Sitting of 25 January 1971

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

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND 1969–70
Accounts ordered.
of the Civil Contignencies Fund 1969–70, showing:

(1) The Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March 1970.

(2) The Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Ceylon (British Assets)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the refusal of the Ceylon Government to release the assets of British subjects who have left Ceylon on retirement to settle elsewhere; and what replies he has sent.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): Representations are received from individuals from time to time. The Exchange Control Regulations imposed are of course a matter for the Ceylon Government, but in cases of real hardship the facts have been put to the Ceylon authorities by the British High Commission in Colombo. We are watching the position closely.
    Mr. Onslow: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether, in cases of real hardship, there has been any positive response from the Ceylon Government? Will my hon. Friend also undertake to draw the attention of the Ceylon Government that in a situation like this, where a number of people are denied access to their perfectly fairly earned life's savings, Ceylon can

    3
    hardly expect to go on receiving British aid indefinitely?
    Mr. Royle: When considering aid we should bear in mind Ceylon's difficult foreign exchange position. To cut aid would not improve its position and might well have an adverse effect on such transfers as Ceylon is at present able to authorise. We are continuing to watch the position very closely.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the negotiations for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a further statement about the progress of negotiations regarding entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the latest position about the Common Market negotiations.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): There is nothing I can add at this stage to what I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in the Debate on 20th and 21st January. I hope to make a further statement to the House following the Ministerial meeting in Brussels on 2nd February.—[Vol. 809, c. 1079–95 and 1317–34.]
    Mr. Barnes: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he
    4
    would be greatly helped in the negotiations if he could dissuade his right hon. Friends from provoking a series of confrontations in which they seem determined to arouse political passions? Surely a matter as important as Britain joining the European Economic Community needs to be considered against the calmest possible background and in the most deliberate way.
    Mr. Rippon: I think that this issue is of great importance to the country and to the rest of Western Europe. I agree that we should debate it calmly and reasonably. I hope that the debate last week helped to clear up quite a number of misunderstandings.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not clear from the Press conference by President Pompidou last week that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we do not commit ourselves to a federal system?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that that is perfectly clear to anyone who studies the situation objectively. We shall go forward gradually and harmoniously, developing institutions and harmonising our policies. There is no question of our joining the Community in its present state and becoming instantly committed to federalism.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since the last White Paper the cost-of-living objection to joining the Market has lost a great deal of force? This may explain the welcome upturn in the opinion polls measuring support for joining the Market which we have seen. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore publish a new estimate of the increased cost of living if we enter and also the increased standards of living?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that the situation has changed since the last White Paper was published. Incidentally, one factor of change relates to the cost of living. I believe that changes in public opinion will come when people realise the great objectives which are at stake and put them in the right perspective. Certainly experience in the Community is that standards of living have risen faster than they would otherwise have done.
    Mr. Marten: Following from that question, does my right hon. and learned

    5
    Friend recall the Prime Minister's speech in May in Paris when he said that it would be wrong to go into the Common Market without the wholehearted support of the British Parliament and the British people? While we understand how we can arrive at the answer of the British Parliament, may I ask what consultative machinery the Government will set up to find out whether they have in fact got the wholehearted support of the British people before agreeing to go in?
    Mr. Rippon: It is important that we should await the outcome of the negotiations before attempting to make any final decision. It is also important, in putting across the case to the British people, that everyone in this House should take care to see that they tell them the facts.
    Mr. Cronin: Bearing in mind the harm which will be done to the Western Alliance if the negotiations fail completely and also the considerable harm which has already been done to the Commonwealth by the Government, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will persist in trying to reduce the negotiating gap between the two parties?
    Mr. Rippon: I shall certainly do my best. I have always shared the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that there is not one political or economic problem which we face today which would not be more difficult to solve outside than inside the Community.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that over the weekend reports appeared that the Prime Minister is himself to lead a campaign in the country to popularise the Common Market? Will it not be appropriate to inform Members of Parliament first exactly what are the desiderata, and bring the last White Paper on the economic measures fully up to date so that I can talk to my constituents factually and intelligently?
    Mr. Rippon: I am sure that I can tell my hon. Friend that all his right hon. and hon. Frends will endeavour to assist him in that objective. I do not think that it would be helpful to produce a White Paper at this stage. I think that if the hon. Gentleman——
    Sir G. Nabarro: Hon. Friend, please.
    Mr. Rippon: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. If my hon. Friend reads last week's debate he will find quite a lot of helpful information.
    Mr. Shore: As the Minister knows, this information is very important. There is one important item missing from the information which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us during the last debate and during his last statement. Will he tell us now what, in his estimate, will be the size of the annual contribution which Britain will make to the Community's budget after the transitional period?
    Mr. Rippon: I gave the House a great many figures in my statement on 16th December, and I do not think that I can add to that. As I explained when winding up the debate last week, it is very difficult to be precise about figures, and while, in the course of the negotiations, there are some disputes between ourselves and the Commission, about the basis of the figures, how we build them up, and what considerations have been taken into account, a great deal depends on the assumptions that one makes about the size and shape of the budget during and at the end of the transitional period.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary to have a further edition of the economic White Paper, having regard to events in the last year, particularly in the context of the financial regulations and the common agricultural policy? Will he also consider bringing out a revised and up-to-date opinion on the White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications, which is nearly four years old?
    Mr. Rippon: I shall certainly consider both the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand the anxiety of right hon. and hon. Members on this matter. It is a question of the right time at which to bring out a further document. I do not think that that time has yet come.
    Mr. Jay: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so rightly anxious that the facts should be given to the public, will he confirm now, which he did not do during the debate last week, that all his negotiations on the financial contribution

