaker, Peter

      Coombs, Derek

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Fortescue, Tim

      Body, Richard

      Cormack, Patrick

      Fowler, Norman

      Boscawen, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Fox, Marcus

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Curran, Charles

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

      Bowden, Andrew

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Fry, Peter

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Braine, Bernard

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

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Bray, Ronald

      Dean, Paul

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      1002

      1003

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      McLaren, Martin

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Gorst, John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Gower, Raymond

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Rost, Peter

      Gray, Hamish

      Maddan, Martin

      Royle, Anthony

      Green, Alan

      Madel, David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Grylls, Michael

      Marten, Neil

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

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Mather, Carol

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Mawby, Ray

      Simeons, Charles

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Soref, Harold

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

      Speed, Keith

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Spence, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Moate, Roger

      Sproat, Iain

      Havers, Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Stainton, Keith

      Hawkins, Paul

      Money, Ernie D.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Hicks, Robert

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stokes, John

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      More, Jasper

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Holland, Philip

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Tapsell, Peter

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

      Horden, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Hornby, Richard

      Murton, Oscar

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Neave, Airey

      Tebbit, Norman

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Temple, John M.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Hunt, John

      Normanton, Tom

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Nott, John

      Tilney, John

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      James, David

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Trew, Peter

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Jessel, Toby

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Jopling, Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Wall, Patrick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Pounder, Rafton

      Warren, Kenneth

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Weatherill, Bernard

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Kirk, Peter

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Wilkinson, John

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Raison, Timothy

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Knox, David

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Lane, David

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Redmond, Robert

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Longden, Gilbert

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Loveridge, John

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      MacArthur, Ian

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Mr. Victor Goodhew

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 386, in page 2, line 18, after 'State', insert
      'or, in the case of teachers in maintained schools the Secretary of State for Education and Science after consulting with organisations representing teachers'.
      The Chairman: I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if, with that Amendment, we take Amendment No. 387, in page 2, line 19. after 'Act' insert:
      'such code of practice shall have regard to the position and the practices applicable to employees in local authorities'.
      Mr. Jones: Thank you, Sir Robert.
      1004
      5.30 a.m.
      I think that at this wretched hour it would be stretching the limits of the tolerance of the Committee if I were to speak overlong, and I am certain that I can be very brief if the Committee will bear with me for two minutes. I should declare an interest, in that I am a member of the National Union of Teachers, and until I was elected to Parliament in June of this year I worked for that union. But I do not come before the Committee with a sectional interest; I want to point out what I regard as a serious anomaly in the Bill. The professions in general, and the

      1005
      teachers in particular, are not adequately catered for.
      It is well to consider the membership of the teaching profession. In one way or another it could amount to 400,000. Certainly there are 330,000 practising teachers, and there are 100,000 trainee teachers in colleges and universities. Taking into account other public servants, the percentage of this category in terms of the total work force must be large. Having regard to the working record of this category—which is not free from strikes—the Government should have had more regard for it in the Bill.
      It would be a good idea if the Secretary of State for Education and Science, and those civil servants who aid the Minister in Curzon Street, were involved in the problems of teachers. I believe, as do the teachers' unions, that the terminology of the Bill is slanted in favour of industry and commerce, to the detriment of the professions, and I have moved the Amendment in order to draw this fact to the attention of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I am sure that the Committee appreciates the good intentions of the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) in moving the Amendment, having the interests of the teachers at heart as he does. The Amendment would require the Secretary of State, in preparing a draft Code of Practice, to take into account the opinion of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science concerning the position of teachers in maintained schools, and would oblige him to consult organisations representing teachers.
      In preparing the Code of Practice my right hon. Friend will consult many people. He will consult other Government Departments, including his Ministerial colleagues who have an interest in the preparation of the Code of Practice. Those Departments will include the Department of Education and Science. I submit that it is unnecessary to place my right hon. Friend under a statutory obligation to consult. There seems no good reason for singling out a certain part of the public sector for special consultation in this way. It could lead to similar demands from other groups—although I realise that the teachers have a special interest.
      Whether or not the Department of Education and Science should seek the
      1006
      views of teachers' organisations is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. No doubt that will be taken into account. I can assure the hon. Member that there is nothing to prevent such organisations making representations direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment or, in the case of affiliated organisations, through the T.U.C. That includes the N.U.T. and the N.A.S. I hope that when the time comes they will take every opportunity to make those representations.
      With the assurance that we are open to such representations but do not wish to single out teachers for special statutory treatment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move Amendment No. 384, in page 2, line 20, leave out 'in particular have regard to' and insert:
      'have regard to—

      (a) the need for those who manage undertakings to accept the primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations, and

      (b)'.

      I know that this Amendment has the wholehearted support of my hon. Friends. I hope that it will be equally supported by hon. Gentlemen opposite because this is a matter concerning industrial relations about which I think there can be unanimous agreement and is an aspect which I hope can be emphasised by the Committee as a whole.
      In previous speeches in the House on this subject—I made this point in the debate on the Consultative Document and, I believe, on Second Reading—I have pointed out that when we have created the right environment, we must look to leadership in our voluntary system from both management and trade unions. However, I have always gone on to stress that the primary responsibility for that leadership must rest with management, starting from the very top in each company, because if they do not lead, who can follow?
      The purpose of the Amendment is specific. It would write into the Clause—which instructs the Secretary of State on

      1007
      how the Code of Practice is to be prepared—specific responsibilities which he should take into account in preparing the Code, with the primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations resting with those who manage undertakings.
      I need not, at this juncture, delay the Committee by going into the matter further; I will answer any questions that are asked by hon. Members. I hope and believe that this proposition will have the unanimous support of the Committee.
      Mr. Orme: I have been asked to reply for the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We oppose the Amendment and will vote against it. We oppose it primarily because it takes us back to the earlier debate we had about worker participation in industry and the various responsibilities of management and workers. We do not accept that on the whole question of good industrial relations the responsibility is the sole prerogative of management.
      In industry the issue of managerial function has confounded many of the negotiations that have taken place, and it is in relation to managerial function and the trade unions wanting to have a better status that our opposition to the Amendment becomes clear.
      For example, in the engineering industry a new agreement is being negotiated. The engineering employers wanted to change one basis of collective bargaining by deleting the right of mutuality. This right—by which any agreement made between employees and management must be mutual; one or other side can reject it, so that the employers cannot proceed without there being mutual agreement—has existed in this industry.
      The Secretary of State will be aware of some of the negotiations that have been going on. For example, the management of British Leyland is seeking to change the wage structure from piece work to measured day work. Basic discussions are taking place on that. These discussions have gone right through the engineering agreement. But at the end of the day the unions reserve the right not to have forced upon them a different form of wage negotiation and wage structure if it cannot be mutually agreed between the management and the trade
      1008
      unions. Therefore, we cannot accept that good industrial relations is the primary responsibility of management. It is the responsibility of workers within the industry and both management and the trade unions. By free collective bargaining we mean equating the right of the worker with management.
      The Secretary of State will recognise that basic changes are taking place within industry and that the industrial atmosphere is changing. We are now moving from the small family firm to the multinational company and huge combines, where it is very difficult to ascertain the owner of the company. In many large combines some of the senior management people are as confused about the situation and their relationship within the combine as the worker on the shop floor.
      While there is this changing atmosphere and while workers are asking for participation in management and ownership within industry, it is a little naive of the Secretary of State to ask the House to accept the Amendment, where he rests the issue of prime responsibility on management. I hope that the Opposition will vote against the Amendment.
      Mr. John Page: I have listened to the debate for 17 hours. I have not yet made a speech, and this will be a short one. I cannot understand why the Opposition are opposing this Amendment. It is the most extraordinary example of schizophrenia I have yet heard in the 17 hours. Only minutes ago the Committee were being told that it was up to management to make more provision and more room, and to supply more telephones, for shop stewards and to allow time for trade union meetings during working hours. There has been consistent criticism from the benches opposite of the attitude of management in connection with industrial relations.
      My right hon. Friend has quite rightly suggested the insertion here of what I should have thought every person in the Committee would agree with: the statement that the primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations is with management. Does not the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) agree that it is the duty of management primarily to provide the atmosphere and leadership for good industrial relations? He has neither shaken his head nor

      1009
      nodded it. Perhaps he does not wish to be seen to be a collaborator with me or to be too unfriendly with any member of the Tribune Group. But I have heard him speak over the years, and in the Prices and Incomes Board Committee, constantly pressing management to make more use of its opportunities.
      I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for putting this burden on management in writing in the Bill, the most appropriate place. This will rest on the shoulders of management, and taken into account in future discussion of the Bill will be the duty of managements to make a more positive effort to take the responsibility for good industrial relations on themselves. If the Opposition divide against the Amendment it will be a sign of even newer and deeper hypocrisy.
      5.45 a.m.
      Mr. Tinn: I am astonished at the suggestion that we should oppose the Amendment, because it seems to me to contain a good deal of what many of us have always asserted, that the primary responsibility for maintaining good relations and giving the leadership for such relations lies with management, and that it has the main responsibility when those relations are not good. In many instances and in many ways management has the initiative in the creation of the atmosphere in which negotiations on industrial relations are conducted. It does not have the sole responsibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) suggested, but it has a primary responsibility for the improvement of those relations, and a heavy and primary responsibility whether they are inadequate or poor.
      I am glad to see some hon. Members opposite nodding assent, but I should have liked a more ready and more frequent acceptance from their side that management in this country does carry a much heavier responsibility for what is wrong with industrial relations than does the labour side.
      Mr. R. Carr: I was deliberately very brief in moving the Amendment, because I genuinely thought that I was putting forward a proposition that would have the wholehearted support of both sides of the Committee. It is important that we should be united about this if we can,
      1010
      because I believe that it is one of the most important issues that we should lay down—the primary responsibility of management.
      Perhaps I may remind the Opposition, before they decide how to vote on the Amendment, of paragraph 27 of the right hon. Lady's White Paper "In Place of Strife", because I still refuse to believe that that is totally buried. The first sentence of that paragraph reads:
      "The major responsibility for solving the problem lies with management."
      If the right hon. Lady is no longer persuasive with her right hon. and hon. Friends, perhaps I could call in aid the Donovan Royal Commission Report, and part of it that is unanimous. I am sure that hon. Members who have read the Report will remember, without my quoting in extenso, that the responsibility of management, beginning with the responsibility of boards of directors, was one of its major themes, around which the Royal Commission built many of its most important recommendations.
      For example, having analysed the situation in industrial relations in this country in paragraph 162, the first paragraph in a section of the Report headed
      "The Direction of Reform"
      the Royal Commission write early in that paragraph:
      "Consequently the remedy must seek to introduce greater order into factory and workshop relations."
      The last sentence in paragraph 168 reads:
      "If Britain is to shift to factory agreements therefore the change must be accomplished by boards of directors."
      This again emphasises the primary responsibility of management. In paragraph 182 the Commission said:
      "In order to promote the orderly and effective regulation of industrial relations within companies and factories we recommend that the boards of companies review industrial relations within their undertakings. In doing so, should have the following objectives in mind:"
      Then it lists a number of objectives.
      I think I have quoted enough from Donovan to show that this concept of the primary responsibility of management was central to the Commission's analysis as to the direction and method and form it proposed. I would have hoped that this was one issue on which the Committee could and should have been

      1011
      united. I believe it would be a great pity and will do damage if we are not united. I therefore appeal to the Front Bench opposite to think very carefully before following the advice given by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). I believe that the Amendment deserves—indeed, commands—a very wide measure of agreement of those most knowledgeable both inside and outside the Committee.
      Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that we on the Opposition Front Bench should think very carefully before we follow the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). We accepted that my hon. Friend should oppose the Amendment in order that we could get very clearly from the right hon. Gentleman precisely what he and the Government have in mind. [Interruption.] As far as we are concerned, we are not arguing against the concept that those who manage undertakings should accept primary responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations. [Laughter.] We have argued that for many years. We have consistently argued that too many managements in the past have not accepted their responsibility for good industrial relations. Many speeches made by my hon. Friend have equally made that point in the House. [Laughter.] If hon. Members opposite had attended any discussions we have had on industrial relations, they would have known full well that that is the situation. I accept that some of them only rarely attend industrial relations debates and have not heard what my hon. Friend has been saying on this subject over the years.
      What we are advising is that we should not vote against the Amendment, but if any of my hon. Friends feel so disposed themselves to do so, there is nothing that I or any Front Bench speaker on this side of the Committee could do to stop them. [Laughter.] We have a much better spirit of independence in our party than the Tories have in theirs.
      I wish to make clear that we accept the concept of worker management. We have argued this in earlier debates on the Bill. We feel that we could well put down an Amendment at a later stage giving a definition of management and
      1012
      managers, so at this stage we are advising our hon. Friends not to vote against the Amendment. [Laughter.] I realise that hon. Members opposite have been having a nice time earlier this evening, but let us treat the matter seriously. We have endeavoured from the outset to treat this whole business in a serious fashion, and we are doing the same now. It is not a laughing matter. We are asking our hon. Friends not to divide on this Amendment. We shall put down appropriate Amendments at a later stage to probe the matter further.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Philip Holland: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 2, line 24, leave out 'information' and insert 'negotiation, consultation'.
      I have never believed that it was possible by excess of words to bludgeon any Government into acquiescence on any matter. I shall not detain the Committee for long, not just for that reason but also because I believe that a good proposal will stand on its own feet and will be its own best advocate.
      Why do I wish to delete one word and insert two others in its place? Clause 2(2) at present, in setting out the nub of the terms of reference of the code of industrial practice, stresses the
      "need for providing practical guidance with respect to disclosure of information by employers, and with respect to the establishment and maintenance of effective means of information …"—
      that last word being the one which I wish to replace by the words "negotiation" and "consultation".
      6.0 a.m.
      The subsection stresses already the need with respect to disclosure of information by employers, and it seemed to me superfluous to stress again the need to bring information into the matter when there is no other purpose. Employers do not require information on trade union finance and that sort of thing. The essence of the matter here lies in information from the employer to the trade union, to give equality of information for negotiation purposes. Therefore, it seems to me superfluous to stress the word "information" a second time, and to leave out what I regard as a very important aspect of the code of good industrial relations practice. It is with that in mind that I propose deleting the

      1013
      word "information" and inserting the words "negotiation, consultation", so that subsection (2) would then read,
      "… to the need for providing practical guidance with respect to disclosure of information by employers"—
      which I regard as very important; it comes first and is therefore rightly emphasised—
      "and with respect to the establishment and maintenance of effective means of negotiation, consultation and communication at all levels".
      That does not alter the intention of my right hon. Friend. I believe that it expresses the intention a little more fully and perhaps a little better than the original draft. I therefore commend this Amendment to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Amendment will give encouragement to large and small employers to reveal to the trade unions how much they contribute to the Tory Party political funds, to action groups and the rest?
      Mr. Holland: I may be under a misapprehension, but I understood that this information was already disclosed under an Act brought in by the hon. Member's own Government.
      Mr. Ashton: Yesterday we had a reference by the Minister to filibustering on Amendments, and I wondered whether this was the sort of Amendment that he had in mind. We are not trying to help the Government or to improve the Bill. That is not what we are here for. I am here to help the Opposition. But if the Government will look at the history of industrial relations in this country, they will see that when information is provided by an employer it leads to a very great reduction in the number of industrial disputes.
      The number of coal mines has dropped from 700 to about 350, and a major technological change took place with hardly any industrial disputes at all. Disputes in industries such as mining have been about pay, and not about the reorganisation of those industries. Reorganisation has been accepted by the men, because full information has been given to the N.U.M. With regard to the growth of white collar workers in industry, and the growth of trade unions among the white collar workers, which are getting higher and higher up the scale with unions such as A.S.T.M.S. and D.A.T.A.
      Mr. Holland: Is the hon. Member not supporting what I said? In my view, information from the N.U.M. to the management is required in a code of good industrial relations practice.
      Mr. Ashton: Yes, but this Bill is going to be handled by lawyers in the courts and the position will be far more ambiguous than is the case now. With regard to the other aspects, I could quote the example of the Co-op, where several mergers and reorganisations have taken place with no industrial disputes at all, because proper information has been given to the staff.
      This very day we have a dispute, one of the major points of which is how much a wage increase is going to cost. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said yesterday that it would mean a 9d. stamp, but that is disputed by the union. But if the information were given in a way which could be checked, it might be a great step forward to settling the dispute, so we are in favour of information at all levels. We think that the hon. Member's Amendment would tend to confuse the object, which is the last think we want to do in a Bill which is already very confusing and ambiguous. That is why we do not recommend its acceptance.
      The Solicitor-General: The Government take a more optimistic view of the effect of my hon. Friend's Amendment. It is exactly as he has explained it, the deletion of the second reference to "information" doing no harm and the intention and effect of the subsection is improved by the addition of the words suggested by my hon. Friend. I would advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. It is entirely in line in spirit and practice with the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, and with the possible new principle in Clause 1 (1) referred to by the hon. Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer).
      Mr. Holland: May I say thank you to my hon. and learned Friend for the advice he has given to the Committee.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I am astonished that we should now have deleted "information" from what seems one of the principal provisions of the Code of Practice. The Committee will recall that my right hon. Friend's Bill was entirely devoted to the provision of information. The Government have retreated even further from the important principle that she established in her Bill.
      We have been told precious little about the Code. It ought to have been made clearer, although we have had some guidance insofar as Clause 2 (1) refers to the need for a Code of Practice to provide guidance for the purpose specified in Clause 1 (1) of the Bill. Because we oppose Clause 1 (1) we are obviously opposed to anything which is designed to benefit that. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary have been skimpy at best in the information that they have so far provided about the content of the code.
      There was a curious dichotomy between the approach of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. The Under-Secretary assured the Liberal Party, when it sought to reduce the period of preparation, that there was no need to be in a hurry, because other parts of the Bill, when enacted, could be implemented, whereas the right hon. Gentleman subsequently said that the Code of Practice was crucial to the Bill, and that this and the other parts of the Bill hang together.
      I was rather surprised at the extraordinary—I hope the Under-Secretary of State will forgive me when I say—glibness with which he trotted out to the Committee phrases about the responsibility of management and so on—a whole host of things. He mentioned them so fast that I could not quite catch them all, but they all sounded to me at the time extremely complex and deserving of the serious consideration of the Committee. It would seem to me there is a requirement for the House to know more about the purposes and contents of the Code of Practice, and, in spite of the Amendment, that the Code should make some reference to responsibility to provide information. It seems to me particularly important in view of Clause 52. I assume that whoever replies for the Government will refer me to Clause 52 in respect to the provision of information, but Clause
      1016
      52 hinges on this Clause 2 and that subsection with which we have been dealing. I should like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that when we eventually reach Clause 52 we shall not be told, when pressing him and his hon. Friends on the need for information, that the horse has bolted because we should have pressed that matter when dealing with the Code of Practice. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can give more information, or some assurance about this, I must advise my hon. Friends to divide the Committee.
      Mr. R. Carr: The position gets curioser and curioser. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) started his speech by apparently wishing to oppose the previous Amendment which his hon. Friend who claimed to have been asked to reply indicated he and his hon. Friends would oppose, and when the Question was put we heard one or two voices in opposition, which, we believe, included the voice of the right hon. Lady herself. That was not then pressed and the Amendment was carried without a Division, and then the hon. Member for Doncaster gets up and, on the Question, That the Clause as amended, stand part of the Bill, opposes the Amendment which, after much muddle, his side had just let through without a Division.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I can well understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had a trying day, and I realise that he has been under considerable strain in the last 24 hours, but I was pointing out to him my astonishment that, after having written the word into the Clause in the first place, and given it such significance, and attaching such importance, particularly, I assume, to information in this code, and the contents of Clause 52, he should so readily have accepted such a change in the provisions of the Clause. Now perhaps he will address himself to the remarks I addressed to him rather than to differences which he imagines between my hon. Friend and me.
      Mr. Carr: I was sorry those remarks were not addressed to me. I do not know whom the hon. Gentleman was addressing. I repeat, he began his speech by opposing an Amendment he had just let through without a Division. But he has misunderstood the purpose of it.

      1017
      Indeed, he seems to have misunderstood the actual words of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) and accepted, on behalf of the Government, by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.
      We are not deleting "information" from that subsection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton pointed out, the word "information" was mentioned twice in the subsection, and all my hon. Friend suggested was that, since it was mentioned twice, the second mention might be deleted and might better be replaced by "negotiation, consultation". So we have in this subsection, which contains the guidelines for the Secretary of State on what he must particularly take into account in preparing the Code of Practice, the proper sequence of events—information, communication of information, consultation and negotiation. This is the whole gamut of processes which must be recognised and taken particularly into account by the Secretary of State, along with the prime responsibility of management, in preparing the Code of Practice. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he is quite mistaken if he thinks that the purpose of the Amendment is to lessen the importance which we attach to information. When he studies the subsection as amended that will be clear to him.
      6.15 a.m.
      The hon. Gentleman principally wanted from the Government more information about the code of practice. I make no secret of the fact that I wish a draft code could have been available to the Committee so that what we have in mind could have been seen fully, but the more consultation and discussion there is about it the longer we need to produce it.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Should not the code have been available at this juncture? It could be argued that if the Bill became law and workers acted unlawfully and did not adhere to the code, the contents of the Bill would be invalidated. Is not this a serious omission at this stage?
      Mr. Carr: I do not think it is, but of course the Bill would stand on its own feet with no code. We happen to believe strongly that a code will be of great advantage and that the two things go together.
      Mr. Bidwell: That is axiomatic.
      Mr. Carr: With respect, it is not axiomatic. The legislation proposed in the Bill—and indeed that in other countries—stands on its own feet without a code of practice. We believe that the Code of Practice will be extremely beneficial and influential, and that is why we are bringing it forward.
      Mr. Bidwell: The fact that the code is mentioned in the Bill suggests that it will be of enormous importance in establishing what is lawful and unlawful.
      Mr. Carr: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not so. As is made clear in Clause 4, the code does not attempt to lay down in any way what is lawful and unlawful. Its purpose is to set standards and guidelines which can be broadly followed by industry in encouraging responsible and informed collective bargaining, the establishment and observance of orderly and effective procedures for resolving grievances and disputes, the establishment of fair rights and obligations for all parties and the encouragement of effective communication and consultation. The code will not lay down what is lawful and unlawful.
      Mr. James Hamilton: A great deal has been said about communication and consultation, which I agree are vitally important matters. I hope that any consultations between the right hon. Gentleman and the T.U.C. will be true consultation. Our information is that when the General Council met the right hon. Gentleman to discuss the Consultative Document, it was told immediately that the eight matters in that document would be in the Bill, quite irrespective of anything said by the General Council. If that is the sort of consultation that is involved, we want no part of it.
      Mr. Carr: I think the hon. Gentleman is harping back to earlier matters. I do not complain about that. I repeat that I intend to have the fullest discussions and exchange of views with the T.U.C. and to have a word about the formation of the code. I only hope that the traffic will be both ways. I am a little nervous, judging by some of the things that have been said, that some of the hon. Gentleman's Friends will try to influence the T.U.C. and the unions not to participate in consultations. I hope that they will not

      1019
      be successful. For my part I shall attempt to consult fully and shall take account of the views which are put forward.
      I was asked for more details of what might be in the code. It would be wrong at this time of the morning for me to give a lengthy exposition, but if it will help I will indicate some subject headings.
      One very important section of the code must be about the rôle of management. This is directly consonant with an earlier Amendment that dealt with management having a prime responsibility for creating good industrial relations. In the code we must define the principles of effective management, leadership and inititive. In that code we must define what are management's chief responsibilities to employees. Also, in the code we must define what is effective communication and essential information. On the matter of information the Committee will be aware that there was a reference to the C.I.R. by his right hon. Friend a few weeks before the General Election. I am anxiously waiting to hear from the Commission about its views on this subject, but I can assure the Committee that the question of information will be a central and important part of the code.
      We believe that the code must say something about the rôle and training of supervisors which are required if we are to have good factory floor relations. We believe it must say something about the rôle of management in relation to facilities for trade unions and individual shop stewards in a plant, and not just officials outside the plant. We believe it must say something about the rôle of employers' associations and about the proper rôle of trade unions in company plants. We believe the code can be useful in laying down a model structure in collective agreements and the subject matter thereof, and the sort of disclosure of information required to make agreements effective and of a kind which we can genuinely expect people to enter into and to keep.
      We cannot expect people to enter into agreements and bind themselves unless they feel that they are negotiating such agreements for the benefit of fair equality

      Division No.65.]

      AYES

      [6.30 a.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Astor, John

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Balniel, Lord

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Batsford, Brian

      of information between the two parties to the agreement. I have given some examples of the sort of vital subjects, the very guts of a practical industrial relations system in individual companies and plants, that we shall include in this code of industrial relations practice. This is what we are doing in trying to distil what is best in British practice, and by including this in the code it will give it authority that will come from its association with this Bill and its specific approval by Parliament will be a substantial encouragement to the development of these good practices in the individual company and factory, because it is here that we can most effectively improve the quality of human relations in industry and the peaceful resolution of disputes which inevitably arise. That is the purpose of the code, the purpose of Clause 2.
      I would, while fully realising the fundamental opposition on the benches opposite to this Bill, ask hon. Members to think carefully before voting against Clause 2. They know, as I know, that they will find many people outside this Committee who may be not in agreement with some or even all of our main legislative proposals but still strongly believe that the Code of Practice idea is of immense value and is essentially non-controversial.
      Whatever may be the ultimate fate of the Bill and however long it may stay on the Statute Book—and I believe it will be longer than many hon. Members opposite imagine—this Code of Practice idea is of permanent value. We could all do good in the improvement of human relations in industry if we could unanimously bless this idea which could be separated from the other provisions of the Bill if a future Government or Secretary of State wished. It would be of great value if the Committee could give that blessing, recognising that it was by no means thus blessing the rest of the Bill.
      Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 204.

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Havers, Michael

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Benyon, W.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Heseltine, Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Biffen, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Blaker, Peter

      Holland, Philip

      Pounder, Rafton

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Body, Richard

      Hordern, Peter

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

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hornby, Richard

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Bowden, Andrew

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Raison, Timothy

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Braine, Bernard

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Bray, Ronald

      Hunt, John

      Redmond, Robert

      Brewis, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Jessel, Toby

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Bryan, Paul

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Carlisle, Mark

      Jopling, Michael

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Rost, Peter

      Chichester-clark, R.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Royle, Anthony

      Churchill, W. S.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Clegg, Walter

      Kinsey, J. R.

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

      Cockeram, Eric

      Kirk, Peter

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Coombs, Derek

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Simeons, Charles

      Cooper, A. E.

      Knox, David

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lane, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Curran, Charles

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Soref, Harold

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Speed, Keith

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

      Longden, Gilbert

      Spence, John

      Loveridge, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Dean, Paul

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stainton, Keith

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Drayson, G. B.

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Eden, Sir John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stokes, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (carshalton)

      Sutcliffe, John

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

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Farr, John

      Maddan, Martin

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Fell, Anthony

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Maginnis, John E.

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fidler, Michael

      Marten, Neil

      Temple, John M.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Mather, Carol

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mawby, Ray

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Tilney, John

      Fowler, Norman

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Fox, Marcus

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Trew, Peter

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

      Mills, Stratton (Balfast, N.)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fry, Peter

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

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Moate, Roger

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Molyneaux, James

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Money, Ernie

      Wall, Patrick

      Goodhart, Philip

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Goodhew, Victor

      Monro, Hector

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gorst, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gower, Raymond

      More, Jasper

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Gray, Hamish

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Green, Alan

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wilkinson, John

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mudd, David

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Grylls, Michael

      Murton, Oscar

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Neave, Airey

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Younger, Hn. George

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Normanton, Tom

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Nott, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Reginald Eyre and

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ashton, Joe

      Barnett, Joel

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Beaney, Alan

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Barnes, Michael

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      1022

      1023

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hardy, Peter

      Orme, Stanley

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harper, Joseph

      Oswald, Thomas

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Booth, Albert

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hilton, W. S.

      Pavitt, Laurie

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

      Horam, John

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Pendry, Tom

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Pentland, Norman

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Prescott, John

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cant, R. B.

      Janner, Greville

      Probert, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      John, Brynmor

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

      Richard, Ivor

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'nor)

      Concannon, J. D.

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

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Roper, John

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Rose, Paul B.

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

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Kelley, Richard

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kinnock, Neil

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lambie, David

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lamond, James

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

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Latham, Arthur

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Deakins, Eric

      Leonard, Dick

      Sillars, James

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Silverman, Julius

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Small, William

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Spearing, Nigel

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lyone, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stallard, A. W.

      McBride, Neil

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McCann, John

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Dunn, James A.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Strang, Gavin

      Dunnett, Jack

      McElhone, Frank

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Eadie, Alex

      McGuire, Michael

      Swain, Thomas

      Ellis, Tom

      Mackie, John

      Taverne, Dick

      English, Michael

      Mackintosh, John P.

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

      Evans, Fred

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Faulds, Andrew

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

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

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Tinn, James

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

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

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Varley, Eric G.

      Foley, Maurice

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Ford, Ben

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Forrester, John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mendelson, John

      Wallace, George

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mikardo, Ian

      Watkins, David

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Millan, Bruce

      Wellbeloved, James

      Garrett, W. E.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ginsberg, David

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Golding, John

      Moyle, Roland

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Griffiths, Eddis (Brightside)

      Ogden, Eric

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Hamling, William

      Oram, Bert

      Mr. Kenneth Marks.

      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move,
      That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      We had had a long sitting, Sir Alfred. It is now 20 minutes to seven in the
      1024
      morning, and I hope that the Committee will think it appropriate for me to move this Motion.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Committee report Progress: to sit again this day.

  ARMED FORCES BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Concannon, Mr. Richard Crawshaw, Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Antony Lambton, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles, Mr. John Morris, Mr. James Ramsden, Mr. Patrick Wall, and Mr. James Wellbeloved be members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill [Lords]:
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. More.]

  ARMED FORCES (WIDOWS' PENSIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. More.]
  6.40 a.m.
  Mr. Airey Neave: I am glad to be able to raise this subject, even at this very early hour of the morning. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has to be here now, because I know that, like some others, he has an engagement at 9 o'clock. I am also sorry that my hon. Friend has to defend the deplorable regulation to which I shall refer so far as it concerns members of the Armed Forces who marry after their retirement. It is said that this is covered by the whole of the public sector pensions, and this is true, but there is a substantial difference, to which I shall refer, between Armed Forces pensions and public sector pensions.
  I do not think that the matter has been referred to very often in the House. So far as I know, the last time was when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army asked a Question in 1964, and he then received a similar answer to what we have had in the past, that this is the same throughout the public sector.
  As my hon. Friend knows, under the current regulations the widow of a member of the Armed Forces who married her husband after his retirement or is not eligible for a Forces Family Ordinary Pension, and a number of arguments have been put forward for this situation, especi-
  1026
  ally by the Treasury—I do not blame my hon. Friend for this—which does not appear to understand the fundamental difference between the Armed Forces scheme and those in the public sector. I do not know that the Treasury really wishes to understand. There is not a large number of people involved, and there is a definite difference between the two to which I wish my hon. Friend to reply when I have dealt with it.
  I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) wishes to contribute to the debate, so I propose to sit down fairly soon to allow him to speak for a few moments.
  In most Western European countries the regulations are civilised and humane for the widows of ex-Servicemen who marry after retirement, and I cannot understand why that cannot be done in this country. In Austria a pension is paid to the widow if the husband has had five years service and the second marriage has lasted for more than three years. In Belgium a pension is paid where the husband has had 10 years service and the marriage after retirement has lasted for more than one year. In France it is paid if the marriage after retirement from the Services has lasted for more than three years and there are children, or six years if there are no children. In Greece—and we have heard a good deal about the Greek Army in another context—there are no special conditions whatsoever. In Italy, West Germany and Finland they have different regulations, but all allow a widow a pension if she marries a Serviceman after his retirement. Why is it that ours is the only country in Western Europe which seems unable to devise reasonable regulations for this purpose? The husband's length of service in some of the cases which I shall mention in a moment is far longer than the minimum requirements in other countries.
  There is no question but that there is a good deal of bureaucratic insensitivity about this, because the comparable situation between Civil Service pensions and Armed Forces pensions has been widely misunderstood and I want to quote some examples of what really happens where those who have served their country best in war are totally ignored by the Treasury in the sense that their widows get no pension at all.

  1027
  One example which I have been authorised to quote by name is the widow of Captain Warburton-Lee who led the second destroyer flotilla at Narvik in 1940 and was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross. This lady is still alive. In 1943 she married again. This time her husband was a man who retired from the Army after losing a leg in the First World War. She has neither a Service pension nor a war widow's pension. She is excluded on the basis that I have mentioned of marriage after retirement. Her income precludes the restoration of her first war widow's pension, because there is a means test and she has too big an income for that. Hers is not a case of hardship, but it is a question of principle, and not a matter of which any Administration should be proud.
  I know of another V.C.'s widow who is destitute, and has been helped by charities. Her husband won a V.C. before the First World War, and then the M.C. and retired in 1925. He married the lady concerned in 1926 and he died two years later. She received no pension at all. How can any Administration defend that position? It is a deplorable situation. My hon. Friend may feel that he must take the Treasury point of view, but I ask him whether, after the debate, he would be prepared to receive a deputation from hon. Members on both sides of the House—they have written to me about this—including one quite senior Member opposite.
  In the third case the widow of a Royal Marine married another Royal Marine after his retirement. She married two Royal Marines. The total service of her two husbands is 57 years. She is not eligible for a pension. That cannot be right. In my constituency two cases occurred which gave rise to this debate. The first concerned a widow of a man killed in 1940. She married a man with 36 years' service, three weeks after his retirement. She was not aware of these regulations. She is not entitled to a pension. The other case was a more recent one, where the widow concerned is in very difficult circumstances.
  The Treasury argument is that this creates a new entitlement, and that one can refer to the position in the Civil Service. But there are essential differences between the Armed Forces and the
  1028
  Civil Service. First, members of the Armed Forces generally retire considerably younger than do members of the Civil Service. Further, since the reign of Queen Anne, the Armed Forces scheme has been paying widows' pensions as part of the conditions of service. Therefore, a member of the Armed Forces, by his service, "buys" his pension. He "earns" his pension by his service.
  I have no time to deal with the ramifications of this situation at the moment. I merely ask my hon. Friend what reason can justify the Treasury's taking this attitude when there are clearly differences between the two types of pension. There is, however, no difference in the service given by a man who marries one day before he retires from the Armed Forces and a man who marries one day after, but the widow of one qualifies for a widow's pension and the widow of the other does not. That cannot be right. It is impossible to defend this situation very much longer.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will approach the Secretary of State to discuss this matter with the Treasury before he receives the deputation, that he will conclude that these regulations should be abolished and that a pension should be paid to widows under conditions similar to those that obtain in overseas territories, especially in the European countries that I have mentioned. The first condition would be that the husband should not have been over 65 when he married, the second that he had completed at least 20 years' service and the third that the marriage had lasted two years.
  The Officers' Pension Society has supplied me with a considerable amount of statistics and this information. It is not known exactly how many widows or persons who are still alive are affected by this regulation, including those of all ranks, but it cannot be a large number, so that the question of cost cannot be important. It is not only a question of the regulation to which I am referring but the wretched attitude of the Treasury towards those who have served this country so well.
  6.50 a.m.
  Mr. Ernle Money: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to intervene in the debate. I wish, immediately, to declare my interest in that

  1029
  I shall be citing a case which I know particularly well, though it is typical of several cases to which my attention has been drawn by my constituents.
  The case I cite is that of my mother, who married my father in 1923, he having retired the year previously from regular service in the Brigade of Gurkhas, which he had joined in 1898. He retired having been invalided out of the service as a result of illness, which he contracted in the East African Campaign and the Third Afghan War. He was a lieutenant-colonel at the time, but had been an acting brigadier during the East African Campaign. Although they had been married for 47 years when he died early last year, my mother, who is now in her early 70s, receives no pension at all in respect of my father's service.
  I fully support the plea made by my hon. Friend both on her behalf and on behalf of the small group of mostly elderly widows involved. I also utterly support the contention that this would not create a precedent and would be an extremely worth-while act of justice, mainly to widows of a group of Servicemen who served their country for a considerable time with some distinction.
  6.52 a.m.
  Mr. David James: I rise merely to associate myself with what has been said on this subject because I have received an enormous postbag on this issue from my constituents. There cannot have been many occasions when so many hon. Members have been in their places at nearly seven o'clock in the morning to be present for a debate of this nature. This shows the amount of interest there is in the matter.
  6.53 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Peter Kirk): My hon. Friends have referred to the number of hon. Members who have remained behind to listen to this debate. I agree that this is a sign of the importance of the subject, an importance which I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) I appreciate as much as he does.
  No Government spokesman is put in an easy position on an occasion like this, though I know that my hon. Friend is not
  1030
  expecting me this morning to announce any major change in policy. However, I wish to meet him at once on one point. If he cares to bring a deputation to see me, or perhaps to see me in conjunction with a Minister of another Department—I say that for reasons which I will outline shortly—I shall be only too glad to see him.
  I will begin by explaining the present position, because it is important to realise what is behind it. Despite what my hon. Friend maintained about there being a difference in policy, it is a general principle across the public service as a whole that women who marry after their husbands have refired are not subsequently entitled to a widow's pension.
  We are here talking about what one might call the Service pension rather than the industrial pension. The industrial pension, which in the case of the Services would be the war widow's pension, is administered by the Secretary of State for Social Services and requires no minimum length of service and continues for the war widow as long as she continues to live. Pensions under occupational schemes within the Government service have always been subject to this particular restriction.
  My hon. Friend referred to the reign of Queen Anne. I have not traced the matter as far back as that, but the Royal Warrant of 1818 referred to the widows of officers who die while on half pay being precluded from pension unless their marriage took place before the officer was reduced or placed on half pay.
  As I said, that is a principle which has obtained for a very long time, and it was repeated in the 1907 Royal Warrant which stipulated that a pension would not be granted where marriage took place after retirement except where the retirement took place before the date of the Warrant, was due to wounds or illness caused by military service and satisfied certain other conditions. This regulation was incorporated in the new Forces Family Pension Scheme of 1953, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) will no doubt remind me if I do not remind her first, applies to all ranks, whereas before only officers and warrant officers were included for pension.

  1031
  I start from the no doubt very unsympathetic point of view, but that from which any Minister must start, that this is a principle which goes back as long as widows' pensions go back. The argument advanced for changing it in the case of the Armed Services is that they are entirely different from any other category of public servants. As one who has been privileged to serve not only in the Armed Services but politically with two of them, I am only too proud to acknowledge that this is true. Most of the Armed Forces' conditions of service are specially tailored to the particular and unusual requirements and circumstances of Service life.
  But occupational pensions for the Armed Forces, as opposed to war widows' pensions to which I referred earlier, must follow the same principles as govern public service occupational pensions generally, varying only in the same sort of way that pension conditions for policemen are different from those of teachers. The rule throughout the public service is that a widow is debarred from receiving a pension if the marriage took place after retirement.
  It is true that a civil servant who is unmarried on retirement receives a refund of his own contributions to the widows' pension scheme back to the date when his wife pre-deceased him. This covers the point that one cannot pass on any entitlement to a service pension to anybody else. This emphasises that there cannot be entitlement to a widow's pension for anyone he thereafter marries. The service scheme is non-contributory and therefore there is nothing to refund, any more than the notional Treasury contribution is refunded in the case of the civil servant.
  I do not think that one can argue the proposition that because Servicemen do not contribute to retired pay and pensions they are in a different position from the rest of the public sector. My hon. Friend referred to the idea that the Serviceman buys his pension benefits with service as opposed to those who contribute cash. As for the public service, the qualifications for retirement pension and widows' pension and the rates at which they are paid are established by length of service, and after the initial
  1032
  qualification the rates are related broadly to length of service. Whether the scheme is contributory or non-contributory has no bearing on these conditions; nor is it of significance in the case of a contributory scheme whether such contributions are a deduction from salary or from a man's terminal benefits.
  There is, of course, a certain administrative simplicity in having a noncontributory scheme. And yet to emphasise the irrelevance of this issue in regard to rights arising from one method or the other, we have in the Civil Service a non-contributory retirement pension and a contributory widows' pension scheme, though the amount of this pension is fixed as one-third of the entitlement to the retirement pension. A civil servant who married after retirement below the age of 70 has an opportunity to sacrifice part of his pension to "buy" an actuarily-calculated pension for his widow. A service officer in a similar position can under present rules commute part of his retired pay to buy his wife an annuity after his death. There is a close parallel there between the two operations.
  Another point stressed by my hon. Friend was that service people generally retire younger than civil servants. That is true to some extent of the general Civil Service, but there are other categories of public servants, for instance policemen, who retire on pension quite often at an even earlier age, and who would therefore be more likely to marry after retirement but whose widows would not have any title to an occupational pension. There is a similar situation in the case of a civil servant who retires voluntarily at the age of 50. In such cases the principle is even more strongly applied. His own pension is frozen and is not payable until he reaches the age of 60, yet if he marries after retirement, say, at 50, though still not receiving a pension, his widow would not get a pension from the Civil Service unless he allocated part of his own pension to her. The same rule applies in the case of civil servants compulsorily retired, except that they get their pension from the date of retirement.
  I have said enough to show that this is not a matter limited to the Armed Services. That is the reason why if my

  1033
  hon. Friend wishes to bring a deputation to see me I shall be delighted, but I shall be happier if the matter is dealt with across the board rather than limited to the Armed Forces as a whole. The principle is general, and the remedy, if there is to be a remedy, can only be one applied across the board. Whether or not there is to be a remedy it is not for me to say. I am merely trying to explain the position.
  My hon. Friend urged me to look outside this country. He himself has done so, and he gave certain European examples. It may seem curious, coming from someone with my beliefs and background, if I urge my hon. Friend to look at the Commonwealth rather than at Europe. He will find that this problem is not easily resolved.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: My hon. Friend was asked exactly how many people are affected by this unfortunate situation.
  Mr. Kirk: I was coming to that question, but I will answer it now. I do not know, and I do not think that anyone else does.
  There are in Australia and New Zealand no Service pensions to widows who married after their husbands' retirement. New Zealand once allowed such pensions but abolished them in 1949. A woman who marries a Canadian Service man after his retirement or discharge may be awarded a widow's pension if the marriage took place before the husband's 60th birthday and lasted at least a year, but the pension may be reduced, for reasons which I find difficult to follow, if there is an age difference of 20 years or more between husband and wife. My information does not say which must be older.
  We cannot make very profitable comparisons with other countries—
  Mr. Neave: I have suggested three conditions which I believe to be reasonable. Why cannot they be adopted?
  Mr. Kirk: I am not in a position to say that tonight. The point I am trying to elucidate is that there is a general principle here and that the Government cannot consider the Armed Forces in isolation from the rest of the public services.
  Dame Irene Ward: I thought that we were a modernising Government. It is no good talking about Queen Anne. We want to talk about the reign of Queen Elizabeth II and to modernise ourselves.
  Mr. Kirk: I agree with my hon. Friend. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon who mentioned Queen Anne.
  Dame Irene Ward: My hon. Friend mentioned Queen Anne.
  Mr. Kirk: Only because my hon. Friend did. I mentioned the pay warrant of 1818, which is the first one of which we have a record.
  There is not much that we can gain by looking at the example of other countries. The essential thing is that if we consider this scheme at all we must consider it across the whole field. It is on that basis that I shall be prepared, with, I hope, one of my colleagues, to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend—
  Dame Irene Ward: And a lot of us.
  Mr. Kirk: Certainly—as many as my hon. Friend cares to bring along. I shall be delighted if my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth comes along, too.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about hon. Members opposite?"] There was an hon. Gentleman sitting on the benches opposite a few moments ago. I understand from my hon. Friend that he has support from the other side of the House as well.
  I have stated the general principle that pension or retired pay must be related to the circumstances and conditions at the time of retirement and cannot be subject to obligations undertaken thereafter. The pension entitlement is restricted to those for whom the Service had some responsibility at the time of retirement.
  It should also be remembered that the widow who was married after her husband's retirement will not normally have shared the exigencies and responsibilities of Service life. There are, of course, cases of Service widows—my hon. Friend mentioned one—who re-marry after their husband's death and thereby lose their earlier pension. As he pointed out, they can have the pension restored after their second widowhood, if they have one, but on a means test basis. If my hon. Friend

  1035
  wishes to discuss this with me when he brings the deputation, I shall certainly be prepared to discuss it. But I can, I am afraid, hold out no hope of considering this matter purely on an Armed Services basis. It is a matter which stretches across the whole of the public service
  1036
  and it would be unfair to the whole of the public service if we were to single out the Armed Forces in this way.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Seven o'clock a.m.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  White Fish Authority
  White Fish Authority
  Wheat Deficiency Payments
  Wheat Deficiency Payments
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  New Zealand Lamb (Price)
  New Zealand Lamb (Price)
  Bull Licensing
  Bull Licensing
  Food Prices (increase)
  Food Prices (increase)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Use of Copper)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Use of Copper)
  Food Prices, Distribution and Statistics
  Food Prices, Distribution and Statistics
  Sea Foods (Contamination)
  Sea Foods (Contamination)
  Food (Methyl Mercury Levels)
  Food (Methyl Mercury Levels)
  Chemicals 2.4.D and 2.4.5T
  Chemicals 2.4.D and 2.4.5T
  LICENSED PREMISES (MEMORANDUM)
  LICENSED PREMISES (MEMORANDUM)
  IMPRISONMENT FOR CIVIL DEBT
  IMPRISONMENT FOR CIVIL DEBT
  SQUATTERS TITLES
  SQUATTERS TITLES
  CANNABIS RESIN (PROSECUTIONS)
  CANNABIS RESIN (PROSECUTIONS)
  CONVEYANCING FEES
  CONVEYANCING FEES
  COURT ACCOMMODATION, BRISTOL
  COURT ACCOMMODATION, BRISTOL
  MR. JOHN MEDLICOTT
  MR. JOHN MEDLICOTT
  LEGAL COSTS AND CHARGES
  LEGAL COSTS AND CHARGES
  CUBE CUTTING
  CUBE CUTTING
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Payments to Settle Strikes (Taxation)
  Payments to Settle Strikes (Taxation)
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Decimalisation (Conversion of Prices)
  Decimalisation (Conversion of Prices)
  Private Industries (Nationalisation)
  Private Industries (Nationalisation)
  International Monetary Fund (Debt Repayment)
  International Monetary Fund (Debt Repayment)
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Estate Duty (Charitable Bequests)
  Estate Duty (Charitable Bequests)
  Income Tax (Reduction)
  Income Tax (Reduction)
  Income Tax (Evasion)
  Income Tax (Evasion)
  Cheque Stamp Duty (Refund)
  Cheque Stamp Duty (Refund)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Old People (Pensions)
  Old People (Pensions)
  Mineworkers (Industrial Dermatitis)
  Mineworkers (Industrial Dermatitis)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Cystic Fibrosis
  Sterilisation by Vasectomy Operation
  Sterilisation by Vasectomy Operation
  Local Authority Residential Homes (Waiting Lists)
  Local Authority Residential Homes (Waiting Lists)
  Social Welfare Benefits
  Social Welfare Benefits
  West Riding (Dentists and Doctors)
  West Riding (Dentists and Doctors)
  Physiotherapy Service
  Physiotherapy Service
  General Medical Council
  General Medical Council
  Welfare Food Department
  Welfare Food Department
  Tonsillectomy (Birmingham Children)
  Tonsillectomy (Birmingham Children)
  National Health Service (Administration)
  National Health Service (Administration)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  East European Countries (Swap Arrangements)
  East European Countries (Swap Arrangements)
  Company and Bankruptcy Law
  Company and Bankruptcy Law
  Small Farmers (Loss of Electricity Supply)
  Small Farmers (Loss of Electricity Supply)
  Air Corporations (Transfer of Routes)
  Air Corporations (Transfer of Routes)
  Parliamentary Commissioner for the Consumer
  Parliamentary Commissioner for the Consumer
  Tomatoes and Cucumbers (Imports)
  Tomatoes and Cucumbers (Imports)
  Fertilisers (Prices)
  Fertilisers (Prices)
  Agencies (Clients' Deposits)
  Agencies (Clients' Deposits)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Food Import Levies
  Food Import Levies
  6–11 Agar Street
  6–11 Agar Street
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EMPLOYMENT
  Employees (Wrongful Dismissal)
  Employees (Wrongful Dismissal)
  Industrial Relations Bill (British Medical Association)
  Industrial Relations Bill (British Medical Association)
  Unemployment (Leek)
  Unemployment (Leek)
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Answers (Rectification of Errors)
  Parliamentary Answers (Rectification of Errors)
ENVIRONMENT
  Parking Without Lights (Regulations)
  Parking Without Lights (Regulations)
  Box Junction System
  Box Junction System
  Slum Clearance (Waltham Forest)
  Slum Clearance (Waltham Forest)
  British Library
  British Library
  Rents
  Rents
WALES
  Education (Transfer of Power)
  Education (Transfer of Power)
  Flintshire (Official Visits)
  Flintshire (Official Visits)
  School Buildings (Inspectors' Report)
  School Buildings (Inspectors' Report)
  Official Forms in Welsh
  Official Forms in Welsh
  CANADA AND UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  CANADA AND UNITED STATES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  MATLOCK
  MATLOCK
  AGRICULTURAL POLICY (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
  AGRICULTURAL POLICY (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
DEFENCE
  Army Vehicles, Belfast (Hi-Jacking)
  Army Vehicles, Belfast (Hi-Jacking)
  Royal Auxiliary Air Force (Flying Units)
  Royal Auxiliary Air Force (Flying Units)
  R.N. Air Station, Lossiemouth
  R.N. Air Station, Lossiemouth
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
CIVIL SERVICE
  Management Consultancy Assignments
  Management Consultancy Assignments
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  St. James' School, Gorton
  St. James' School, Gorton
  Open University (B.A. Degree Courses)
  Open University (B.A. Degree Courses)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drugs (Schoolchildren)
  Drugs (Schoolchildren)
  Outstanding Fines
  Outstanding Fines
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
  Carlisle and District State Management Scheme
SCOTLAND
  Decimalisation (Weekly Newspapers)
  Decimalisation (Weekly Newspapers)
  National Cycling Proficiency Scheme
  National Cycling Proficiency Scheme
  Machanhill Primary School, Larkhall
  Machanhill Primary School, Larkhall
  Darnock Industrial Estate
  Darnock Industrial Estate
  State Management Scheme, Gretna and Cromarty
  State Management Scheme, Gretna and Cromarty

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

MOTOR VEHICLES: REAR LIGHTS
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the numerous accidents caused by vehicles running into stationary vehicles in fog, they will make regulations prescribing that rear lights shall be of a higher wattage than at present required, and, additionally, whether they will consider adopting the Continental system whereby lorries over a certain weight and height must carry six rear lights, two on the top, two on the side, and two on the bottom.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords; a greater number of rear lights of normal intensity would be no advantage in fog. To require the main rear lights of vehicles to be brighter would be inappropriate to normal conditions, and the cost of requiring additional rear lights of high intensity to be fitted for use in fog would not be justified.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while appreciating the reasons why Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to accept my proposal, will they consider what I believe is known as a "four way hazard flasher"; in other words, a device to activate all direction indicators simultaneously in the event of an emergency?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. With his customary acumen the noble Earl has put his finger on one of the points which might be of use in case of accident or breakdown. It is a device which sets off all the indicators simultaneously. This device is in
304
existence and the Department is considering whether or not its fitting should be made compulsory.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not certain whether the noble Lord has replied to the second part of the noble Earl's Question about extra lights on the rear of vehicles. Would not the noble Lord agree that these very large vehicles should be much better lit at the rear than they are at present?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the word "No" in my original Answer was meant to apply to the quantity of lights rather than to their standard. As the noble Lord will be aware we are making it compulsory as from November for lorries to have reflective markings at the rear, and after 1973 a standard form of light will be in use all over Europe.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider publicity being given to the wider use of the material known as "Scotchlite" which reflects headlamp beams from following cars through fog and water and would obviously be of use avoiding "shunts" into the back of a stationary car?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend has given some information of which I was not aware myself. I am sure that the Department will be interested.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that he should read the recent debate on road safety in which the noble Earl and other speakers dealt with that point?
EARL HOWE: My Lords if the noble Lord would like a demonstration, I have some of the material here.

EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND BRITAIN: PRODUCTIVITY FIGURES
2.40 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the statement by the European Community's Statistical Office

305
that the gross value added at factor cost per person employed was (in United States dollars):—

1962

1968

France

3.800

6.100

Germany

3.100

4.800

United Kingdom

2.700

3.400;

whether Her Majesty's Government accept these figures as a reasonably accurate indication of the relative productivity of persons employed in the three countries in those years.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): No, my Lords. International comparisons such as these present considerable conceptual and statistical difficulties, and a great deal of work is required to produce valid results. As is stated in the publication from which they are drawn, the figures are subject to a number of qualifications and it is not possible to estimate their precise accuracy.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer by the noble Earl, and particularly for the "No" with which it started. I do not want to put the noble Earl into difficulties and I know this is a difficult subject, but I have a number of supplementary questions I should like to put to him. I am not expecting precise answers this afternoon: my purpose in asking them is to make people more aware of the danger of the situation. Is the noble Earl aware that the figures I have quoted indicate that the added value per head in France, quoted as an output figure, is 80 per cent. ahead of the output of the British working population? Is he aware that these figures are being used as accurate indicators of relevant industrial efficiency by the European Movement? Does the noble Earl feel that it is proper to support a good cause with false figures? Is the noble Earl aware that added value is a statement of input of resources rather than output?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD BROWN: Finally, my Lords, will the noble Earl cause the Government to take up with the Statistical Office of the European Community the basis of these figures?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Lord very kindly prefaced his rather long supplementary question by saying that he did not wish to put me in a difficulty. He has, because in order to give him an answer I really have to make a speech. But I would say in reply to him that on his first point my information is that as far as productivity per person is concerned in the three countries which are covered in his Question, our best estimate is that between 1962 and 1968 it increased by about 35 per cent. in France and in Germany, compared with about 27 per cent. in this country. I have already indicated that I do not hold these figures to be entirely accurate. It is extraordinarily difficult to make accurate comparisons of this sort, but I really must allow the European Movement to speak for itself and to present its own figures on matters of this sort.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl.

HOUSING FINANCE
VISCOUNT GAGE: 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, having regard to the consultations now being held between the Minister and Housing Authorities on the subject of housing finance, following his statement on November 3 last, whether he proposes also to consult housing associations and societies, and if so, when.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, before answering the noble Viscount's Question I believe the House would like me to take this opportunity of congratulating him on his marriage last week.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SANDFORD: The answer to the Question, my Lords, is, Yes, certainly. My right honourable friend is now engaged in working out the arrangements which might apply to housing associations and societies under the reform of housing finance. As soon as he has

307
formulated detailed proposals he will discuss them with the bodies representing the housing association movement and with the local authority associations.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, I am sure the voluntary housing movement will be very grateful for the reply the Minister has given. But may I ask him, since the Government are looking to the voluntary housing societies to provide rented accommodation in the private sector, whether he will approach these forthcoming consultations with a view to streamlining procedure, so that the societies can get on with the business of providing housing, rather than wasting their time in negotiations and discussions, which are often very controversial, with government at all levels?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, before answering that question, may I congratulate the noble Lord on becoming the President of the Federation concerned, succeeding my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal? The answer to his question is that these considerations will be very much borne in mind.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the building societies are being brought into these discussions, in view of the very great amount of finance that is provided from that source for housing?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that, if I may say so, is quite a different question.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether these discussions are confined to England and Wales, or cover the country as a whole?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the changes in the housing finance cover the country as a whole. But, as the noble Lord will remember from November 3, when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made his original Statement in the other place and I repeated it here, the arrangements in Scotland differ somewhat from arrangements in the rest of the United Kingdom.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, my noble friend's kindness is such that I could hardly speak in a critical way even if I desired to; but far from it! In this
308
mutual spirit, I thank him for the Answer, which will give a great deal of satisfaction. But I would ask, since these discussions with the local authorities are likely to be protracted, and as there is already evidence in the Department as to these housing associations, whether it is necessary to wait until the completion of these discussions before continuing with the discussions with the housing associations. I have no doubt my noble friend will be aware that at the present moment, in this interim period, the housing associations are in a very difficult position.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, not necessarily so. It is not necessarily the case that we have to wait for the full completion of negotiations with the local authorities before embarking on negotiations with the housing associations. I am not in a position to commit my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to any particular timing, but I think my noble friend will agree that to have negotiations and consultations with the housing associations before the context in which they are to be carried out has been defined with more clarity would not be particularly fruitful.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while associating myself with the noble Lord's congratulations in all directions, particularly to the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, on his marriage, on which we warmly congratulate him, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, despite the friendliness of these exchanges, we on this side of the House are gravely anxious with regard to the whole subject of housing finance and are likely to want to debate it at a fairly early stage?

POST OFFICE "THINK TANK"
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: 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 was the total cost to public funds of the Post Office "Think Tank" between the dates of its inception and abolition, what, if any, were the constructive proposals generated by the "Tank", and which proposals have been, or are about to be, implemented.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, these are matters for the Post Office. No cost to public funds is involved.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he could perhaps give your Lordships a little more information? Is this a matter which the Post Office Board are sensitive about and to which they do not wish to have attention drawn? And are we to assume that the "Think Tank" set up with the approval of the previous Administration has produced precisely nothing?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, the noble Lord is not to assume anything from my remarks other than what I have said. Under the 1969 Post Office Act the Post Office is responsible for the management of its own affairs and is entitled to engage whatever consultants and advisers it may deem necessary, without reference to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

POST OFFICE STRIKE AND PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
2.49 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to inform your Lordships of the arrangements that have been made in the case of a possible strike in the Post Office. The strike would, of course, prevent the transmission through the mail of all Parliamentary matter, both outward from the House and inward to the House.
It is expected that the Queen's Printers and the Stationery Office will go on printing Parliamentary Papers of every kind, and these will be available in the Printed Paper Office within a few hours of their publication. But Hansard and the Minutes of Proceedings, Bills, and Amendments cannot of course be des patched by post. Arrangements have however, been made for extra stocks to be despatched and held in the Printed Paper Office for the use of noble Lords who are able to come to the Office for their copies. Copies of Parliamentary Papers will also be available on a table immediately inside the Peers' Entrance so that noble Lords can come to the
310
House and can pick them up without having to park their cars.
In addition, special arrangements have been made for Papers concerning your Lordships' House, including the Minutes, to be available at any of the Stationery Office shops as soon as may be after the moment of their publication. For the guidance of your Lordships, the addresses of these shops are as follows: In London, 49 High Holborn; in Edinburgh, 31a Castle Street; in Cardiff, 109 St. Mary Street; in Manchester, Brazennose Street; in Bristol, 50 Fairfax Street; in Birmingham, 258 Broad Street; and in Belfast. 7 Linenhall Street. In addition, copies will be available at St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh; in the Welsh Office, Cathays Park, Cardiff, and at Stormont Castle, Belfast.
These arrangements have been made so as to enable Peers generally, in case the strike endures for any length of time, to take steps of some kind to discover forthcoming Business. Arrangements are also being made for details of Business of the House to be published in the Press and, it is hoped, broadcast by the B.B.C. and I.T.V. as well.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity of reminding your Lordships that dinners will be available this evening between 7 and 8.30 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his account of the arrangements, though I am slightly nervous about his proposals for noble Lords not parking their cars while picking up Papers. I am not quite sure whether this is wise advice. As it is, many noble Lords are apt to leave their cars unattended outside the Peers' Entrance. None the less, I am grateful for the consideration that has been given. I am sure the noble Earl will continue to keep the House informed. I think it is important that full statements on Business should appear in the Press, and it would be particularly helpful if any announcements made by the B.B.C. could be made at the end of "Yesterday in Parliament", which I think is just before 9 a.m. This would be particularly convenient if there are to be any changes.
The only other point I should like to make is this. I understand that at some

311
stage a Statement is being made in another place in connection with the strike. The general feeling of the House is that we do not like our debates to be interrupted, but I do not doubt that, as matters develop, if there are any important Statements to be made, the Leader of the House or the noble Earl should not hesitate to make them, even at the end of Business, so that they get on to the Record; because not all noble Lords read the Commons Hansard from cover to cover.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he has anything of which he can tell us about the continuation of the telephone system in the Palace of Westminster? Is there to be any service at all? Is it to be a limited service? Or is to be completely cut off?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I understand that the telephone system will be continuing in operation. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was a little doubtful about my arrangement to have copies of Hansard available at the Peers' Entrance of your Lordships' House. My reason for doing this was that I thought a number of Peers might wish to pick up Parliamentary Papers on the way to the office, and if they had to park their cars and to come up to the Printed Paper Office it would be wasting their time. I thought that by adopting this arrangement their time might be saved.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am all for having the Papers available at that place so that Peers do not have to come upstairs; but unless the noble Earl is going to provide a kiosk or something of that kind, I am not in favour of cars being parked for more than a second or two outside the Peers' Entrance.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it would not be possible to have an address where these Papers could be obtained in Glasgow, which, after all, is of comparable size to the cities in the Midlands of England?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am slightly governed here by the situation of Her Majesty's Printed Paper Offices.
312
To the best of my knowledge, there is not one in Glasgow at the moment, and it might therefore be difficult to find a suitable place at which to have these Papers available. But certainly I will look into the noble Lord's point.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that, following the Statement that he has made, it is rather surprising that your Lordships have not received a similar report which was passed on to another place concerning the strike of the Post Office workers? I say that because some of us have some quite potent questions that we should like to put to the Government.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is referring to the Statement made yesterday. Perhaps I should inform the noble Lord that here our practice is that, after consultation with noble Lords opposite, and if it is particularly desired, a Statement which has been made in another place on the day before can be repeated here. But it is generally considered to be rather stale news by the time it is repeated here on the second day. This is the reason why usually it is not done.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, reverting to the noble Earl's statement that the telephone service will be maintained here, can he inform us whether this is to be by the voluntary co-operation of the union or whether it is by any other method?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think I said—I certainly meant to say—that I hoped that the telephone service would continue in the Palace of Westminster. I am afraid that I am not in a position at the moment to give the noble Lord any further details. The information I have is that it is expected that it will continue. More than that I am afraid I cannot say at the moment.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's very useful and comprehensive Statement, and with particular reference to his remark that Hansard and White Papers may be picked up from Her Majesty's Stationery Offices, can he tell us whether the staff of those Stationery Offices have been instructed to supply these documents without payment to noble Lords who may present themselves there?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, obviously it would be the desire of your Lordships, and I am sure of the Government, that these copies should be free to Members of this House. But I am afraid that at the moment I cannot say for certain that they will be. Obviously they will be free if they are picked up at the Peers' Entrance of your Lordships' House.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I was thinking of our Scottish comrades.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY: BRITISH ENTRY NEGOTIATIONS
3.0 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That this House takes note of the present negotiations for British membership of the E.E.C. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I put down the Motion in my name which we are debating to-day for two main reasons. In the first place, there is the intrinsic and vast importance of the issue of British membership of the European Economic Community. Secondly, this seems a good moment for at least an interim appraisal of the position. Despite their complexity, the number of issues which we and the Community have to settle are in fact quite few. Several have already been provisionally agreed—I say "provisionally agreed" because no agreement can naturally be final until the negotiations as a whole have been concluded. We are now starting to concentrate on the three residual and crucial issues on which, in the last resort, the success or failure of the negotiations is
314
likely to hinge. This seems, therefore, a good moment to take preliminary stock.
Before I go further, may I say how glad I am to see that a large number of noble Lords are taking part in this debate—although, what is rather unusual in your Lordships' House these days, there happen to be no "maidens" among them. May I apologise to the speakers, and to your Lordships in general, for the fact that a long-standing engagement which affects my own Department means that I shall necessarily have to be absent from your Lordships' House for a period later in the debate.
That said, I should like to remind your Lordships of the background to these negotiations. As your Lordships know, our first attempt to join the Community failed through no fault of the British Government of the day. The second attempt, by the Labour Government in May, 1967, had the advantage of being made with the full backing and support of the Party to which I belong, which was then in Opposition. Although I suspect that there are those in your Lordships' House on this issue who may not agree with me, I am sure that on great issues of this sort the influence that we as a nation, and the Government of the day, can bring to bear in negotiations is greatly reinforced if it is known that by and large the policies which are being pursued have the backing of the other main Parties. Be that as it may, the attempt by the previous Government to negotiate membership was not immediately successful. However, by the time the present Government came into office in June last year the omens were already more favourable. The present Government were able to carry matters forward on the basis of the negotiating objectives already defined and worked out by the previous Government. Again I should like to underline, I hope without unnecessarily doing so, the importance of national continuity in these matters.
Those of your Lordships who follow these matters will remember the eloquent statement made at The Hague on July 4, 1967, by the then Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who, I am glad to see, will be speaking shortly in this debate. As Foreign Secretary, he explained in terms which the present Government fully support both the thinking behind our application and the

315
matters which would have to be settled in the negotiations. It was clear to him then, as it is clear to us now, that the Community system which we hope to adopt, if the negotiations succeed, is complex. But let me make this perfectly clear at the outset: like the last Government, this Government, even before the negotiations began, made it clear that we accept not only the objectives of the Community system but the system as a whole. This was emphasised by the present Chancellor in his opening statement at Luxembourg on June 30 last year. It is our belief that by accepting that system wholeheartedly—and I mean wholeheartedly—and by making it clear in the negotiations that we do so, we should best be able to share in the future benefits which the Community system has demonstrably brought to the present members.
I hope not unduly to weary your Lordships with a catalogue raisonée of all of the issues in these complex negotiations. However, it might be useful if I were to list them briefly and to consider some of the implications in each case. First, there is the issue raised by the dependent territories of the Commonwealth. Together with the six Associated States of the West Indies they number 27 countries in all, of an infinite variety ranging from Bermuda in the North Atlantic to St. Helena in the South Atlantic; from the Bahamas in the Caribbean to the British Antarctic Territory; from the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Seychelles to Pitcairn in the Pacific, and so on.
I am glad to say that for all the dependent Commonwealth countries except Gibraltar and Hong Kong the Community have agreed in principle association under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome; and this is in line with the treatment accorded to the dependencies of the present member countries. So far as Gibraltar is concerned, the Community have agreed that the Rock is a European territory for whose external relations we are responsible, and that it therefore comes under Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome. Agreement has also been reached on ways of dealing with Gibraltar's free port arrangements.
We are still discussing Hong Kong with the Community, who have, I am glad to
316
say, offered to include the territory within their UNCTAD generalised preferences scheme with certain modifications. In addition, the Community have also confirmed that nine independent African Commonwealth countries — Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Malawi, Nigeria, Ghana, The Gambia and Sierra Leone—will have the right to choose one of the three ways of linking themselves with the Community including, of course, accession to the Yaounde Convention for association, as set out in the Community's 1963 Declaration of Intent. For the other independent Commonwealth countries—those in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific and the Caribbean; that is, Mauritius, Fiji, Tonga and Western Samoa, Jamaica. Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Guyana—the Community has reserved its position until the important question of Commonwealth sugar is settled. In addition, we have made proposals for independent Commonwealth countries in Asia—that is, India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Malaysia and Singapore—which we believe should prove satisfactory, and which we have no reason to believe will not prove acceptable to the Six. The position of these countries has, in any event, been improved by the UNCTAD scheme for generalised preferences.
I now turn to what are clearly the two most important issues of Commonwealth concern and which, together with the question of Community finance, form the central hinge of issues on which the success or otherwise of the negotiations will probably turn. Those issues are, of course, the question of sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries and that of New Zealand—especially New Zealand dairy products. For both of these we have made proposals for arrangements on a continuing basis, subject to review, so that the position can be assessed by the Community—and we hope this will include us—as it develops. The Community has yet to reply to those proposals. In both cases our proposals reflect our obligations past and present to those countries, which we recognise. They reflect our close consultations with the Governments concerned and our view that these are special problems of crucial importance to the countries concerned, whose solution must be sought outside the framework of the transitional period for

317
our adaptation to the rules of the Community. As I say, the Community have yet to reply to our proposals; but there are good grounds for thinking that they accept the special nature of these problems. In fact, it would make no sense for the enlarged Community to emerge from the negotiations with policies towards the outside world which are demonstrably ungenerous.
So far as the issues which directly affect this country are concerned, I should perhaps remind your Lordships that early in the present negotiations the Chancellor of the Duchy succeeded in reaching provisional agreement on a number of agricultural commodities and on an annual review. The Community have also welcomed our proposals for a five-year transitional period in both the industrial and agricultural fields. We believe that for our agriculture five years of transition, with provision for flexibility, should be sufficient. In addition, they have agreed to examine in a positive spirit our proposals for a similar five-year period for adapting to Community rules on capital movement and fiscal harmonisation. For Euratom and the European Coal and Steel Community we have proposed a one-year transitional period. Finally, we made proposals, as your Lordships know, on December 16 for our participation in the Community's financial arrangements. Therefore our proposals on all the major subjects are now before the Conference. A meeting at Deputies' level took place last week, and there is to be another next week. The next meeting of the Conference at Ministerial level is to be on February 2.
Your Lordships may reasonably ask when the negotiations will be concluded. When shall we know really where we stand? In a negotiation of this sort, one cannot of course lay down precise deadlines. Nevertheless, let us consider how matters have gone so far. After the formal start before the summer holiday last year, much fact-finding work was done beginning immediately after the holiday period. This detailed work is continuing and there is still a mass to be done at the technical level. But the political issues remaining to be settled are relatively few in number. We hope—and I believe that the Community as a whole also hones—that these will be
318
settled before the summer holiday this year. This would permit the signature of an agreement at the end of this year, with ratification by all concerned within a year thereafter; that is, by January 1, 1973.
We naturally hope that it will be possible to adhere to a timetable of this sort, and it should be possible to do so provided that the political will, which undoubtedly exists on the part of all the Governments concerned, can cut a way through the technicalities in the weeks and months ahead. I can in any event assure your Lordships that Parliament will continue to be fully consulted at all stages between now and the moment when the agreement reached at Brussels—assuming that we succeed in reaching an agreement—is put before Parliament for its approval. The present Prime Minister during the 1961–63 negotiations set an example of frequent and full statements to Parliament. The present Government will continue to follow that example.
If your Lordships will hear with me a moment longer on these technicalities and on the present position, I should now like to go into slightly greater detail on the issue of Community finance. This the Governments of the Community regard as the heart of the Community system, and the proposals we have made clearly indicate our willingness to accept that system. Our proposals are of course designed to adapt us to the system on a fair and realistic basis. Through them we hope to achieve a mutual balance of advantage with our partners throughout the transitional period, so that what are described as the impact effects in some fields are balanced by the so-called dynamic effects in others. If the impact were—to use the Community's jargon—greater than the dynamic in the early stages, we should all be in for trouble, the existing members of the Community as well as ourselves.
The arrangements which we propose follow closely what present members arranged for themselves. We have proposed that we should move towards a share of the total expenses of the Community—known as the key—of between 13 per cent. and 15 per cent. by the end of our fifth year as members, and that for three years thereafter so-called correctives should be applied to limit the

319
variation from that percentage. At the end of the day—and I am now speaking of the early 1980s; almost as far ahead of us as the foundation of the Community is behind us—we should then be ready to play a full and fully equal part in the whole Community system.
We have made it absolutely clear that we are not seeking to change that system and we fully recognise the importance which the Community attaches to it. The assurance for which we have asked to take account of unforeseen developments—and this is important—is in the spirit of what the Community itself has told us; namely, that the survival of the Community would depend on finding equitable solutions should unacceptable situations arise in the course of time.
I know that noble Lords are concerned about different aspects of the negotiations. Many are concerned, and rightly so, about the legitimate interests of the other members of the Commonwealth. I have, I hope, already demonstrated that we share their concern and that the Community itself recognises that that concern is valid. Other noble Lords may rightly be concerned about our EFTA partners, and I can assure them that consultation has been close and frequent, not only with the Commonwealth but also with the EFTA countries. There has also been considerable discussion in this country—and it is right that there has been—about the economic advantages or disadvantages of membership for Britain. Many of the facts and many of the projections are disputed, but one fact is clear. However reluctant some academic economists are to admit the existence of cause and effect, the fact is that the Six Community countries have all enjoyed a far better rate of growth since the formation of the Community than Britain has enjoyed in EFTA.
There are certain conclusions which can be legitimately drawn from this, even without straying on to disputed and disputable economic ground. The first conclusion is that the Community system as a whole works, complex though it may be. It is nonsense to suggest, as some opponents have suggested, that the Common Agricultural Policy must inevitably bring ruin. Cheap food is important, but it is not everything. Despite cheap food, we in this country have had an
320
exceptionally low growth rate for the last two decades, and even without cheap food the Community has had an impressively high one. In addition, comparisons with countries at different stages of development and with widely different national characteristics are much less relevant than a straight comparison between the United Kingdom and her similar neighbours on the Continent.
It is certainly my experience that Continental observers of the British scene tend to smile at the prognostications of doom with which some people in this country now make play. Those observers do not deny that the omens are uncertain for British membership—anything about the future, especially as far ahead as we are talking about, is hound to be uncertain—but they recall that these are exactly the fears that were expressed in each country of the Six at the time when the Community itself was formed. For the Six, these fears have been unfounded. Despite what Mr. Jay or Mr. Shore or the Daily Express or some economists of the National Institute may say, the Six themselves have no doubt whatever that the growth and the increasing prosperity which they have enjoyed is bound up with their membership of the Community. It is for the critics to explain why what has been sauce for the European goose should not be sauce for the British gander. May I, in this connection, point out one very remarkable fact? There is not, so far as I know, a single political or sectional group of any consequence within the Six which aims to do away with the Community. Funnily enough, this goes even for the Communist Parties in France and Italy.
When speaking about the dynamic progress of the economies of the Six and necessarily emphasising the relative sluggishness of the British economy in recent years it is easy to fall into the trap—and indeed some of our friends in Europe do so—of painting Miss Britain as a decidely plain girl who almost deserves to be a lonely and wilting wallflower in the European dance. But in fact Miss Britain has a number of not so hidden attractions which together constitute a very substantial dowry. In financial expertise, in advanced technologies, in research and development expertise, in companies of world scale, we have an enormous contribution to make to Europe,

321
and I hope that Europe will continue to remember that.
It is true that many of these activities could be, and some are, carried out already on a European basis with British involvement even while we are outside the Community. But this does not weaken, at least in my mind, the case for membership. Remember, my Lords, we are seeking to join not a static Community but a developing Community; and the way it develops is surely likely to make it easier for members, more difficult for outsiders, to collaborate in the sort of ways I have indicated. And the fact that Her Majesty's Government and British industry have in their own interests already concluded important agreements with Community countries is in itself a reason for sharing fully in their decisions and the advantages to be won within the Community framework. Harmonisation of taxation, the removal of non-tariff barriers—all this will provide Community countries with an increasingly advantageous environment for scientific and technological integration.
There is a reverse threat here of which we should take due note. The C.B.I., in the admirably thorough report which they published a year ago, drew attention to the increasing sensitivity of the British economy to economic conditions in Europe. They also drew attention, to quote their words:
"to the danger that if economic policies in Europe are co-ordinated without reference to the situation in the United Kingdom, the constraints which will be placed on British economic policy would be increased."
My Lords, this applies in the case of our trade relations with Western Europe. The danger of not joining the Community, if we get acceptable terms, is not only that we shall then be faced with tariff walls which we shall not easily surmount. A parallel, indeed an almost greater, danger is that the non-tariff barriers will increasingly deny us the opportunities for trade expansion, and hence for economic growth, which we require.
But this argument extends a long way beyond purely trade matters. Your Lordships are aware of the substantial progress which the countries of the Six have made since that historic meeting at The Hague in December, 1969, towards the
322
greater harmonisation of their fiscal and economic policies. The steps proposed in the so-called Werner Report are indeed ambitious. Some sceptics will predict that they will not be realised. I think we should be wise to be on our guard against undue scepticism here. There would seem, at least in my experience, to be a certain inbuilt momentum in the affairs of the Community, which means that sooner or later, and sometimes after a lot of hesitation and delay, the movement towards greater integration goes steadily forward; and this applies in the even more difficult field of harmonising political policies—the field covered by the so-called recent Davignon Report. Its proposals were of course relatively modest, and it certainly does not foreshadow federal institutions in Europe to-morrow, or even necessarily in the foreseeable future.
However, the identification of Europe's common economic interests and the construction of institutions to promote those interests is bound to lead naturally to the identification of political and defence interests; and as this process goes forward so institutions will emerge, will be agreed freely by all concerned, to promote those political and defence interests. The question I ask myself, and the question I put to your Lordships, is whether it is in our interests to divorce ourselves from this sometimes imperceptible but almost inevitable progress towards greater integration, economic, financial, political and possibly military, in Western Europe. To me, at any rate, the answer is pretty simple. Provided, and provided only, the terms we can win at Brussels are acceptable, it would be right for us to link ourselves with this Europe in a future full of possibilities. As full members, we should have a major influence at every stage in both the direction and the control of the Community's progress: as nonmembers, we should have precious little.
My Lords, that, in capsule form, indicates the stage which we have now reached in negotiating the economic and financial terms for entry into the European Economic Community; and those, equally in capsule terms, are, in sum, some of the reasons why I believe that, provided equitable terms can in the end be agreed—and by "equitable" I mean fair for us and fair for both the present and the enlarged Community—the balance of advantage points decisively

323
in favour of entry. Meanwhile, I suggest that it would be a pity—and here I would agree with Mr. Enoch Powell—if we were to allow ourselves to be mesmerised by the bread and butter issues, important though they undoubtedly are, by the economic and financial pros and cons on which the pundits pass such marvelously contradictory judgments. Man, my Lords, does not live by bread or butter or steel or computers alone. We should remember—and here I am sure I can carry the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, with me—that at the end of the road, when we as individuals or as members of a Party or as a nation have to take the final decision on this great issue, a primary constituent of that decision is bound to be political.
It would be wise for us all in these coming months, as we move towards that crucial decision, to ponder, I believe, the shape of the world in which we and our children will live in the last decade or two of this century. It would also be wise, I submit, to take that decision in the light of what we know about the instincts and aspirations of the British people. It may be reasonable for the Swedes or the Swiss to wish to opt out of the rougher international waters. But, my Lords, we as a nation have been deeply engaged and involved in the affairs of the world ever since the Tudor merchants first ventured out into the open sea. We could, of course, now decide to contract out, to go against this age-old instinct for involvement in the outside world. If we were so to decide, I would venture to suggest—this is a subjective judgment, of course—that Britain would not settle down into a comfortable and cosy existence. On the contrary, I believe that as we became increasingly introspective our society would become increasingly frustrated and discontented.
But if we opt for continuing involvement in the world, then we must decide on: involvement with what? None of us in this era of change can safely prophesy the shape of the world a decade or so from now. But the probabilities, at least as I see it, are that the world of the 1980s and the 1990s is likely to be a world of large Power clusters, of four or possibly five great Power clusters. There will be the United States, a super-Power. There will be the Soviet Union, another
324
super-Power. Japan, on almost any prediction, is bound to be another super-Power; and so, in all probability, will be China. The fifth super-Power is likely to be centred around the Western slant of our Eurasian Continent. In that world of super-Powers, Britain by itself could count for no more than a feather in the scales. If, therefore, we opt for involvement; if we really wish as a people to play a significant part in the world of the 21st century; if we aspire to a position in which all the great world decisions are not taken over our head, then I would hold that the logic of history, and indeed of geography, points to involvement in a larger Europe. In such a Europe we could exert our moderating and humanising influence within a cluster of real power, which in its turn should be in a position to exercise a moderating and humanising influence on the world as a whole—that rather rough and dangerous world which lies just over the horizon of 1971.
My Lords, I know that there is plenty of division of opinion on these great political issues. I know that there are those who claim that to opt for Europe is to opt against the broader horizon of a North Atlantic Community. There are those who claim that to enlarge the European Community is to harden and perpetuate the division between East and West in Europe. There are those who fear that if we succeed in joining the European Community we shall be joining an inward-looking Community—one which is turning its back on the looming problems of the developing world. And there are those who fear that in joining we should lose our distinctive national identity and tang.
My Lords, if I believed that those fears were valid I would not be, as I am, among those who have supported and who support our application for membership, and who hope, in the interests of this country, of Europe and of the wider world, that that application will prove successful. On the contrary, I believe those fears to be misconceived. It is my belief that, rather than constituting a bar to a wider Atlantic association, the emergence of a wider and more structured European Community should serve to strengthen rather than weaken the links between North America and Western Europe. It is crystal clear that the United