    7
    concern merely the temporary arrangements and not the long-term position?
    Mr. Rippon: We have been concerned with the transitional period. We have made it clear that we accept the financial system and the direct income policy which is now being pursued.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Reverting to the anxieties of my two hon. Friends about the British people being informed, would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the primary duty of assessing the opinion of the British people rests upon individual Members themselves?
    Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Government have a responsibility in this matter, which they will endeavour to discharge. We shall do all that we can to help Members in helping us in that work.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to visit Australia and New Zealand for further discussions on the Common Market.
    Mr. Rippon: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any present plans to do so.
    Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the astonishment in Australia that the paper on sugar which our negotiators put in was shown to the Australians only about three hours before it was put in? Second, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that before we agree to go into the E.E.C. Britain must insist on gilt-edged safeguards in order to protect New Zealand's position?
    Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend knows, I went to Australia and New Zealand, and I cannot believe that the paper which we put in on sugar was greeted with absolute astonishment in Australia, because I made our position clear. We are responsible for our negotiating papers, and it would be wrong to try to identify Governments of the Commonwealth with them. I am in very close touch all the time with the representatives of the New Zealand and Australian Governments.
    Sir T. Beamish: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us were greatly encouraged recently when Sir
    8
    Keith Holyoake said, in a most statesmanlike and far-sighted way, that he saw advantages in the long term for the whole Commonwealth in the success of the Brussels negotiations?
    Mr. Rippon: That is so, and in the debate I quoted both what the Prime Minister of New Zealand said and what was said by the Prime Minister of Singapore.
    Mr. William Clark: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concern felt in Australia about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that if the C.S.A. is cancelled without some sort of arrangement being made to take its place, it could put the International Sugar Agreement in jeopardy and we shall get back to the position in which the price of sugar fluctuates between £12 and £105 a ton, which obviously is a matter of great concern not only to Australia but to the rest of the sugar-growing countries of the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Rippon: There is a great deal of force in that, but no question arises of cancelling the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. We made it clear that we could not change the basis upon which we were now operating until it came up for renegotiation in 1974. The Community's own arrangements also come up for renegotiation at about that time, and I think we understand that this is something that has to be looked at on a worldwide basis and in the context of the International Sugar Agreement as a whole.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be visiting Brussels in the near future.
    Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Brussels in the near future, but I will be going there on 2nd February for a meeting of the negotiating conference.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Minister gets to Brussels, I hope that he will remind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will he remind the bureaucrats in Brussels that almost half the Parliamentary Labour Party are against entry on the terms so far envisaged? Would he also remind

    9
    them that many of us on this side would regard the signing of the Treaty of Rome as not being irrevocable when a Labour Government are returned?
    Mr. Rippon: For good or ill, the Parliamentary Labour Party is not quite as small as some of the estimates suggest. I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's views to anyone who may be concerned.
    Mr. Hayhoeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now estimates that the negotiations on British membership of the European Economic Community will be completed and the terms made known to Parliament.
    Mr. Rippon: Every major subject in the negotiations has now been broached. While it is impossible to lay down a precise programme, I hope that the back of the negotiations will be broken by the middle of the year.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Does my right hon. Friend believe that this House will have an opportunity to express a firm view on, and I trust wholeheartedly to support, these negotiations before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Rippon: We shall have to see what progress we make in the next few months, but clearly it is to everyone's advantage that the negotiations should proceed as rapidly as possible.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the T.U.C. and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party have agreed to call special conferences so that the terms can be put to our members? May we have an undertaking that under no circumstances will the Government attempt to railroad a decision on this matter through in the way in which they are trying to railroad the Industrial Relations Bill through the House?
    Mr. Rippon: That matter could not possibly arise on this Question. People will make their own arrangements within their own organisations to consult as best they can. Certainly every effort should he made to ensure that the public understands the great issues that are at stake.
    Mr. Peel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he would have found it more
    10
    helpful if the Leadership of the Opposition, who came out in favour of these negotiations in the debate last week, had refrained from forcing the withdrawal of the whole British delegation at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg?
    Mr. Rippon: It is perhaps not for me to comment on that. Everybody understands that it does not create a very good impression in Europe, whether one is for or against our entering the Community, if this sort of thing happens.
    Mr. Leadbitter: That comment was totally irresponsible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the back of the negotiations would be broken by the middle of the year. Does he agree that time is exceptionally short and that about 70 per cent. of the British people are very much concerned with the proposal to enter the Community? What steps are the Government taking, first to ensure that the British public are consulted on this great issue, and, secondly, to see that an expression of the will of the people is obtained by allowing a free vote in this House?
    Mr. Rippon: Only recently we had a two-day debate on this great issue. It is the first responsibility of the Government to keep the House informed, and that we have done and will continue to do, not only by way of debate but by making statements, which I hope to do as the negotiations progress. That, I believe, is the right way for us to proceed.
    Mr. Marten: Would my right hon. and learned Friend be rather more explicit? He said that he hoped to have broken the back of the negotiations by midsummer, and presumably something will be presented to Parliament then, possibly by July. May we have an assurance that there will be several months in which the country can be consulted and in which this matter can be debated? Is he aware that this is vital if I am to honour the undertaking in our manifesto to consult the people? To enable me to consult my constituents, may I have an assurance that there will be no vote until November or the end of the year?
    Mr. Rippon: I hope that hon. Members are consulting their constituents as of this moment—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Marten: On the terms.
    Mr. Rippon: Some people say that they want to consult on the principles involved, and that is reasonable. However, it is not possible to consult on the terms until we have them. I should like to get them as soon as possible, and when we have got them we can consider the position.
    Mr. Healey: This is a matter on which different opinions are held on both sides of the House. Is it not extremely desirable, therefore, that the House and the country should make up their minds on the merits of the case? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as long as the Government persist in dividing the nation on many issues on which previously the nation was united—[Interruption.]—they cannot expect any automatic support for their views on this type of issue; that is, if they fly in the face of established procedures in the House of Commons on other matters of equal importance?
    Mr. Rippon: I recall that when I sat on those benches and we were in Opposition, I had a great many disputes with the Government of the day. However, it did not prevent us, on matters affecting the future of the nation and its foreign policy, from supporting the then Government when we thought they were right.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the negotiations for the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community, he will oppose any proposals from the European Economic Community Council of Ministers for rewriting parts of the Treaty of Rome until Parliament has had an opportunity of debating and reaching a decision about such proposals.
    Mr. Rippon: Her Majesty's Government accept the Treaty of Rome and the decisions which have flowed from it. I am not aware of any proposal that parts of the Treaty should be rewritten. If the negotiations succeed and Parliament is invited to approve an Instrument of Accession to the Treaties of the Communities, all aspects of the matter will be the subject of full consideration and discussion in Parliament.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is deep disquiet—and there will continue to be disquiet as a result of his answer—because the Government are committing themselves to the concept of political unity in Western Europe on a matter about which this Parliament has made no decision and an issue on which the vast majority of the British people are completely opposed to what the Government are doing?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Certainly the anxieties of which he has spoken do not arise from my reply. There are undoubtedly anxieties—of course there are—but this matter has been debated fully in this Parliament and in the last Parliament and certain views have been expressed.
    Mr. Adley: Despite the contentions of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that the proposition put out by those who are opposed to our entering the Community—that the nation is frightened at the thought of both Front Benches in this House being in agreement—is wrong because many people are delighted that for once both Front Benches are in accord on the course of action which the vast majority of people realise is in the long-term interests of this country?
    Mr. Rippon: It is certainly true that in some minds any agreement between the two Front Benches arouses a degree of anxiety. I hope and believe that that anxiety is not justified on this occasion.
    Mr. Jay: As the right hon. Gentleman has constantly advised us to await the terms, is there not a heavier obligation on the Government to see that when the terms are known, the nation has time to consider them?
    Mr. Rippon: It is important—this came out in the debate last week—that the great general issues should be debated fully. That can and should be done now. As for the terms themselves, it is impossible to debate them until they are known.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the last General Election some of