325
States Administration, despite its natural fears of a more powerful Europe as a potent trade rival, is keen to see a Western Europe economically more closely integrated, politically more united and with a greater ability to defend itself.
It is also my belief that, far from perpetuating or deepening the division between East and West in Europe, the evolution of a wider and stronger unity in Western Europe will serve to stabilise and to fertilise the relationship between that Europe and the countries of Eastern Europe. Certainly we should never forget that Eastern Europe is the joint heir with us of the wider European tradition. But, my Lords, the Federal German Chancellor has made it clear time and time again that for him—and I am sure the same must hold for us—the essential precondition of the opening to the East—the Ostpolitik—is greater cohesion in Western Europe.
Again, it is my profound belief that there is no evidence whatsoever to lead us to suppose that the Six are any whit less conscious of their responsibilities towards the developing world than we are. I would go further. I would claim that if we can together build a Community of the Ten—a Community which includes the United Kingdom—that should serve to ensure that Europe is able to play its full and due part in tackling what is by common consent perhaps the greater problem of the last third of this century—the growing poverty gap between the rich and the poor countries of the world.
Finally, my Lords, I have sufficient belief in the virility and distinctiveness of the British genius not to believe that in joining Europe we shall lose our identity as a nation. Given the evidence of our eyes as we travel—the evidence of 4 or 5 million pairs of British eyes a year—it is absurd to suppose that we could. Despite the steady integration of Western Europe, the French, my Lords, still feel, and will for long feel, French. The Germans feel and will continue to feel German. The Italians feel and will continue to feel Italian. The attachment of the Dutch to their monarchy and the Belgians to theirs is no whit diminished as a result of Dutch and Belgian membership of the Community.
No, my Lords, these could not be the reasons which would lead me to oppose
326
in principle—as I know many people sincerely do oppose—our entry into Europe should the terms, when finally negotiated out, prove to be acceptable. The real reason why I would be against it would be if I were a Little Englander content to see a little England playing a smaller and smaller part in the affairs of this planet. My Lords, I am not so content. That is the main reason why I trust that these negotiations on which we are now well and truly embarked will shortly be brought to a successful conclusion. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the present negotiations for British membership of the E.E.C.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.35 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Earl for his clear exposition of the present position regarding negotiations to enter the European Economic Community, and may I say that we on this side entirely understand why he was not able to go into too much detail of our negotiating position. The essence of a negotiating position is that it should remain as confidential as possible until the other side have had a chance to respond to' it. I should like, from this side, to go into that negotiating position in a little more detail and I hope that the noble Earl will understand the reasons why I should wish to do so. There was no reason for him to apologise for the technicalities which are inseparable from a speech of that kind; this is a very technical and complex subject and I was most grateful for the patient and clear way in which he outlined the present position.
I was also glad that he made mention of the 1967 application and the opening statement which was made at The Hague. I was particularly appreciative of his reference to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, whom I had the pleasure of accompanying to The Hague on that occasion; and your Lordships may wish to know that when the full story of that meeting comes to be told it will be seen that it was not only the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, which informed most of that opening statement but that had it not been for his very considerable tactical skill the opening statement might never have been made at all. I was grateful for the reference

327
which the noble Earl made to the contribution of the noble Lord on that occasion.
My Lords the Motion before us is:
"That this House takes note of the present negotiations for British membership of the E.E.C."
I should therefore like to follow the noble Earl in the way in which he approached the matter: to look first of all at the negotiations and then towards the end to broaden the subject into a more general appreciation of why it is, as we see it on this side, that the United Kingdom has made this application and is trying to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. I do not wish to rake up old issues and quarrels, but I think it was rather unfortunate that the noble Earl's right honourable friend in another place spoke of "when" we join the Community. We on this side know that it is "if" we join the Community—because there is one very clear condition: that is, that fair terms for entry should be negotiated. I do not want to make a great issue of this but simply to say that, until the negotiations are complete, we hope we can retain this reservation in our minds: it is "if" we join the Community and not "when" we join.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords I apologise—especially at the outset of the noble Lord's speech and especially since he was being so kind—for interjecting. The noble Lord is of course aware that on more than one occasion throughout my speech I referred to the conditions that the terms must be acceptable and must be seen to be fair.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I entirely accept that. It is merely to impress upon the noble Earl and upon noble Lords opposite that we are determined on this side that it shall be seen at all times that this reservation is a real one; that the terms must be fair. I am grateful to the noble Earl for making this so clear in what he said.
May we look at what the noble Earl has said about how we are doing so far in the negotiations? He mentioned that we had accepted a transitional period of five years to adapt both our agriculture and our industry to the Community regulations after our entry. This, I understand, is also to cover the Community
328
regulations on capital movement and fiscal harmonisation. Although again I do not want to place too much emphasis on this, I think there is perhaps a slightly ominous sign here, because on October 14 the proposal put forward by Her Majesty's Government was that there should be three years for the common external tariffs and for industrial movements inside the Community—that is, for the whole industrial transitional period—but that there should be six years for a Common Agricultural Policy. My own view, which is entirely subjective and personal, is that six years is perhaps scarcely long enough for an agricultural transitional period. However, we have now reduced the agricultural transitional period from six years, our original opening bid, to five years. The counter-concession that we have there, which is to raise the industrial period from three years to five years, is not really of very great advantage to us. So it seems to me that we have already made quite a substantial concession; largely in the face of pressure, on the principle of "parallelism" as it is called; that is to say, the principle held most vigorously by the French that the transitional periods for industry and agriculture should be the same. I understand that concessions have to be made in negotiations—that is what negotiations are about—but I hope that we shall recall, and see that our negotiating partners in the Common Market recall, that here we have made a concession and now perhaps we might look forward to a concession or two in return.
At the same time as we accepted the five-year period, we did, as the noble Earl said, accept the position of the Commonwealth countries, particularly the African Commonwealth countries, the nine that he mentioned—I will not go through the list again. We negotiated an Agreement that if they wished, they could become associates, possibly under the Yaoundé Convention, on the same terms as the former dependencies of France, Italy and Belgium. If we still have a Commonwealth after what is going on at the moment in Singapore, this seems to me to be a very welcome arrangement. It would indeed have been invidious if former British territories had been treated less favourably than those of other members. So from this side of the House we welcome the success of the Government in ensuring that those nine African

329
Commonwealth countries have this right to become associate members under the terms of the Yaoundé Convention, or something similar to that.
It now remains to negotiate equitable terms for the rest of the Commonwealth countries. There are the three Commonwealth countries which form a customs union with South Africa—Swaziland, Botswana and Lesotho—and it would be valuable if the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, when he replies to the debate, could tell us what progress is being made on the question of those three territories. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also mentioned that we still have to finalise the arrangement for other Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. Some of these countries have their position reserved by the Community because of certain commodities, such as sugar, bananas and citrus fruit. But there are others not so reserved. For example, there is the important matter of Hong Kong, and again it would be interesting for us to know what kind of progress is being made in negotiating terms for those countries which are not reserved because of the particular commodities that they produce.
This my Lords, leaves us, as the noble Earl clearly said, with three major problems still to be negotiated: Commonwealth sugar, New Zealand dairy products and, perhaps most important of all, our financial contribution to the Community budget. I should like to underline the vital importance of these three matters, and I agree with the noble Earl when he says, if I understood him correctly, that success in negotiating these three major issues will largely determine whether the terms for entering the Common Market are acceptable or not. These are the crucial make-or-break negotiations, and it might be of value if we looked at them for a moment in some little detail.
Let us look, first, at the issues that are not yet joined—by that I mean that although we have made our proposals and views clear, we have not yet heard what is the position of the Common Market on them—that is to say, Commonwealth sugar and New Zealand dairy products. Let us look at sugar first. This affects principally three Commonwealth areas: Mauritius, Fiji and the Caribbean. If
330
nothing at all is done in the negotiations, or by the Community, to help, there will be in those areas serious, grievous damage to their economy, and mass unemployment. These developing countries, many of them monocultural with no other means of supporting themselves, are our responsibility. They are the responsibility of this country and of no one else, and in these negotiations they must not be left out. I am certain that Her Majesty's Government agree about this; but I think it must be quite clear, and it would be wrong if from this side of the House we did not make it clear, that terms that do not protect these countries against grievous economic harm and mass unemployment, and all that goes with it, will not be acceptable to the majority of people in this country.
As the noble Earl has said, proposals have, been made about this subject. We do not yet know what they are; there is no reason why we should, until the negotiations have progressed a little further and the Government know what is the reaction of the Common Market countries. But we can, I think, say something about the kind of things we should be looking for. Perhaps I might simply mention in this connection that three former French territories, Guadaloupe, Martinique and Réunion, get their sugar into the Common Market on preferential terms as outside Departments of France. This is a very neat device; it would be similar to our saying that Fiji was a county of England. I see no reason why the sugar-producing former dependencies of this country should be treated any less favourably in this matter of getting their sugar into the Common Market than are the former dependencies of the Government of France.
Of course, there are difficulties; we know that. The Common Market already produces too much sugar itself. The farmers in the Community are limited in their production by a quota system, but there is still too much sugar already in the Common Market. So it is obvious that if Caribbean, Fijian and Mauritian sugar comes into the Common Market as well, there will be a massive over-production of sugar and therefore damage—or at any rate potential damage—to the existing European sugar producers. Although clearly we must have understanding and sympathy for this problem in the Common Market, that is their problem;

331
and the Commonwealth sugar producers are ours. The more we can persuade the Common Market countries to concede in terms of sugar imports into the Community, clearly the shorter period of adjustment to the Common Market regulations we shall need in that respect. But it is not good enough to say, as I have heard said by some people in Brussels, that these Commonwealth countries must fend for themselves. We must fend for them; and in my view this is one of the first matters that is crucial to the success of these negotiations.
New Zealand dairy products also were mentioned by the noble Earl. The Community say that they recognise this problem. Well, my Lords, I hope that they do. Again, I have heard some politicians in the Community making the point, and making it very forcibly, that New Zealand should now think of selling her dairy products to Japan, diversifying her markets if she cannot diversify her economy.
LORD GLADWYN: Why not?
LORD CHALFONT: I will tell the noble Lord why not; because the manufacture of Japanese dairy products is already going up, and Japan has agricultural problems of her own. Even if New Zealand could find a market there for her dairy products now, it is unlikely that they would find a market there permanently. Here, again, in these negotiations we must take account of the requirements and the interests of the New Zealand dairy producers. After all, butter is the main problem here; and what has before stood in the way of a solution to this problem is what has been known as the "butter mountain" in Europe. That butter mountain—vast stocks of butter produced by what has been in the past a notably inefficient agricultural system—is beginning to diminish, and I believe that we should now be in a position to seek, at any rate as an opening negotiating position, derogations for New Zealand from the Common external tariff; enduring derogations of some kind to protect New Zealand agriculture from intolerable damage. So much for the Commonwealth problems.
I come now to the third and last of the important negotiating areas, perhaps the most important of all, the question
332
of our financial contribution. As the noble Earl has said, the financial arrangements in the Common Market are highly complicated. They involve such problems as value-added tax and the difference between mandatory expenditure and administrative budgeting. They also have to take into account matters like the cost of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Mansholt proposals to reduce it, and all kinds of complicated budgetary and financial matters of that kind. Even if I were qualified to do so, this would scarcely be the time to go into them in detail. But it is important to note that, as the noble Earl has confirmed to-day in the House, and as was made public before, Her Majesty's Government have already accepted in principle the existing financial arrangements for the Community. So what is left to be negotiated now is how they would be applied in an enlarged Community and how they would affect us from our point of view.
The main problem, of course, as always, is the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy. There is one aspect of this which the noble Earl, presumably for lack of time, did not mention—that is, that at their Session in December, 1969, the Council of Ministers of the Six agreed on a completely new system of financing to become effective in 1978. The general effect of this, without going into financial details, is that after 1978 the Community's financing system will become completely automatic. So what we are now negotiating really is our share of the financial budget of the enlarged Community up to 1978. As the noble Earl said, on December 16 the Government detailed certain British proposals. They covered a transitional period of eight years, in the first five years of which we would build up by annual steps from 13 to 15 per cent. of the total budget of the enlarged Community. In the next three years of the transitional period, we would accept changes on the same lines as the Six had agreed for themselves from 1975 to 1977. The third and, in my personal view, the most important proposal made by Her Majesty's Government was that there should be a review clause to cover these arrangements.
If we look at this proposal of from 13 to 15 per cent. after five years and

333
the changes pari passu with the Six in the last three years, it seems to me that it is a reasonable and fair proposal. If we compare it with the proportions of the French and Germans in 1970, when the Germans will pay 31·7 per cent. of the farm budget and the French 28 per cent., it seems to me that the proposals of the negotiating team in Brussels are eminently reasonable. I, for one, could not quarrel with them, and I do not think that many on this side of the House would do so. But, of course, negotiating positions and agreements are always different things. We ought to compare the two proposals made by the Commission, as opposed to the proposal made by us, that we should either pay 21 to 25 per cent. on joining or that we should start at 10 to 15 per cent. and end in 1977 with 20 to 25 per cent., and after that the prescription should be automatic. In my view, those proposals just will not do. There is obviously going to be some very tough negotiating ahead.
It is not for me to go into that matter in any further detail, except to say—and I put this to the noble Earl and to noble Lords opposite—that, whatever arguments go on about the figures and the percentages (and I have no doubt that they will go on long into the night), I hope that Her Majesty's Government will stand firm for our proposal for a review clause. That seems to me to be the crucial element in the British proposal.
So, my Lords, to sum up the progress that has been made, it seems to me that there is little doubt about the parallel five-year transitional period. I hope that it will be long enough for the Common Agricultural Policy but I have some nagging doubts about it. I think that the Government's progress in arranging for an association of Commonwealth countries and dependencies is going along in a very satisfactory way. But in the matter of Caribbean sugar, and other Commonwealth sugar as well, of New Zealand dairy products and of the financing of the Community, I think that there is some very tough bargaining ahead. In my view, success in these particular areas is essential if the terms which the Government obtain are to be seen in the country as acceptable.
Having said all that, which may seem to the noble Earl rather carping, after
334
what he has said about the progress we have made, let me say, speaking for myself, and I think also for most of the noble Lords on this side, that I hope profoundly that the Government will be successful in their negotiations. It is now a cliché of debate to say that the economic arguments are finely balanced and the political arguments are decisive. It may be a cliché; nevertheless I profoundly believe it. I believe that there are great long-term economic advantages in joining the Common Market, advantages brought by economics of scale and by the ability to form and control the activities of large multi-national companies. I believe that even on the economic side, in spite of the possible short-term difficulties which we shall have to face in the transitional periods—though let us remember that the transitional periods will cushion their effects—the long-term advantages are overriding.
Nevertheless, I still believe that it is the political case that makes our entry into Europe important—indeed, vital, and perhaps I may end by a brief résumé of the political case as I see it, brief because our political arguments are comprehensive and exhaustive. My view of the political case is very similar in essence to that put forward by the noble Earl. A middle-ranging Power like ourselves can no longer make its voice heard in the kind of world in which we live to-day. Those who are obsessed with the idea of national sovereignty and are terrified lest any part of that sovereignty should be eroded in a larger Community should remember that national sovereignty is largely an illusion unless it confers upon the nation some kind of influence in the world. Otherwise, I am at a loss to understand what value our national sovereignty has.
Some may ask: why do we need this influence? What does it matter if Great Britain is no longer a great Imperial Power but now a great Power of the middle rank? I think that there are two reasons why we do not need this influence. We do not need it, as the noble Earl has said, to create an exclusive club of large industrial nations in Western Europe, all concerned with their own prosperity, their own balance of payments, their own gross national product and their own economic growth. We do not want it for that. Nor do we need it

335
for any attempt to create a new super-Power, with all the paraphernalia of nuclear deterrents and ruiniously expensive military establishments. What we do need this influence for is to have some voice in the really great international problems which are going to face the world, including the world of Western Europe and Great Britain, in the rest of this century. The noble Earl has mentioned the familiar problem of the Third World. He spoke of the poverty gap between the developed world and the developing. It is a poverty gap which, put into more graphic terms, means that two-thirds of the people of the world have not enough to eat. This is something, I am convinced, that everyone in this country would wish to do something about.
We need this influence for the great issues of arms control and disarmament, on which our voice as a nation State can no longer carry the weight of the great super-Power. We need it (and again the noble Earl mentioned this) for the improvement of East/West relations. We need it to ensure that Eastern and Western Europe eventually come together and that the great artificial barrier which at the moment runs through the centre of Europe is broken down and dismantled for ever. Willy Brandt, the Chancellor of West Germany, has already begun to break down these barriers with his Eastern policy. The Soviet Union, as we discovered in our negotiations to join the Common Market, abortive as they turned out to be, are by no means hostile to this idea of an integrated Western Europe. They realise, as we do, that it is only by consolidating, integrating and unifying the foreign policies of Western Europe that we shall eventually be in a position to break down these barriers and to bring East and West together. We need this influence to solve the great problem of the poisoning of the environment. We need it to help in making an effective world organisation of the United Nations. These are the things that we need influence for.
The great decisions, as the noble Earl has said, are now made by the super-Powers, or what he called the Power clusters. They are made for the moment in Washington and in Moscow. As he
336
rightly said, at the end of this century they will probably be made in Peking and Tokyo as well. There are many people in this country, including myself, and particularly many among the young, who care deeply about the problems of the Third World, nuclear weapons and East/West relations. These young people want some of these decisions to be made here in Europe, and not always to be made elsewhere. As the noble Earl has said, this is not a time for anybody to be thinking in terms of a "Little England". It would be entirely against all tradition, and hostile to the genius and temperament of the people of this country, if we were to suggest that we can turn our back on these great international problems, and simply tend our own gardens and look after our own prosperity and our own standard of living. Quite apart from the fact that I do not think we could look after it, if left on our own, even if we could it is not enough for the young people of this country, who want to see Britain helping to solve the problems about which they feel so passionately.
The best way to do this that I can see—indeed, I can see no other way—is through an economically integrated and politically united Europe. That is why, provided that the terms are right, and provided they impose no intolerable burden on the people of this country, or indeed on those abroad who rightly rely on us to look after their interests, I think the Government are right to take advantage of what I believe to be the most important and exciting political opportunity that Britain is likely to see in this century. It is now for the Government and their negotiators to secure those acceptable terms. It is a great opportunity, my Lords, and this time I hope that it can be seized.
4.5 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, this is obviously going to be an important debate, if only because it should make clear what this House collectively thinks about the present state of the negotiations for our entry into the European Economic Community. Let us hope that in addition it will strengthen the hands of the Government at what is obviously a difficult, if not a critical, moment in these negotiations.
At the outset, I should like to say that I am sure that, in this House at any rate,

337
we shall not indulge in what the French call a procès de motifs—that is to say, questioning other people's motives. It is absurd, for instance, to describe all those who believe in the necessity of creating a political entity of a new kind in Western Europe as "starry-eyed idealists". I regard myself as a practical ex-diplomatist, with some experience of political negotiations, who is nevertheless convinced that we can work towards a united Western Europe by gradually adopting new techniques that have already proved their worth on the Continent of Europe. Quite a number of hard-headed industrialists and politicians on both sides of the Channel share this view. It may be contested, but it is very much the reverse of a pipe-dream.
Nor is it as if such techniques to which I have alluded would in any way diminish what is always called our national personality and integrity. Look at the Dutch! Does that proud and ancient nation think that its Queen and its Constitution are in any way compromised by membership of the Community? Of course not. Just go to Holland and ask any Dutchman, and you will find that almost all of them are very happy to belong to the Community if only because, as they believe, it has raised their standard of living and, as it were, put Holland on the map. What worries me, my Lords, is what is likely to happen to our own nation if we stay out of the Community. It is our own starry-eyed nationalists who fill me with alarm!
However that may be, I hope that in this House at any rate—and I am sure that this will be the case—in discussing this matter we shall avoid any Party politics. As is known, in the Parliamentary Parties—though not, I think, in our small Liberal Party—opinion is divided on the main issue; that is to say, on whether we should, in principle, come into the Community at all. In both the major Parties there are those who feel that we should in no circumstances join the Six, and those who feel that we should join them on almost any terms. But the majority in both Parties are obviously waiting to see what comes out of the negotiations before making up their minds. And of course they are the sensible ones.
338
First of all, I think we might sincerely congratulate the Government on having seemingly found an excellent negotiator. Mr. Geoffrey Rippon clearly has all the qualities required: intelligence, conviction, toughness, both mental and physical, and above all, if I may say so, unflappability. If he cannot arrive at a sensible formula, then I am confident that nobody can. Whether he will is, frankly, anybody's guess. Our country is, after all, in a different position from that of our neighbours on the Continent. It is not our fault that we should, as a result of history, have rather exceptional overseas connections and that our agricultural revolution took place over 100 years ago. If we are to join the Six, therefore, there simply must be some concessions on the part of the Six which, without in any way (and I emphasise those words) damaging or undermining that Community, will take account of this outstanding and undeniable fact.
Nor, as has so frequently been said, would it be in the Six's own interest if we joined them on terms which could produce major balance-of-payments difficulties. The whole thing, in other words, simply must be looked at not from the point of view of any individual nation, but from that of an enlarged or prospectively enlarged Community.
Of course there are the clever ones who say: "Never mind. Just sign on the dotted line, and once you are in you can refuse to pay up on the simple grounds that you have no money. "But though there might be nations who could play this game, it would not I think be ours, and our prospective colleagues must realise that if we do come in we shall be serious partners, willing and anxious to play it straight in the general interests of the group. But first of all they must make it possible for us to do this.
What has always struck me as odd, however, is the extent to which among the Six—and notably in France—people tend to represent us as what is always called as demandereurs; that is to say, broadly speaking, as supplicants begging to be allowed to share in the wealth and glory of the Common Market. They are right when they say that if we do come into their Community we must accept the principles of their Common Agricultural Policy, worked out with such difficulty,

339
and be genuinely prepared to make considerable sacrifices in order to help solve the agricultural problems of the Continental countries, which are very real, and this even though we may legitimately hope, with them, eventually to mitigate some of the more evident absurdities of the C.A.P. as time goes on.
What the Six tend to ignore is the extent to which we should finance their farmers, even if we paid into the central fund considerably less than, theoretically, we should be obliged to pay under the present regulations. I am not sure that this fact is always realised, but everything over about 5½ per cent. of our subscription, which is the amount we should calculate to recover, would, from their point of view, be pure gain, and if we did not come in they would therefore be so much the poorer by some hundreds of millions of pounds.
Moreover, they must surely have formed some idea of how far their farmers are likely to profit by exporting to us some, at least, of their famous agricultural surpluses. And unless we joined them, there would be no question of any such outlet. All this in addition to the great technological advantages of expanding the Market, so justifiably vaunted by Mr. Harold Wilson some three years ago. Really, if as is said, the Six want us to join for valid political reasons, they must now get down, in their own interests, to doing the necessary deal. As I believe has been said by both speakers this afternoon, a sensible review clause—or its equivalent—would help a lot, and might, to a large extent, provide the answer.
This brings me on to the political issue. It is really twofold, and the two are often confused—anyhow, in the public mind. The first question is to what extent, if we join, we shall be committed to the acceptance of what is always called a "Federal" system; the second is to what extent we could, on joining, or even before joining, agree on suitable machinery for harmonising our foreign policies and standardising our armaments; and also, if possible, having a common arms procurement programme.
On the first point—how far we should be committed to Federalism—the answer is clear. The Six, at their conference at The Hague just over a year ago, agreed
340
to advance towards an economic union of a new type. But so far it seems that they have been unable to agree on any very positive steps in this direction, more particularly—as I think was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—in the monetary sphere. They have agreed that by January 1, 1975, they will pay into the central fund the proceeds of the agricultural levies all the customs duties, together with 1 per cent. of the new tax on added values. So it is clear that unless the system is to collapse—and there will be small point in our joining if we thought that—there will, before 1975, have to be adequate machinery for democratically controlling the expenditure by the Commission in Brussels of very large sums of money. If we come in before the decision to establish this machinery is made, we shall have a say in establishing it, and indeed it could not be established unless we—that is to say, Parliament here—agreed on how best to do so. And the same applies to any further step that may be proposed in the direction of what some might call a Federation, but which I would call a Community—and there is here a real difference and not a mere distinction which I have not the time to enlarge on now.
I believe, in any case, that if we join we shall be among the foremost—among the first—in urging the completion of a union on democratic lines, because it will be so much in the interest of everybody to complete it. But the point I am making—or perhaps labouring—is that such completion could only be accomplished with the consent of the British Parliament. In other words, there is simply no question of our being, as a nation, forced into some Federation against our will. For it will in any case not be a Federation of the old-fashioned type, nor shall we participate unless we are convinced that to do so would be in our own national interest.
Mr. Enoch Powell, as we know, spends much of his time nowadays proving, apparently to his own satisfaction, that British entry into the European Economic Community—for which we may note in passing that he voted in principle in 1967—would supress the "individuality" and "personality" of the British nation
"… in a community of which the United Kingdom would be permanently a minority."

341
Those are his words as expressed in The Times yesterday. If Mr. Powell really thinks that we are going to become non-British and, as it were, foreign by combining with neighbouring democracies on the Continent for certain evidently common purposes, he is not a patriot but a timorous defeatist. Does he really think that this great nation, largely responsible for the defeat of Hitler, is going to shed its national characteristics because it joins in a venture designed primarily to prevent the resurgence of old European feuds and make the voice of Europe once again heard in the world? Of course we must respect the Six's interests—and they ours: that is what the present negotiation is about. But to try to terrify our people by suggesting that, if we joined, we should always be in a minority, bossed about by aliens, when in point of fact we should probably normally be in a majority is, I am afraid, only typical of a politician with an axe to grind.
The other aspect of the phrase, "political union"; namely, closer integration of foreign and defence policies, is so obviously necessary (whether we join the European Economic Community or not) that it is difficult to see why even our nationalists should disapprove of it. Faced with a very dangerous situation if the Americans should withdraw their troops from Europe, or even substantially reduce them, the Western European democracies—if indeed they are to remain democracies—will have to streamline their conventional defences and no doubt consider what, if any, their collective nuclear effort should be as well. Besides, if they are to have any influence on world events—for instance, in the Middle East—they will have increasingly to speak with one voice within the general framework of the Atlantic Alliance.
There is only one way of starting this process up if we really want to do so. It is to replace the existing rather useless machinery for periodical meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Six—already referred to, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—followed by a day's discussion with the Ministers of the Four, by a workmanlike system, preferably based on the Western European Union, or on an enlarged W.E.U. equipped with an independent secretariat, similar in some ways, to the United Nations secretariat, and an independent
342
political commission. This would in no way be a supranational system—and I beg people to believe that—but its mere existence would ensure that at least there was some body, some organ, in which the great problems of foreign affairs and defence were examined from the point of view of the group, and not from that of various entirely independent nation Stases. Later—this would be a more significant step, of course—there could be weighted majority voting in the Committee of Ministers in certain defined spheres, such as the standardisation of armaments. Why not? Such a joint obligation would be entirely fair to all, and would in any case be the only way—I am sure it would be the only way—ever to standardise anything.
This is not just idle theorising. Proposals of the kind I have indicated are, I assure your Lordships, a vital necessity. The whole future of Europe is now in the balance. All the great strength of the Soviet Union—and I say this in spite of the view of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—is, for obvious reasons, now deployed against the extension of the E.E.C. and the emergence of anything like a Political Community in Europe. If we go into a European security conference, as is now always proposed, as completely separate nations, nation-states, the Russians will undoubtedly exploit our divisions. What we must have, therefore, is not a series of Ostpolitiks, but one considered Ostpolitik. This, I am sure, is what Herr Willy Brandt, for whom I have great admiration, wants, because, in default of Western unity, his whole present policy is likely to fall to the ground. But how can we arrive at any common policy with these 18th century nationalist machines now at our present disposal? What we want is, surely, what Mr. Rippon has already called a West politik. My Lords, divided we fall.
Speaking recently in the French National Assembly (this may be of certain interest to your Lordships) on the desirability of the French Government's taking some initiative in the direction of greater political unity, M. Bernard Destremau, a Giscardien, a former Gaullist, now a member of the Liberal Group in the Western European Union Assembly, over which I have the honour to preside, expressed himself more or

343
less as follows. It was not necessary, he said, to set up new organs for we already had ones that were perfectly adequate. The only one, however, which at the moment gave expression to a desire to establish a common defence and a political union was the Western European Union.
Certainly other schemes had been put forward, he said, by a body of high officials in Brussels. But if these were to advance at the pace of the economic organs, progress towards any political union would be very much too slow, if only for the reason that some of the countries applying for membership of the E.E.C., he thought, apparently had doubts about joining any Political and Defence Community. For this reason a Political Community of 10 might be (and I think he was right in saying this) much too cumbersome. He therefore asked M. Schumann, the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, whether he did not think that the Treaty of Paris of 1954, in which the United Kingdom, for the first time in its history (his words), had agreed a priori to commit herself to the Continent, provided a solid basis for strengthening the general cohesion of Europe. And I should add that M. Destremau is one of the 250-odd French Parliamentarians—that is to say, Senators and Deputies—who have now come out in favour of the acceptance by the French Government of something like an Independent Political Commission, for so long advocated by my old organisation, Britain and Europe.
To this, M. Schumann replied that, while he was all in favour of Britain's joining the Common Market, "as it was", he did not believe that "two rival communities" should be set up in Europe. Criticising this attitude during the W.E.U. debate, I said that we could only conclude that, in the opinion of the French Government, if the Western European Union was useful it was only because it was in no way a "rival" of the E.E.C. If, however, it did anything, then it would presumably be such a rival. Consequently, the evident intention of the French Government at the moment was that, if possible, Western European Union should do nothing at all—and this at a time when there had never been greater need for it.
344
If we examine Mr. Schumann's attitude a little further we see that in his speech to the French National Assembly of November 5 last he made great play with the statement of Mr. Harold Wilson—repeated, he said, many times—that British candidature for membership of the E.E.C. and the prospects of forming any European super-State were mutually exclusive. This was to prove, of course, that nothing further than the report of the Davignon Committee could possibly be accepted by any British Government. But the point is that we could, and, as I have always said, certainly should, go further than this pretty useless system of consultation without the slightest prospect of setting up any super-State. I repeat that. Our present silence on this subject is thus being used by those, more especially in France, I am afraid, who are simply disinclined at the present time to make any real progress towards the harmonisation of the foreign policies of Western Europe or the standardisation of its defences.
Nobody could describe M. Destremau as a starry-eyed idealist. Like myself, he is an ex-diplomatist; he is also an undoubted French patriot and a hardworking and practical Deputy. The same might well be said of the 250 French Parliamentarians who signed the resolution to which I have referred. The ideas contained in it do not, admittedly, for the moment, seem to appeal to the French Government—or (shall we say?) to those members of the French Government who share the views of M. Michel Debrè. But what I cannot see is why our own Government should not make these proposals, or something like them, their own. If they did, it would certainly not, I assure them, affect unfavourably their chances of getting the Six to agree to a suitable formula for our entry into the E.E.C. On the contrary, it would create a widespread impression that we are not after all seeking admission to the Community with the secret intention of sabotaging the Common Market from within—the famous Trojan Horse. So I would venture to ask the Government to let us know whether, in principle, they favour some strengthening of the W.E.U. on the lines suggested; and if not, what their reasons are for rejecting that suggestion.

345
My Lords, I should like to make one final observation. One or two worried Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, have recently said to me: "You know, I personally am quite convinced, after long and anxious thought, that it would be in the interests of this country, to say nothing of the interests of world peace, for us to join the E.E.C. if a reasonable formula could be worked out regarding our contribution to the Central Agricultural Fund, the position of New Zealand, the Commonwealth sugar producers, and 'low wage' textile exporting countries, as with good will it probably can be. But I simply could not do so if I believed that a large majority of my constituents were opposed to it." To such Members I have replied that this is an entirely comprehensible standpoint, but that I should hope that, if they really felt deeply that the Government's policy was right, they would support it and risk subsequent defeat at the polls; and quite likely, if they stuck to their guns and explained their reasons frankly and fully to their electors, they would be re-elected all the same.
For, my Lords—and this is really my final thought—in foreign affairs the voice of the people is by no means always right. Most people would now admit that our failure to react against the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 was a far more important cause of the Second World War than even Munich, in 1938. Yet there is little doubt, I should say, that if a Gallup Poll had been taken in 1936 about 90 per cent. of the people would have opposed any vigorous reaction, just as a similiar proportion, I should have said, would have voted for the Munich settlement as well.
There is also the simple thought that when France and the other members of the Community signed the Treaty of Rome there was no question of a referendum. If there had been, it is most likely that at least one important country would have come out, by a large majority, against the whole idea of a Common Market, which of course would then have been stillborn. But now, if we had a referendum in any country of the Six on the question whether the people wished to withdraw from their obligations under the Treaty, there would be an enormous majority against any such suggestion—even among the Communists. This fact alone should induce us to reject such
346
superficially attractive schemes as that now put forward by Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
Whatever your Lordships may think of these arguments, I would ask you to reflect on the dreadful dangers of any refusal to join the Common Market in 1971, even though a reasonable formula had been worked out by Her Majesty's Government, on the ground that public opinion was opposed to it. For this might have, and probably would have, the gravest effects on the world balance of power and thus on the prospects of a peaceful future for ourselves and our children.
But, my Lords, it is not in the role of Cassandra that I wish to conclude my remarks this afternoon. On the contrary, I think that, with luck, we are on the edge of a great breakthrough in Western Europe. Given inspired leadership—and it will certainly have to be inspired leadership—we may well look back on the coming months as those in which Britain took the decision to embark on a wider and a truer democracy, perfectly consonant with increased regionalism and political devolution at home and abroad. In that very act she will shake off the introspective and cynical mood that has plagued her since the war and once again, "mewing her mighty youth", as Milton said, come forward as a model for other peoples and a willing partner in what is likely to be the most promising and constructive enterprise of our modern times.
My Lords, we should set our sights high, and, as was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in his remarkable speech, "greet the unknown with a cheer".
4.34 p.m.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, I venture to intervene briefly in this debate as it is nearly four years since I last spoke in the House on this subject, at the outset of the second series of Common Market negotiations. I refer to my previous speech only in order to say that, slightly to my surprise, my few remarks to-day will be consistent with it. I then welcomed the start of the 1967 negotiations though I thought they had perhaps rather little hope of success. Equally I welcome the opening of series number three, which obviously has a much better chance of ending in an agreement.