    13
    us found ourselves confronted by official Labour candidates who were anti-market? Further, is he aware that the candidate whom I have in mind did not do very well?
    Mr. Rippon: I am astonished that he did not do better in my hon. Friend's constituency. [Laughter.]
    Mr. Healey: While noting with some interest and, indeed, fascination, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), may I revert to the original Question and ask whether it is not the case that the only proposal for rewriting the Rome Treaty was one made by President Pompidou a couple of days ago, his proposal being to rewrite the Treaty so as to eliminate the supra-national elements to which it appears to commit its signatories?
    Mr. Rippon: May I, first of all, apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) for a reply which was somewhat rather badly expressed. I meant to say to him that I am not surprised that his opponent did not do well in that constituency, which is the exact opposite of the meaning which I fear I conveyed.
    Answering the right hon Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I think that what President Pompidou had to say was very much in line with many views which might be expressed in this House.
    Mr. Marten: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. and learned Friends reply on the point dealing with a vote after the terms are known. I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise the question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has now had with the United States Government in relation to the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed this with the President of the United States in Washington on 17th December. President Nixon expressed full support for the United Kingdom's application for membership.
    Mr. Tugendhat: There have been signs in the last few years that feeling in the the United States for our membership is perhaps less enthusiastic than used to be the case. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the United States Government and United States public opinion is as wholeheartedly behind our application as it was in 1961?
    Mr. Rippon: I cannot answer for United States public opinion. Anxieties may be felt at certain levels, but we are always somewhat afraid of the impact of change at any level. But there is no doubt that the United States Administration appreciates, as successive British Governments have done, the enormous importance to the future of Western Europe and the Alliance that these negotiations for an enlarged Community should succeed.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that some of us are concerned at the implication of any consultation with the United States on this issue, because it seems to confirm our suspicions that the Government are not interested in the economic side of the E.E.C., although both parties fought at the election about possible membership of a European Economic Community. Is he aware that no party in this House has a mandate to enter a European economic and political community?
    Mr. Rippon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the then Prime Minister, now the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his statement to the House on 2nd May, 1967, set out the political issues very clearly indeed.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not the case that American concern about the enlargement of the Community relates to the economic and not to the political consequences; and that the political consequences present no problem whatever either between Britain and the United States or between the Community and the United States?
    Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has put the matter very clearly. The anxieties are certainly about the economic aspects, and particularly the effect on traditional trading arrangements.
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has now

    15
    had with the Foreign Ministers of the Six with reference to the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: I have now visited the Foreign Ministers of each of the countries of the Six except Italy. I have, however, seen Signor Moro, the Italian Foreign Minister in London, and plan to have talks with him again in Rome in the spring.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable feeling in all parts of the House that perhaps the programme of talks relating to the negotiations is inadequate and that more discussions will be necessary if we are to reach the deadline which everyone has imposed?
    Mr. Rippon: That question arises out of the next Question on the Order Paper.
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now seek to arrange with the Foreign Ministers of the European Economic Community countries to hold more frequent meetings to question the negotiations for British membership.
    Mr. Rippon: I am satisfied that all the parties are making efforts to see that the negotiations are concluded as soon as possible. It has been agreed that negotiating meetings with the Communities at Ministerial level should take place on 2nd February, 16th March, 11th May and 22nd June. It has also been agreed that additional days may be made available, and the timetable could be speeded up if necessary.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is evidence of a growing political will on the part of the countries of the Six that these negotiations should succeed? Would he also state whether in his opinion it would be desirable to maintain this political momentum by having Ministerial meetings spaced as closely together as may be possible?
    Mr. Rippon: I certainly assume that there is the political will on the part of the Community that these negotiations will succeed: that is the basis on which
    16
    we entered upon them. It is too early to say what further programme of meetings will be necessary. It is understood that we may need more meetings, but I should have thought, given the issues still remaining to be determined, that for the moment we had a reasonable programme.
    Mr. J. T. Price: But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of giving to the House these sophisticated answers about the Common Market, bear in mind one very important question, which is that neither the Government Party nor the Labour Party has ever received any mandate from the British people to sign the Treaty of Rome? How long can we in this House go on kidding ourselves that we can get further and further away from the public opinion of our constituents, who sent us here without giving us the power to accord with this movement, without the whole question being referred back to them at a further election—not by way of referendum, but by way of a general appeal to the electorate once more?
    Mr. Rippon: Every hon. Member has to put his own case to his own constituents, but I think that the position of the Conservative Party has been clear for a long time. What we have said is that we see great merit in principle in the enlargement of the Community but that we are committed only to negotiate: we have not promised to sign the Treaty of Rome no matter what the terms may be.
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has received from the member Governments of the European Economic Community regarding proposals for economic and monetary union within the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: None, Sir.
    Sir A. Meyer: In view of the very interesting suggestions put forward in last week's debate by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that something on these lines offers a hope for the maintenance of the future ability of the country to operate effectively in influencing world economic