347
It is often said that the alternative to joining the Common Market is not to join it; but four years ago there were other alternative policies, some of which had not then been fully studied or explored. At that time there were still those who felt that the Commonwealth could provide the large and expanding market which we need, but it is surely clear that while Commonwealth trade remains of great importance to us it is not of itself enough, and that Commonwealth preferences are a steadily diminishing asset.
Among alternatives, the concept of a North Atlantic free trade area was canvassed and enjoyed a good deal of support in principle. Since that time a lot of good work has been done by the Atlantic Trade Study and other individuals and groups on the implications of a North Atlantic free trade area, and indeed of other proposals based on free trade area principles, but it is fair to say that nothing very concrete in the way of a policy has emerged from those studies, if only because of the difficulty of defining a particular free trade area, whether in terms of geography or of the range of goods and commodities to be included. Should Japan be excluded or included? Should the area be restricted to industrial goods or should it also include agricultural commodities? I do not say that these questions are unanswerable, but after much research the answers are still far from clear.
Whatever the merits of these proposals, (and a multilateral free trade area, if one were practicable, would probably suit this country best) they have not, in spite of some distinguished academic advocacy, aroused any strong public support or political interest: not in the United States of America, from which, if there was to be any prospect of progress, the initiative would have to come; not in Canada; certainly not in Europe; not in this country and, indeed, not in this House. It may be that in due course greater support will develop for free trade area ideas. A multilateral free trade area could, in principle, include the European Common Market, whether or not the United Kingdom had joined it. But it seems to me that this possibility lies rather far in the future and that we cannot
348
stay out of the European Community, waiting for that day to come.
Then, again, four years ago it was widely held that British industry did not need the stimulus or the opportunity of a wider market in order to improve its efficiency and enable the country to achieve an acceptable rate of economic growth. I still think that, in theory, that contention was correct, but it has not proved to be the case in practice, for in recent years we have continued to lag even further behind our principal industrial competitors, with the result that we have suffered much more than they have from the general inflation.
So I conclude that in this series of negotiations we are confronted with a straight choice: to join, or not to join—to go in or—to go it alone. As between these alternatives the advantages of joining seem to me to have increased and not diminished with the passage of time. One must, of course, repeat the qualification, "if fair, acceptable terms can be negotiated"; but what is negotiable and what is acceptable can be judged only at the time when the final deal is settled and recommended by the Government to Parliament.
It is perhaps natural that the nearer the prospect of membership, the stronger the opposition to joining becomes. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, some of the opposition is founded on principle, and those who hold this view will not easily be persuaded; but much of the opposition is rooted in prejudice or in deep misunderstanding, and is perhaps to be taken the more seriously on that account. It is, I know, difficult for a Government to deal adequately with popular prejudice in the middle of delicate negotiations, which make it impracticable to conduct a vigorous and specific propaganda campaign, but it does mean that misconceptions get a rather free run. A sympathetic European observer of our affairs was amused recently by the following answer given in a radio quiz programme on the Common Market:
"I suppose we ought to join, but it will turn us all into foreigners, won't it?"
It is one of the most deep-rooted misconceptions that membership will in some way cause us to lose our national identity, will impair our sovereignty, will weaken our institutions, or injure our heritage in

349
some way or another. As the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said, this is demonstrably untrue in the case of every Common Market country, notably and most emphatically in the case of France.
Nor, on a related point, is membership likely, in my view, to injure our relations with the United States. It is true that in the United States the first strong and insistent general support for our membership has largely evaporated and that the American attitude has become more ambivalent with the passage of time. It is also true that our membership will add to the strains in relations between North America and Europe which already arise on a number of economic issues. But I do not accept that this is a serious obstacle to our membership, or that our membership will impair the links which bind the United States and Britain and which are deeply anchored in our common history.
In conclusion, I should like to make a short point on each of two very large issues. On the question of the Common Agricultural Policy, it has been urged that in view of its long term effect on world trade in agricultural commodities it should be renegotiated before any agreement is reached on the enlargement of the Community. I believe this to be an unrealistic view. The Common Agricultural Policy is generally recognised to have been largely misconceived, and it will fail in time through its own inherent weaknesses. It is surely better reviewed by a Community enlarged by, among others, the United Kingdom and Denmark than in the course of the present negotiations, even if this were practicable.
Then there is the question of monetary policy. This need not be imported into the current negotiations. It is a long-term question on which at present there is considerable disagreement. It may be that Her Majesty's Government will be asked to subscribe to whatever the Six decide to do about the Werner Report, but that is unlikely at this stage to amount to very much. If a Common Market Government, the French Government, in particular, seek to introduce this problem as a substantive matter in the discussions, I think it will be indicative of the extent to which they want to have us in, or rather keep us out.
Though they cannot, of course, say what they are, I imagine that by now
350
the Government have a pretty good idea of the limits within which an agreement can be reached on the matters so far introduced into the negotiations and that the margin between what is acceptable or not is becoming narrowed. There is a sense in which the Government are in the hands of those on the other side of the negotiating table. No one expects charity in international discussions, but in the end the issue will turn on whether they want us as a partner or not. It is my hope that the protestations of good will that have been made by our prospective partners, and the strength of the collective political will to which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred, will turn out to be well-founded.
4.45 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, it is a high distinction to follow the noble Lord. Lord Sherfield. Many years ago, when I was associated with an Administration, his name, his influence and his multifarious activities in the diplomatic sphere were familiar to me. He was in those days a great public servant. But he will forgive me if, after listening to his speech and the succession of others preceding his advocating British entry into the Common market, I find myself in fundamental disagreement. I was under the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, a few years ago was somewhat sceptical about the desirability of British entry into the Common Market. I do not doubt his sincerity in the least. He is entitled to engage in a transformation of the kind suggested by the speech he has just delivered.
It is not unusual—there have been many contradictions, apologies, transformations, political somersaults and wriggles in the last seven years since the subject of British entry into the E.E.C. assumed prominence. To take an example—I might almost say a classic example—there is the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who is, I suppose, the high priest of the Common marketeers. He referred to something that happened several years ago and ventured the opinion that if the general public in the United Kingdom had been asked their views about association with a wider Europe they would have accepted it gladly.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I said nothing of the kind.
LORD SHINWELL: That certainly was not the attitude, the position, of the noble Lord?
LORD GLADWYN: Quite right.
LORD SHINWELL: In preparation for this debate I ventured to indulge in some research. Research is desirable, because it enables one to get at the facts, not starry-eyed idealism, not astrology, not forecasts about the future as far away as the 1980's and even further afield; just the facts, precise, definite, clear-cut statements indicating one's views. I therefore venture to explain the transformation that has come about in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. A few years ago, not so very long ago, he was interviewed by a prominent industrial publication on the subject of his views on the Common Market. This is what he said:
"The political revolution which would begin by going into Europe is, to my mind, far more important, for example, than the economic revolution. Quite simply, if we accept the Treaty of Rome we shall gradually surrender the right to make economic decisions decisively affecting our own economy to an organisation or organisations which we shall be able to influence strongly but not dominate. Membership of the Common Market for Britain would mean that, in ten years' time"—
just about this time —
"or so, we might well be a member of a confederation, perhaps with a common currency and no doubt with a fairly free flow of labour and capital in which major economic and social decisions affecting our lives would be taken elsewhere than at Westminster".
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I say, in interrupting the noble Lord once again, that I think that was a very good statement of mine, and I entirely abide by it.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, all I have to say is that this is a remarkable transformation.
LORD GLADWYN: It is not a transformation at all.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, of course everyone has the right to change his mind. But, then, who are we to believe, and when are we to believe them?
352
If the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was right several years ago, obviously he is wrong now. Perhaps he was wrong then and is right now. But certainly he is not the type of person to whom the general public of the United Kingdom should pay very much heed. I would venture to say that in the course—
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, would forgive me for saying so, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is saying exactly the same thing to-day as he said ten years ago.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am bound to say that it seems rather different to me. However, I have ventured to put it before your Lordships' House and noble Lords can draw their own conclusions. But the remarkable feature of the debate, so far as it has gone, is to indicate a complete disregard of public opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, spoke of the voice of the people not always being right. That may be so. But the voice of Members of Parliament, or even of noble Lords, will not always be right or wise. What are we to do in such circumstances? Are we to disregard completely, wholeheartedly, almost enthusiastically, the views of the electors in the United Kingdom? Are they to have no voice in the decision, in the final conclusion reached about whether or not we should enter the Common Market?
If the general public are to have a voice, by what means are we to ascertain their views? Several statements have been made on this aspect of the problem. Take the example of the Prime Minister: he has made it abundantly clear from time to time that no Government would dare venture into the Common Market without regard to the interests of the nation and of our people. How do we interpret that statement? Does it mean that we have to rely on a decision taken, in the first instance, by two Front Benches in collaboration, and then by a Parliament which is itself divided, ignoring completely the opinion of the general public? That is the first point I wish to make. At the end of this debate the Minister speaking on behalf of the Government may perhaps venture to express an opinion on whether or not the general public are to be at any time I consulted.

353
Despite the fact that the original idea of entering the Common Market was based on economic, and to some extent on social, considerations, there can be no question but that there has been a departure from the original idea. For example, in the course of the speeches that we have just heard, reference has been made to federalisation. On the other hand, it has been denied by no less a person than Mr. Harold Wilson that it was the intention of the previous Administration to accept anything in the nature of a federal structure. Mr. George Thomson, who was in charge of negotiations on behalf of the previous Administration, on one occasion said that the object of Her Majesty's Government was political unification. A few months later, he stated quite explicitly that it was not the intention of the Government to embark on anything pertaining to a federal structure.
These contradictory statements create confusion in the mind of the general public. We want much more than the superficial statements that have been made, if I may say so with great respect, by both Front Benches this afternoon. We want precision, something definite, and a little less astrology. Even my noble friend Lord Chalfont ventured some time ago, in a letter that he sent to somebody who wrote to him, to say:
"People who pretend to be able to forecast the cost of British entry into the Common Market at the end of a period which, allowing for negotiations for entry plus a transitional period, would take us into the mid 'seventies, cannot be taken seriously."
Of course these forecasts cannot be taken seriously. Who can tell what is going to happen in the 'eighties, or even in the latter part of the 'seventies? In fact, the case for entering the Common Market has been based almost exclusively on assumptions and on acts of faith.
On the other hand, those of us who have opposed entry into the Common Market are regarded as being emotional. Indeed, it is sometimes said of us that we are hysterical. It was just now said by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that we are prejudiced, that we do not like foreigners. That is a lot of rubbish; it is a lot of nonsense. We have no hatred of the foreigner—of the French, the Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians, or the Luxembourgers: of course not. I can put it in another fashion. A trading country such as we are must trade with
354
every country in the world—in Europe and elsewhere. That has been our tradition for centuries. It is for this country, the United Kingdom, to enter into collaboration with other countries on matters associated with technology and a variety of other matters of mutual interest. To that I take no exception whatever. But when we are asked to accept the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, the final conclusion of which is political integration—a federal structure, whereby this Parliament of ours is completely dominated by, and must accept, decisions taken either in Brussels, in Bonn, in Paris or elsewhere in Europe—I venture to say to noble Lords that it is not a proposition which is agreeable to the vast majority of people in this country.
I do not want to occupy too much of your Lordships' time, but in the course of his speech to the Commonwealth Conference the Prime Minister made a statement which I venture to think will prove interesting and from which I propose to read an extract. Speaking of the Commonwealth as it now is, he said:
"To me, it is a body of friends brought together by history, free to come and go as they wish, to contribute as much or as little as they can, but always concerned, as old friends are, with one another's welfare."
I accept this mostly mixed, almost casual association of friends, concerned with mutual trade, interested in world affairs, co-operating sometimes at the United Nations, and sometimes in disagreement. That I accept. That is our conception of the Commonwealth—a fair and square definition. But let us consider what we are asked to accept as an alternative to relying on our Commonwealth associations—the Treaty of Rome which, once we accept it, becomes irrevocable, rigid, firm, definite, precise and capable of domination; officered by a non-democratic Commission and a Council of Ministers not elected. If that is the situation, I prefer the Commonwealth as it is.
It has been suggested by preceding speakers in the debate that we have no future. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Chalfont, though he argued about conditions which might not be acceptable, proceeded to argue that we really had no future. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would argue that we have no diplomatic future, and that we really do not count. In other words, the cry is "Stinking

355
fish!"; and that this country is finished. I venture to say that if that is the conviction of some noble Lords, I cannot see why they trouble about conditions at all. If I really believed that it was essential that we should enter the Common Market because we have no future; that Commonwealth preferences are diminishing; that our associations with our friends in Africa and in the old Commonwealth are no longer of value and have no validity; that we have no influence in the world (this despite the fact that we are one of the four Powers, are influential in the Security Council, and are still something of a military Power, and our forces are asked to go to various parts of the world in order to quell disorder and the like, and we are in association with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and have relations with the United States of America) I should not worry about some problem associated with Commonwealth sugar; nor worry very much about the price of food, nor concern myself unduly about the future of New Zealand. I would put British interests first, economic and political, whatever the consequences, rather than look forward to a dismal, grim, gloomy future for this country and our people.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me? I forebore to interrupt before because the House enjoys his flights of eloquence so much. However, I should like to go on record as saying that I, for one, do not believe that this country has no future. I should not like the House to think that the noble Lord is quoting me accurately. I believe this country has a great future, as it has had a great past, but I simply believe that its future lies in a united Europe.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, that seems to me to be a contradiction in terms: to say that this country has a great future but only as an ally of Europe. I am surprised at my noble friend. I have always thought of him as an intelligent person; I shall have to change my mind. That is no sort of argument even to put before noble Lords.
I want to come to a point which I think is of some substance. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said something that really astonished me, and I jotted it down. He said, "Nobody in the E.E.C. wants to
356
abandon the Common Market". That is what he said. That was used as an argument in support of his advocacy of British entry. Of course nobody in the E.E.C. wants to abandon the Common Market, for the simple reason that once you enter you cannot leave. I do not know whether the noble Earl thought about that. The provisions of the Treaty of Rome provide that once a country becomes a member of the Community it is irrevocable. So what was the point of the noble Earl arguing in support of his advocacy of British entry that nobody in the E.E.C. wants to abandon it? Of course they do not. They cannot. They are in, and they cannot get out. I do not want this country to be placed in a straitjacket, in fetters, socially, industrially and, in particular, politically.
Finally, I want to say that I know that I am almost like a voice crying in the wilderness in your Lordships' House. Well, that is all right, but I am not a voice crying in the wilderness outside. Please take note of that—not that I take credit for it; far from it! I simply recognise the fact. All I ask is that before we come to a final and what is bound to be an irrevocable decision, the people of this country should be consulted, in whatever fashion the Government desire. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, stated a conversation he had with an M.P. He was right in not disclosing the name; it would almost have been: a libel. He said that an M.P. agreed with the Government about entry into the Common Market, but his constituents did not agree with him, so the Member was told, "Never mind about your constituents; just take the chance of being defeated at the next election." I have never known an M.P. like that in all my life. What nonsense they are talking!
I declare my interest. I have been described in all sorts of ways. As an "ancient Briton" A Briton, yes; but not so ancient, if I may quote the Scriptures:
"With the ancient is wisdom;
And in length of days understanding".
I rely on that. "Super patriot". Do not worry about that. I remember reading Dr. Johnson a long time ago. Do not worry about patriotism; I simply believe in Britain. I think we have a future. Some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, ventured to say that he and the

357
noble Lord, Lord Crowther, on one occasion wrote to The Times predicting that our export trade would so diminish that it would be disastrous. It is at column 1095 of Vol. 308 of the OFFICIAL REPORT; and if any noble Lord cares to look it up, he will find that I have stated it accurately. In the last few years we have discovered that our exports have reached unprecedented heights. How can we rely on these industrial tycoons and economists?
There is going to be a lot of controversy about this subject. Read The Times this morning, and read yesterday's issue; the controversy between two eminent economists arising out the Werner Report on a common currency. One says that a common currency is disastrous for us, for employment; no relief for the depressed areas, and some completely neglected. The other says, "I do not agree entirely with the views of my colleague of another university. But I myself have some doubts. Let us not proceed too rapidly in the direction of the common currency." This controversy is rife throughout the whole country. It will increase until such time as Her Majesty's Government are forced to the conclusion that the electors should be consulted.
As for my noble friends, I ask them to take note of what the Leader of the Labour Party has said in repeating the words of the late Hugh Gaitskell at a memorable Labour Party Conference. He said, "Whether we go in or not, this country has got a future. There will be no disaster if we remain out." That is what Harold Wilson repeated. That is the answer to those who say we must go in, that it is inevitable that we should go in. No; the alternative is not a North Atlantic Organisation associated with EFTA. The alternative is Britain strong, reliant, standing on its own feet; ready to play its part in the world, in trade, even in defence, and in diplomatic affairs; making, if not a substantial defence contribution, a moral contribution, along with Commonwealth countries, and even without the Commonwealth countries if they decide to abandon the Commonwealth.
That is my conception of a future Britain, and because I believe that sincerely and wholeheartedly I will not accept entry into the Common Market. I shall sit down after saying this.
358
I have no quarrel with Germany or France, in spite of the defection of France in two wars. I do not quarrel with the Hollanders, the Belgians or the Luxembourgers. I have no quarrel with the Common Market. I just want this country to have nothing to do with it.
5.11 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, your Lordships have listened to a remarkable speech from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who always makes remarkable speeches. You will shortly be listening to a remarkable speech from the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who also makes remarkable speeches. I do not know how I have become sandwiched in the middle. I discovered my position in the order of speaking only when I came into the House this afternoon. Nevertheless, as I propose to make a short contribution on lines slightly different from what I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and from what I think the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is going to say, I shall try to be the meat in this sandwich between the two of them, because I want to talk about the Common Market and agriculture.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that because Britain in Europe will be a very strong power and influence, we are not also going to be a very strong power and influence in relation to the other Commonwealth countries. We have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that the Commonwealth countries are in favour of association with the Common Market, so I do not believe that that argument has any force at all. Furthermore, the noble Lord said that those of us who believe in the Common Market are suggesting that the United Kingdom cannot play its part in the world, and that this is a feeble effort to rehabilitate this country. I do not agree with that, because I believe strongly in the future of this country. We have a tremendous future; but this country must be pointed in the right direction, which is towards Europe.
Speaking as a farmer, I should like to say something about agriculture and the markets which we need. There is no doubt at all that agriculture has been the most difficult problem for the Six. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, that the policy will have to change, but it will be much better if we

359
are there to influence the change. I do not see why we should not be, and I do not see why our agriculture should not be as good as, and indeed better than, the agriculture of Europe. In France and Germany, agriculture still employs a larger proportion of the working population than is the case in the United Kingdom. The farmers and farm workers in Europe are just as hard to please and as tough as we are in Britain.
We in Britain have the most efficient agricultural industry in Europe. We have a highly mechanised and highly efficient form of agriculture. What we need is a larger market for our produce. We are faced, as everybody else is faced, with rising costs, and in order to meet them we must have larger markets in which to sell. I am not quite sure why it is—I do not know whether it is because of increased imports or whether people are eating differently—but at the present moment it is more difficult for us to sell our produce in this country, and Europe could provide us with a larger market. Any of your Lordships who are producers of mutton or beef will know that when we are able to export to France, let us say, word gets around and there is a great rush of animals to be sold on the market. But, suddenly—and I never have any warning of this—the European market closes down, prices drop and the produce has to find other outlets. If we were actively engaged in agriculture in the Common Market, we should not be subject to such violent changes and, what is more, we should to some extent be able to influence what other countries in the Common Market do.
At present, food prices in this country are lower than those in Europe. In many cases we are selling a long way below the cost of production, and the difference is made up by guaranteed prices. In some instances, we are selling at prices which are the same as they were ten years ago, although our costs have multiplied about ten times. That is a formidable fact. But if we could take advantage of a greater outlet for our produce, it would solve a great many of our problems. I should like the Government to consider very carefully assuring the British agricultural industry that their interests will be considered, as well as the interests of the great Industrialists
360
in this country. I am in favour of going into the Common Market, but we must not have a policy which is going to ignore our agricultural industry and which thinks only in terms of the big industries throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance on that point when he replies.
In a recent pamphlet on the concept of the Common Market, I read the following:
"In 1958 we in Britain were better off per head of the population than any country in the Common Market. Now we are worse off than any except Italy."
That is a quotation from one of the publications of the European Movement. That is obviously one reason why the Common Market countries are very anxious to continue their association, and it is surely up to us to see that there are the same possibilities for us. We cannot get a great market in the Commonwealth countries, since they are not as rich as the European countries. In the United States we are competing against very formidable tariffs and enormous production lines, so it is very difficult to sell more there. We should go into Europe and seek our fortune there, in order to increase our selling power. I should like to end with a quotation from a White Paper published in 1967. It stated:
"We believe that Europe can emerge as a community expressing its own point of view, exercising influence in world affairs, not only in the commercial and economic fields but also in the political and defence fields. We shall play our full part in the process. It is the realisation of this European potential which has above all aroused our desire to join the Community. As a member we shall accept whatever responsibilities the evolving Community may decide to assume, and we shall join as eagerly as other members in creating new opportunities for the expression of European unity."
Those words came from Lord George-Brown in 1967, and I agree with them.
I think it is a remarkable fact that we now have a new Government equally as anxious to join the Common Market as were the last Government. In reply to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the public is not interested, I can only say that during the last General Election I made a considerable number of speeches in certain parts of the country and I did not find that people were opposed to our negotiating

361
to enter the Common Market. My Lords, I believe that this is a great opportunity. There our fortunes lie. With courage, enterprise and know-how, I see no reason at all why we should not play our part and be a great power for good in the Common Market.
5.21 p.m.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, the noble Baroness who has just spoken, with whom I agreed absolutely wholeheartedly in everything she said (perhaps rather more when she was agreeing with me than at the other times), seemed a little uncertain at the beginning of her speech whether she relished the position of being, as she put it, the meat in the middle of the sandwich. May I tell her that there is nobody I would rather have cushioning me than the noble Baroness. May I say, before I get into the argument, how grateful I was, and how nice it was, to hear not only what the noble Baroness kindly had to say about what I said in 1967 but also the references which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont were kind enough to make about my efforts then. It is always encouraging, especially when the Fates have dealt rather roughly with one in the meantime, to have by hindsight the thought that one might have been right if only people had listened.
One of the problems in any discussion about this subject in any forum in this country is that one is speaking to two audiences at the same time. This, of course, is where the opponents of entry have it so easy. They have to speak to only one audience, and that is the most impressionable, the most prejudiced, of all—those who are against making any change in their present situation at home. The rest of us, in trying to counter their arguments, and in trying to put our own (as we like to think of them) positive arguments, have not only to weigh the effect we might have on our people here; we have, of course, to balance how we put it to our people here with the effect it might have on highly critical and highly suspicious audiences overseas. It is unhappily true that the most telling arguments for our people can be the most off-putting arguments for the audience overseas, some of whom, I repeat, want to be suspicious of our motives. This makes the task of those who, in advance
362
of going in, want to put the case for going in that much more difficult.
If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and to others who think the way he does about consulting the British public, one of the problems about doing so, if it is consultation in advance of a decision, is again how you would frame the questions and how you would frame the supporting arguments in such a way that not only would you adequately inform them of what are called the facts where those facts are ascertainable and not hypothetical (and, if I may interpolate, the word "fact" is the most misleading thing of all, because the fact for the most part is what one wants to believe the fact to be) but how you would present all the arguments about the various different sets of circumstances that might arise. You might end up by persuading your own people but find that nobody else is thereafter going to go on with the bargain; or you may end up by having persuaded the others of your sincerity and determination but having put it so ineffectually to your own people that you get the wrong decision here at home.
Of course, none of us wants the responsibility of making a decision like this, whether it be while we sat in the other place or while we sit here, without carrying our people with us. But the more I think about it, with respect, the more I come to the conclusion that at the end of the day the decision will have to be made where it always has been made in this country since we founded our Parliamentary democracy: it will have to be made in Parliament. Everybody (those who are elected and all the rest of us who, in a way, respond to that, too) will have to stand up and, as they say, "carry the can" for the decision which is then made, and the people will make their judgment about that decision. Of course, it is not in fact true, with respect—and some people who do their homework and their research before the debate might carry their research a little bit further in this respect—that once in you cannot get out. God Bless my soul! General de Gaulle made it absolutely painfully and abundantly clear to the other side on one rather painful occasion (there was more than one, but there is one I am thinking of particularly now) that he could and would unless they quickly came to heel, and come to heel they did rather than

363
have him get out. So that is not true; and while I would not advocate that we should go in thinking of coming out—this is one of the difficulties I was talking about just now in putting the argument clearly—it really is, if I may say so, misrepresenting it to say that this is so final that thereafter we shall be wholly committed to what other people want us to do.
It seems to me (and, as I listened to the debate, I thought to everybody else; I am saying nothing new here) that there are two major considerations that the British people and our colleagues on the Continent have to take into account in making this, what is essentially a two-way argument. The first consideration is the economic consequences not only to us, if we are talking to the home audience, but to Europe—we are talking to a European audience, too—of our joining the Common Market with our fellow-applicants; and equally (and this is what the opponents seem to me always to leave out of account, though certainly the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, approached it) the economic consequences of our not joining. As I shall hope to show in a moment, I think that the argument that 50 million people in these Islands can in fact economically go it alone seems to me to be such a crashing fallacy that I find it hard to believe how anybody can put it forward in this modern day and age knowing what industry requires, what commerce requires, what technological development requires.
So there are vast economic considerations in our not joining; and, with respect, I do not propose to examine greatly the question of our going it alone, although I will return to it in a moment. But if we did not join we should have to consider what other formation, what other grouping, we might john, and what the economic consequences to us would be of one or the other or all or each of them. The economic consequences, my Lords, as I am sure everybody here knows—I repeat, there is not much new that one can say—are both short-term and long-term, and they may not be the same. Indeed, they are not the same in the short-term as they will be in the long-term. In fact, the economic costs would tend, I suspect, to come heavier in the short-term: the economic advantages would tend to come greater
364
in the long-term. This again, is one of the problems of putting the case: you can show fairly easily the immediate cost that arises—and there is no use denying it, it is a very considerable one—but then you have to assess the long-term advantages which flow from us sharing in the generally greater rate of economic growth from the effect on British industry released from a 22½ per cent. tariff against it. So there is a whole set of considerations which have to be taken into account. I repeat, some are short-term and some are long-term, but these are the first things one tries to measure.
As I shall try to support in a moment with argument, I still think that the economic consequences, while undoubtedly balanced, and while having to be supported by a certain act of faith, a certain belief that our country would respond to the challenge of joining, are on the side of our joining and are against our not joining.
Then there is the second argument to which noble Lords have referred in the debate to-day, and that is the political future that we envisage for this country: how we see this country exercising its political influence, and in what direction; for what purposes and with whom; the political future we envisage for Europe—for the whole of Western Europe for the moment and, optimistically, for the whole of Europe in the end—but certainly for Western Europe. We cannot avoid that.
Britain has never pursued a foreign policy wholly dictated by itself and the surrounding seas. Our foreign policy, however far back one tries to read to equip oneself for this, has always been conditioned—and if not conditioned, certainly coloured, though I would think "conditioned" is probably the right word—by the political developments we envisaged for the area of the world in which we are bound to live. And that means, of course, the Continent of which we are and have always been a member. We have had to consider the political developments in that Continent, how we wanted to see power controlled in that Continent, how we wanted to see relations between nations in that Continent with each other and what effect we wanted that Continent to be exercising elsewhere. So we have to consider the political consequences for ourselves of any of the possible courses of action; the

365
political consequences for the Continent, and the effect it would have on ourselves if it went the wrong way. We have to consider the future relationships we want to have not only with Continental Powers—and I have too many recollections of that dinner in the Harcourt Room, with Mr. Khrushchev, reminding me that he bad done it once at Rapallo and that, if pushed hard, he reckoned he could do it alone again, to rule out entirely from my mind that the relationships between the Continental European Powers matter to us.
Then there is the relationship between European Powers and others, between the generality of smaller Powers in the world and the major Powers in the world. How are we going to see the world developments where there are major Powers? The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has talked about the two that we have—and the third and the fourth we are likely to see jolly soon. How are we to see the future? Are we content that they should dominate, divide up and settle? And do we really believe that a Britain which is able to invent defence weapons and able to research, able possibly to develop but not able to produce, not able to find the money for supporting, for providing the vehicles or the carriers—how do we see such a development if we were trying to influence that alone?
These, I think, are the political consequences we must consider. They all seem to me to defeat any idea of "going it alone", just as I think the economic arguments defeat any idea of "going it alone". So one is forced, I repeat, to look at the other possibilities open to us. When this debate is held, whether in this House or in another place, or in the country outside, it seems to oscillate between economic and political arguments. Sometimes people are putting all their weight on economic arguments and sometimes on political arguments; and seldom do we try to balance the two. If I may be forgiven by those who are opponents of entry into the E.E.C., I would say, with deepest respect to them and with much affection for some of them, that their case is essentially and basically one of prejudice and suspicion.
It is all very well to say, "I don't hate any foreigners: I just want to have nothing to do with them." That is getting fairly near, if not to prejudice then
366
certainly to suspicion; and it reminds me of that very great lady, Dame Florence Hancock, of the Transport and Workers' Union, who not long ago was one of the great figures of the trade union movement in this country and who after the war was attending her first international conference in Paris. She got into some difficulties there because she would not go through the entrance labelled "Etrangers." It was explained to her that she must do that because she was a foreigner, and Florence—who came from the South-West country—said most indignantly, "I am not a foreigner." Everybody else was a foreigner—even in Paris. So there is here a prejudice and a suspicion on which the case is based. We are all foreigners one to another, yet we all have much the same interests, and we have to see how we can make them work.
The same prejudice comes out in a speech which was made at the week-end by a gentleman who certainly ought to know better, and who I suspect does in fact know better, but whose present political outlook makes him pretend he does not. Having demolished all our coloured fellow citizens of the Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world, and having condemned them to all kinds of things outside our shores, he is now attacking the Continental peasantry. That very phrase which is adopted gives the game away. "You are second-class coloured citizens of the world. You are not really in our class, don't you know." Or, "You are a Continental peasant." And still these people go on saying they have no prejudices, no suspicions: that they are not against foreigners, but that they simply do not want to have much to do with them. Now I can understand the right honourable gentleman who made that speech at the weekend doing it (having spent a long time at that end of the corridor, I can understand the motives which led him to make it), but I am bound to say that I cannot understand an international Socialist lining up here with those who preach that kind of argument. I cannot think what happens to any international Socialist who is prepared to join in in that sort of way.
May I now say a word about the economic aspects, as I see them? It is very apparent, and I will not labour the point, that nobody is saying that the terms

367
do not matter. We all accept that they do matter. At the end of the day maybe some of us would accept more stringent terms than others, but that will depend on certain other considerations, and nobody in this argument is saying that the terms do not matter. We all accept that they do; and the Governments of the Six and the Commission negotiators must be well aware of the very strong truth that lay behind Sir Con O'Neill's reminder to them the other day that such things as the length of the period of transition which we ask for, the level of the payments we must make during it and the provisions which will be made to handle the situation when we come through the first part of the transition phase and then move up to the higher level—these are critical decisions, critical to a favourable outcome.
They want us in: they want us in at least—as Mr. Wilson once put it—as much as we want to go in. We are essential to the development of the Community and essential to the building of an integrated Europe. They cannot do it alone. They must recognise that Sir Con O'Neill was speaking for all of us and not just putting forward a negotiating card; and had I still been the Minister his instructions would have been the same—that the terms they are willing to offer on these issues are absolutely critical if we are to carry public opinion, however you consult and however that opinion makes itself known. That support must be sufficient to enable us to take the decision to go in and it will decide our ability to be politically effective when we get in and, of course, the extent of the economic strength we can then bring to the Community. If they pitch the terms too high they may well make it impossible for us to go in; or, if they do not quite do that, they may well so weaken us that when we go in we shall not really bring economic strength to them.
I think that they must get the hang of this. I am sure they do; these are bargaining situations and we have all done negotiations in the past—nobody admits too much round the negotiating table, as I have said before. But I think there is every reason for us to say—and to say quite strongly, but without overstating it—that they really must understand
368
this. At the same time as saying that (and I hope that this is now acceptable to everybody), I urge that we do not over-engage in facile and easily discountable exaggerations or unbalanced equations. A great many figures are being thrown into this which are rather easily discountable; they are too hypothetical for words; they leave out too many considerations that are self-evident; and they do not do any good to us or help our case. The people in Brussels are very able fellows; the Ministers in the Six, and their advisers, are very able people. They can do their sums; they can see whether the equation is unbalanced; they can see where we are "pushing in the kitchen table as well" in order to make up the sum. They assume that we can do our sums. Therefore, if we go on exaggerating, as many are doing today, there will be consequences in prices and balance of payments and in levies and so on. They do not think we are exaggerating because we cannot add up; they think we are exaggerating because we want to spoil the case. All this does our credibility and our sincerity a very great deal of harm and it introduces another element of prejudice and suspicion into the negotiations.
I can give a good example—at least it seems to me to be a good one. There is the argument about price increases that are bound to flow from our joining the Community, especially increases in the price of food. Here it is very difficult to get exact comparisons. I hear what people say in their speeches, I read what they write in their pamphlets and in the newspapers; and sometimes I get the impression that they think that every British worker is eating fillet steak and that every Continental worker is eating scrag end of lamb. It is either that, or I must be living in a particularly rough part of London. For what we pay for fillet steak on the occasions that we eat it is much more than the price that is quoted in these comparisons. It is difficult to be sure that you are comparing like with like in order to get at the price level of what people buy to eat.
I suspect that if you could compare like with like, you would find that the comparisons are by no means as bad from our point of view as it is sometimes alleged. Frenchmen eat good meat every now and again, too! Other people eat

369
good meat. When I go around the Continent, I do not find all my fellow workers there starving all the time or eating the cheapest possible food; I find them enjoying jolly good food for their meals—and, of course, reducing the amount as the money runs out at the end of the week, before pay day comes. That happens in this country, too. The comparisons that are being made seem to me to be extraordinarily inexact—as possibly they may have to be. They also ignore the price increases that are happening here and are inevitable here.
The noble Baroness spoke as a farmer and referred to the system of farm prices support. Since I served with the great Tom Williams (as I like to think of him) in the days just after the war; and since during and before the war I was in the agricultural industry, I feel very much wedded to the 1947 Agriculture Act and to the system of price support for which Bob Hudson was responsible during the war and which was enshrined in that peace-time Act afterwards. But it is becoming increasingly clear to most of us that the clays of that particular system are numbered. Making up out of direct taxation what we were theoretically not charging the housewives, in order to pass it on to the farmers, was becoming the most expensive, the most unpoliceable and uncontrollable operation that one could devise.
I do not want to give any comfort to the present Minister of Agriculture, who is not high on my list of favourites; but the switch from that sort of farm support system to a levy system was becoming almost impossible to resist. One might be temperamentally against it and one might, out of sentiment and emotion, want it not to happen; but I become more and more aware that it must happen. So, once you go to a levy system, in or out of E.E.C., the direct price goes up. And the consequence is that, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is allowed to fiddle the books, indirect price—that is, the taxation subsidy—goes down. When we compare prices, we forget that the Continentals pay more directly across the counter, as we shall do under the levy system, whether we are in or out of the Common Market. They are paying less by way of taxes than we pay in order to hand our £300 million, think the figure is, to the farmers by way of compensating
370
payment. So the comparisons have to take into account something which is inevitably going to happen here.
But these comparisons also ignore something which has always puzzled me, something which intelligent people do not seem to want to know. As anybody who has been in the Ministry of Agriculture or in any other economic Ministry will know, let alone anyone who has been responsible for once trying to operate a price control system, it is not true that the distributors and the retailers charge the cost to them of getting goods plus just the proper mark-up to cover their expenses. That is not what they do. They charge "what the market will bear"—and I put that phrase in quotes. They charge the housewife as much as they can get the housewife to pay. And that turns on the availability not just of beef or pork but of other supplies. It may be that there is room for squeezing margins; it may be that the mark-up cannot be quite so high if one is already charging what the market will bear. Then the supermarkets—I hesitate to mention the Co-op—the great distributors have to consider whether they can charge more in such a situation, or whether their mark-up will have to be rather lower. There are a whole lot of considerations which you cannot quantify but which exist and will exist. They make these comparisons inexact and very much weaken the case that the opponents put forward.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell was very scornful of what the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, had to say about nobody in the Common Market wanting to come out. That is where the argument about whether they were able to do so or not arose. I do not know much about the Governments in E.E.C. I know a bit about the trade unionists in the Common Market, and if what my colleagues and friends say is true, the trade unions in the Common Market have at least as good a research system as we have. They have very good liaison with the British T.U.C. through the I.C.F.T.U. and the Americans, and they would see how unfairly this is treating them. If nobody else wanted to come out, they would be arguing for coming out if it were working this way round. Trade union leaders there are as hard-headed as ours. I see my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath in his place. He will go along with me on that point. The trade union

371
membership in the Six is at least as militant as ours, even in our present mood; and the Communist influence in the individual trade unions and trade union centres of the Six is greater than it is here.
If the position were as people are saying it is, it is impossible to believe that those unions would not be under great pressure from their members, or great pressure from the political Parties, or making a great impact themselves to come out, even if they could not make their Governments come out. The Communist trade unions of Italy are not all that keen on keeping a Left Centre Government together. The Communist trade unions of France are not all that keen on social democracy. But they are not wanting to come out. There is not one trade union leader, one trade union centre, in the Six which is asking to leave. At every liaison meeting that we have had with them (the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, may demolish this point or support me) they have urged us to go in. So it cannot be as bad for the workers as some of my friends would have us believe.
I think, therefore, that the changes we have to face, economically, commercially, price-wise, are a fact. There will be switches from this to that form and problems of adjustment. More will be paid direct and less via taxation, as I said just now. But unacceptable? An impossible imposition? I think not.
In any case, and still on the economics of the thing, there is another side to the economic coin which nobody mentions—at any rate, no one among the opponents of the case for going in. That is the question of job opportunities. People are free to invest where they will. They will invest where it suits them best to do so. There is no way by which you can stop people from doing that. You can stop them from investing somewhere else, but you cannot make them invest here. If we have to stay out, or if we choose to do so, where do my friends think that the future investment of the large international, almost uncontrolled corporation will go? Will there be investment in Skelmersdale? In the North? In the North-West, or Wales? And what about trying to sell over a 22½ per cent. tariff barrier? Or will there be investment in Rheims or Lyons; or in Italy or Holland,
372
within the tariff barrier? What do people think the effect on job opportunities for ordinary men and women here is going to be if we allow that to happen? We have to face particularly almost the certainty that job opportunity would desert us for the mainland of our Continent if we do not face up to this matter.
There is the important point about the size of the domestic market. The noble Baroness referred to it in relation to food, but it is true of everything. Here, there would be a market of 50 million, if we go it alone. Given modern technological scales, what could we expect to develop and sell in competition with the United States of America, with the Soviet Union or even with the rest of Europe? There will be a market of 50 million if we stay alone, and of 100 million if we stay with EFTA—and I do do not think that EFTA will stay with itself. The countries of EFTA know that they have anyway to move for some association with, or membership of, the Common Market because they want a larger market.
There is also the question of growth. I agree with what was said by Mr. Roy Jenkins in America in December. He said that we must not expect to be "floated out" just because we shall have joined a vast growing economic community. But, given effort by us, surely there must be more growth for us as a domestic member of a dynamic growing market than there would be as an individual, rather tiny non-dynamic group on our own. People do not like the phrase "the only way", but that may indeed be the only way in which we shall get an increase that we want in the growth rate without other disadvantages.
Terms do not count now; but I will say that I regard quite substantial terms as bearable, as payable, in return for the very clear gains, the avoidance of otherwise insupportable problems, and, as I would think, almost certain decline. I ask only for a transition period which is long enough, and for levels of payment during that time to be supportable enough; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, put it, for about the same as they gave each other when they were having to face very similar problems.
Lastly, my Lords, on the economic issue, and before I say a word or two about the political issue, I wish to say

373
something which it is difficult to say, for reasons that I gave at the beginning. But I should like to whisper something in the ears of my friends here which I should not like too many members of the Six to hear me say—not all of them, because some of them have it rather joyfully in their minds. Membership of the E.E.C., like membership of any body, carries something which we trade unionists know as a card vote. Card votes, my Lords, carry influence and power. When at the Labour Party Conference and holding up a card representing 100 votes of the local constituency party, an awfully difficult situation arises for you when you know that Mr. Jack Jones is behind you holding up a card representing 1 million votes. Under those circumstances you get a rather clear sense of where the influence and power lies. Card votes do carry influence, and they attract allies. Other chaps are inclined to line up with you, if you have a card vote in, your pocket; they are not so keen to do so if you are without one. Every trade unionist, in this Assembly as everywhere else, knows the difference between addressing a rally of protest outside the hall in which the Trades Union Congress is meeting, and being inside the hall with your card vote and the ability to influence what is going on.
Please remember, my Lords, that when we get in we are there like the others: with a card vote like the others. Our allies will vary; our interests on some things will align with the Germans and on other things with the French. This is not "ganging up" against any one member, but it will enable us to influence what goes on and to stop the members from being dominated by anyone. So, I conclude that economically all is not gloom and doom. To the adventurous, despite, or perhaps because of, all its challenge, it appeals.
Now, my Lords, a brief reference to the political arguments. Even if the economic arguments are balanced, I think that the political arguments are overwhelming. We have been rebuked for referring to "ancient Britons". I will not look in any particular direction when I say that; rather carefully I will keep my eyes where they are, but there are some of them about. Also about, as we know, are new exponents of a narrow and discredited nationalism. I repeat
374
what I said just now: in my view British influence, our power to affect events, has always been dependent upon our membership and—dare I mention it?—our capacity to lead one wide grouping or another.
I applaud Lord Shinwell's defence of the British power and capacity; I share his feeling to the full. But it is the capacity to lead which is the real strength that this country has brought to the world; and through that leadership, wisely to influence events for most of the time. As I have said, I cannot see anything but disaster if we try to go it alone. We should influence nobody, not even ourselves; instead of influencing events we should become the victim of events.
A North Atlantic Free Trade Association, by ourselves, alone, is not "on". That would not attract the Americans one little bit. Even if it did, we should become the 51st State. We should be a junior lackey. They would not want that. We should be a supplicant all the time. We should not even have State rights to reinforce us, and no chance ever of having a senior, aged Senator, so old that he became the chairman of a senior committee in the United States Senate.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, he may well become a Senator himself.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am all in favour of that; but I do not think I would ever be so aged as to become a Senator in the American Senate. We should then be very much a junior lackey.
But, given the Commonwealth as it now exists, as it will exist and as it must exist, I think we are not available. The Commonwealth is an association of old friends who come together every now and then so that Britain can be lectured. I had the joy of being lectured over two years (my noble friend Lord Chalfont shared this with me) by Zambia, Tanzania and others of our friends about our sins and wickednesses. It is a nice association of old friends; but as a trading, an economic unit, no. New Zealand, Australia, Canada and the African States look elsewhere for most of the things they want. The African and Asian States want to be associated with Europe anyhow, but with an integrated Europe.