    17
    policies, and that the policies in the Werner Report could make a powerful contribution towards strengthening the world monetary system?
    Mr. Rippon: Chancellors of the Exchequer on both sides have made these points, and they were made again in last week's debate by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and by the right hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I believe, however, as I have indicated, that these matters do not arise directly from the negotiations, and that there is nothing in the Werner proposals in the first stage which need cause us any anxiety at all in regard to British interests.
    Mr. Crouchasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in relation to the United Kingdom's application to join the European Communities, what consultations he has had with the non-applicant European Free Trade Association countries.
    Mr. Rippon: We are in regular contact with all our E.F.T.A. partners. Ministers of E.F.T.A. countries meet at regular intervals. The last Ministerial meeting was in November, 1970. There will be a further meeting in May this year.
    Mr. Crouch: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the European Continental members of E.F.T.A. 'have benefited greatly from being members of this Association. Can he give an assurance that when Britain, Norway and Denmark join the Common Market, these other members of E.F.T.A. will not suffer irreparable damage to their economies?
    Mr. Rippon: As I tried to explain in the debate last week, one of the purposes of E.F.T.A. and of the Treaty of Stockholm was to end the economic division of Western Europe. We are closely in touch not only with our fellow applicants but also with the non-applicant countries of E.F.T.A. so as to ensure that all our interests are protected.
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress up to the end of 1970 in the Common Market negotiations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. I have nothing to add at this stage to the various statements I have already made to the House.
    Mr. Lane: As many of the arguments of the opponents to Britain's entry into the Community are narrow-minded and negative, will my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues increase further their efforts to stress publicly the positive benefits of British membership, for the benefit of that majority of the public who have not yet made up their mind but are open to persuasion?
    Mr. Rippon: If I may say so, it is very important that one should make a distinction between those arguments against our joining the Community—which I believe to be totally ill-founded, but that is a matter for argument—and those legitimate anxieties which the public feel and which we have to satisfy in the course of the negotiations. There are real fears, and it is our duty to try to remove them and to explain the great long-term advantages, political and economic.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that although it is the duty of Members of Parliament to enlighten their constituents, they also ought to take some account of the enlightenment among their constituents, and that some of our constituents—this may apply to hon. Members opposite as well as to hon. Members on this side of the House—are sufficiently enlightened to know that the advantages of our entering the Common Market are less than the advantages of staying out?
    Mr. Rippon: I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman is expressing his own views as much as those of his constituents. These are great issues and it is right that they should be fully debated in this House and in the country. That is what is happening now.
    Mr. Moyle: As the British permanent representative to the Common Market talks has described the British Government's proposals for the British contribution to the European funds as being a fair, not to say generous, proposal, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be no possible increase in the burden on Britain should Britain ever join the Common Market, and that there is no question

    19
    of our voting rights being part of the discussions as well?
    Mr. Rippon: All these are matters for discussion. As I have said, we have put forward figures and the Community have put forward figures. We have put forward arguments justifying our figures. That is what we shall discuss. I hope that at the end of the day a reasonable and fair bargain is struck which protects the balance of mutual advantage to the existing members and applicants—one which is fair to all. That is the object of the exercise. I cannot conceive of a situation in which we reached an agreement on the basis that we did not have our voting rights from the outset.
    Mr. Longdenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the negotiations for the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome, he will now seek to obtain amendment to those provisions of the common agricultural policy which would be harmful to Commonwealth producers, whether from price increases or from subsidised dumping.
    Mr. Rippon: We accept the treaties establishing the Communities and the decisions which have flowed from them including the Common Agricultural Policy, subject to a number of points we wish to see covered in the negotiations. These include certain aspects of our trade with the Commonwealth, notably New Zealand dairy produce and sugar from developing Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Longden: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that even to a convinced Marketeer like myself—that is to say, one whose vision is not impaired by nostalgic myopia—it is unthinkable that we should ditch our new Zealand partners or sugar growers in other parts of the Commonwealth? Is it the case that unless we can amend this lunatic policy, we shall be compelled to prefer the produce of Continental inefficiency to cheaper supplies from elsewhere, and to acquiesce in the subsidised dumping of unnecessary Continental surpluses?
    Mr. Rippon: Comments can be made, and we should certainly wish to make them were we members of the Community, about the application of the
    20
    policy. What we have said is that we accept the Common agricultural policy as it stands, subject to the major points and the minor points which arise in the negotiations. I do not think anybody dissents from my hon. Friend about the importance of New Zealand and sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries. We have other problems of the Commonwealth, as also of our traditional trading suppliers, which we are seeking to protect.
    Mr. Healey: Does the Minister recall that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture told the House on Thursday that the Common Market had been trying to get rid and, indeed, had succeeded in getting rid of its enormous butter surplus by dumping butter throughout the world? Have our Government, on behalf of our Commonwealth partners, made any protest about this practice?
    Mr. Rippon: It has not been the subject of the negotiations. We appreciate that the question of butter, especially New Zealand butter, is of very great importance.
    Mr. Healey: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question? Have the Government made any protest on the dumping of Common Market butter subsidised by the C.A.P.?
    Mr. Rippon: It has not been dumped in this country. Other countries are free to make what protests they like under their own legislation. The United States Government, I think, allow 170 tons of New Zealand butter into their country. If the Community tries to dump its butter into the United States, it is for the United States Government to make a protest if they wish to do so.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Without asking my right hon. and learned Friend to comment on the somewhat pejorative preable to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, may I ask him whether he agrees that the common agricultural policy is not covered by the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which requires only a common agricultural policy, and that the details of this particular and unacceptable policy could be modified by simple agreement amongst the Six which would be in their own interests, and for