375
Given a North Atlantic Alliance, Western Europe could become a reality economically, politically and defence-wise, because then we should have a real alliance of equal groupings of people, with equal geographical advantages and with equal contributions to make. Then we might influence events like the Czechoslovakian situation, which we were powerless to influence. As one Europe, we might influence things like NATO, the anti-ballistic missile decision, SALT and Ostpolitik—which ought to be "West-politik." Then Western Europe itself would be able to deal with the question of the détente towards Europe instead of its being done by one member having a special interest, though I am not against them doing it and I applaud Willy Brandt. In the Middle East, in which Europe has a great interest, we would be influencing events and not living in the hope that somebody else will do it for us.
There is much else I should like to say, my Lords, but I am well aware that I have trespassed a little long on your Lordships' time. These and other considerations seem to me to make up the case for saying, "Yes: on anything but clearly impossible terms we ought to seek to go in." The economic arguments balance: certainly the long-term ones are in our favour, and maybe the short-term ones, too. The political arguments are overwhelmingly on the side of Britain, of the kind of Europe of which I want to be a member and of the kind of grouping in the world that will make it easier to handle this difficult political problem. I wish the Government the best of luck in their negotiations.
6.4 p.m.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, I should like to start by welcoming the move by the Government to have this debate this afternoon, thereby giving an opportunity to inform Parliament, and through Parliament the public, of as much as is profitable of the negotiations in progress. I am among those who believe that there is a gap between the Front Benches and the public, and this may at any moment become rather more than embarrassing. So far, I go along with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said.
Here, as an old hack of the 1961–63 negotiations, may I express some of the sympathy for the negotiators as the noble
376
Lord, Lord George-Brown, has already done? They are facing both ways—the public in the open in this country and the Six at the negotiating table in Brussels and elsewhere. Harold Nicolson's suggested optimum was for open agreements secretly arrived at. For Governments, as for diplomats, this is an ideal rarely if ever attainable. But it is a guideline which retains some validity. This is why I would begin my short intervention, within the "Egremont rule", with the promise not to press Her Majesty's Government to say more than they consider profitable at this stage.
In the spirit of this self-denying ordinaance, I shall make only one or two general points. They will have no impact on those whose minds are already closed. But they are addressed to the doubters to show that their anxieties are at the least premature. With this in view, I am naturally glad that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was ready to go so far as he did in telling us so much as he has done about the negotiations, especially on such needle subjects as Commonwealth sugar, New Zealand and finance. For, in my judgment, it is no good at this stage, with British public opinion at best lukewarm and generally unconvinced, to talk only in terms of great designs and principles.
On this I have some sympathy with those who dislike being asked to make up their minds simply on generalisations about the size of the Common Market and the advantages that might accrue, if Europe were to speak with one voice in the councils of the world. This is perfectly true. But we also know that the Six have found it extremely difficult so far to reach such unanimity, and though hopefully our membership would add to their chances of a united European voice, it will be a slow process. So here, if I may mention the name of Lord Beaver-brook in a debate on this subject, I would only do it in recalling one of the many telephone conversations between him and members of his staff. He asked on the telephone, "What are you doing?" to which the deferential reply was, "I am working for the greatest newspaper in the world." Lord Beaverbrook's retort was, "Don't give me that stuff. Show me the figures." So although the broad future possibilities should never be underestimated or overlooked, it is proper and not just factious to be reminded that

377
many great visions have come to grief on a wrangle over a small point.
Here again may I express my support of the line taken by Her Majesty's Government. For, in an effort to keep details and figures in the right proportion, the word used by the noble Earl was that the terms should be "equitable". I recall that the Prime Minister, before the Election, said that the terms should be "tolerable"; and in the same vein the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said this afternoon "not intolerable".
Fortunately, the term "tolerable" is elastic. Among the definitions suggested in the Oxford Dictionary is "fairly good" and "not bad". Just so. What would be bad or inequitable? I would suggest that doubters should look for two broad criteria. First, we should undertake no obligation which we do not have a reasonable chance of discharging. For instance, on payments towards the total of the Common Market budget we have proposed 13 to 15 per cent. I presume that our proposal was a genuine one and not made in the spirit of a Chinese auction. If so, and an attempt is made to force on us an appreciably higher percentage without proper review arrangements, that might be intolerable. On this, I for one would not be impressed by the arguments sometimes advanced, but not by the Government, that it does not matter because, once inside the Community, it will be possible for us to get out of our obligations on the ground that it is not in the interests of the Community to beggar any member. But what a start to our membership, if in the early years after joining we had to plead the Gaming Act! Any commercial or private undertaking entered into on this basis would be rightly regarded as fraudulent.
Another criterion I would suggest to doubters is that we should see that our basic obligations to our existing and traditional trading partners are met in respectable measure. I am thinking of New Zealand and the Sugar Agreement, to which the noble Earl referred. My reason here is that nations who act otherwise for temporary interest cast much in their own eyes and gain no respect from other newer partners. These will realise all too well that what was done in one case may be likely to be done in another. If the E.E.C. is as responsible as we have
378
every right to think it is, then it should be as aware of that as we are: and in this we have the advantage, of course, that some of their members, such as France, have had many of the same problems and have gone a long way to meet them in an honourable manner. After all, it is not only we who should be concerned with a big design, but our future partners as well; and they should be as keen as anyone for us to avoid any imputation of this kind of meanness towards weaker and dependent economies.
From what the noble Earl the Leader of the House and others have said, I take it that such criteria are not only accepted by Her Majesty's Government, but that the Six have already had it made clear to them that these are the sort of measures with which we shall meet. Is not this the nub of the matter so far as the doubters are concerned? Should they not be content, if such criteria are met, without having to go into the elaborate matter of all the figures and the calculations? If so, we can get away from the anxiety that a broad policy, a vision of what might be, could be frustrated by the price of a pat of butter. Of course, whatever criteria we use in judging whether the terms are tolerable or not will affect the price of that pat. But the criteria that I have suggested are based on honest dealing and national character, and these are not, I understand, up for auction. Nor, anyhow, is this the time when we are being asked to make a final judgment on the terms. That is a matter which will have to be judged when we know what the terms are, after the negotiation is completed.
Here I should like to say what a relief, after our previous experience, it is to be given evidence that this is at last a real negotiation, and that in the ultimate resort we shall not be fobbed off with the comment that we are not sufficiently European. The Government have shown beyond doubt that their application is genuine, and we are neither being asked nor need to consider "cutting any capers" to prove it. Quite simply, we are applying because we think this is in our national interest, and the Six are responding because they believe it is in their interest. This includes the French Government, to whom I shall always be

379
the first to pay tribute in the single-mindedness with which, right or wrong, they unashamedly pursue their national interest. Sometimes I wish that some of our own Governments, and commentators in particular, were equally forthright. Once again, it is for me refreshing that the present Government think that this is a proper attitude to foreign affairs for a British Government to take.
Before I sit down, I have a further point to make, also in support of the line taken, I believe, by the Government and the Opposition alike. It is that this is not an issue with which to break with our past custom and put it to a referendum. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I give a modern instance—the West Indies Federation—to illustrate why not. When this proposal was referred back, Mr. Dulles said to me: "Well, there is an end of it." He concluded this not out of any deep study of that particular proposal, but from his reading, which was profound, of American history at the time of the Founding Fathers. He said that this had convinced him that there would not have been a United States of America at that time if the representatives of the 13 colonies had not been plenipotentiaries. Whatever the truth of that may be, I am as surely convinced that this whole enterprise might founder if the final judgment on so complex a matter should be referred to the electors individually. Parliamentary democracy does not mean that.
In sum, I think Her Majesty's Government were right to make this attempt to negotiate our entry on tolerable terms. We have had ten years of this uncertainty, and it is time to know one way or another what we shall do. We shall later be told whether the Government can recommend the terms. In the meantime, having listened to this debate, I would only add one thing to what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said. It is that we should be extremely careful in this House, which I do not think from what I have heard this afternoon reflects the opinion of the public at large, about saying that either we go in or we are beggared. I do not believe that to be the true case. If those circumstances were most unhappily to arise, this would be a diminishment for the Common Market just as much as it would be for us.
380
After all, we should remind ourselves, with some justifiable pride, of certain facts, and I do not say this in any derogatory sense of the Six. We have not a divided country, like Germany; we are not entering on an agricultural revolution, such as France is; we have not a Communist Party of the size of that of Italy; and if there are problems with Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalists, this is as nothing to the problem that the Belgians face between Fleming and Walloon. We have much to envy, and the Common Market should understand—and I trust and hope that they do—that they stand to benefit by our joining just as much as we do. It is not just little England on one side and great stellar constellations of the five types of constellations to which the noble Earl referred. The consequence of this negotiation will either be that we join and there is the possibility of such a constellation in Europe, or there will be " little Europe" as well.
So, in supporting the Government, I hope that before the end of the debate—perhaps in the summing up by the noble Marquess; and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also will say something because Lord Chalfont's words have been misunderstood—we shall hear that neither of the Front Benches considers that if the terms are intolerable, the future for Britain is disaster.
6.18 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, this is going to be a long debate, appropriately so and commendably so. I find myself sandwiched between two former and for midable Ambassadors, but I suppose that on the whole this is a more comfortable experience than that of my noble friend Lady Elliot. For the sake of individual brevity, what I shall subscribe to-day will be little more than a series of somewhat staccato points. They will reaffirm my own convictions on this issue, without any polish and without elaborating at any length.
Those of us who have been convinced and positive Europeans from the beginning are stronger than ever in our conviction and our certainty of the rightness of our endeavour. There is enough to disturb us in the public evaluation of that objective. It would be slightly ingenuous to declare otherwise, in view, for instance,

381
of the recent opinion poll. There are signs, which were given emphasis by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in his speech, of public reluctance to take this historic step; and there are even more signs of public apathy. In part, this is natural; in part it is, or appears to be, contrived: I hope contrived with the best of personal intention, but, as I believe, to the danger of our nation and our world. Much of the issue is complicated at best, and much of it is at this time wrapped in illusion—several layers of illusion—sometimes deliberate, manufactured illusion, formed of pretty flimsy material.
It amazes me, for example, that anyone in political life seeks to pretend that the Europeans among our countrymen are on the defensive. We cannot either be on the defensive or feel on the defensive, because it is we who are seeking to break new ground and open up new fields of hope and opportunity for our country and the neighbouring lands and nations with whom we have lived on better or worse terms for so many centuries. It is those who wish to enclose us and to limit and frustrate the opportunities to which we aspire who are on the defensive. It is they who are manning the barricades of the status quo, a visibly deteriorating status quo. It also amazes me that men of powerful principle and sincerity can stand up and say, as was said last week-end, that the great questions have not even been properly asked, let alone debated, let alone answered; that anyone of such stature can suggest oracularly but categorically that there is a conspiracy to be silent about them in the hope that no one would notice that they exist. It is a matter of astonishment to me.
The great question is whether Europe is to survive, or revive, as a force in world affairs, or whether it is to wither. What disturbs me is the present ineffectiveness of Europe. What fortifies me is the potential effectiveness of Europe. That effectiveness depends on the degree of unity among the nations of Europe—or on the degree of disunity. The effectiveness and influence of each of our nations individually is tied even more evidently and realistically to the effective unity of the whole. We are one of those nations. To pretend otherwise is a delusion and a dangerous delusion.
382
The achievement of this unity is a high endeavour and a creative endeavour, one of the most remarkable ever attempted in history by men of affairs, who have had to be men of vision at the same time. In saying this, I am using the term employed by the man whom many regard as the most dedicated European of all, M. Jean Monnet. He said plainly enough:
"Europe has never existed. It is not the addition of national sovereignties in a conclave which creates an entity. One must genuinely create Europe."
That is a recognised challenge which distinguished leaders and modest supporters have accepted. Once it has been accepted, there can be no question of being on the defensive.
The admission of existing disunity can be neither a pride nor a satisfaction to anyone, except our enemies, the enemies of our country and of our civilisation. It is a fact of Western life that the disputes and contradictions and palpable differences between the peoples of this Continent are more easily pointed out than the similarities. They have led to wars and animosities and treacheries beyond numbering. The weakness, a hitherto besetting weakness, which affects the whole, affects each element of that whole. Who would be ready to gainsay that assertion?
Because the differences are more easily pointed out, they are not thereby more important or more inevitable. The bloodletting and wastage of this state of affairs was a heavy burden to bear even when Europe occupied a privileged and advantageous place in the world as a whole. Now that such privilege and advantage has been largely abdicated or dissipated, that continued state of affairs cannot be afforded. The long-borne burden may break our backs. Unity may signify survival, disunity may spell decrepitude. The fact that a great part of the world chooses to see us—or feels forced to see us—as a decrepit civilisation requires us to examine that imputation. It is a sad and sobering fact, known to those who travel, that we are seen by the super-Powers, and even by the Third World, as an area of the world's surface peopled by tired and quarrelsome and obsolescent nations. We are seen in this light with varying degrees of sadness or satisfaction, according to the observer. If I were to make an historical comparison, I should say that we were looked upon as something akin to the Balkans before the First World

383
War, regarded with the same kind of impatience and irritation. We know that is a false picture, but in a sense it is a picture painted by ourselves, and it is we, the people of Europe, who must prove it false.
It is not simply for selfish interests that we should do so. As much as ever, though by different methods, Europe has as beneficial a part as ever to play in the world at large. There are only two aspects of this that I wish to mention briefly to-day.
A minute or two ago I referred to the Third World. That is an entity, however hard it may be to define in physical terms. It is certainly more than a mere political phrase. For the past 15 years at least, the Communist Powers have been engaged in obtaining ultimate idea-logical and economic control over Africa and Asia. Their methods have included armed invasion, the incitement and equipping of armed insurrection within countries, and penetration, at an early stage by seemingly more powerful means, generally aimed at eventual violent revolution. In every case their efforts are characterised by materialism and by the imposition of ruthless discipline. The advance of this creeping control has been restrained and counter-balanced, not so much by the efforts of Western Governments as by disputes and contradictions between the two Communist Powers, Soviet Russia and China. We have seen them at work in Tibet, in South-East Asia, in Iran, in the Middle East, in Turkey and in many parts of Africa, notably the Congo, Tanzania, Zambia and Algeria. There is hardly an area where they are not at their dangerous work. Informed observers believe that Peking may be engaged in establishing a zone of control right across the entire centre of Africa, and then moving to further conquests.
It would be perilous to comfort ourselves with the belief that the efforts of the two Communist Powers will devour each other. They are both directed against the West; and what impression does the West give to the peoples of the Third World, or to any of those groups of nations which my noble friend, the Leader of the House, has called the "clusters of power"? One of the most distinguished and best-disposed among
384
spokesmen, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore, declared sadly in July of 1969 that he felt that the West was now disillusioned with what he called, "The poor, strife-ridden, chaotic Third World". That kind of belief gives direct encouragment to both the Soviet Union and China. It describes a situation which they are bound to exploit.
What sort of example, what sort of peaceful, encouraging contrast and example can Europe give until we have been able to mend our own quarrels and distrusts and work closely, permanently together? I am thinking, and of course they are thinking, of the ways in which we can peacefully assist them. But there is evidence that we are not even able to combine realistically in our own physical defence. The inadequacy of that defence was described starkly enough by the recent Labour Government's Secretary of State for Defence, whose words I had occasion to quote directly in this House. Let us hope that there will be an improvement now with my noble friend Lord Carrington in charge.
But again it will be false to suppose that Britain or any one Western nation can or should undertake the whole conversion from inadequate to adequate, to compensate for at least a measure of American withdrawal which we have to expect. The danger is there, the cost of weakness is open for all to see, the consequences of weakness are plain to read. To state the situation in its most unimaginative and emollient form, to understate, almost preposterously, the Warsaw Pact countries possess far more forces on the ground and in reserve than could be needed for, or warranted by, the defence of Eastern Europe. Yet they know, as they must, that there is no danger of attack by Western initiative. This fact must be known and contributed to Soviet military planning. So what are they planning for, with an expenditure startling even when measured against the resources of Soviet Russia? Why the maintenance of these forces of land and air, on a massive scale, up against the frontiers of the Free World in Europe? Why the apparently unemployable naval forces in the Mediterranean, let alone in the Indian Ocean?
Europe cannot, at least as yet, feasibly match such manpower or such weight

385
of weaponry, and to my mind it will be a sad day if we ever have to spend so much of our treasure on weapons of destruction and engage such a high proportion of the minds and bodies of our citizens in the profitless task of preparing for war. But we can, or we should be able to, match the imposed unity of the Communist world with the voluntary unity of the Free World. I believe this cannot be credibly done without Europe. I believe it cannot be credibly achieved in Europe without Britain. Our political history is so tied up with the theory and the process and the formula of a balance of power within Europe, balancing the forces and antagonisms of the free peoples of Europe, that we have a special responsibility in professing, and proving, our trust in a new harmony and a new co-operation aimed against none, but symbolising the harmony which should exist in the world at large.
In the course of these words I have, by design, not touched upon the negotiations in progress which are in the hands of the Government—to put it as grudgingly as possible, as able and determined as any other conceivable Government to obtain a fair agreement for both Britain and her prospective partners. If there were any doubters at the beginning of this debate, their doubts cannot reasonably have survived the opening speech of my noble friend. He spoke, among many other things, of the attributes which Britain can bring to the E.E.C. by way of contributing, and of the character and virility of this people, which membership of the Community does not seek to dilute or transform.
It seems to me that antagonism to entry is based on two totally contradictory illusions: either that we are not good enough to compete, or that we are so superior to other European nations that we do not need to consort closely with them. As between these two contradictory beliefs, the exponents of the latter are the more apparent and explicit, but the exponents of the former, who express themselves by implication and innuendo, seem to be more numerous. Both are mistaken. If this whole concept is to founder in a Slough of self-created Despond; if apathy is to win the day; if suspicion is to win the day; if faintheartedness is to win the day, it will be a tragedy for the world we know and
386
the future for which we work. I do not believe that this will be the outcome. I pray that it will be a positive outcome.
In closing, my Lords, I turn back to the lessons of history—in this instance, recent history, events within the memories of most of us here; and painful memories, in all conscience. Lately the papers of the Government of Mr. Neville Chamberlain became available, through a Private Member's Bill of 1967, and a condensation of the record of that political epoch has been made by Mr. Ian Colvin and published in the last few days. It shows how during the late 'thirties the efforts of peace-loving, if depressingly innocent, men were bent to appeasing one or more predatory European Powers at the cost, at the sacrifice, of smaller nations. It seemed to be the be-all and end-all of achievement of foreign policy at that time. There were some of us, even at that time, who thought it immoral. In any case, it was a failure. It was a hand-to-mouth form of security even for those who seemed to gain some respite over a short period. It depended upon the ephemeral interest of the most selfish and unscrupulous Governments involved. It led, as it was bound to lead, to catastrophe.
In a United Europe such questions and problems will not arise. There will be no need to appease. There will be a general endeavour to harmonise and share the benefits of peace and co-operation. In cur day, fortunately—indeed, "providentially" would not be too strong a term—there are Europeans who think in these more positive terms. They are Europeans in a new, practical, resolute sense; but their eyes are raised beyond Europe to new and still nobler horizons encompassing the whole family of nations. Consistent with their convictions, those within the existing Community have been at all times champions of Britain's entry. They should have been, they would have been, truly fortified by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, today. They join with kindred spirits and kindred minds in this country. We who follow them know why we do so. When we strive to unite Europe into a force and an influence equivalent to the super-Powers, we know that it can be done, but something more must be plainly and widely understood. The object of this new Europe is not to throw its weight

387
about in a world already rocked by massive rivalries, but to help to compose and to balance the world by example, by tangible aid where needed. Nor do we seek this status as a Continent of nations simply for our own enrichment; we do it in order to contribute to the enrichment of civilisation in this century and in the centuries to come.
6.36 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I should like first to join the noble Lord who has just spoken in his tribute to the speech with which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, opened this discussion. The noble Earl described it as a "capsule". I think I would call it a luxury capsule with all "mod. cons.". It combined, to my mind, pragmatism and idealism; it combined bargaining power with vision, and as such was a notable contribution to this argument in its general context.
It also seemed to me very appropriate that the second speech should have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who in that difficult year, 1967, acquired such expertise so quickly on this subject, an expertise which he reproduced with great effect. I am also glad that both noble Lords should have paid a tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in that year. I wish he were here at this moment to hear my compliments. In that period I do not think there was any occasion when any exposition by the noble Lord on this subject was ever less than first-class. I heard him speak to small committees and large gatherings, and on every occasion what he said was first-class, as indeed it was this evening.
We have arrived at the stage in the argument where, some noble Lords have said, there are not many new things to say, and I do not profess to have any. But I have lived with this subject actively for twenty years and it is interesting to look back over that period and see how one's ideas have developed. I am only glad that I have been a person of no importance so that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has not felt tempted to research into my past utterances. Many of us will have—not exactly changed our minds but, first, suspended judgment, and now come to the view which the majority of this Chamber seems to be developing.
388
But surely this debate is none the less useful for the purposes of identification, of showing what one thinks at this stage, and also for the purpose of sending a few messages to friends, and a few refutations to those who disagree. On that point, I should like to say that one of the most valuable of many valuable remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, was the point that it is immensely difficult to make public statements on private negotiations while those negotiations are in progress. It is almost impossible to do so without either failing to make one's own case quite right or making the wrong impression on the other people.
I should like briefly to pronounce a few messages on my own modest intermediate-range launcher to our friends in Europe; a comment to our friends in this country, and also to add a few considerations about the things we cannot do. First, to our friends on the Continent. If I understood the noble Earl aright, in referring to New Zealand he said that our proposal was that New Zealand should be treated on a continuing basis subject to review. If I may say so, this seems to me to be important and absolutely fair. All through this argument one has had a fear that we might be tempted to give away the case of what a New Zealand statesman eloquently called "Britain's other farm" for the apparently tempting offer of a short transitional period. I hope this means that we are asking our friends to drop the idea of a transitional period but to accept the idea of a review after a certain time.
I should like to add one argument to those that have been adduced already. There is the economic argument, but there is the social and political argument behind it. In the world to-day there are too many unstable communities. New Zealand may be a static community in some ways, but it is a stable community, and a meritoriously stable community in the economic and social sense. If there were to be the prospect of simply a transitional period, Europe would be creating an instability where there is stability at the moment, and I believe this would be a damaging thing at this time when the world needs a few examples of genuine democratic stability.

389
If one is again asked why, I think one can only add to that—a departure from strict classical logic—simply that Europe should remember what twice in half a century New Zealand did for it.
My second message to our friends on the Continent is, "Do not worry too much about reports of daily speeches and weekly opinion polls in this country". The media will carry all the destructive speeches with great glee and will speculate gloomily about the figures of the polls. What will matter will be the leadership that is given by those who favour this initiative, and the decision that will be made in Parliament by the elected representatives of the people. That is what matters; and people on the Continent should suspend judgment until they see what is going to happen at that moment. As noble Lords who have already spoken have said, all of this is subject to the great "if": "If the conditions are right", and anything that I say from now on is subject to "if" and not to "when".
Now may I say a word to our own negotiators and to the supporters of the initiative of entering the Common Market? Let us not overplay the argument. When we become members of the Community—if we become members of the Community—we are not suddenly going to find that the French, Germans and the Italians are immensely easy to do business with, when they were previously immensely difficult. We shall have the same sort of temperamental personal, and even commercial, difficulties; but we are going to have them, if we succeed in this endeavour, in a more sensible and relaxed framework, in which we can really work together without the suspicion that somebody may be manoeuvring for some strictly and exclusively national advantage—something which has dogged our efforts in the eyes of some people in the past. That is the great gain.
At this point may I underline another of the arguments which was always a favourite one of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, though he did not stress it to-day? Do not let us say that we are seeking to "enter" Europe. We are seeking to establish our future proper status in the Continent where we are already. If we look at it that way then we can overcome one of the main objections
390
raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. With great respect, the noble Lord's remarks were based on two propositions that were wrong. One was that Europe does not change, whereas it is changing very fast. And the other was that anything beyond the Straits of Dover is "they". Whereas, of course, when we argue that, if we enter the Common Market, then so-and-so will happen, the Community is "we" and not "they". That again is a wholly different kind of atmosphere, of political institutions and also of mental attitude.
If I may for a moment bring that all together into one other message for our European friends, it is this. At the critical moment—and there will come a critical moment with our own public opinion which we must certainly not disregard—we want to feel that there is no question of our being "tolerated" as a member of the Community. There will come a moment when we shall want to be welcomed, and it will be important at that moment that the noises that come to us, not only from Brussels but from the capitals of the Six, should be not only tolerant but welcoming. I should like to feel that the political equivalents of Mr. Vic Walters or Mr. Stan Cowan, at five to eight in the morning, will be saying to us at that moment that there is a steady stream of warm air coming to us from the South-East.
May I now turn to those points which might seem to be alternatives but are not? They have been dealt with in some degree and with great skill by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. The noble Lord analysed the progress of the idea of a North Atlantic free trade area. I would sum that up simply by saying that we should be overwhelmed and that the Americans, who were never very enthusiastic, prefer an independent-minded ally to a disgruntled satellite. I think that is the whole summing up of that proposition, which was well worth considering but now, I believe, has no life.
I have also heard quite recently a Member of another place insisting very strongly that an alternative is what he termed the Commonwealth economic system. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, referred to that. Of course there was a Commonwealth economic system, but to-day Australia exports to Japan

391
five times as much as she did 12 years ago, and about the same to us. So there has been a tremendous policy of insurance.
Secondly, East Africa has been referred to. There are now commodities in which, in East Africa, the Common Market has a preference against us of some 9 per cent. So the economic system of the Commonwealth in fact no longer exists. Our ties with the Commonwealth are deeper and more intangible than this. So it is no use arguing that there is any economic substitute in the Commonwealth for membership of the Community.
There is one other thesis which should be mentioned, because it is usually half-defined. It is the point of view which manifests itself in saying that we ought really to sit back and wait and see whether an East/West détente occurs, and then perhaps we might join a Europe of East and West, a universal Europe. Either that is very naive and gets the timing all wrong, or what it is really saying is that we are so antagonistic to the United States that we should like to join in an anti-American Europe, which would then of course be dominated militarily by the Soviet Union. There are a few eccentrics and a few dedicated people who would prefer this. There are a few others who are so anti-American that they would prefer not to look at the positive result of this kind of policy. I do not mention this view because I think it is likely to have any great effect, but it is what lies behind some rather "fuzzy" requests for delay that are sometimes put before the public.
So what does that leave us with? It leaves us really with the only other alternative—ourselves and EFTA. I think it is only appropriate on this occasion to give a bouquet to EFTA. EFTA has been curiously disregarded and underestimated by the media of publicity and by many others. It has in fact been a most valuable and most congenial association. But it has been rightly said in this debate that some other members of EFTA who can do it are now looking forward towards the extended Common Market, even as they did at the time when EFTA was initiated.
So it really comes down to ourselves alone, and I do not think it is any national self-depreciation when I say that, if the
392
noble Earl thought that our fireside by ourselves would be cosy, I have rather the picture of the fire going out and the remaining smoke polluting the atmosphere. I think if we do not get offered fair terms, then, being a proud and capable enough people, we would say with dignity and obstinacy, "O.K.: we refuse unfair terms". I say that, because it is important that people should know it. To that extent I go along with the patriotic motif.
But I am sure this is not what we should do by choice. We should warn ourselves that while we are the country of Captain Cook and many people who have explored the world, the physical world and the world of the mind, we are also the country, presumably, of Mrs. Partington, and we want to avoid the attitude of the lady who tried to push back history with a broom. I am sure that in the development that is going on (and I go back to the point that I have been dealing with this directly for twenty years) we are not dealing only with something political. This is something better described as something historic. It is a movement of history. It is a response to ease of movement around the world. It is a response to both the sobering up of Europe and a realisation by Europe of its capacity.
What it is not going to be—and here is one other thing, which has not been mentioned to-day (and which I would like to shoot down)—is a rich man's club. This is a diversionary tactic on the part of people who are against the idea. If Europe has got a little rich that is a tribute to its incredible vitality, its power of resilience. What will be important in this position is that our accession to this organisation means that the weight of our public opinion behind aid, behind technical assistance, behind help in the North-West problem—all that weight will go into the combined European effort.
So, my Lords, may I, as a final plea to those who are still against this initiative, say this? I hope that people with weighty personalities and big voices do not go around the country using those big voices to put forward little ideas. This is not a time for little ideas. It is a time in which Europe, where we live and where we enjoy ourselves, where we move around naturally, should be the place where we live freely and compete

393
freely with each other in what is, above the competition, a great co-operative enterprise. And this is perhaps the last time that we shall have a chance to do this. And so, subject to the great "if", I hope very strongly that the Government will succeed, and I would close by wishing them Godspeed in their efforts.
6.54 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, it is indeed a great privilege to follow such a knowledgeable and distinguished noble Lord as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, who speaks with possibly a greater length of experience of this matter than anyone in your Lordships' House. I would echo what he said in complimenting both my noble friends, Lord George-Brown and Lord Chalfont, and, if I may say so in particular—and I hope I shall not embarrass him by saying so—the noble Earl who opened the debate, with every word of whose speech I entirely agree. That will save a lot of time in explaining where I stand on these matters.
I also take the view that the political arguments are of far greater weight than the economic; but they are so easily demonstrated to be such and so obviously in favour of our going into Europe that, if I may, I shall give myself the slightly more difficult task of attempting to demonstrate to your Lordships that the economic arguments also point in that direction. I am bound to do this because there has been only one speech, and in fact in that speech only one argument on the political side, against going in. That was by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, who took the view, in a very forceful speech, that he would not wish to be dominated by a number of Frenchmen, Germans and so on. I listened very carefully to every word my noble friend said, but I was not persuaded that he was right. Indeed, if he had taken the opposite view and said that there were a lot of Frenchmen, Germans, Italians and so on who were most anxious about being dominated by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, I should have thought there was a great deal more substance to his argument. I am sure he has no lack of confidence in his ability to make his contribution at the conference table, whatever conference table it is, and I certainly have no lack of confidence
394
in the ability of my noble friend to do so.
But what he did say—and your Lordships will excuse me for concentrating on this point, which I thought was extremely valid—was that although, as we have seen, all the other speeches were wholly and enthusiastically in favour of joining, it certainly would not be right to say that the majority opinion so far expressed in your Lordships' House accurately reflects the opinion outside. Therefore one has to get hold of some of the economic arguments and endeavour, however inadequately, however much one could wish that one did not have to attempt the task, in order to do one's duty in explaining to the world outside why one takes the view one does and has done for a great number of years. Therefore I wish to attempt the more difficult task of looking at the economic arguments and expressing them in terms which your Lordships will regard as wholly oversimplified but which, nevertheless, will have to be of a clarity and simplicity to be capable of being dealt with by the man in the street, whose views must be heard and without whose support our membership of the Community will not be as fruitful as it would otherwise be. That is why I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I turn immediately to the question of the costs. I will then turn to the question of the benefits in economic terms.
So far as the costs are concerned, your Lordships will forgive me for reminding you—because I am sure you are already aware of it—that what the costs are not are the figures of £100 million to £1,100 million set out in the White Paper. Those figures have often been quoted as the possible bracket of costs. The White Paper, which I do not see for the first time, made it absolutely clear. I read paragraph 101:
"The total effect"—
that is to say, of the costs—
"cannot be assessed by adding together the extremes of the respective ranges there given. The result … is positively misleading in that it is inconceivable that all the elements in the calculation will work in the same direction, whether favourable or unfavourable."
What the White Paper might have gone on to say is that many of the various assumptions which had to be made in order to build up the detailed costs would be wholly inconsistent with other

395
assumptions, and therefore you could not have a single situation in which the bracket could be as wide as that. So what the costs are not is the bracket of £100 million to £1,100 million.
What the costs are going to be is a matter for negotiation, admittedly, and I think we can see it closing towards a figure of something in the neighbourhood of £400 million to £500 million at the end of the period of entry, at the end of the adjustment period. Your Lordships may say that this is a pure guess. I do not think it is. I think that a careful reading of the White Paper and of the statements that have been made in another place would lead one to make a guess that those round the table have in mind a figure of that order. I am going to assume, therefore, that it is something of that kind—although, as your Lordships will see if you are good enough to bear with me, whether that figure is accurate or grossly inaccurate will at the end of the day make very little difference to the argument.
The argument in favour of going in, on the benefit of going in, has always been the prospect of additional growth. That has been the argument over years and years, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, well recollects. Those of us who supported entry have always said that this was the challenge which would enable our growth to increase, and that if we did not join we should see the others, the members of the Six, overtaking us in living standards. Alas! with one exception, that of Italy, that has already happened: their living standards to-day are all in excess of ours, and they were not ten years ago.
I do not say that that is by itself a conclusive argument. Clearly it is not. Clearly, there are other nations whose growth has been large. Clearly, there are nations within EFTA whose growth has been large, although for a very special reason. What I say is that had our estimate made ten years ago, that the growth of the E.E.C. countries would exceed ours, not been validated, had it not proved correct, then we should have heard a great deal from those who are opposed to the Common Market saying how wrong we were. So I say that it is a relevant argument, though not a conclusive one. What I am more attracted
396
by is the position of Belgium as one of the Six. The position of Belgium was that their rate of growth was comparable with ours, thoroughly sluggish, and that their industrial position was comparable with ours in set-up, though not in size. What happened to them was that their rate of growth after joining the Common Market—as I think, very much influenced by their joining the Common Market—went up from something like 2·8 per cent. to something like 4·4 per cent. per annum. There is no other obvious outside influence which can explain the sudden and remarkable change in Belgium's growth rate.
I think it reasonable to conclude from both of the things I have said, therefore, that it is open—not a certainty—to this country to achieve an additional growth of something of the order of 1½ per cent. through the advantages, which I shall very shortly outline, of joining the E.E.C. If your Lordships will bear with me, I shall attempt to measure that, once I have indicated what I think the arguments are. First of all, there can be no doubt that our scope for growth is great. Not only has our growth been disappointing, but the trend rate over the last ten years has, if anything, been downwards and not upwards. It is not a satisfactory explanation to say that it has been held back entirely because of balance-of-payments difficulties. If your Lordships will be good enough to examine some of the periods when we had—even since 1964—full employment and great pressure, you will find that even then we were not able to achieve a satisfactory rate of growth. I myself feel that we have to look much more deeply than into the purely surface reasons of that kind.
There is great scope. The E.E.C. countries grew, and Belgium, in particular, made a spectacular growth after joining the Common Market. Therefore, is there reason to hope that we ourselves should experience something of a similar kind? My Lords, I think there is, for a number of reasons. First, a country's economic growth does not depend upon a whole line of industries marching forward in equal step. It depends upon a number of individual industries which are peculiarly suited to growth because they are modern, have high technological capacity, and are suitable and appropriate to the modern world. They are generally very complex,

397
and very large scale. It is the growth in these industries—as you see if you examine the figures—which helps forward the total figure of growth. It is these particular industries which Great Britain has, and in which we are well able to stand up to European and other competition, that will gain enormously from the much larger home market that will be available, not only in terms of scale of production or in scope of sales, but also in terms of the capacity to attack third market countries through a much wider home market base. I have no doubt, therefore, that these industries will benefit enormously as a result of the much wider home market, and the freedom from having to jump the tariff wall, which joining the Community will bestow.
A minor but not unimportant point is that membership of the Community will permit a form of what I might call "unified command" in these industries which is lacking at the moment, and which I think your Lordships will discover most industrialists find of considerable difficulty. You can get a much more efficient and effective industry or business moving if you can have a unified line of command, something which is denied at the moment. That is, of course, purely in terms of exporting our visible exports. If we think in terms of invisible exports, and the invisible services that we render, of course we are well poised to take considerable advantage of the additional market which will be open to us. Indeed, I should be astonished if our services did not increase very substantially. There is no body of opinion which doubts that our expertise, our skills, our approach, our character, our history and tradition in these matters all give us an enormous potential to improve and to take advantage of the addition to the market.
The biggest single argument that I would put before your Lordships is the question of competition: competition that will be felt. I myself, having searched my mind, cannot find any other method by which we can be jerked or shocked out of what is, by and large, our complacency. This complacency stems from the knowledge that one can always get a reasonable day's living; that if one is unemployed the hardships are not physically great; that there is always business to be done—that kind of acceptance of orders instead of searching for them. I
398
find a general attitude of complacency which I believe we can be jerked out of only by visible, close, competition. All of us know that in the world of sport we react to the stimulation of a pacemaker. The pacemaker must be next door; he must be visible. It is no use having a pacemaker in Glasgow and running a race in London; for then you are not aware of the fact that you are losing. We have not been aware in this country of the fact that we have been losing this race, year after year, with all the other countries of the Six, and with many others—Australia, Canada, and Denmark—also passing us by in our standard of living. We have not been aware of this because the competition has not been sufficiently closely seen and experienced by all who are concerned at all levels in production of goods and services.
It is the knowledge of working in competition with, perhaps side by side with, workers, managers and administrators of the different countries of the Six, which will provide the challenge and enable the growth to take place. I agree with those who say that there is no obvious alternative to joining the Community, not only because of the reasons they have given of the lack of suitability of AFTA or EFTA, but also because there is no other likely event which, to my mind, will produce the challenge that is needed to make all of us go for additional growth.
So I believe it reasonable to assume that we will have not an additional growth of 1½ per cent., but a very modest 1 per cent., attributable to joining the Community; doing less well than the Community countries themselves have done, and doing less well than Belgium found herself able to do as a result of joining the Community. I can then do my sums, because if you take a figure of 1 per cent. you find after five years that the additional gross national product is of the order of £2,000 million a year, and after ten years is of the order of £5,000 million a year.
If I am right in saying that the cost of entering might ultimately amount to something of the order of £400 million to £500 million, and that the benefit in ten years might be of the order of £5,000 million, we are arriving at an equation which can easily be grasped; namely, that the benefit in ten years' time is approximately

399
ten times as great as the likely cost of entry. It is our duty to try to explain that, if we believe it, and, on the basis of such experience as I have in these matters, I believe that that is a possible outcome which we can achieve.
Therefore, I say to the Government that of course we must be firm in our negotiation, and we must rely on the security which we feel as future partners to put our case firmly and well, which one can do only when one has a secure position vis-à-vis the person with whom one is bargaining. But at the end of the day I do not think the conclusion will depend precisely on what has been the outcome of the negotiations. I do not think that that will be the determining factor. Those negotiations need to demonstrate the truth of what was said to Mr. Rippon, which he reported in another place on December 10. I quote from Hansard, col. 691:
"… should unacceptable situations arise within the present Community or an enlarged Community, the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find equitable solutions."
That is the key and, provided that the negotiations are conducted in a sense which demonstrates that philosophy being taken into account, they will show themselves to be acceptable.
Therefore, the decision will not exactly depend on the proportion of benefit to cost—is it likely to be ten times, nine times or eight times? It will depend on the confidence which we have in ourselves to play our part in Europe, to lead where we are entitled to lead, to follow where we should follow, to exert the greater influence which can be exerted only when it is shared. It will depend on our confidence to do those things born of our political maturity, our political wisdom, in spite of our falling—and recognisably falling—military and economic power. I have every confidence that we can make our contribution to the European Community. I may be said to be a good European for making that statement. I prefer to say that I am no mean patriot.
7.15 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, with characteristic experience and ability, has put forward the economic advantages of our joining the
400
European Economic Community so clearly and so well, because I am going to dwell very briefly on the other side, on the political side, which he said at the beginning of his speech was basically the more important of the two. I am not going back on the past. Your Lordships have heard me enough on this subject and know my views very well.
I first proposed a United States of Western Europe before the war ended, in a newspaper despatch from the San Francisco Conference over a quarter of a century ago, when I saw quite clearly what the Russians were up to. They achieved all their aims. They got half of Europe. We achieved none of ours. All we got was the end of the "special relationship" with the United States, and the liquidation of the British Empire. The time for us to get into Europe (and I have said this before) was when we could have had the undisputed leadership of Western Europe on our own terms, on any terms: in the late 'forties and early 'fifties. This was ruthlessly rejected by successive Labour and Conservative Governments, so it is no Party issue.
But from that came the rise of the Six. The Common Market, in which we never believed, arose as a result of the despair of the Six over British policy; and I myself saw it happening as a member of the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, which I was for seven years, from 1949 to 1956. We did not even send a delegate to their conferences at Messina and Brussels. To our amazement, and not altogether to our pleasure, the Common Market succeeded, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has pointed out. Economic growth in the Common Market has since far exceeded our own. Between 1958 and 1968 the gross national product of the Six expanded at a rate of 5.1 per cent. per annum, while in Britain it expanded at a rate of 3·2 per cent. per annum; and from our point of view the figures to-day are no better.
Where do we stand now, my Lords? I do not want to be too pessimistic, but I should be inclined to say in stagnant and almost impotent isolation. We are no longer masters of our own destiny in foreign or economic affairs. Strategic arms limitation upon which the future of the world depends is being discussed over our heads. We are under the absolute

401
economic domination of the United States of America at this moment. The markets in London are completely under the influence of those in Wall Street. And, if it came to a crunch between the super-Powers, we should be totally dependent upon the United States for our defence.
I have said before to your Lordships, somewhat to my surprise without any great dissent, that the multiracial Commonwealth is to-day something of a myth. So it is, from the point of view of an effective coherent united policy in the fields of defence, foreign or economic affairs. We are watching that to-day in Singapore. Some progress is being made in Europe upon the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. So far as technology, banking, industrial rationalisation and research are concerned, there is a considerable coming together between the various industries of Western Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Thornycroft, reminded us in a remarkable speech which he made recently in your Lordships' House.
What are the Government doing? The Germans are on the move in Central and Eastern Europe—very much so—with the Ostpolitik. We should be with them; but we are not. The French are moving pretty fast all over Africa. Their infiltration is of far greater import than that of the Communists. We should be with them. We are not. If we were all together in a Western European Political Union, there would have been no crisis over the sale of arms to South Africa, because whatever we jointly decided would have been accepted.
We are now talking largely in terms of bread and butter. It is inevitable on account of the negotiations that are proceeding—the cost of entry into the Common Market, the cost of food and so on. Certainly no one expects us to subsidise an archaic European agriculture (I deliberately refrain from using the word "peasantry", in view of what the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said about Mr. Enoch Powell's speech) for an indefinite period—although I am bound to point out that Mr. Powell himself said that the peasantry of Europe was diminishing all the time. But nobody expects us to subsidise for an indefinite period a bad system of agriculture in Europe on the Continent; nor, for that matter, does anyone expect us to subsidise
402
our own farmers indefinitely to the extent which we are now doing: because we cannot afford it. These are proper matters for negotiations now proceeding, and for further negotiations after we get into the Common Market.
But, my Lords, the issue goes deeper than that. It concerns the whole future of this country. As Mr. Enoch Powell said, with merciless logic, the day before yesterday, it is on the principle and not on the fripperies that we should be heard and on which Parliament will have to decide. Do we want to go on as we are; or do we want to become part of a Western European Confederation in which we should certainly play a leading part, but not necessarily the leading part? A Confederation which might one day face the modern super-Powers on both sides of it on level terms, and even rival Rome? That is the prospect that glitters in the distance before us.
Oddly enough, my Lords, it was de Gaulle who, in one of his flashes of insight and inspiration, defined the issue most clearly ten years ago. He said:
"The nations which are becoming associated in Europe must not cease to be themselves, and the path to be followed must be that of organised co-operation between States while waiting to achieve, perhaps, an imposing confederation."
My Lords, "confederation" is defined in the dictionary as:
"A permanent union of sovereign States for common external action."
I find nothing to quarrel with in that definition. De Gaulle took the view that we were not yet ready to go along with it, and he therefore kept us out. I do not know whether he was right or wrong, but I rather suspect that at the time he was right. Shall we go along with it now? This is the basic issue that has to be decided, and it is primarily a political issue.
My Lords, not ten but over twenty years ago the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, when he was at NATO, said prophetically:
"The strategic centre of the battle for world peace is Western Europe. We must be able to hold the position there. The task before the nations of the West is primarily political".
This was over twenty years ago.
"Economic fusion and military strength will not be obtained until the political association between the group of nations concerned has first been defined".