    21
    which our Government ought to be pressing?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right when he says that the common agricultural policy as such does not arise from the Treaty of Rome. It can be changed at any time. It can be changed very frequently in the future. What is impossible, if we are to have sensible negotiations, is to try to change that policy as part of the negotiations. We have to accept that the Community has reached a certain stage, and we have said that we will accept that and we will adapt to it in good faith.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a categorical assurance to the House that in the negotiations the interests of New Zealand and our other Commonwealth countries will be safeguarded? Will he assure us that the interests of New Zealand, which are vital to the economic prosperity of that country, will not be sacrificed in any way by Her Majesty's Government?
    Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It makes it perfectly clear that we in this country attach very great importance to the negotiation of satisfactory arrangements for New Zealand.

    South-East Asia (British Military Presence)
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with Ministers from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia during the course of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference on the subject of a continued British military presence in South-East Asia.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I naturally talked to some of the Ministers concerned about this matter. No detailed discussion was needed as good progress in working out Five-Power Defence arrangements had been made by senior officials at their meeting in Singapore in the week before the Commonwealth Conference. There will be a Ministerial meeting in London in the Spring.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is every prospect of these negotiations reaching a satisfactory settlement? As there is so much concentration at the moment on matters of disagreement, might it not be as well not to overlook this matter?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree.

    South Africa (Arms Supply)
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on the supply of maritime arms to South Africa.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow.
    Mr. Wall: Does that reply mean that the Prime Minister will be making a definite statement on the supply of maritime arms, or merely on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? These matters have been under discussion for six months. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall get a firm statement as soon as possible?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have said that when the question of the sale of arms to South Africa is decided a statement will be made to the House. Tomorrow the Prime Minister will be making a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, a large part of which was taken up with discussions on this issue.
    Mr. Strang: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the British Government were to issue a statement, before the working party on the Indian Ocean got under way, that they would not announce a decision whether to sell arms to South Africa while that working party was conducting its task, that would be a tremendous fillip to the morale of the Commonwealth? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake this afternoon to consider making such a statement?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: At the Prime Ministers' Conference in Singapore we made it clear that the decision will be taken at the time which the British Government think is right, and we are not fettered in any way.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is not there at least a moral obligation on the Government to wait until this working party reports? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports in the Press this morning that there have been statements over the weekend in South Africa that they are not now interested in British arms? Does not that show the futility of alienating the Commonwealth in order to please a racialist regime?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ought to believe all the statements that he reads.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: May we have an assurance that from this moment onwards my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will always use the term "maritime arms", to make it quite clear what the true purpose of the arms would be—namely, the defence of the trade routes on which the prosperity and freedom of all African States depends?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. Any arms that might be sold will be in the category of maritime arms.

    African Territories (Guerilla Forces)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will seek to raise at the Security Council, as a threat to world peace, the continued aggression by foreign-based and foreign-supported guerilla forces against Portuguese and other territories in Africa.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government deplore the use of force wherever it may occur, but are of the opinion that these guerilla activities cannot be said to constitute a threat to world peace.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Republic of Guinea provides at least eight operational bases for P.I.G.C. attacks on Portuguese Guinea? Is this not aggression under international law, and also contrary to the U.N. Charter and the Charter of the O.A.U.? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this double standard operating in favour of a dictatorship whose cruelty is now apparent to the whole world?
    Mr. Kershaw: I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to comment on what he says about bases of which we have no knowledge.
    Mr. John Fraser: Would the hon. Gentleman also deplore the existence of the Portuguese racialist regimes in Africa, which do constitute a long-term threat to world peace, because they involve the suppression of one race by another?
    Mr. Kershaw: I also have nothing to say to that. The question of the emancipation of colonial peoples is one for the colonial Power, and we must have regard to their sovereignty.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: Although I agree entirely on the desirability of the emancipation of colonial peoples, would the Government seek to make some representations about the trials which have taken place recently in Guinea, the results of which many of us have been horrified to read in the Press this morning?
    Mr. Kershaw: I am afraid that I have no information except what I, too, have read in the Press. I also think that it would probably be counter-productive for Her Majesty's Government to make representations, which could probably be better made by other African Governments to the Conarkry Government.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What is the attitude of the Government towards the report of the United Nations Committee set up for the specific purpose of looking into the invasions of Guinea, which concluded that they had certainly been supported by Portuguese armed forces?
    Mr. Kershaw: We accepted the report of the investigating committee, but we abstained on the vote because the Resolutions went far beyond what we considered the facts in the report actually justified.