403
My Lords, it has never been defined; and it is not defined to-day.
That brings me to my last point. If and when we join the Common Market our task will have only just begun. We shall have to bring our own unique political genius and experience to bear upon the scene, because a Customs Union, buttressed by an unviable agricultural policy, is simply not good enough. We must go back to the ideas and ideals of Strasbourg in the 1950s, when we passed a resolution in the Assembly demanding the creation of a European Political Authority with limited functions but defined powers. Full economic and monetary union, and effective co-operation in the fields of foreign policy and defence, cannot be achieved without a political foundation and structure. New forms of organic political union which amount not so much to the surrender as the joint exercise by common consent of certain defined sovereign powers in defined fields are an essential corollary to any kind of constructive or worthwhile European union; and to that extent we must be prepared to surrender some national sovereignty in defined fields to certain defined authorities.
Let me give one or two examples before I sit down. Monetary union, if it ever comes about, must mean a Federal Reserve Board for Western Europe. A common monetary policy, which must precede it, means regular meetings between the Finance Ministers concerned and the governors of the banks. A common foreign policy means frequent regular meetings between the Foreign Ministers, and a common defence policy exactly the same. At the summit of power there must be meetings, and fairly frequent meetings, between the Prime Ministers concerned.
All this is bound to mean a co-ordinating Council of Ministerial status, and a number of supranational organisations under the ultimate control of a Western European Council or Parliament; and I should hope that this would be chosen, as now in the Council of Europe, from members of existing national Parliaments, because I do not believe that direct elections, in the teeth of national Parliaments, to a European Parliament would ever work. They must be representatives of the national Parliaments in the Council of Europe, reporting regularly the workings of the Council of Europe to their
404
own Houses of Parliament. That is the sensible course of action, in my view, for the future. It will take time, but, my Lords—
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I ask him this question? Does he think that these chosen, appointed Members of Parliament from the various Parliaments will be able to spend more than a fortnight or even, at the outside, a month looking after the affairs of Europe; and therefore would not the question of nominating them by some other means, or even elecing them, have to arise?
LORD BOOTHBY: No, my Lords, I think there is plenty of time for Members of Parliament, who have an immensely long summer vacation and vacations at Christmas and Easter, to do a bit more work than they do. I think they would have plenty of time to attend to the work, especially during the long summer months, in some agreeable city. If the noble Lord persists with this matter I would suggest Venice as an appropriate place for the Council of Europe to meet, and I am sure the noble Lord would not be too reluctant to give up (not at his own expense—but with all expenses paid and everything done) four weeks of his time during September to be in Venice. I can assure him that there are few more delectable experiences.
My Lords, as I said, it will take time, but as Churchill said at the beginning of it all:
"We are not making a machine; we are growing a living plant".
And that is something we should never forget. Mr. Powell, in his much-criticised speech the day before yesterday, said, I think with truth, that this was the most basic of all questions that could be addressed to the people of any nation. Could they, and would they, he argued, so merge themselves with others that they would no longer be a "we" and a "they" but only a "we"? This, he said, was what the debate was all about, and in this each much speak for himself. My Lords, I have risen to speak in this debate to give my answer to that, because I reached my own decision 25 years ago, and have not changed it. It is an unequivocal "we", not "they".
Why? First, because I believe that insistence on narrow national sovereignty

405
is the primary cause of the evils of our modern world, and that this has been proved by the events of the past three centuries, including the present one. I believe there is no longer any room for small sovereign nation States, in the world that confronts us to-day and is going to confront us for the next two or three hundred years, acting in isolation. I believe that virulent nationalism on the part of these nations—and you have only to look at the Middle East to see it in one of its most disastrous aspects—is one of the greatest evils of our time. Secondly, I believe that we shall have a tremendous opportunity for bringing our influence and vast political experience to bear from inside Western Europe rather than from outside it. Thirdly, the only conceivable alternative I can see for us (here I am afraid that I must disagree with my noble friend Lord Caccia) is to become an impotent offshore island being gradually bought up by the United States, and living on memories of an Empire which has ceased to exist. That is the real and dire alternative I can see before us: I can see no other.
This is not to say that we should not be firm in our attitude towards these negotiations; that we should not turn down anything we regard as quite intolerable. But I do not think that intolerable demands will be made upon us. However, I do say that the alternative to joining Western Europe seems to be dire. My Lords, in the 18th century Napoleon, in the 19th century Bismarck, and in the 20th century Hitler, sought to impose unity on Europe by blood and iron; and they were by no means the first. All failed. Let us at least try to show the way to a more lasting unity by democracy and consent.
7.33 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I do not understand the issue of the Common Market. At the beginning of this debate my noble friend the Leader of the House spoke of "marvellously contradictory" economic forecasts which have been appearing in the Press, in pamphlets, and in journals in recent years, which have confused him and which have confused most people, economists included; which certainly have confused me, and which leave 99 per cent. of the population in the situation of not knowing really what we are letting ourselves in for if we embark
406
on this tremendous and world shattering enterprise.
In recent months I have seen costs of entry into the Common Market balanced against expenses and benefits, and I have seen comparisons between costs and benefits which attempt to come to some conclusion about whether we would be right to go in. I have even seen the costs deducted from, or even added to, the benefits and some sort of a difference achieved which would lead to a conclusion which we should take into account when deciding whether the Common Market is a good thing or not.
The problem about this is that the costs are a more accurately measurable factor; that there is already a budget for these costs: they exist already, they are now here; and one can work them out and try to see what we are sacrificing by taking these costs upon our shoulders.
The benefits are more long-term. We are told that we must look forward to an expanding market, that this will bring us untold benefits. But how much is this worth? One cannot evaluate those benefits in terms of millions of pounds per annum. We are told that if we wish to develop new techniques, if we wish not to become an underdeveloped country and if we wish to keep ourselves supplied with new products and to share in the development of the technical world on the highest level, we must be a large unit. But how much is this worth to us? This is very hard to work out. I do not believe there has been made any sort of accurate attempt—certainly none which could be presented to the people or to Parliament—at anything on which we should base our opinions.
I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention something which has most influenced me in recent months. It is a different matter from that which was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, in his long but fascinating speech. He mentioned the cost of keeping out. He spoke of what is happening as the years pass and we do not join. By doing nothing what are we losing? As a corollary to this, trade-wise, where are we going?
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, spoke of research. I have done just a little research, and I have seen from my works of reference that British imports from

407
the Commonwealth in 1961 were 30·8 per cent. of our total trade. In 1968 they had fallen to 22·7 per cent. I have seen that British exports to the Commonwealth in 1961 were 33·3 per cent., and that in 1968 they had sunk to 21·8 per cent. At the same time, in 1968 British exports to Western Europe were 44·5 per cent. This means that not only has our trade with the Commonwealth declined remarkably in the seven or eight years in question, but also that our trade with the Commonwealth has been converted from a favourable one to an adverse one. It also seems to me to show that our exports to the European countries are becoming more important to us just as our exports to the Commonwealth are becoming less and less important.
I ask myself: "Which way are things going? What is the future? Is there any reason to believe that this tendency will not continue?" None of the experts I ask can tell me of any reason why this trend should not continue. At the same time our traditional customers and our traditional partners in trade are seeking alternative markets. I am told that now Australia sells more to Japan than to any other country, and buys more from the United States. This was not the case 10 years ago, but it is now; and I see no prospect of this tendency being reversed. Other Commonwealth countries—Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Malta—are, separately from us, seeking some sort of an accommodation with the E.E.C. This is being done totally irrespective of our own application to join the Community.
I wonder, therefore, my Lords, whether there can be any doubt at all as to where our future lies. Does it lie in this declining market, which was our "bread and butter" before the Second World War and in the early years after, or does it lie in this expanding market which, irrespective of any tariff barriers, seems to have imposed itself on us in the last ten years really quite remarkably? Can we really kick against the pricks to this extent? Can we fight against this tendency? I very much doubt whether we can. This seems to me very much where our future lies.
One point which my noble friend Lord Shinwell raised which is very important
408
is the question of public opinion. Of course he is quite right when he points out to the House that at the moment it would appear that public opinion is against our joining Europe. Gallup Polls can be so deceptive, as we saw in June; but there have been a number of these polls, and it would seem fairly conclusive that if there were to be a referendum—which of course the opponents of the Common Market not unnaturally demand—the vote would go against our joining.
But I am wondering how long this state of affairs will continue. Will people continue to believe that our future lies in our standing alone, on our own feet? Will this idea continue and prolong itself in the minds of the public? I must say that I doubt it. It has been said on the side of the non-Marketeers that our trade with Europe has already increased 2½ times in the past ten years. But at the same time the volume of trade inside the European community has increased five times—twice as much. These are elementary figures which make an impression on me, as a non-economist who does not really understand the situation and who is trying to find a path that we should follow. I wonder how long it will be before these figures start to impress the bulk of our population and before public opinion begins to swing in favour of our joining.
Again, we have the basic problem, which no one can deny, that people are concerned with such matters as wages and the standard of living. I read that in 1958, measured in market prices, the average income in this country was the highest in Europe. In 1968, ten years later, it was lower than that of any of the member countries of the Six with the exception of Italy. There is no doubt that in a year or two it will be the lowest of all and that in the foreseeable future it will continue to fall in relation to the advanced European countries. I see no prospect of this trend reversing if we continue as we are going now. Similarly, the gross national product per head between the years 1958 and 1968 rose in the United Kingdom by 49 per cent. and in the European Community by 112 per cent.
Are these facts totally coincidental? Is this not very strong circumstantial evidence of the fact that it is membership of this large, 200 million population

409
Community which has contributed to the vast economic growth of the member countries and to their tremendous rise in wages in the past ten years? My noble friend the Leader of the House spoke interestingly of a rough timetable which he hoped would lead to our gradual approach to membership of the E.E.C. He mentioned a time about the end of this year when we should reach broad agreement with the other members of the Six about our terms of joining, after which it would be simply a matter of transition. I should like to suggest to my noble friend who will be replying for the Government that before the end of this year, before the point is reached when—as I hope—we shall reach agreement with the Six, Government should attempt to put these points to the people; that they should try to get these ideas across and to explain to the British people what we stand to lose by marking time, by doing nothing, and what we stand to gain by joining this huge unit which seems to be doing so well and which is having such success economically. I have given a few figures and I am sure that they can be hammered home to convince the people that there is a very strong case for going in.
My final point is, indirectly, a personal one. I have a number of friends who are members of the Foreign Service and who are directly involved in the negotiations of our entry into Europe. In the months since they have embarked on this enterprise I have noticed in these men, young men whom I respect, a growing enthusiasm, keenness and ebullience for the work on which they are engaged, which is quite untypical of the normal diplomat. This enthusiasm that they are bringing into this enterprise of getting us into Europe really makes them stand out from their colleagues in the Foreign Service. I have been very impressed by what they say, by what they tell me, by the facts which they understand (for it is their job to understand them and they spend eight hours a day working on it) and which they try to get across to me in a brief period. The results of their work and their research I am prepared to accept as those of real experts who understand the situation and who are thoroughly in favour of the course on which the Government have embarked.
410
I would end with a prediction which is not astrological, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but a prediction which may come to pass: that we shall enter Europe. I think that this has been clear for some years to most Members of this House. We shall enter Europe, and the people of this country, by and large, will take to the idea, slowly but surely. The more that one knows about it the more one takes to the idea. This is a tendency I have noticed. The people by and large will come to realise that no one and no country—not even this country—is "an island entire of itself".
7.56 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, the decision as to whether or not we join the E.E.C. is a major decision about our future political direction. I accept the view which was expressed by Mr. Enoch Powell—although, I think, it was also possibly implied in the speeches of some noble Lords this afternoon—that in the light of the importance of this question, the differences that now remain over the terms to be negotiated between ourselves and the community are only trivial. For the first time in three applications this country has been negotiating with a Community which unanimously wishes us to be part of itself. I believe that each side simply wishes to be reasonable over the matter of terms. In such a situation nothing can prevent us from becoming a member except an eleventh-hour refusal by ourselves to do so.
It is perhaps useful to take a look at what is happening to bring us closer to Europe and which will continue to happen, whether or not the Government are able to lead us into Europe at the present time. There is the matter of trade to which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, referred in some detail. Between 1958 and 1968, our exports to the Commonwealth rose by only 14 per cent. In the same period they rose to EFTA by 144 per cent. and to the E.E.C., despite tariffs, by 167 per cent. There are, besides, other fields in which our policies will increasingly need to be integrated with those of other European countries. We shall become more exclusively concerned with European defence as our defence commitments throughout the world are withdrawn. We shall need co-operation over

411
legislation for the control and taxation of international companies. There will be need, in the first instance, for a European solution to the problem of the pollution of our air and our water. But there is a more important respect in which, whether we like it or not, we are going to merge with Europe. Each one of the European countries has the same basic modern problems—the strains and aggressions produced by present-day urbanisation; the speed of change; the problem of acquiring the political co-operation of the labour force. In all of these the causes and solutions must be the same, and the obvious way to solve them must be to solve them jointly. Indeed, it may be essential to solve them jointly.
For one thing, my Lords, it is arguable—it is even probable—that inflation requires a European solution. It is no accident that inflation should have begun in the autumn of 1969 in every European country at the same time as it began here; for the populations of these countries react to the same influences in the same way at the same time. Each is stimulated by the demands of the other; each adopts the solutions or the compromises of the other; each even borrows the arguments of the other. I absolutely agree with a political observation made by Professor John Williamson, Professor of Economics at Warwick University, in an article in to-day's Times which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was kind enough to draw to the attention of the House. Professor Williamson doubted that the maintenance of national currencies would be of any use as a means of protecting depressed regional areas, because unions would demand parity across frontiers, even where a common currency had not been created. In other words, there will be a tendency for the labour force to unite across national frontiers; and this is a problem which Governments will have to unite to handle. So a unification, whether we want it or not, is taking place on a popular level before our eyes. To join Europe, therefore, is to recognise, and not to set a course against, the popular interests of to-morrow.
My Lords, it may then be objected, "Why, in this case, is there not a steady
412
national demand for our entry into Europe?" I believe the answer is that our sense of our national identity is still too closely linked with ideas of isolation and of an imperial role. Any sort of independent global role in the world, however much it is expressed in terms of the needs of others, or even in terms of the protection of our own commercial interest, is still an imperial role. To have an imperial role is to have an isolated role; and if one demands an isolated role it means that one is still unwilling to co-operate as an equal with countries that are our equals.
It is no coincidence, I think, that the opponents of our entry into Europe have never explored the possibility—or at least they have never discussed in public the possibility—of our remaining outside the Community, without at the same time inflating the possibility for us to increase our ties with either the United States or the Commonwealth. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, may have appeared to do this; his speech was certainly a very impressive declaration of faith in Britain. But it contained absolutely no policies whatsoever for the future.
One might have expected from some of the opponents of entry into the Common Market that they would have drawn for us a picture of ourselves outside any permanent grouping or alliance, without any wish for an empire, either by association with the United States or, nostalgically, within the Commonwealth—a view of our future that contained some of the comforts of isolationism without the imperial illusions. But the two are, in fact, inextricably linked. To admit that we did not want an empire would remove the only objection to co-operating with our equals in Europe. It is, then, I submit, because we want an empire which we know we cannot have—for we have spent 25 years attempting to stimulate it into life and it has simply crumbled away between our fingers—that our prevailing mood has become so frustrated. The frustration, a frustration to which a number of noble Lords have referred, the continuing doubts about the value either of our political role or of our economic role in the world—all these would disappear, or at least acquire a far less self-critical character, if we were to accept the reality of our role in Europe.

413
To some extent, the fear of a loss of national identity in these circumstances is quite natural. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn pointed out that if a referendum had been taken of the present Common Market countries before they entered the Common Market, very likely one or two of them would not have joined. For us it is more difficult. We are the last of the great European Powers to maintain some of the habits and the form of empire.
There are a number of signs that what the Government are afraid of is not the terms that they may, or may not, be able to get out of the Community, but the difficult task they will have of containing the resurgence of an emotional refusal to risk our national identity. It is this emotional response which the Express group of newspapers so skilfully stimulates with their series of heroic war-time exploits; their dramatic announcement of a new gunboat action in the Indian Ocean, et cetera.
What in the first place the Government need to do, if they are anxious about their ability to carry the argument for our entry into Europe, is to spend the intervening time between now and when the Treaty is ratified, in playing down, rather than playing up, the possibilities for us in a special relationship with America, or in maintaining the Commonwealth. The more the Government demonstrate their anxiety to maintain the unity of the Commonwealth, the more they provide a base for those who are against our entry for an emotional appeal to those who are inclined to fear it. The Government should have one principal direction in mind—Europe—to which the others are related, not three directions which are followed independently.
In the second place, in my view the Government should immediately start to stimulate public discussion, for it is easier to maintain over a period of time a rational argument than an emotional resistance. I am sure we all persuade each other by the arguments we are using this afternoon, but I am not at all sure that, at the present rate, the Government are going to win the argument in the country; and unless they win it, or unless they at least balance the argument in the country,
414
they will very possibly not have their majority in Parliament.
I certainly do not imagine, my Lords, that a decision to remain outside the Community, in whatever political direction the Community goes, would be a permanent decision. If there is one thing that is clear about the youth of to-day it is that they are in no way so likely to be affected by the same fear of a loss of national identity as we ourselves may be. The young to-day are determined to be international rather than national. And since the Common Market offers us the first opportunity for a permanent cooperation with other nations without the pretence that we are superior to them, I believe that that must be the opportunity for the expression of their internationalism that youth would support to-day; and if we do not take that opportunity, I believe that is the choice they will make for themselves to-morrow.
If we enter, we shall indeed be paying a high price for the sake of the Community's agriculture policy, but I believe that the need for a high-price food policy is only temporary. The reason why it is needed is one of social structure and not of economic theory. The class of peasant farmers on the Continent is undoubtedly fast disappearing. In 1958, of the total working population of all the countries in the E.E.C., some 25 per cent. were employed in agriculture. By 1968 this had gone down to less than 16 per cent. By the time such peasant economies as Spain, Portugal and Greece wish to join the Community, France and Germany will have the same interest as ourselves in limiting the extent to which such economies should be subsidised at the expense of member-countries with a smaller agricultural population.
But against this price, which we should perhaps save if we joined later rather than now, there is a far graver risk involved should we remain out of the Community for a further period. For we shall risk entering at a later stage on the level not of one of Europe's first-rank Powers but at a level of one of its second-rank Powers, and entering a Europe whose further developments, both for this reason and because the Community will on its own have integrated far further without our participation, we shall be able to determine to a far less extent than we shall be able to determine them if we

415
join now. Nor do I expect any political rewards for the Government if they decide not to go in, even if they do it for the sake of their majority in Parliament.
Before I conclude, I should like to make two observations on the negotiations now taking place. It was reported that we caused, at the least, confusion when we made it plain to the Germans and to the French separately that we agreed with both of their alternative and conflicting policies on the future of economic and monetary union. Now I think it is a mistake to pretend to agree with the French when you do not agree with the French. I am glad to have the support of my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. The French have always been very clear sighted about British interests and intentions and will never be blackmailed by earnest and, to them, hypocritical attempts to win their affection, when those attempts are designed to disguise or at least to compensate for real differences of policy. Although we are always hurt and uncomprehending when the charge is made, yet if we do this, the cry of "Perfide Albion" will once more be circulated on its rounds of Europe.
In the second place, I believe that there is a danger that we might put too much emphasis on the review clause, and if the Government were to listen to the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, there certainly would be danger of that. I understand that the Government should wish to be able to reassure the British people, in whom there lurks a fear that the E.E.C. represents an open-ended and irrevocable trap, by being able to point to our opportunities for reviewing the terms on which we made our decision. If I were the Government, I think I should rely more on the argument that if the terms did prove to be intolerable, well, that is that—they would have to be changed or we should have to leave. Alternatively, if there has to be a review clause, I think it should be confined to narrow and carefully specified limits. To insist on a general review clause in advance, just as if a person demanded subsequent opportunities to review his decision in advance of contracting marriage, is to announce our distrust of our partners' co-operative
416
intentions. We should not be surprised if the countries of the Community will tend to be unaccommodating on this question. After all, we have for years conducted in front of them our perpetual debate as to whether we should look for a future with them or with the Commonwealth or with the United States. For them, as for us, this is a test of our willingness to behave as a partner among equals.
To join the Community contains, of course, a risk. It will be at moments a frightening experience, but it will be, I believe, an exciting and vital experience. If we join, I believe that a lot of the frustration and the sense of being lost that is a consequence of our persistent attempts to attach a meaning to forms of the past that can no longer bear a meaning, will disappear. I believe that our own view of ourselves, and our self-confidence, will immediately alter. We can expect as much, if a major problem of twenty-five years' standing is finally dealt with. Such a prospect demands a risk; it cannot be reached without a risk; and I believe that this risk is the right risk.
8.6 p.m.
LORD CAMPBELL OF ESKAN: My Lords, I hardly dare confess that, after the last five hours of flood-tide towards the European Common Market, stemmed only by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I am still far from convinced that any British Government can negotiate terms for Britain's joining the Community under which the British people will be socially, economically and politically better off, which one must assume to be among the important considerations which the Government have in mind in their quest for the European Eldorado. But I shall spare your Lordships by not talking about that. Because I want to keep my speech within ten minutes, I shall stick to one single aspect of Commonwealth relations, let alone British interests, which will be jeopardised if we join the Common Market on the wrong terms. I refer to Commonwealth cane sugar, which I was most reassured to hear the noble Earl the Leader of the House recognise in opening this debate as "a very special problem of crucial importance".
In this, I must declare an interest. My family have had sugar interests in Guyana

417
and the West Indies since the eighteenth century, and since 1951 I have been Chairman of the Commonwealth Sugar Exporters Group, which works with the British Government in operating the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This Agreement, which a Labour Government negotiated and a Conservative Government signed, has stood the test of nearly twenty years as the instrument, the charter, which assures Commonwealth suppliers an outlet for about half their production at (to quote the rubric) "reasonably remunerative prices for efficient producers", and which has assured British housewives of supplies of sugar at a price which the British Sugar Board have described in their latest report as
"lower than that prevailing in any other major developed country in the world."
The present Government, as the noble Earl made plain, have clearly stated their conviction that Commonwealth sugar is an interest which must be protected in the E.E.C. negotiations. Happily, this is not a Party issue, because the previous Government had given virtually identical assurances. Towards fulfilling these assurances, the present Government have tabled proposals in Brussels, which have been duly leaked. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that these proposals were not known. I assume that, like everything else, they were leaked fairly accurately.
These proposals are, with one exception, admirable. They include special quotas, settled prices and periodic review. These, to all intents and purposes, are the essential features of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, except that Australia is to be phased out. For many years, Australia has been a reliable supplier to the British market and a good customer for British exports. Its exclusion from the special arrangement in an enlarged Community, thus pushing its exports on to the precarious world sugar market, would upset the balance of the International Sugar Agreement, which, incidentally, the E.E.C. have consistently refused to join. This would damage not only Australia but all developing countries which export sugar. There is no time to elaborate on this matter, but it could prove a serious problem for the future. Except for the case of Australia, the British proposals are, I think, the most we could possibly have expected,
418
but they are the very least that would meet the needs of the developing countries. The Six have not yet replied to the British proposals. Although the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spoke with real understanding about the problem, I hope, your Lordships will allow me a few minutes longer to explain briefly, but in some detail, why I hope the British Government will stick to their guns on the original proposals.
Obviously an easy way out would be to settle nothing definitely now, but to offer honeyed words, left to be quantified and settled after Britain's entry to the Community. To such an act of faith there are great objections. The fact is that beet farmers have votes in the European market and cane producers do not have votes. Moreover, the sugar rules of the Six guarantee both price and market for 105 per cent, of Community consumption of sugar. So that if, as an outcome of this year's negotiations, it were known that nothing definite was to be settled for Commonwealth sugar until 1974, this would be the green light for beet production to expand to fill the market of the enlarged Community, and cane sugar would inevitably be squeezed out. By the same token it would be the red light for all investment in cane sugar, because sugar is a long-term crop involving exceptionally heavy capital investment. The Commonwealth countries do not dream of asking beet producers to cut back production, and it is most unlikely that they would ask for anything so unreasonable. They recognise that there may well be further expansion of beet production both in Europe and in the highly efficient British beet sugar industry.
The Commonwealth producers do not seek a bigger outlet in the enlarged Community than they have had in Britain for the last 20 years. They only ask that the enlarged Community should undertake now to continue to buy the quantities of Commonwealth sugar which already have guaranteed access under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This certainly implies the acceptance of some bounds to the expansion of European sugar production. But I see no reason why a firm settlement for Commonwealth sugar should not be reached now, including a quantified minimum guarantee of access, without prejudice to the review of

419
the Community's own sugar régime as planned for 1974.
Unless the guarantee of entry for Commonwealth sugar is quantified and written into the E.E.C. negotiations, the future of Commonwealth cane sugar will be in grave jeopardy. I do not think it is clearly understood that that means that the future of the British sugar refining industry—with a great record for efficiency and total employment of the order of 10,000 people—will also be imperilled, because the cane producers' outlet is the refiners' throughput.
The Commonwealth exporters are concerned with three factors. The first is duration. This is vital because the economies of many developing countries in the Commonwealth depend on sugar for employment and foreign exchange. The noble Earl the Leader of the House said that man cannot live by bread and butter or steel alone. For one awful moment I thought he was going to add sugar, because in fact a great many people in the Commonwealth have to live by sugar alone. The second essential factor is price because it must cover the cost of production.
The third is quantity. In the E.E.C. negotiations this is the crucial factor. Unless, as I have said, a minimum guaranteed quantity is settled now, nothing could inhibit the expansion of European beet, and the whole of the cane sugar of the enlarged Community would be closed.
It seems to me that if the British negotiators were driven on this issue to give way to the pressure of Common Market doctrine (I nearly said theology), and to disregard the practical consequences, then many people and interests in this country and in the Commonwealth would be called upon to pay a quite excessive price for smoothing the road for British entry into the Community. Commonwealth producers, many of them already desperately poor; British housewives, already overcharged; our balance of payments, already overstrained; our refining, shipping and exporting industries, already struggling against subsidised competition (even in that fragmented archipelago the West Indies buy more per head each year than the E.E.C.), would all suffer if the British Government took the line of least resistance. Let me hastetn to add that I have no reason to
420
believe that they will. Nor is there any reason why they should, because there is a way out of the conflict between British and Commonwealth interests and the rather strange rules of the E.E.C. game. Although the Six have a surplus of sugar, an enlarged Community would have a deficit. Either the enlarged Community can use the present rules to fill the deficit with beet sugar, or it can set aside quotas for British Commonwealth suppliers. That is what the sugar negotiations are about, or should be about.
Finally, my Lords, I must say that sugar seems to me to be a test case in the attitude of the Six and of Britain to the Third World; their opportunity of showing that they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, disclaimed, a rich man's club. The problem of sugar is soluble (that is not an intentional pun) if the British Government are firm and the Six will see reason. I am not sure that that is asking to much of them.
8.15 p.m.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, having listened with considerable interest to the eloquent speeches made by noble Lords so supremely qualified to speak on this subject, I must admit to feeling rather like a member of a junior cricket eleven who has accidentally found himself in the first eleven nets. The reason I put my name down on the list to-day is that for the past ten years I have been working almost entirely in the international field and have been engaged in the development of trade and business interests of British and foreign companies in the markets of Western Europe. I am very proud of our industry, and proud of our products, but somewhat concerned that we do not appear to have the confidence that we need to tackle the markets of Western Europe. I have been fortunate enough to spend some time living and working in all the countries of the Common Market, and have been kept continuously aware of the problems and opportunities facing British companies. It is about some of these problems and opportunities that I want to talk to-day.
As our noble Leader has said, we have some excellent industries in this country and, in terms of our size, more than our fair share of leading international giants on a global basis. But the spread of our international business is far wider than that of our Continental competitors. We

421
tend to be strongest in those markets with which we have had a traditional association, notably the Commonwealth. With a few exceptions, we are relatively weak in the countries of the Common Market. The ten-year cloud of uncertainty over our entry has held back many of our leading industries and prevented them from making the substantial investments needed to ensure that they could compete on equal terms in the local markets with their Common Market competitors.
Instead, many of them have looked further afield to countries where there is no local production and no local competition. In many cases, notably in parts of Latin America, their performances have been excellent. But the development of interests in these distant markets, although praiseworthy, ties up money and senior management time, which I personally believe should be more directed towards Europe at this time. I believe that we must do more to encourage our industries to concentrate their major efforts upon Europe, and we need a stronger and broader base in this part of the world, together with the economies of scale it will offer. We must provide industry with the right incentive to develop in the European market.
Since I was a salesman in Germany in 1962 I have watched with interest the growing power of the new European combines: not the traditional international companies that we know so well, like Henkel, Bosch, Akzo, Pechiney or Montedison; and one or two others in Italy, and even in Spain. We have not had the same concentrated power base that we need from which to attack their home markets, because with the strength they have built up over the past ten years they have been able to enter this market despite the restriction that our non-membership of the Common Market offers them. We have not had this power. I believe that we must build up local operations, and we need to establish more key British industries now in Continental Europe. Export-led operations can have only a limited success, except in certain fields. Distribution problems are the main difficulty. Distribution costs are much higher in Continental Europe, and national distribution of products is far more difficult to achieve.
It is rather sad that the efficiency of our own distributive trade should have enabled so many of our foreign competitors
422
to gain major shares in these markets so quickly. This advance has been accelerated by the failure of many British manufacturers to deliver on time. Poor delivery and difficult distribution make it a very uphill job for a British international marketing man trying to sell our products on the Continent. We see opportunity after opportunity snatched from us by foreign competitors with better delivery times, but often with poorer quality products.
I am delighted to see that recently a number of British firms have been making substantial acquisitions in the Common Market, even during our current economic climate. They are the wise ones, because I believe that the whole Market will so dramatically change, with our entry, that new opportunities will arise. Denmark and Norway will probably join us. If they do, and if Sweden holds back, then Nordek will probably break up, and we may see a decline in the dominance of Swedish industry in Scandinavia. That is an area in which we should strengthen our links. Existing Common Market countries, too, will see greater opportunities and spread their nets, and by so doing may weaken their hold on current markets. From a competitive point of view we are fortunate, too, that the U.S. recession has, to some extent, slowed the advance of many American companies in Europe, although they may well be in the front of the Eurodollar loan queue. I feel that they are a less dominant threat than they were a few years ago.
All in all, my Lords, I feel that the opportunities now are quite good. We must, however, concentrate on those areas where we have an advantage over our competitors, and where we can press that advantage home now. My noble Leader mentioned that in the service area we have much to offer. We have much to offer in all areas, but it is in one area particularly, the technological area, that the opportunities are most promising. It is extremely depressing that at present we seem unable in many cases to manufacture the end products fast enough, and with sufficient dependability, in order that we may capitalise throughout Europe on our know-how.
If we cannot manufacture at sufficient speed and with sufficient reliability at home many of our large, international

423
companies may be persuaded to take the manufacture of United Kingdom products overseas, and in that event we shall lose valuable employment and business. It is also rather ironic that the same problem—basically industrial relations—is keeping, so I understand, many European companies back from setting up manufacture or assembly plants over here, and giving employment in areas of the country where it is badly needed. Yet, despite all this, we still have an image for quality products. A recent consumer survey carried out throughout Europe has shown that we excel in the production of suits, woollen goods, marmalade, whisky and biscuits. That is at one end of the scale. Yet they still feel, too, that we are good at the other end, the planes, ships and cars end.
My Lords, I should like to dwell briefly on the subject of our cars. I have always had a British car, and I have only owned four in 14 years, three of which were made by the company with which my noble friend Lord Stokes is associated. Jaguar have one of the best reputations throughout Europe. They are almost the prize car at one end of the scale; and the Mini is at the other. I hope it will not be long before we can satisfy the demand which is there, and get more products on to the markets over there. We have to face the fact that in other consumer durable areas we do not have the spread throughout Europe that major European companies have now achieved, those that are attacking our markets over here. Often unknown to us they have gained over half of the British market, particularly in the white goods area of Italian products which are sold under British brand names over here.
I move now to the area which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, mentioned, and which was also referred to by my noble Leader, the financial area. We are the financial centre of Europe. There is no doubt about that. As the financial centre, we can even now offer greater advantages than any others. We have a wider experience, a higher standard, a reputation for confidence; and, perhaps equally important, we are quick and efficient. But speed and efficiency in the international area depend to a large extent upon simplicity, with the minimum amount of paperwork, and the minimum
424
complications. What can pass for standard practice in the United Kingdom domestic sector can cause unnecessary complications, delays and irritation where international work is concerned. These delays can sometimes discourage organisations from conducting their financial business in London. A current example is the question of stamp duty on documents relating to certain types of foreign currency transactions. I understand that if all documents with obligations payable in foreign currency could be exempt from stamp duty a major irritation and unnecessary complication would be removed without any substantial loss to the Treasury. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider this step.
This leads me to the need to make this country more attractive by building a stable situation, particularly in the taxation area. Our international companies, planning their development, need to have reassurance of consistency and not continual change. I should very much like to see the Government declare their long-term tax policies, for this could be of great help to companies in their long-term corporate planning, particularly in Continental Europe. We have to face the fact that international companies have the facilities to move costs from one country to another, thereby adjusting profits to levels which suit them best and, regrettable though it may be, legislation cannot adequately prevent this.
My Lords, we want to have some substantial changes in the tax structure that will make this country a more attractive one to which to repatriate profits. Although this attractiveness is to a large extent affected by the level of corporation tax, I cannot help feeling that stability and, perhaps, a greater feeling of security are pretty important. Many people who bring back their profits, or have the opportunity to do so, are worried about the difficulties of taking money out again without substantial complications and expense.
I cannot think that any other country in Europe can match us in the service industries. One of the most important in the future is insurance. We have greater expertise and efficiency than anyone in the Common Market. It is encouraging that already many insurance

425
companies are setting up offices and subsidiary companies in Continental Europe. However, the advantages which our skills will offer will be somewhat limited if legislation cannot be harmonised between countries. It is obviously going to be important that, in any discussions of this sort now going on among the Six, our insurance industry should continue to have its views expressed. This is essential if we are not to be faced with a fait accompli and legislation which, if based on current European practices, would be far more restrictive than our own.
If we are to obtain maximum benefit in this area we must be allowed to operate throughout Europe with the same freedom that we have been able to enjoy in this country. This is an important area, because the market potential is enormous. For example, it has been estimated that the additional income which could probably come to Lloyd's is of the order of £400 million a year—all this over and above what they currently obtain from the Six. My Lords, in Lloyd's and our insurance companies we have a great asset. I hope that they will have the opportunity within the Common Market to obtain the benefits and rewards it can offer. This is one area in which we can do extraordinarily well. We have to look at the desirability of London as the centre for the headquarters of international companies. There are benefits and disadvantages in this. We do not want to turn it into a haven for too many international people, but, at the same time, by attracting these large companies to build their headquarters here we can do quite well.
A very important aspect in the management and direction of international operations is the matter of incentives and remuneration for senior executives and middle management. It is rather galling for an Englishman working hard on the Continent, or in this country for a British company, to find that his competitors have better net remuneration than he does, and greater incentives; also to find on occasions that his competitors are trying to attract the best industrialists away to their own companies. In our people we have another of our greatest assets. If we cannot keep them with the right incentives to work for our British companies, then we may lose out fairly substantially. I know of a number of
426
cases where Continental companies, having engaged British managers, have made a fairly dramatic growth in a short period of time.
I should like to dwell on one further point for a moment, and that is the fear of people in this country—which I believe is fanned by the anti-marketeers—that we are going to give up and surrender our nationality. But, as our noble Leader said, the French are as French as they have even been. I have found in my dealings in Common Market countries that the differences have been increased by the Common Market—not reduced. There are similarities in the purchase of consumer durables and there are certain other similarities. But it is an incredible nuisance if you are trying to sell in the Six countries to 300 million people, that they do not all eat the same food, buy the same products, have the same opinions and behave in the same predictable way; for if they did life would be a lot easier. But they do not; and I do not think they ever will. My Lords, I have no doubt at all that we have no freedom to lose here, only an opportunity.
Finally, I would point out that, as is probably apparent, I am wholeheartedly in favour of our application to join the Common Market. But I am British first, my Lords, and European second. I do not believe in a European Utopia; it certainly has not been possible in my dealings with companies and countries in the last few years. Rather I am convinced that if we can harness our technological skills, our somewhat latent manufacturing capacity, our management ability and the will and enthusiasm of the people, then we shall emerge as leaders of Europe and enjoy the benefits to which that role will entitle us.
8.30 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I have listened to every speech in this debate, and at the beginning I was a little alarmed at the extreme altitude of the political, diplomatic and intellectual manner in which it was being conducted, and I thought that perhaps a descent into business would be no bad thing. I speak, of course, as an administrator, and not qualified for those other species of altitude. I had the temerity to put my name down to speak in this debate because I feel that in a consideration of the vastly great questions involved by the