    United States Forces in Europe
    Mr. William Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present state of discussions in the North Atlantic Alliance on the level of United States forces in Europe.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No discussion is in progress in N.A.T.O. and, in view of President Nixon's welcome assurances, none is needed.
    Mr. Clarke: Would my right hon. Friend not agree, nevertheless, that whether or not Britain enters the Common Market it would also be desirable to maintain a presence of United States forces in Europe?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir.

    Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proceedings and agreements reached at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
    Mr. Murtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with other Commonwealth Ministers during the course of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would ask hon. Members to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making on the Conference tomorrow.
    Mr. Wall: Is not the Commonwealth still of value to itself, to the world and to this country? What steps are being taken to make it less formal and more confidential?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth was asked at the Conference in Singapore to study this matter of the procedure of the Commonwealth in future.
    Mr. Murton: Would my right hon. Friend, nevertheless, not agree that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference remains a unique opportunity for a frank exchange of ideas and opinions, and that it would be most inadvisable for any member to decide, at this or any other stage, to leave it because of any possible difference of opinion?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir, that is true. Of course, there are all sorts of contacts, apart altogether from the Prime Minister's meetings. The Finance Ministers and the officials, for example, meet at least once a year, so there are many contacts which should be preserved and can be profitable in the Commonwealth context.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Prime Minister be dealing fully and frankly with the question of Indian Ocean bases such as Diego Garcia?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Frankly, but how fully the hon. Gentleman will have to judge.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: May we take it that the Prime Minister's statement tomorrow will not only give us full information as to the Conference recently held but will also deal, in as much detail as the rules of order will permit, with the procedures which he proposes for further conferences of this kind?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences are, of course, called by a consensus, when the Prime Ministers decide that it is useful for them to meet. There are no laid-down procedures. What happens now is that the Secretary-General collects the views of Prime Ministers, and that procedure will continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) was talking about rather different procedures, the conduct inside Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meetings in future.

    Middle East (Jarring Talks)
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is now taking to encourage a resumption of the Jarring talks.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Her Majesty's Government welcome the resumption of Dr. Jarring's talks with the representatives of the Governments of Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic. They hope that these talks will be marked by a determination on the part of all concerned to achieve a settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolution No. 242.
    Mr. Mayhew: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the increasing international support for an idea first put forward in this House and supported on both sides—namely, that it might help to induce the Israelis to withdraw from the occupied territories, and thus make a settlement possible, if they knew that the French and British were willing to participate in an international security force on their frontiers? May we ask

    27
    the right hon. Gentleman whether this is in line with his thinking, and whether he is pressing it?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The question of possible guarantees is being very carefully studied by Dr. Jarring and the four Powers in New York. Certainly, various forms of guarantees, either by the four Powers or by other Powers concerned, are being considered. It would not be wise at the moment, I think, to say exactly what we have in mind, because a solution cannot be dictated either to Israel or to the Arab countries.
    Mr. Crouch: Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most positive steps which we could take in this very delicate matter of ensuring the continuation of these talks after 5th February is to use our natural relationship with the United States, our friends and allies, to see that they use their influence with the Israelis to see that the talks continue?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir, I think that the United States has done that, and the talks are continuing. I think that it is a matter—the right hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was asking me about this—of how one can give guarantees which will help Israel to fulfil that part of the Resolution dealing with withdrawal from occupied territories.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: For the record, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we on this side warmly support the efforts to secure a further series of Jarring talks, that Dr. Jarring is highly respected by both sides, that we have the fullest confidence in him and, further, that we concur in the view which the Foreign Secretary has just advanced, that one should not, at this stage, lay down any details with regard to the form of any possible guarantee which may eventuate from these talks?