427
proposal to join the Common Market, there is perhaps a danger that some of the relatively minor issues may not receive the close attention they deserve—and indeed demand, because the good name of this country is involved.
If we become a partner in the Common Market we shall presumably do so because, or mainly because, we think it would be an advantageous partnership for us; in short, we think that the future welfare of our people would be furthered by this momentous decision. Much depends on the price we may have to pay, and this price must surely not involve indifference to the welfare of friends bound to us by economic ties dating back to former colonial days. I suggest that it can never be a wise or creditable, or indeed ultimately profitable, move to accept neglect of our friends as part of the price of entry to the new club.
I want, therefore, to say a few words about Jamaica and the Windward Islands, and the banana business—it is a typical example; there are many others but there is time to give only one—in the hope that Government will be able to assure us that our reasonable obligations to combine practical sympathy and help to a vital Jamaican and Windwards industry will not be overlooked or obscured by the wider issues involved in this gamble with futurity. If Britain joined the E.E.C. without concluding special arrangements for Preference Area producers of bananas, not only would they lose the small preference now held in the United Kingdom and have to pay the Common External Tariff, but, even more seriously, they would suffer from the physical restriction of access which would result from Britain's adoption of the Community regulations about fruit. Restrictive grade specifications, application of price structures calculated to give a preference to Community producers, the operation of countervailing duties, and other measures—particularly the Safeguard Clause—aimed to protect the expanding production, and the extended storage techniques, of Community fruit growers, and those in the Associated Territories, would impose unsupportable burdens on Preference Area producers who look to Britain for more than half their total export earnings.
428
In the case of Caribbean Commonwealth countries producing bananas, even the achievement of Associate status would not give adequate protection unless in addition they were given preferential access quotas such as have been established for the traditional suppliers of other Community countries. The Jamaican banana industry and the Wind-wards banana industry are two of the large communities of overseas producers who face disaster if their material interests in the United Kingdom market are not safeguarded. These interests are capable of being safeguarded without hurt to E.E.C., but Britain will have to fight to obtain the substantial safeguards required.
If we look at the figures we see that the United Kingdom annual import of bananas amounts to about 350,000 tons, of which 97 per cent. come from Jamaica and the Windward Islands, earning those countries over £20 million and providing much needed employment for a large proportion of their population. West Indian bananas enter the United Kingdom free of duty and there is a general tariff of £7 10s. a ton on supplies from outside the Commonwealth, in additional to a quantitative restriction on bananas from the dollar area—this being about 4,000 tons per annum—which, I may say, is reviewed from time to time, and increased to meet market requirements when banana supplies from the Windwards and Jamaica, as sometimes happens, are not sufficient for this country.
The E.E.C.'s Common External Tariff on bananas is 20 per cent. ad valorem and the Departments d'Outre-Mer and Associated Overseas Territories of the Community could considerably expand their present production if the United Kingdom market became available as part of the E.E.C. and no special arrangements were made for West Indian producers. The balance would pass to the huge "low-cost" producers of Central and South America, whose soil and climatic conditions are particularly suitable for banana growing. These producers, one should remember, too, have very depressed social conditions and a much lower standard of living for most of their population as compared with the Windwards and Jamaica.
It is reasonable to assume that if Britain joined the Community, Jamaica

429
and the Windward Islands would be able to achieve what is called "A.O.T." status, but this alone would not adequately safeguard the banana industry because, first, the existing A.O.T.s which are banana producers would be competing on equal terms in the United Kingdom and they could accept lower prices than the West Indies could afford; and furthermore, Central and Southern American producers could surmount the 20 per cent. tariff and still out-price West Indian supplies for the balance of the available demand. The existing A.O.T.s could accept lower prices than the Windwards and the Jamaicans could afford, because, under their preferential position in the French market, they already receive a high average price for the greater part of their present banana production. So the E.E.C. as at present organised has a number of special arrangements for banana imports from its members' traditional suppliers, and these could provide precedents for special safeguards that could be applied to West Indian producers. Germany imports 80 per cent. of her requirements duty free under the terms of a special protocol. France applies a strict licensing and quota system which ensures that 97 per cent. of her supplies come from the franc zone, free of duty, while other A.O.T.'s suppliers pay 5 per cent. ad valorem. Italy adopts a similar system, favouring fruit from Somalia, and the Benelux countries give preferential treatment to fruit from Burundi, Congo, Ruanda and Surinam.
Therefore it should be possible to negotiate for Britain a system similar to that applied by France, allotting a major duty free supply quota to Jamaica and the Windward Islands, with a modified tariff for supplies from non-Commonwealth A.O.T.s and the full C.E.T. to bananas arriving from third countries. It would be quite possible, by means of admittedly complex and time-consuming methods, to make special arrangements to safeguard the interests of the producers concerned by a variety of methods, such as association agreements, tariff quotas and protocols covering regulated access quotas. Such safeguards were written into the Treaty of Rome to preserve the existing channels of trade of the original members of the Community. They could be introduced without detriment to the legitimate interests of the present members of the Community and, given a spirit of community among those who
430
negotiate, they should be as reasonably conceded as they are resolutely demanded.
It is confidently believed that a case has been made out that primary producers in the Commonwealth need safeguards if Britain becomes a member of the E.E.C. If the E.E.C. negotiators refused them, they would surely be proclaiming that in denying to the candidate the concessions they share themselves they are seeking not only to protect their own legitimate interests but to make an unwarranted trading gain at the expense of the British food consumer and Britain's traditional suppliers. There is another side to this problem which has been insufficiently examined. Unless the necessary safeguards were obtained and the preference system preserved, there is a real danger that British exports would become uncompetitive in the overseas markets in which they now enjoy a valuable tariff advantage.
If we look at the French market in bananas we find it is rigidly controlled. Imports of bananas into France are controlled by licensing and quotas. In this way the French market is almost entirely reserved for supplies from their overseas departments—Guadeloupe and Martinique in the West Indies and from African countries belonging to the franc zone—for example, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Madagascar. As far as other countries are concerned, relatively small quantities are permitted to enter France from Spain—that is, the Canary Islands—as well as from associated countries of the E.E.C. not belonging to the franc zone. A longstanding trade agreement, subject to annual renewal, between France and Spain provides for annual import quotas in France for certain fruit and vegetables which are of importance to Spain, but imports of which are restricted in France. Bananas belong to those items. My Lords, the object of the Jamaica Banana Board and the Windwards Board ought to meet with sympathy. It is to establish a state of affairs in which the British housewife is assured of an adequate supply of bananas of satisfactory quality at an equitable price, while at the same time assuring to the banana grower of Jamaica and the Windward Islands a reasonable return on his investment.
Incidentally, coming down to recent history, owing to technical marketing difficulties and to some lack of ability

431
to reach mutual agreement between the main companies who deal with banana importation and sale, suitable methods of protection for unquestionable British interests are still sub judice in this country. I mention this in passing to make my concluding appeal to the Government, which is firmly to retain in their Common Market negotiations the independent right to act in whatever way they may decide that the interests of the banana industry as related to Jamaica and the Windward Islands and to the United Kingdom would best be forwarded.
As many of your Lordships are probably aware, the economic details of the banana business are somewhat intricate and impossible to deal with in a short speech. I only wanted to outline, as I have done, the position and to mention in passing that my interest was deeply aroused many years ago when I had the honour to be Governor of Jamaica and lent my strong support to the newly-formed Jamaica Producers' Association, which was formed to give them a fair influence in the banana business, which had been under the control of the great multi-million American company, the United Fruit Company. Their main object in forming this Association was to secure better terms for the humble grower of the fruit. I ought perhaps to mention that I am at the moment a member of the Jamaica Producers London Advisory Board, and that is how I come to know these details so well.
My Lords, if we look at the situation in which I am asking the British Government to retain the power to help, we find that in Jamaica the Banana Board has some 80,000 growers on its books. The successful operation of the local box-making industry is heavily dependent on the manufacture of boxes for bananas. Labourers in Jamaican ports—Montego Bay, Port Antonio and Bowden—to a large extent depend on the shipment of bananas for a living. Jamaica's only shipping line, the Jamaica Banana Producers Steamship Company, which employs 84 Jamaican seamen and contributes nearly £1 million a year to the credit side of Jamaica's balance of payments, could not continue to exist without the revenue it earns from carrying bananas to this country. Hundreds of
432
truck owners and truck drivers and sidemen depend on transporting bananas for a living; several thousands of labourers are employed on banana farms and in banana boxing stations.
Again, bananas are a very important factor in the Government's land settlement programme. There is no other quick growing crop to which a new settler can look forward with certainty for an income, week by week throughout the year. That is the case. It may seem that it is inappropriate to quote all these details, but I maintain that if you do not have them brought to your attention you do not realise the disastrous effect which might affect several scores of thousands of people, of a humble station in life, who rely on an industry which might easily be wrecked for them by, shall we say, the inattention of the British Government. The fate of thousands of men and their families depends on the British Government continuing to insist on their right and their duty to adhere to this policy of helping them to help themselves. I have no reason to believe that any British Government would allow any other consideration to obscure this duty, but I submit that it would be right to dispel any public ignorance or doubt by taking it into their confidence at an early date.
My Lords, I have endeavoured to keep this speech within the limits of the Government statement that entry to the Common Market can only be supported if the terms are fair. I have dealt with only one of the many facets of this qualification. I am aware that the Jamaica and Windward Islands banana industry has, and has for many years, had the sympathy and practical support of the British Government. My object to-day has been to underline the importance of retaining their ability to give that help in any necessary degree.
I have referred to our entry into the Common Market as a gamble with futurity. This analysis may or may not be wrong; only time can tell. But to-day I have also been dealing with known facts about which one can speak with certainty. It is not a Party matter, and I am optimistic enough to think that support for these views may reasonably be expected from all sides of this House, whether it be Conservative, Labour,

433
Liberal or even that home of idealised uncertainty, the Cross-Benches. Jamaica and the Windward Islands ask for no greater protection of their interests than the Community has already conceded to France and her analogous interests. Such a request surely cannot be denied. In a nutshell, if we contemplate entry into the Common Market we must surely go there as equals and not as humble suppliants. We should insist on entering with a clear conscience in relation to the many thousands of workers who have always looked to us for the time-honoured preference treatment that helps them to help themselves in the struggle for a tolerable life, which is surely a better policy than any indiscriminate grant of subsidies. I am confident that the British Government will bear this in mind, and if necessary refuse to jettison their honourable obligations in pursuit of an elusive millennium of a United Europe. It is reasons such as these that make a critical, practical examination of the terms of entry so necessary.
8.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, most of the speeches to-day have been directed in support of the E.E.C., but I will endeavour to give the House my views as to why we should not join the European Community, and strongly support my noble friend Lord Shinwell in his remarkable and most eloquent speech. The reasons why Britain must not join are economic and social, as well as political.
First, and I think foremost, my Lords, Britain, with her teeming millions and declining acreage, cannot afford to tie herself to the Common Market agricultural system. The market is dominated by France. France stands for artificially high food prices based on an out-of-date and inefficient agricultural system, and what is more, she believes in the deliberate destruction of food to aid the artificially high price. How is a policy like this consistent with our policy of giving lavish aid to help the starving millions abroad? To accept the Common Market agricultural policy is not only folly, it could well be national suicide. The British agricultural system has achieved a high standard, and it is not right to throw it over to enter a Community which has by no means established a settled system of agriculture.
434
The second economic reason against entry is what one would term mobility of labour; in other words, with people in the Common Market countries having a right to come and work in Britain. In practice, the free movement of labour in the Common Market is supposed to be controlled, to prevent disrupting a country's economic and social situation. Those concerned have to take trade union rates and must have a job to go to.
Her Majesty's Government have failed to realise that we have already an immigrant problem which the other six countries in the Common Market, except possibly France, have not. We are allowing 50,000 immigrants a year into this country. This is far too many, and our overpopulation problems, of housing, hospitals, traffic, noise, pollution and the despoilation of our countryside, are having a serious detrimental effect on our people.
My Lords, I would point out to Her Majesty's Government that if Italian and other labour is going to flock into Britain, as it undoubtedly will, to obtain such benefits of the Welfare State as family allowances, hospital accommodation and operations, as well as public assistance, this will impose upon our country an economic and social strain from which we shall never recover. In these respects the problems are already desperate now.
As we have accepted them, our present immigrants have to be treated on a basis of equality; but it is sheer madness to accept any snore of them, as we shall have to do under the Treaty of Rome. The people of this country were never asked whether they agreed to immigration. They have got to be asked to give their decision on the Common Market.
My Lords, turning to the political aspect of our entry, I believe that an independent foreign policy for this country and for the Commonwealth is vital to the peace of the world, and our foreign policy must sometimes differ from that of Europe. We have wider interests; the Common Market is a purely selfish one. Britain will have to give up control over much of her affairs if she goes into the Common Market. Supporters maintain that this would be a good thing; they point to the success of the United States of America, and ask why we cannot follow America's example and have

435
a United States of Europe. There is no comparison between America and Europe. The States of America have a common language, law, and political systems. We have none of these things in common with the States of Europe. Our whole history has accentuated the differences between us and the Commonwealth on the one hand and Europe on the other. This applies especially to religious differences, for some countries are predominantly Roman Catholic.
Finally, if we sign the Treaty of Rome we shall be committing ourselves to something we cannot change. Article 240 states:
"This Treaty shall be concluded for an unlimited period."
To me, this means that once you are in you cannot get out. The majority of the British people distrust the political implications of this Common Market. They know in their hearts that it may well lead to disaster. I believe it will. There will be such great resentment over further immigrants entering this country, overcrowded as it is, that we shall never be able to be an influential member of that Community. Here I refer to the influence of this country in advocating more aid for the developing countries in relation to which we practise what we preach.
Let this great country of ours keep out of the E.E.C. and have an Atlantic and Pacific alliance of the English-speaking countries, Britain, America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Aid to foreign countries and the Common Market is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, should we have this alliance I firmly believe that one day the Six and the EFTA countries will come to us on our terms instead of our taking theirs—a very different matter indeed.
When the noble Marquess replies for the Government I hope that he will consider what I have been endeavouring to put into words. This little Island still shows a bright light to all the world. Let it remain so.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I say one thing for the Record. My noble friend Lord George-Brown has already made this point, but it seems to need reiterating.
436
The fact that Article 240 of the Treaty of Rome says that the Treaty is concluded for an unlimited period does not mean that members of the Treaty cannot get out of the Community if they want to. It simply means there is no term to the Treaty. I think we ought to be clear about this.
9.3 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I would only refer to the noble Earl's speech regarding one point he made, and that is when he said that France had a deliberate policy of destruction of food. I must say to the noble Earl that he could not have heard some of the programmes on the French radio when they were highlighting the co-operation which exists between producers, local authorities and transport organisations, co-operating to distribute excess food through willing organisations to the needy and the sick. That rather shows that in France there is no deliberate policy of destroying food; it goes to the needy and the sick whenever it can be so arranged.
I should like to consider this Motion in the context of Anglo-French relations, for I believe them to be very relevant to the success of the present negotiations. In fact, if I may go back to 1860, I believe that the words of the preamble to the Anglo-French Treaty of Commerce of that year are still relevant to-day, namely:
"Her Majesty the Queen and His Majesty the Emperor being equally animated with the desire to draw closer the ties of friendship which unite their two peoples have resolved to conclude a Treaty."
What I should like to see now are the two Governments, the French and the British, equally animated in a similar desire to bring closer the peoples of our two countries.
Last summer, 110 years later, Gordon Brook-Shepherd, in an article from Paris under the heading "Third time lucky into Europe", said:
"As a negotiation it is going to succeed. It will succeed because for the first time since we started eyeing the Common Market nearly ten years ago we have both a Government in London genuinely determined to get us in and a Government in Paris genuinely willing to let us in."
It might not be amiss to remember that from this month France is in the chair of the Community's negotiating team. Therefore, they will provide the common

437
negotiator. I believe, as Ian Waller said on December 6, 1970, in the Sunday Telegraph:
"A genuine community of interest between France and Britain exists in two main fields: in distrust of any artificial fostering of supranational institutions (for it is not mere pandering to chauvinism to argue that deep historical and political traditions cannot be eliminated overnight) … and in the reality that French and British interests and associations go far beyond Europe (even if at times they are in conflict)."
I apologise for quoting articles, but I believe in the power of the Press, and they do represent a certain body of opinion.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he ever reads any paper other than the Telegraph?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do, but I think the Telegraph is a very good paper. However, I take the noble Lord's point.
I should like to put forward certain views, in the light of what I said, and ask Her Majesty's Government certain questions. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but an article in last Sunday's Telegraph says:
"France has launched an all-out drive to penetrate the English-speaking countries of Black Africa with French aid in the military, financial, technical and cultural spheres. The programme has been personally authorised by President Pompidou himself."
I must say, on this question, that I should like to query the validity of this article, and possibly when the noble Marquess conies to reply he can say that the article is not entirely valid. It goes on:
"Britain does not yet seem to have declared her hand in all this."
What I should like to stress, as the author of the article has stressed too, is that the idea of a broad English/French partnership in Africa would be, I should have thought, difficult to reject at a time when Her Majesty's Government are striving for precisely the same partnership in Europe. I am hoping that the noble Marquess will be able to say whether or not we are having consultations at the moment with the French regarding joint policies in Africa; in other words, considering some form of partnership. I think it is relevant at a time when, as was mentioned earlier by the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, certain alternatives will be open to nine
438
African Commonwealth countries. It may well be that one could define common policies by our two Governments in these English and French speaking African countries.
My noble friend the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, rightly stressed the importance of dealing with the poverty gap which exists between the developed and the developing countries. In view of the importance of the poverty gap, I think that joint consideration by our two Governments of this aspect could be very fruitful in the future. It is right to say that association agreements with African States have in the past been mainly with ex-dependencies of France, while those in the future will be mainly with ex-dependencies of Britain, so I should have thought that a joint policy would be most desirable.
I should like to turn to the question of our industrial relations with Europe. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, referred on December 16 last to the dynamic economic advantages of membership, and said that industry's response to the opportunities and challenges would be vigorous and determined. Those are indeed encouraging words. At this point I should like to quote what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said to your Lordships' House on November 30 last. He said:
"Her Majesty's Government strongly support the idea of co-operation between British and French firms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/11/70, c. 324.]
I added that I hoped our merchant bankers would play an increasingly important part in bringing about bilateral and trilateral industrial integration.
I should have thought that that was something which Her Majesty's Government would actively seek to encourage, especially if one heeds the recent remarks of Mr. Louis Camu, President of the Bank of Brussels, who complained that companies in the Common Market lacked the urge to merge. I understand he thinks they are downright reluctant (I believe those were the words he used) to link up with other companies to form the big international groupings which many Europeans see as the only answer to the challenge of the giant American corporations. We should remind ourselves, too, that in America there is virtually no

439
obstacle of any kind, given the will and the resources, to go for any part, or all, of that vast Western European market of rising 300 million people. Therefore I hope my noble friend Lord Lothian will be able to say whether there have been any discussions with the French appertaining to the industrial policy of the Six.
I believe I am right in saying that a number of months ago M. Maurice Schumann, the French Foreign Minister, proposed in Brussels that obstacles to mergers of Community industries should be removed and that a European-type corporation should be created to promote multinational corporations. He also asked for the creation of a Community advisory bureau to counsel small and medium-sized firms on possible mergers, which I should have thought was something Her Majesty's Government might look into. Something on similar lines in this country which could link up with a Community advisory bureau might be very beneficial to small and medium-sized firms in this country, with a view to future mergers with European firms. I should like to take this opportunity of asking my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government support the suggestions of M. Maurice Schumann. I know that there has also been a German plan, and I am wondering whether Her Majesty's Government opt more for the French plan or for the German plan.
In the October, 1970, issue of the monthly journal of the European Movement in Britain, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon said—and I quote his words:
"As members, if the negotiations succeed, we shall have a tremendous contribution to make to the next stage, including the move to a common industrial policy".
These are perhaps not remarks which are relevant to the negotiations at the present moment, but in the very near future they certainly will be. In conclusion, my Lords, whilst we have heard much this afternoon on the economic and political advantages of our becoming an integral part of Europe, I believe that there is much to be gained by recognising the areas of common interest that we have with France, whether industrially in Europe or concerning relations with our ex-dependencies in Africa, so that they may be exploited to the benefit of our people and of those in Africa.
9.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has dealt, characteristically, with our relationships with the French in the matter of the Common Market. In my short speech I want to deal a little with the impact on our own people. I do not think we have nursed them along as well as we might have done, and I think we may have a little trouble when the time comes. I am conscious, of course, that in the end it is the will of the people that prevails, and I am sure that die noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, did not mean to suggest anything else when he seemed to say the exact contrary, that we should ignore their views.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive my interrupting, I said that the will of the people was not always right.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: The will of the people, of course, is not always right; and, as somebody else has said, the will of the House of Lords is not always right. In human affairs, nobody's will is always right. But in this country the will of the people will in the end prevail, and we must take that into account.
To those who say what are the facts, or alternatively that the facts are what you like to make them, I always reply that there are outstanding facts about the Common Market which everyone should know and recognise. The Treaty of Rome set up an Economic Community; a Customs Union of Six independent States: it did not establish a Political Union. The Vatican had nothing to do with it, and those Scotsmen who think it is a Popish plot are mistaken. After 14 years, the Community is still an Economic Union. All Six members have prospered exceedingly, and all of them attribute their advance in economic matters to their membership of this Union. Ali Six are still independent States. The economic club has not been transformed into a political club. There have of course been advances in political co-operation, and these will continue; but we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to-day that federal institutions are not yet in sight, and I do not think we need alarm our people by any thought that we are entering a Political Union: it is, I repeat, an Economic Union.

441
The prospect of reciprocal economic advantage seems to me the very basis of our approach to persuade our own people that it is to their advantage, just as people on the Continent will be persuading them. Although membership of the Community is intended to be permanent, any development which causes any member to feel that continued membership is against the vital interests of the State to which he belongs will cause the Community to crumble. We shall, in signing this Treaty, surrender a portion of sovereignty, just as we surrender a portion of sovereignty every time we sign any treaty anywhere. But we do not surrender the right to secede, and I am very glad to note that the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, said that very thing in the last debate. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said it, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has also said the same thing. I think it must be clear to all that it is a delusion that we go into a sack from which we can never escape. The whole point is, if our anticipations are right, that it is not a sack.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, seems to declare (I have heard him twice, in two successive debates, on this point) that the economic arguments are finely balanced, which means that they do not tip you one way or the other. To anybody who approached me with this view I would reply by saying, "If you share those views, you need not be tempted by the vision of a position at the top table of super-Powers, because the whole foundation of our entry is based not on a fine balance but on a reasonable conviction of progressive growth".
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Earl, but I think it is important not to be misunderstood, especially in your Lordships' House. The point I made was that some people say that the economic arguments are finely balanced. My own view is that the long-term economic advantages to us would be considerable. I should like to make that quite clear.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention and explanation, because I think it rounds off the second first-class speech I have heard him make in this House on this very subject.
442
There are those who may pick up the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who, in a similar manner but in slightly different phrases, seemed to pour contempt on the economic argument with the phrase that, "Man does not live by bread alone". I think my answers to others who come to me with such an argument is that better business, faster growth and greater welfare are the predictable advantages which all of us must foresee with confidence if and when we go in.
The Community we are joining is founded on a multiplication of loaves, not on a fast in the desert; and unless this proves to be the outcome of our journey we shall not be able to face, with any certainty those visionary influences of which we have heard to-day. We shall not have the better life at home. We shall not have the resources with which to help the Third World. The whole approach to our people in this country, I feel, must be to say, as Lord George-Brown did in his speech, that he was confident that the economic basis in the long term was pregnant with the greatness of a great future.
Perhaps I should conclude by stating my conviction that some of the visionary greatnesses foreseen by the prophets on either side on the Front Benches will make no appeal whatsoever to the common man in this country. Many do not have any great regard for "the man in Whitehall" now, and none of them will be impressed with the information that he is moving to Brussells to take a seat at a top table, or any other table. Therefore I think that those who believe there is no economic advantage must be honest and say so, and they must vote against when the time comes. But for myself I am impressed by all that I have heard, and I depend much on the immense and detailed resources of people on either side of this House to present a most complex case, totally unsuited to a Referendum, on which Parliament will presently base its decision; and I wish the best of success to those who are negotiating now.
9.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in following the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I should like to say straight away that I too am much concerned about the impact on public opinion; and this is a matter to which I shall return.

443
Plunging into the waters of argument and, with others, trying to peer round the corners of time, I should like to start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the very full information he has given; and, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, to some of us at least this is reassuring, so far as it goes. But the very frequency with which Ministers, and indeed enthusiasts on both sides of the House, slip into the future tense when we should still be in the conditional tense puts me on my guard alongside the noble Lords, Lord Caccia and Lord Gore-Booth, who, with all their experience, did with diplomatic skill sound a note of caution. Lord Gore-Booth was very right when he deprecated all this talk about going into Europe when it should really be recognised as a negotiation about our future proper status in a Europe to which we already belong. It reminded me of that point in the last debate on the Common Market when the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, stressed that the failure of these negotiations would not—I repeat "would not"—be a disaster; and he showed then and implied to-day that he still had some reservations.
Two things have run through this, alas! largely rhetorical debate studded with such phrases as "the inbuilt momentum of Common Market affairs". The first theme has been worry about public opinion. This has been expressed by a whole range of speakers. The second common theme has been all these assumptions about Common Market growth. It is in that connection that I propose to be interrogatory. I am not content to accept this projected dynamic growth on the simple basis of faith and blind guesswork. I am reminded of Pope's lines about
"Poetic Justice with her lifted scale,
"Wherein nice balanced truth with gold she weighs,
"And solid pudding against empty phrase."
With great respect to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, who I appreciate cannot be here now, it just is not good enough, if he and the Government wish to win public opinion, to dismiss as—and I quote the phrase as I took it down as he spoke—
"some individual academic economists of the National Institute"
without any further ado. The National Institute of Economic and Social
444
Research is sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the Social Research Council. The views expressed in its monthly publication are the responsibility of the Director and the staff. In the November, 1970, issue they said first of all, after deep study, that there was no sure sign that Common Market countries have become either more competitive or more specialised or faster growing; and, secondly, they said that the Common Market share of world export trade had actually shrunk. I am not an economist. I do not claim to judge their arguments. But they must be answered and not least their conclusions, which I quote:
"The only visible consequence of the progressive implementation of the Common Market has been the intensification of commodity trade within the Six. It is hard to think that if the dynamic properties of a widening market were really as great as is sometimes suggested the statistical evidence of their influence would be so completely and consistently lacking."
A further passage sums up their views as follows:
"With much the lowest ratio of agricultural employment to total employment in the whole of O.E.C.D., the United Kingdom seems ill placed to take advantage of any 'dynamic' forces that may be at work in the Community. To accept a heavy burden of 'impact effects' as the price of entry, in the belief that the 'dynamic effects' are likely to be even bigger, would under these circumstances represent a triumph of hope over experience."
I am not endorsing that argument but I consider that, coming from this quarter, it merits a proper answer, and I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would have gone a little further in his speech into these matters because he obviously had this article in mind. Both he and others will doubtless be competent to answer this article better than the Economist has so far done.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to an article in the Economist which dealt with this argument? If he studies that he will be well informed.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his reference to the Economist, to which I have already referred. There are those who consider—I am not a judge—that the Economist answer to this review was superficial. I am not a judge, but I believe that this calls for a real answer, if I may say so, from real quarters.

445
A quite different argument about growth has been put forward; it is that Common Market growth is demonstrable from the recent pattern of international investment in Britain. The Board of Trade Journal figures show that, leaving out oil, the book value of overseas investment in Britain from 1962 to 1968 has EFTA about constant around 11 per cent.—£300 million or so out of a total of £2,700 million of foreign investment—and the E.E.C. constant at about 9 per cent. or 10 per cent. My Lords, that is excluding oil, and I submit that the oil situation is one which is very relevant to this discussion. Two factors suggest that this inward investment, largely due to European development, is likely to grow sensationally in Britain, with or without the Treaty of Rome.
Common Market figures forecast a Common Market energy deficit by 1990 of the order of 1,500 million tons of coal equivalent a year, and corresponding figures suggest that for the whole of Western Europe, including Britain, the figure would be around 3,000 million tons of coal equivalent a year. This argues for additional crude oil refining capacity of something like 1,000 million tons a year. The very likelihood that Western Europe, with or without our adherence to the Treaty of Rome, is going to have this immense demand for fuel, and most likely fuel oil, matches in with the second factor, which is, of course, recent events in the Straits of Dover and the English Channel. These events, the accidents and the consequential rise in insurance rates (as noble Lords will be aware, insurance is about half the running costs of a Jumbo tanker), will increasingly force big tankers to Europe northabout, rather than through the Channel, and therefore past the deep water front of the Atlantic coast of Britain rather than through the Straits of Dover from the South.
This suggests that in the coming years much of this new refining capacity will come to Britain and be a major factor ill our industrial picture; and, indeed, in the industrial picture of the whole of Western Europe, irrespective of the Treaty of Rome, and due entirely to factors of geography. At the present time, the refining capacity of Britain has risen from about 60 million to 90 million
446
tons a year over ten years or so, from about £580 million to more that £1,000 million, as against total (non-oil) foreign investment in Britain of little more than £2,700 million; so the oil factor in overseas investment here is a highly significant feature.
Furthermore, my Lords, so far as one can judge, it looks as if in the last ten years or so the European share in refining capacity investment in Britain has already risen from about 10 per cent. to something like 26 per cent. All the signs, therefore, are that, irrespective of our adherence to the Treaty of Rome, there will be, and must be, a great new investment in Britain in refinery capacity to supply the oil and petro-chemical industries in the whole of Western Europe; and that this will have nothing to do with our signature on the Treaty.
My Lords, taking note of the state of the negotiations, I should like to put some strictly interrogative points both about fuel and about transport. The cost of fuel in Britain is at an index of about 130, which means something like 30 per cent. above Benelux, 23 per cent. above Germany and 14 per cent. above France. The Common Market are planning to harmonise their fuel oil taxation—and here is my first question to the Government. If Ministers would prefer me to put these down as separate Questions on another day I shall be happy to do so, but these are my questions. First, what plans have the Government for modifying the fuel oil tax in Britain in order to approach a measure of harmonisation with the E.E.C., not least when that tax accounts for something like 40 per cent. of the excess of C.E.G.B. prices over those of the Tennessee Valley Authority in America, which is the only comparable authority for which figures are available.
Secondly, is transport an item of negotiation? I understand that the Common Market policy aim is for free competition, but the proposals are under four heads: first, rate control by means of a forked tariff on road, rail and waterway, though this would tend to inhibit rather than multiply competition. Secondly, capacity control appears to be an element in their policy. This is shown in a system of road haulage licensing for firms allowed to traffic throughout the Common Market. My question under this head is: Will Britain have parity at least with

447
Germany and France, each of which, enjoys 286 permits out of a total of 1,200 for unrestricted road haulage transport within the Community? My third question on transport relates to the driving hours limitation, which, under the Geneva rules, would require us to reduce our driving hours on road haulage from ten hours to nine and then to eight by 1973 without affecting working time. So I ask: Do the British Government agree with this driving hours limitation? Will not the impact of this be to raise internal traffic costs in Britain very sharply?
Fourthly, there are common tariffs on sea freights, both as regards coastal and short sea shipping. This could mean that we have tariffs imposed on us while non-Community shipping can charge as it likes. What do the Government propose to do? Finally, under the Transport heading there is a question of port subsidisation. Rotterdam enjoys a 67 per cent. capital grant on new works, Antwerp 100 per cent. and Le Havre a 60 per cent. grant, against our own miserable 20 per cent. for port modernisation. Is port subsidisation a negotiating point? What is the Government's policy, since these capital subsidies naturally affect port dues correspondingly?
On the political front, it has been widely assumed that the Federation of Western Europe will be a stabilising factor. In searching for historical analogies, my mind has reluctantly gone back to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was put together without very much consideration for the wishes of the inhabitants and which fell apart, if you like, upon self-determination. The public in Britain, as has been admitted on all sides in the debate to-day, are now strongly against adherence to the Treaty of Rome, whether for good reasons or bad. The management of the debates (I say this with reluctance, but I think that it has to be said some time) at Tory Party Conferences during the last ten years, which has resulted in the Treaty of Rome policy being incorporated in our election manifestos, has in the eyes of some been circuitous at times.
The public are confused and distrustful. Some would say of the Common Market,
"I should like to know
What this whole show
Is about,
Before it's out."
448
The public are going to need balanced information, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said just now, and, requoting with respect the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, who I think has had less than justice in this debate, let us have less astrology and more facts, less talk about dynamic growth and more evidence that it is really there. Otherwise cynicism will triumph and folks will go around saying that,
"The universe may
Be as great as they say,
But it would not be missed
If it did not exist."
9.40 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I am not a little Englander, a Chauvinist, Nationalist or anything else. I think it rather mean when certain speakers, especially the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, call people who are against the Common Market "Little Englanders". It has always been a dream of mine that the nations should come together and cooperate, and so make the world safer from wars. But I am worried that this Common Market is being pushed ahead now, when we have hopes of closer East-West relations and discussions and exploration are going on to try to get a European security pact, because it seems to me, in spite of Lord Jellicoe and Lord George-Brown, that the Common Market at the moment will keep Europe definitely divided into two blocs.
One must remember that the Common Market was originally thought about and set up in the days of the cold war. If there were even a tentative move towards a complete European community, the integration of East and West, the coming together of the socialist and capitalist systems in the interests of the people of those countries, it would be a tremendously progressive step forward for peace and understanding. But I do not believe that the Common Market is good for this. It seems to me, from the speeches that we have had this afternoon, that concentration has all been on the advantages to big business; that the Common Market is in fact the unity and coming together of vast monopolies and trusts, who really are the most reactionary people in Western Europe. I speak as one of millions of people who are Socialists, and see Socialism, especially as it was produced in the English tradition

449
of the Labour Movement, as a more just and democratic society than we have at present. How are we going to get Socialism if we are in the Common Market? Is it not going to be far more difficult for Britain to go forwards toward Socialism?
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, said that the Italian Communist Party and the French Communist Party are not against the Common Market. Originally, before the Common Market became a fact, they were against it, when they saw that it was splitting Europe into two camps. But now that Italy and France are in the Common Market they have had to accept it. Their job now, as they see it, is to make the Common Market more democratic, to help the Trade Union Movement to be more democratic and to look after its workers across these national boundaries.
Under our present Government in this country there is a chipping away of civil liberties—take the German student case the other day. Under the new Bill that we are going to have to fight there is a chipping away of trade union democracy. Is it all part of the idea, if we go into the Common Market, of impressing our associates that we are less democratic and more like they are?—because Britain at the moment is the most democratic country in Western Europe. We want to keep it so. We do not want to have to give away any of our civil liberties, trade union democracies, or any other kind of democracy, just to go into the Common Market. Under this huge combine of trusts and monopolies, democracy of the trade unions, democracy of the workers by hand and brain, will become less and less. They will have far less say in the economic planning and running of their industries.
People have talked about British sovereignty. I still cannot get a picture of why it is not true that if we are in the Common Market the British Parliament will have a dwindling say in our foreign policies, and that it will more and more become a rubber stamp to superbure cratic international institutions over which we have no control. I have not heard this point answered properly to-day.
We have been exhorted in a very schoolmasterly way not to worry about the price of butter and food, but instead to raise our eyes to this lofty vision of
450
the United Europe. It is very easy for those who do not live by wages to preach so piously; but try telling it to the factory workers; try arguing like this to the ordinary people that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, speaks about—and nobody else in this House has spoken in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, with regard to the people of Britain. You have to put your propaganda across far better than that if you are going to convince the workers that they have to pay higher prices for their food, all for a lofty ideal. To them these lofty idealists very often appear as people who really see a new way of increasing the profits of the monopolies, getting higher dividends for their shareholders, and keeping wages down. You have to get this across much better if you are going to convince workers. Yes, it is very funny—
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am sorry: I apologise. The noble Lord properly objected to me, as it were, chuckling, and said it was very funny. But I am bound to tell him that it sounds very funny to me to hear my noble landowning friend going on and on about the workers, when the Communist Parties of Italy, France and the rest of Europe, know very well that their working-class members are doing a jolly sight better out of their land-owning exploiters since the Common Market came into being than they were doing before. It sounded a little odd to me.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I have just come back from Italy, where I talked to many Italian workers who have been in other parts of Europe. Their complaint is that they may get higher wages compared to what they received in Southern Italy, or even in Spain, but they were treated like second-class citizens. They did not have the same rights; they were not treated in the same way as the other people in the country in which they worked. They were full of complaints of that sort, even if they were getting higher wages.
It is difficult enough in this country to get the facts about a big combine, for the Government to find out all the secrets behind a big monopoly. But how are we going even to start to scrutinise the huge cartels, and how they work, in the European market? Are we going to have any

451
control over them at all? Are we going to have any political control whatever?
I want to ask a question of the Government. Is the value tax on all produced goods still the chief taxation in the Common Market? If so, does this not mean more indirect taxation, which comes harder on the poor people? That may have been altered, but I do not know whether this value tax is something we have to face if we go into the Common Market. On the question of unemployment, in the past adverse balances of payments dictated that we could have no industrial and technical expansion in this country; we could not expand because it would mean more imports and our balance of payments would be worse and worse. Our balance of payments has now come on the right side, but is it true that if we go into the Common Market it will go completely against us again and become much worse? And, because of this, shall we have to restrict economic growth for years and years yet, and carry a large number of unemployed? I put that as a question.
Another question I want to put, especially to this side of the House, is this. Supposing we got, by Election, a real Socialist Government in this country, and the country wanted to go forward with Socialism and wanted to nationalise many industries. Should we be able to do it if we were in the Common Market? Should we be allowed to nationalise them?
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Yes, my Lords.
LORD MILFORD: I thank the noble Lord. These are questions.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am not a "Little Englander". If I felt we were really going forward into a Community of the whole of Europe, a Community of progressive Governments, to create a much more just society for everybody, I should absolutely welcome it; but I do not feel that that is the kind of Community we are entering. I think that the E.E.C. is going to be ruled more and more by huge combines and supranational firms, and I do not see how we are going to control them in the interests of the British people.
9.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Milford, and assure him I was not trying to "jump the gun". I am delighted to follow him in point of time, even if I cannot, perhaps, follow him in other respects—I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord at all, quite frankly. However, the hour is very late and I think that polemics and politics would be quite inappropriate, so, if I may, I will take a few points from the oration I would have inflicted on your Lordships had the hour been earlier and had all of us been stronger. Due to certain minor weaknesses of the flesh, I found it necessary to depart from this Chamber once or twice during the course of this debate, so if any points have been made by other speakers which happen to coincide with the points I am about to make, I should be delighted if noble Lords would intervene and tell me so.
One slight point that not only puzzles but even astonishes me is this. I am a comparative newcomer to this House. I remember that shortly before the Christmas Recess we had a very lively, remarkable debate on museum charges, in which I was fortunate enough to take part, and I think that in the course of that debate we got through a longer list of speakers in a very much shorter time than we have taken this evening. Here we have this great subject of the Common Market and, if I may say so, your Lordships look—and indeed I feel—as if, instead of going into Western Europe, you are heading for the tumbrils. Indeed, my Lords, looking at this Chamber one would think that the tumbrils had been busy for the last two or three hours!
Perhaps before I make my points one or two brief credentials are appropriate. I am, by education and by instinct, a European, in the sense that back in 1932 I was studying German in Munich. I have spent a good deal of my working life selling machinery into Europe and buying machinery from Europe. I speak reasonably fluent French, German and Spanish, so I hope, my Lords, with these qualifications you will allow me a few more moments of your time.
I had hoped that the statement the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made in another place on December 16 would have helped me through this jungle

453
of statistics. We all know the old saying that for an Englishman the jungle begins at Calais; I must say that from my point of view it now begins at the entrance to the Common Market in one respect, and that is that the papers on the subject are a jungle of statistics, estimates and figures which make even the Mato Grosso look by comparison like an apple orchard. Comnd. 4289, the last Government's White Paper entitled Britain and the European Communities—A n Economic Assessment, was a statistical undergrowth as dense as I had ever seen, and when I hacked my way through it I wondered whether I was ever going to get out at the other end. Mr. Rippon's statement did not help me as much as I had hoped in various respects, and I have to ask the noble Marquess whether he will be kind enough to explain one or two points which I find confusing.
First, could the noble Marquess explain what Mr. Rippon meant by the expression "Community budget"? As I understand it, in the Community the expression "Community budget" means the charge for the administrative services, including the European Parliament, public orations, press hand-outs, staff, and sc on, with the total cost of these amounting to about 3½ per cent. of the total expenditure of the Community. I cannot believe that this was the figure to which Mr. Rippon was referring. Did he mean the total of agricultural and non-agricultural expenditure by an enlarged Community in 1977, or did he mean the total budgetary contributions by ten member countries in that year? The point is of some relevance, because Mr. Rippon estimates that the so-called Community budget in 1977 will be 4,500 million dollars which, at the current rate of exchange, is £1,875 million. If we go back on hands and knees into the shrubbery of Cmnd. 4289, we find that there is no figure higher than £1,750 million for agricultural expenditure. This figure was the Commission's own estimate, and the Government's estimate was £1,600 million. I say this because if in fact since the publication of the White Paper the estimate for agricultural expenditure has risen by any substantial amount, I think Parliament should know and should have it clearly spelt out.
The same comment applies to the adverse effects on the balance of payments,
454
which Mr. Rippon gave as £200 million to £300 million. Again, there is no figure in the previous Government's White Paper which bears any relation to this. We have already had some of the figures quoted earlier in the debate, but we can take it that the range of adverse effects was from £40 million reduction in our surplus in the best case and about £530 million in the worst case. This, of course, is of very great importance, because if Mr. Rippon's figures are correct, as I have no doubt they are, there are certain calculations by which it is possible to deduce from those figures that in the event of our going in there would be no overall adverse effect on the balance of payments at all, instead of some of the frightening figures that have been bandied about over the past nine months. The point I am trying to make, and I repeat it, is that the figures which were given are considerably lower than the figures shown in Cmnd. 4289.
At this point perhaps I might be permitted to make a few general observations. Europa has traditionally been portrayed as seated on the back of the bull which abducted her, and if the analogy is still appropriate (and I think that even the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell will agree that Britain is geographically part of Europe) then Britain is astride the horns, not just the horns of the bull but the horns of a dilemma; and the dilemma, as I see it, is not exactly whether or not Britain accedes to membership of the Community: it is created, on the one hand, by fears that membership of a higher priced economic group may affect our quality of life, and, on the other hand, by hopes that the dynamic effects of growth will outweigh those disadvantages.
I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and other speakers on the question of what our growth rate will be, and so on. I think it is undeniable that there will be growth. But my noble friend should remember that there are people of intelligence and wisdom who take the view that growth is not necessarily the key to the improvement of our quality of life. In fact they feel that membership of a Community dedicated to growth may well be not just a statistical jungle but a spiritual wilderness. Bearing that in mind, and bearing

455
in mind the support and respect which they enjoy throughout the country, and given that in my opinion the terms of reference of Cmnd. 4289 were far too narrow, I would urgently entreat the present Government to think seriously in terms of producing another White Paper with wider terms of reference to which they can put their signatures and which will lay emphasis both on the effects of membership on our quality of life, and also on a second question, which was not seriously dealt with by the last White Paper, namely, the effects on the industrial infrastructure of this country.
You may say to me, I think very rightly, "How do you quantify quality of life?" One point stands out in my mind, and that is that when we do go in—indeed I support this proposal and I think there are many reasons why we should go in—prices will rise, whatever noble Lords have said previously this evening. Prices will rise and the cost of living will go up, and therefore it is incumbent upon the present Government to spell out at some stage or other—in my opinion, better sooner than later—what measures they propose to take to alleviate the hardship that this is bound to produce for the poorer sections of the community, and particularly the people who, for instance, are not paying income tax, and the old age pensioners. We on this side of the House have inherited a problem, but we did give certain undertakings. We may have found the problem more intractable than we anticipated, but we must not appear to be hard-faced on prices and to compound the difficulty by endorsing the changeover to decimal currency, which may lead to price increases. Then to go into the Common Market without formulating measures to alleviate hardship will be not only political folly but socially unjust.
I have only a few more points that I should like to make. One relates to the industrial infrastructure which I should like to see brought into this review or White Paper. Certain problems are bound to arise, which I do not see being considered by the present Government—I do not think they were considered by the last Government. For instance, our trade to Europe is expected to increase by about 50 to 60 per cent. In monetary
456
terms this will be something of the order of £750 million per annum. Our motorways have been directed towards the West, the North, and the North-East; can we cope with the increased flow of traffic to Europe? Are we planning to build an extra motorway where it may be needed? If we are going to cope with this vast increase of trade to Europe of the order which I have mentioned, bearing in mind that it represents a productive capacity of something like 400,000 workers, what are going to be the effects on our traditional trade? And what are the effects on our great shipping and shipbuilding industries, which are so closely linked with our traditional trade? Are these problems being considered? I hope that my noble friend will take this point seriously and consider whether there is not still time to put pen to paper and devote some time to thinking out these problems in depth.
The point about monetary union has been mentioned earlier in the debate and I should like to make one comment about it. The experience of the Community is that the economies of scale and the formation of large multi-national industries are delayed and impeded in the absence of monetary union and in the absence of a centralised economic policy. Here again, I ask the Government to take a hard look at this problem, because I do not see that we can possibly achieve the objects which we should like to achieve in that respect without being prepared to consent to both monetary union and centralised economic control. The one, of course, will mean some reduction in our role as the banker for reserve currency. It is very much a matter of dispute as to whether this would be a blow to our banking system, or whether it would be a blessing in disguise. The other would inevitably lead to some pooling or loss of sovereignty. But I feel that if we are not prepared to face up to these sacrifices and to the steps which will need to be taken to produce the kind of unity for which the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, is looking, there will be no benefit to be gained from going in.
The second point which I should like to make is on defence. I think it was Baldwin who said in 1934 that Britain's frontier lay on the Rhine. Where should it lie to-day? It cannot lie on the Vistula

457
or the Oder, and it is undeniable that it must lie along the eastern frontier of Western Europe. For that frontier to give us the security we want, we must look to a strong unified Western defence force, and what could be stronger than one which derives from the peoples of Western Europe who have a political identity, a common purpose, a common outlook and a common goal?
I know that a right honourable gentleman in Ireland said that he could not see the British people accepting such a situation. I feel that the poor Irish must have been as surprised as I was by the irrelevance of his remarks to their immediate problems. But if he thinks that the British people are as arrogant, as insular and as self-centred as he portrayed them, then he is making a great mistake and is in for a real surprise. One has only to see the verve with which the British people react to Europe when they are there on business or on holiday, to realise that those remarks are inappropriate now and have been inappropriate throughout our history.
I have taken up far too much of your Lordships' time and I apologise. I should like to say that I feel that my noble friends carry a great weight of responsebility
458
in their decision on this matter. It is important that any decision or any negotiated agreement which they ask Parliament to endorse should be seen not to be taken lightly, but only after wise and mature reflection of all the various factors involved.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask whether he has taken into account in his figures the enormous cost of bureaucracy which will increase with our entry?
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean the bureaucracy in the Common Market?
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I mean the increased bureaucracy. The Common Market is all bureaucracy, and there will be increased bureaucracy if we go in.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, I cannot see that our entry could possibly make any difference to the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy of the Common Market exists on the one hand, and our own bureaucracy exists on the other. I cannot understand why our joining the Common Market should increase the number of bureaucrats.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, it will.
10.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, the only really chilling phrase I heard in your Lordships' House today was that of the noble Lord who said, "Finally. No, not finally but fourthly", and then went on to make three more points. I hope I can say, "Finally but twenty-fifthly" in my very brief remarks at this extremely late hour.
I want to make a few remarks as coolly as I can about the demand for a national referendum on the Common Market issue. I hope that all of your Lordships will agree with me and with my noble and right honourable friends that a referendum is not only inconsistent with the constitutional practice of our country but is a positive threat to our democratic procedures. It is all the more a threat because it comes in so democratic a guise. When an Englishman, a Britisher, votes for the M.P. of his choice, on the one hand he is protecting himself from the over-simplified choice of a leader which you get in a presidential system, and, on the other hand, he is protecting himself from the imprecision and volatility of mass opinion. If you are fortunate enough to live in a democracy, you need to protect yourself from the "demos". We vote for men to make choices on our behalf—men we can easily approach, person to person, about the validity of such choices. We have protection, in short; and that is a safeguard to cherish.
I very much regret that so able and energetic a politician as Mr. Wedgwood Benn has proposed a referendum. I should admire him for thinking better of it. It has been suggested, in my view quite rightly, that the constitutional implications of holding a referendum and thus setting a precedent for overruling the decisions of an elected Parliament would be greater than the constitutional implications of joining the European Economic Community. I know that Mr. Benn has said that Parliament should have the last word and that his proposed Bill provides for that. Then why is he so anxious to confuse and indeed undermine the ordinary voter and the ordinary voter's confidence in our constitutional procedures? There are, to my mind, ways in which objections can easily be raised to those conclusions on policy to which three successive Governments,
460
Conservative and Labour, have come. For example, it is open to anyone who can raise the by no means insuperable sum of £150 to stand as an anti-Common Market candidate in a General or By-Election. Deliberation on the pros and cons of entry has been going on quite publicly for ten years. It has been going on in the Press, highbrow and lowbrow, if I may make such a distinction; it has been going on on radio and it has been going on on television, until the greatest danger, perhaps, to public opinion about the Common Market is saturation and boredom.
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is the least ambivalent of men, and his experience of European politics, as I think even his political opponents would agree, is both wide and deep. He could hardly have a clearer mandate for application and he has said publicly, again and again, that the Government would not recommend acceptance of our application unless the terms were to the satisfaction of the Government. Nor would Parliament, as against the Government, approve a settlement which in the opinion of its Members, whatever their Party, was unequal and unfair. To suggest otherwise is, in my view, further to undermine public trust in public institutions, and this is not the time to do that.
Imagine, my Lords, what might have been the constitutional implications of a referendum after the constitutional crisis of 1937, or a referendum on either the fact or the timing of our entry into either of the European wars. May I also remind noble Lords that it was Mr. Wilson who, in answer to a Question in another place in November, 1969, declared that a referendum would be contrary to the traditions of this country. It ill becomes me to congratulate Mr. Wilson on his constitutional views, or further to lecture your Lordships on constitutional practice, but I very much regret that the referendum issue has been dragged into the arena of serious debate in another place on a serious issue, and may I urge any of your Lordships who may have been flirting with that idea to ponder its implications?
My Lords, there is in America at present, as your Lordships may have read, a new and fashionable academic

461
subject called futureology. It consists of assembling all sorts of information about various societies and then making predictions about what seems likely to be going to happen to them. All men who are engaged in political life must face facts and then make decisions—which are, after all, choices; which are, after all, guesses. But it is not good to let ourselves become fettered by contingencies. Looking before you leap need not involve being lowered over the cliff to take samples of the rocks below. There may well be disasters in store for the European nations, or for the whole or part of mankind. We belong to a doubtfully perfectible species, and while we can partly affect our own and our planet's future, the future is not, in the end, in our hands. What we can do, and what all nations must try to do, is to face our present, our reality. And this, as I understand it, is what political maturity means.
Our reality is that we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has said, a European country. Britain cannot, like an ageing millionairess who has made her by now diminishing pile out of shipping and heavy industry, simply hoist anchor and head for some Western Isle where bronchitis is banned and there are no death duties. We are a creative people, and we need scope for our creativity. It is very difficult to separate creative or cultural activity from economic activity, or economic from political life. These are abstractions, filing cabinet words for the one great subject, which is how men live and behave.
Europe is not where we are coming to: it is where we always were. Europe is less a place than an idea—the idea that Western man has of himself; and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, should be happen to read these words, that the European idea must necessarily include both Washington and Moscow. The story of this idea is one of terror and of splendour, a treasure trove of achievement guarded by those absurd but formidable dragons—poverty, bloodshed and anxiety. If we do not take on the less romantic but nevertheless exacting task of maintaining and extending Europe's new democratic daily affairs, we diminish the light which we here can uniquely throw. We opt, in short, for obscurity. In 1914 a compatriot of mine
462
of genius, Joyce, wrote that if there was to be a new Ireland it must first become European. He said that as long ago as 1914. My Lords, I suggest that this is not the first time we could take a lesson from an Irishman.
10.22 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords this has been both a lengthy and a notable debate—notable because practically every noble Lord having said that he was not going to make a lengthy speech has then proceeded to do so. The exception was that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, whose speech was so short that it was the only one I missed as I went from one end of the Chamber to the other. But, my Lords, there have been some very notable speeches. I think the whole House was deeply impressed by my friend Lord George-Brown, who made a most careful and brilliant study; and we have had a great deal of vitality from a great many noble Lords, and a great deal of wisdom—with some of which, I may say, I do not find myself in agreement. We see, on the whole, at the end of the debate a picture of the House predominantly in favour of entry into Europe on the right terms, but some of the opponents, like my noble friend Lord Shinwell and the noble Lord, Lord Milford, poised at opposite ends of the Chamber with, in many respects, different political views but united in regard to certain points relating to this debate.
I would like to deal with some of the points that have been made. Let me point out that I have not promised to be brief in my speech, but for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Beswick (whose stony glare I could feel behind me) I say at once that I shall be as short as I can. While I have myself for many years been in favour of entering Europe (and I think it is necessary again to get this on the Record, if only for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Shinwell), I also accept, and I am quite sure that the Government accept, that it would be disastrous not merely for us but also for the European Economic Community if we entered on terms which in the short run could be so damaging to this country that they were unacceptable to the British people as a whole and, as a result, weakening to the European Community. This would be the effect if the newest

463
and most important recruit were to suffer a decline. Although it could be a relative decline only, and it could still be argued that at the end of the day we should be better off, I believe that a relative decline would be so disruptive to the whole concept as to be politically impossible. Jam in the future is no substitute for bread in the present.
I think that my noble friend Lord Shinwell misunderstood some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Chalfont in his extremely thoughtful and well-studied speech—incidentally, I thought both opening speeches were first-class—because Lord Shinwell seemed to suggest that my noble friend Lord Chalfont was advocating entering the Common Market at any price (though what I have already said indicates that this is not so) and was implying that there was no alternative. Anyone who studies Lord Chalfont's speech will agree that this in no way reflects his view. He was careful to say on at least three occasions that we must ensure that the price is right. This implies that the price might in some circumstances be too high and, therefore, that there might have to be an alternative. Let me therefore turn to the alternative, since the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, also took the view that Lord Shinwell had attributed to my noble friend Lord Chalfont the suggestion that there was no alternative.
My Lords, the one thing that none of us argues—though some wish to put such words into our mouths—is whether Britain will survive if we do not enter the Common Market. Of course we shall. I do not doubt that standards of living will gradually improve. The basic argument of those who are in favour of entering the Common Market on the right terms is that if we do not do so there will be less economic progress in this country—and this is a matter of judgment—and that, if we stay outside, so far from retaining freedom we shall have less freedom to influence our future development. This is the case that we have put forward, based on our judgment of the matter. We have to form a judgment as to whether this country will be more prosperous; whether our political security will be greater along with the rest of Europe, and whether we shall be able, along with our European
464
colleagues,—and I want to stress this again to possible critics—to make a greater contribution to raising living standards in the rest of the world. And the fact is, of course, that we are being rapidly passed by the European Community in the contributions they are making to the under-developed world.
There are those, like Lord Shinwell and Lord Milford (who said, however, that he was open to be convinced) who will argue—though Lord Milford's arguments were much more in political terms, some of which I will deal with later—either that we shall be worse off or, that even if we are eventually better off, the price is too heavy. In other words, they argue that at best it is a gamble to enter Europe. But I must say squarely to them that it is equally a gamble not to enter Europe. The idea that those who wish to go into the European Community are the only gamblers is quite misleading: those who wish to stay out are also gambling with our own progress and future. Both sides have to make up their minds as to which is the right gamble. This evening we have had many powerful economic arguments, particularly from my noble friends Lord George-Brown and Lord Diamond, and from others in all parts of the House, as well as, if I may say so, a traditionally eloquent speech from the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald.
There is, my Lords, a great deal of evidence that for an industrial country, with major industries involving vast capital investment, a larger home market is of vital importance to the growth and expansion of its industries and the creation of wealth. I do not disagree with what the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, said, that growth is not everything, but it is absolutely vital to raising living standards; and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Milford, that I think he was a little unfair to my noble friend Lord George-Brown in implying that he was not speaking about the workers.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord, as reference has been made to my speech? If I gave the impression that I agreed with that point of view, the noble Lord misunderstood me. I was merely putting forward a point of view which I felt had not received sufficient attention in official publications.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in fact, of course, a great many of the publications that are produced, and certainly some of the Common Market ones, point very much to this argument of growth. But I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Earl. It is important, however, because this was so much the kernel of Lord George-Brown's argument. It is in this respect that we can hope to see better living standards for our people in this country, and, again, I reiterate, better and larger contributions to raising living standards abroad. With the emergence (it has been going on; and we have seen it in the United States and in the Soviet Union, with its COMECON trading area), the desirability of free access, without tariff barriers, within the European home market, is more likely to contribute to progress—again, I put it no higher than that—than the reverse.
Against this there is the argument, and a valid one, that the cost of living will be higher—I will come in a moment to the balance-of-payments argument which has not been raised very much. This is an important question; but the equation is a simple one, and those who oppose this must equally face this equation. If, as a result of our entry, our annual growth increases by as little as an extra ½per cent. a year (we know our performance with regard to growth for all sorts of reasons has not been as good as we should like) over what would happen if we did not go in, this will more than overtake any increases in prices. In fact, any increase in prices may well be no higher than we suffered in the last year or two under our own self-generated inflation.
We have seen a very big increase in prices since 1963–27 per cent.—but the real value of incomes has increased much more. If my figures are correct, and I am sure the order is right, they have increased by 50 per cent. And what noble Lord would go back to 1963 prices and forgo the increase in 1963 incomes?—because the real wealth would be less. This argument applies just as much in the future, at the end of the transitional period. If prices have gone up, we may not like it, but if incomes have gone up more than they otherwise would have done we may be better off.
It is to me a very curious argument when people suggest that because large
466
numbers of Continental visitors, particularly French, flock across the Channel to buy our cheap food and the cheap goods available in this country, this is a sign that we are more prosperous. It is simply a sign that wages are lower in this country. People who before the war used to travel the world will know perfectly well that there were certain things that you bought if you went to a colony. You bought as many clothes as you could, because they were cheaper as the wage rates were lower. No one would suggest that because there are many goods that could be bought cheaper in Hong Kong than in this country the standard of living in Hong Kong is for all the people much higher.
My Lords, the fact is that the world does not stand still, even though many people fail to notice the change; and many people fail to register the changes, in regard to the position of the Common Market, that have taken place in the last few years. We have great strength in our country. It is still the most stable and, I believe, the best place in the world in which to live; and I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Milford, in this respect. But we cannot conceal the fact that European countries have been progressing, so that today the living standards of all, except possibly Italy, are now higher than ours. Furthermore, our workers work longer hours than those in most of the E.E.C. countries. This is not a factor to be ignored in relation to industrial peace. There has been much complaint about recent uncovenanted holidays taken by workers after Christmas and at the New Year, but the average annual holidays in Britain to-day are 10 to 15 days, with six public holidays, while in France and Germany the annual holidays are from 15 to 24 days, plus 9 to 13 public holidays. In other words, there is 50 per cent. more time off in these countries. And this is partly the achievement of the trade unions. The belief that there are not effective trade unions in the Common Market is one we ought to face fairly, and I look forward to improved co-operation between the British and European trade unions.
It is possible, of course, to argue that the great progress in the European countries, both in relative and in absolute terms, has nothing to do with the Common Market, but that seems to me to be a pretty unlikely proposition. There is,

467
however, one short-term problem which I am sure is very much in the mind of Mr. Rippon—that is, the effect on our balance of payments. Our balance of payments is now exceedingly strong, much stronger than it was on the last two occasions on which we sought entry, as my right honourable friend Mr. Jenkins forecast. I will not quote what Mr. Heath said about the balance of payments at the time of the General Election, because we are all agreed that the balance of payments is strong. But, strong though it is, and rapid as I trust will be the continued repayment of our debt, we could not lightly accept an undue burden in the short run on our balance of payments, especially if it fell in too short a period. I am not pressing the Government on details, but this clearly is one of the areas in which Mr. Rippon has to work hardest. But if the negotiations now take this point fully into account, in the long run our entry into Europe will help to move us into a position of greater monetary strength, and I hope will gradually, but not immediately, because there is no magic wand, free us from the repeated threats to our progress resulting from the vulnerability of sterling and its rôle as one of the two reserve currencies.
There has been little mention of the Werner proposals, and this is probably wise. They seem to me to be overly ambitious in the short run, though they are exceedingly interesting. I, for one, sympathise with the view which Mr. Roy Jenkins has held for many years, long before the question of entering the Common Market was raised, and which others have advocated, that we should seek gradually to change the role of sterling as a reserve currency. Let there be no misunderstanding: I am not suggesting that we do this now. This is not a declaration of Labour Party immediate policy. I mention this subject tentatively, because it is my view that this would not weaken the capacity of the City of London, which has always been used as one of the arguments in favour of sterling as a reserve currency. London, as several noble Lords have already mentioned, is already the centre of the Eurodollar market and is likely to emerge as the financial capital of Europe. Let me say, so that there may be no misunderstanding, that there is no suggestion in this that we should or could contemplate repudiating
468
our sterling liabilities; but their existence in their present form, in spite of improvements in regard to funding, must be a continual source of discomfort to any Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I hope that noble Lords who are doubtful about the wisdom of entering the Common Market will recognise the extraordinary expansion of Japan and the impact that this is going to have on world trade. It is in relation to Japan that the great new mineral wealth of Australia is finding its outlet. This is an additional reason why we must fear the increase of protectionism in the world, and why it is desirable that, if the price is right, we should get within an area where we can operate in a large market within our own tariff walls.
There are only one or two more points that I want to make. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Milford, that it is precisely because I believe that there is a need for a wider concern with the activities of international companies, whether the companies are public spirited or otherwise, that I am in favour of strengthening some of the political institutions of the E.E.C. The argument about the international company, so far from weakening the case for going into the Common Market, actually strengthens it. It would certainly be my hope in regard to bureaucracy (I am sometimes a little surprised when a Communist talks about bureaucracy), and I am sure it is desirable, that the democratic institutions within the Common Market should be developed. We shall be able to contribute to this because of our own experience in this field, and I am sure Europe welcomes us for this reason. I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Milford, who asked, "How do you get socialism in Europe?", that he might also ask, "How do you get socialism in Britain?". I know that this is a matter of concern. I am just wondering whether in certain respects we should not be better off in Europe than under the present Tory Government. But I should not wish at this stage to surrender sovereignty to this extent. There are developing provisions with regard to regional planning and other matters, to all of which we shall need to contribute. It is inconceivable that in a matter of this importance there will not be difficulties

469
and arguments against any particular course.
Let me just touch on the political aspect. It is of course an illusion that Britain, in the midst of her Commonwealth and Empire, can be insulated from events on the Continent of Europe. That is a point that I should like to make in particular to my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire who spoke in the debate. We cannot be insulated from events on the Continent of Europe. That is a lesson that both Britain and the United States have had to learn. Speaker after speaker—the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others—has repeated the fact that we have always been involved in Europe, and it is better for us now to seek to influence events there—because Europe will influence us—by entering, if this be possible, into a Community which will then become a Community of Ten nations and not of Six nations, with a number of very like-minded nations entering with us. Incidentally, I even see some hope with regard to the problem of Ireland if we enter the Common Market.
There seems to be an impression on the part of my noble friend Lord Shinwell that once we go into Europe we shall have surrendered for ever our freedom of choice and our freedom to influence. I do not believe this is so. Noble Lords have already demonstrated that this is not so. We want to go into Europe for the benefit of ourselves, Europe and the world as a whole. I believe this to be a noble idea. The history of the world is littered with failures; nations sometimes imagining short-term advantages and failing to take steps which would have led to greater security and greatness. Anybody who has been classically educated will know that the tragedy of Greece is contained in the story of missed opportunity. We have a great deal to contribute to the world and to Europe. It is not a source of pride that our contributions to the under developed areas are now falling behind those of Europe. We may not be able to fulfil our historic overseas roles as well outside Europe as inside.
Other noble Lords have pointed to the fact that the success of détente with the East and Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Milford, said—in my opinion, and certainly in Willy Brandt's view, will be increased
470
rather than diminished. The move to a new European democratic set-up should become greater, and the last thing I should wish to rule out is the possibility ultimately of a degree, not only of détente but of integration with the rest of Europe. We have to put our own house in order; we have to raise our own living standards; we have to compete and show that we can organise in a socially just society.
My Lords, I return to the point where I began. The terms must be acceptable to the British people. It is no use entering a negotiation if one is not going to negotiate. We are telling the Government (and I suspect that the Government may welcome this) that there are certain points beyond which they cannot go. Above all—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will agree—I hope that our friends in Europe will believe us when we say this. It would be absurd at this moment to set out the particular combination of terms that are acceptable, when there are so many variables. But there is no doubt that they will have to be brought back and debated fully in Parliament. I will not get into an argument on the interesting point about a referendum. I only know that when we debated this in 1961 there was no suggestion that we should have taken a referendum.
Noble Lords opposite may remember a rather strange debate in which my noble friend the late Lord Alexander of Hillsborough took part. He loathed the idea of the Common Market and regarded it as a sort of Roman Catholic plot. He persuaded those in opposition to him—all 17 of us—to support an amendment on the subject. Practically everyone on the Labour side—my noble friend Lord Stonham and others—made powerful speeches in support of the Common Market, and loyally supported this rather strange amendment, which in effect merely asked that the terms should be right.
There is another point I should like to make—and I wish that my noble friend Lord Shinwell was here. The late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who was a great friend of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was once an anti-European. I remember sitting with him in Paris, talking to Guy Mollet. The French were saying, "Can't you make a gesture?" But we were all rather British and superior in those days,

471
and I admit that we missed great opportunities. Lord Morrison changed his mind (I have also been doing my research) and he said:
"Our island has had a great place in the world. It still has a great place. We have often done much in the way of helping the world towards sanity and in world leadership. I believe that the British have a part to play in the European Community. Therefore"—
and this might be what we are saying to-day—
"subject to the results of these negotiations, I think it is right to take the proposed steps."
10.50 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, may I first of all thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate to-day? It is absolutely obvious, and goes without saying, that this has been a most useful debate, and that the standard of speeches (if one may say so without appearing to be at all patronising) has been one of the highest we have had in this House for some time. We have heard in all 25 speeches, and I feel that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not reply to every one of them individually. Even at the rate of one a minute it would take me getting on for half-an-hour to do so. But I will in the course of my speech pick up as many points as I can and try to answer some of those put to me; and as for those that I do not answer to-night, I will of course read the speeches and endeavour to send replies to noble Lords.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe, in his opening speech, reviewed the progress of negotiations. He pointed out that these followed the application made by the previous Government with the firm support of the Opposition. He also explained the reasons why membership of the European Communities would benefit this country, and the rest of Europe, if terms fair to all could be obtained. This point has commanded almost universal acceptance in the House. We in Britain have long recognised that the Communities provide the essential framework within which progress towards greater unity can occur. But until the Communities are enlarged, they cannot speak for Europe. Until they are enlarged to embrace the economic interests
472
of members and of the applicants, important developments in the harmonisation of foreign and defence policies are most unlikely. And unless we can learn to act together in foreign policy—unless we can work much closer together in defence—the relative influence of Europe will, I believe, continue to decline. Therefore, the membership of Britain and other applicants is of extreme importance to Europe as a whole.
For Britain also the opportunities offered by membership are of the greatest significance. No one who considers this country's situation in the world to-day can deny that it is essentially the same as that of the other major nations of Western Europe, with whose peoples we share a common origin and a common culture. Our critics try to inflate what differences remain. But even such a striking difference as that which, for instance, still exists between the structure of British agriculture and Community agriculture is diminishing at a perceptible rate. Far more important than this difference is the fact that our interests in foreign, defence and industrial policies and trade are either identical or converging rapidly. There is a tendency to forget the extent to which we are already bound to our Continental neighbours in Western European Union and, of course, in the North Atlantic Alliance.
It is not always easy for a people to understand immediately that their interests can best be served by a change; and noble Lords in many parts of the House have drawn attention to the fact that a great deal more publicity is needed in this country to convince people of the wisdom of joining the Community. But, despite what some would have us believe, despite perhaps certain superficial appearances, I do not believe that inward-looking insularity is a characteristic of our people. Those who act and speak as if it is overlook the British people's capacity for taking change in their stride, so long as they have understood the need for it. One might almost say that this is in fact equalled only by their capacity for pretending immediately afterwards that nothing has happened. Provided that fair terms are available, the British people will, I feel certain, accept and exploit the opportunities offered by the European Community, just as they have always exploited their opportunities in the past.

473
I know that there are some who are anxious about the effect on the Commonwealth of our becoming members of the E.E.C., but I think we must remember how greatly the pattern of trade of developed and developing Commonwealth countries has changed in recent years. This point was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Bethell, who has had to leave the debate early. Also, the dependence of New Zealand on the British market is still, of course, very considerable, and that is why we are negotiating for a special arrangement for her dairy products. If the negotiatons are concluded successfully, I am sure we shall find, as France has found in respect of the Francophone world, that our membership of the Communities can do a great deal for Commonwealth development.
My Lords, I should like now to turn briefly—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Marquess is leaving the subject of the Commonwealth at the moment? There was a very important point made by my noble friend, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords, I was coming to those points in relation to the particular noble Lords who spoke. I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for a most interesting and constructive speech. He asked me one or two questions. The first was in connection with the former High Commission territories. The position there is that we are discussing this matter further with the Community, and I am sure he will understand that I cannot say anything more about that at this time. The noble Lord also questioned the provisional agreement on a five-year transitional period for both agriculture and industry, instead of the six and three, and I am sure he will realise that, this being a negotiation, there must be give-and-take, and that is why we want it to be as flexible as possible.
Perhaps I may now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and his most interesting remarks concerning the question of Commonwealth cane sugar. I would assure him that, as I think both the previous Government and the present Government have made plain (and he himself alluded to this) both the Community
474
and ourselves regard this problem as one of the most serious to be tackled in the negotiations. I am glad to tell him that all the indications are that the Six are fully aware of the responsibilities which an enlarged Community would bear to the countries with which he is concerned. We have been doing everything possible in consultation, and, as I expect he knows, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is shortly to visit the Caribbean and will be talking to Ministers in that part of the world on this precise point.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has unfortunately had to leave—no: he is back; but at any rate he has technically left the Chamber. I want to echo what other noble Lords have said in complimenting him on what I thought was a most remarkable and wide-ranging and helpful speech. I hope that it will be widely read, not only in this country but in the Six as well. I am very grateful indeed to him for stressing that terms do matter, because I think this is important. As I say, I am grateful to him for his speech to-day. The noble Lord also mentioned agriculture and the levy system for agricultural support, and I was glad to think that we had his encouragement in our policy in regard to the levies.
While I am on the subject of agriculture perhaps I may mention the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who asked for an assurance that the interests of British agriculture, as well as those of industry, will be fully taken into account. As a farmer, like herself, I can give her that assurance absolutely unequivocally. We realise, of course, that for certain sectors of agriculture, some parts of horticulture, for example, there will be difficulties of adaptation, and these must be dealt with through adequate arrangements during the transitional period. But I entirely share her confidence that in general British agriculture is extremely efficient and will seize the opportunities offered by entrance into the European Community.
The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, kindly warned me that he would be raising the question of bananas, and I say this because I was unfortunately not able to hear his speech, and he is not able to hear mine either; but, for the Record, I

475
wanted him to know that we appreciate the importance of bananas in this matter. I have every confidence that we shall be able to satisfy him when the time comes.
The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, in what I thought was a most interesting speech, asked me one or two questions. The first was what my right honourable friend meant by the expression "Community budget" in his statement of December 16. The answer is that he was referring to the total expenditure of the enlarged Community in 1977. Again, the noble Earl asked me whether there was any relationship between the Chancellor of the Duchy's figures for possible adverse effects on the balance of payments and the figures given in the previous Government's White Paper. In that White Paper the estimate was based on the various short-term adverse effects; that is, costlier food imports, the effect of tariff changes and the changes in costs. My right honourable friend's estimate was derived from a re-examination of the ranges for these items indicated in the White Paper, and in effect it embraces about the midpoint of those ranges. The noble Earl also asked whether it would be possible to produce another White Paper wan more reference to such things as the price effect on pensioners and old people, industrial infrastructure, defence, and this kind of thing. I should like to think about this. He obviously will not expect me to answer him to-day, but I will certainly take the point.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for what he said about the financial benefit which the British contribution to the Community finance on the scale indicated in our proposals of December 16 would confer on each member of the existing Community. That is very true. And I am also grateful for his kind words of encouragement for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, I think noble Lords will agree, is doing a sterling task with the greatest possible skill.
The noble Lord, Lord Caccia, in, if I may say so, a speech of great wisdom and experience in foreign affairs, put the issues at stake very realistically. I quite agree with him and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who made the same point, that we must not work ourselves up into the state of thinking that if we
476
do not get in, the outlook will be absolutely disastrous for this country. "Disaster" is a big word, and Britain would, I am certain, survive as she always has done. But, in my view, as, I think, in the view also of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, every advantage is to be obtained by attempting, if we can get the right terms, to go into the Economic Community.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Marquess forgive me if I say that if we did not get in it would not be disastrous; it would be dire.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, perhaps "dire" is a slightly less disastrous word than "disaster", and in that sense I would accept it.
There have been many interesting speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was good enough to tell me that he could not be here for the end of the debate. I think his speech has been answered by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and many others. I thought that the noble Lord made a very typical and interesting speech. If I may say so, I agreed with him on one point. That was the point, as I have mentioned before, of getting the general British public to understand a great deal more about what is involved in the Common Market.
I was also interested in the most stimulating speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, most of which I was fortunately able to hear, because I missed part of his speech on the last occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, asked me a number of questions. If he will forgive me for saying so, I do not think any of them related to the present negotiations. I will endeavour to send him a reply to the matters he raised concerning the French.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in, if I may say so, a most stimulating and interesting speech, asked for the Government's view of the recent N.I.E.S.R. Review about the effects of the E.E.C. on present member countries. In our view this article falls below the usually high standards set by the Institute. For example, it ignores the evidence of the performance of manufacturing industries in the Six, which points to substantial improvements in the rate of productivity

477
growth in recent years, which have no parallel in non-E.E.C. countries. Again, in its analysis of Germany's performance, it gives no weight to the existence of the two revaluations of the Deutschmark in the 1960s as a sign of the strength of the German balance of payments and of German competitiveness. The noble Earl asked me a series of rather complicated technical questions, and I would be much obliged if he would put those down separately on the Order Paper as I want to be able to give him an accurate answer, which I cannot to-night.
I do not want to keep the House much longer, but I should like to return to what other noble Lords have been saying, that we have in fact been involved in Europe for centuries, indeed one might say since the time of Julius Caesar: through geography, as a European offshore island, and through history with a tangle of long and complicated alliances, treaties and pacts. We must not forget also the sacrifice of a great many British Servicemen's lives. We have also been involved through religion, immigration and inter-marriage, and perhaps, more recently, through new economic and financial ties.
Our whole tradition is European. As I think the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, said, our traditional European policy was to preserve the balance of power, and indeed it was. Surely, we cannot now retire to the sidelines as mere spectators of one of the most important world developments of our time. I know that there are those who disagree and who, quite apart from necessary and understandable worries concerning practical and important questions such as increased food prices and many other problems which have arisen to-day, have a feeling that Britain would, in some way, be losing her independence, her individuality and sovereignty, if we join the E.E.C.
One hears the sort of talk that we do not want to be dictated to by a European Parliament, and told what to do by a lot of foreigners who do not understand. I think it may be easier—and I should like to feel I had the backing of the noble Baroness in this—for a Scotsman to appreciate this feeling, for we in Scotland, some 260 years ago, took a somewhat similar step in joining England at the Act of Union—in my view to our great
478
mutual benefit. Ever since that time we have been very much concerned about preserving our national identity. Even without the benefit—if one calls it that—of a national Parliament, I think we can claim to have succeeded in preserving our identity.
There is a parallel in Europe. Like many other noble Lords, I see no sign of the French or the Germans or the Italians losing their identities or giving up control of their own affairs, and I cannot foresee it happening. Of course there must be some diminution of national sovereignty, but, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, any treaty or commercial pact that binds a party to certain courses of action involves loss of sovereignty; for instance, being a member of the United Nations or of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. So that fears on those grounds, however sincerely held, are often exaggerated.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt again, but I would remind the noble Marquess that prior to joining England, Scotland joined France.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that observation.
LORD SHACKLETON: It was not a very helpful one.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not think it has affected the Scottish national identity at all.
LORD BOOTHBY: That was the point, my Lords.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Europe is made up of many ingredients—industriousness, steadiness, artistry, subtlety, even passion. All countries have something to give and much to learn from others. I am wondering what our country can give. Possibly we can contribute justice, fair play, ingenuity and, indeed, technical skills, as well as many other ingredients to which I have referred. And I hope that the Community would welcome this contribution, not because it is lacking in it in any way, but because it would be our own particular British national contribution. It is Her Majesty's Government's hope that we shall be able to participate.

479
I think that the degree of unanimity in the debate about our aims has been most heartening. I do not often quote from the Leader of the Opposition, but I should like in conclusion to echo the words which Mr. Wilson used in the debate on the White Paper last February, when he said:
"We shall enter"—
the negotiations—
"in full determination to achieve success, for we believe it to be in the interests not only of Britain, but of Europe and of Europe's place in world affairs."
My Lords, that remains to-day our view and our resolve.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
  RUDI DUTSCHKE: DEPORTATION APPEAL HEARING
  RUDI DUTSCHKE: DEPORTATION APPEAL HEARING
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER POWER SUPPLY
  PALACE OF WESTMINSTER POWER SUPPLY
  THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: THE ROSKILL REPORT
  THIRD LONDON AIRPORT: THE ROSKILL REPORT
  BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS
  BOVINE BRUCELLOSIS