    China (Detained British Subjects)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are still detained in China; and whether he has had any recent communications from the Chinese authorities about them.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: There are four British subjects believed to be detained in China, all for some three years. They are Mrs. Gladys Yang, Mrs. Epstein, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Crook. Mrs. Yang is married to a Chinese citizen; the remaining three previously worked for the Chinese Government and have lived in China for many years. We are not certain that any of them wish to leave China. The Chinese authorities have provided us with no information about them, despite repeated representations. The most recent representation was on 23rd December, 1970.
    Mr. Onslow: While naturally welcoming the release of Mr. Johnson, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that there cannot be any real improvement in relations with China until it becomes routine for the Chinese Government to provide us with information about all British subjects who are missing and until they will give us consular access to those who are detained? Is he aware that this is as true for Hong Kong subjects as it is for United Kingdom subjects?
    Mr. Royle: We are naturally anxious that the Chinese Government should give us full information about detained people. Our relations with China have shown a marked improvement in the last year. During 1970 seven British subjects, none of whom worked for the Chinese Government, were released by the Chinese authorities. We have left the Chinese Government in no doubt about our wish for a further improvement.
    Mr. Rankin: Can the hon. Gentleman give any figures about the number of people who get into China via Hong Kong? Would it be unfair to suggest that it is courteous of the Chinese to keep some of these people when they succeed in getting in?
    Mr. Royle: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. Perhaps he is implying that people are crossing the border at Lo Wu in pursuance of their normal business. If he will table a Question on the subject, I will try to find out the figures for him.
    Mr. Gorst: Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will continue to press the Chinese authorities, because he knows that my constituent's sister, Mrs. Yang, has been the subject of a complete

    29
    black-out of information for a very long time? Is he aware that this is causing almost intolerable distress to my constituent and her family, particularly as her mother recently died without having received any information about Mrs. Yang?
    Mr. Royle: We will continue to press the Chinese authorities, but my hon. Friend should bear in mind that we are not sure whether Mrs. Yang is detained or whether she wishes to leave China.

    Tanzania (Payment of Pensions)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now arrange to pay the pensions of the locally enlisted servants of the Zanzibar Government whose pensions are in default and who were employed prior to independence.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): At my request, the British High Commissioner in Dares Salaam has recently made fresh representations to the Tanzanian Government on this matter, and we await the outcome.
    Mr. AllasonSurely my right hon. Friend realises that the Tanzanian Government have not the slightest intention of paying these pensions and that, at the same time, these wretched people are very short of money? Could not the Government make some interim arrangement for these people, if they think that there is a possibility of some final settlement?
    Mr. Wood: As my hon. Friend knows, we have tried to settle this matter. If I shared his pessimism I would not have made the approach that I have made. I am now awaiting the outcome of that approach.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the few instances in which this type of case has arisen, Her Majesty's Government have paid the pensions and have made a claim afterwards?
    Mr. Wood: There have been differences, particularly in the South Yemen where the pensions were first paid and then debarred.

    East Pakistan (Flood Disaster Relief)
    Mr. Prenticeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid now being given to East Pakistan to help with the rehabilitation of those areas which suffered from the recent floods.
    Mr. Wood: During his visit to Pakistan earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the British Government would contribute £2 million to the World Bank Reconstruction Programme for the coastal areas of East Pakistan. Because the extent of the disaster there was unprecedented, and called for wholly exceptional measures of relief and assistance, we had already provided £530,000 for disaster relief. We are also providing £500,000 for the purchase of wheat for East Pakistan.
    Mr. Prentice: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell the House to what extent he has been in touch with other aid partners of the World Bank, since the Pakistan Cabinet drew up their plans for the reconstruction of the Delta at the end of November, and will he say whether he is satisfied that the total flow of aid will be sufficient to cope with the tremendous problem?
    Mr. Wood: There has been discussion with our partners in the World Bank, both on the immediate reconstruction programme and on the longer-term action programme which will stretch over the next few years.
    Sir R. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his answer will give great satisfaction to those of us who recognise, for historical and sentimental reasons, how much this country owes to the jute industry of East Bengal, and will he also accept that we are grateful to him for having contributed funds on this scale to help in this unparalleled disaster?
    Mr. Wood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
    Mrs. Hart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what consideration he is giving to our bilateral aid programme? Is he proposing to send a team from his Department to consider steps which can be taken under the bilateral programme?

    31
    Will he also say whether he is completely satisfied with the present High Commission staffing in Pakistan on aid questions?
    Mr. Wood: I will certainly look into the matters which the right hon. Lady mentions. As to the pledging for the next year, this will be done, as she will be well aware, within the next few months. We shall then see whether our present level of bilateral aid is adequate.

SKYWAYS COACH AIR LIMITED
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
95. Mr. MULLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what directives he has given the Transport Holding Company in respect of its shareholding in Skyways Coach Air; and if he will make a statement about the appointment of a receiver for and the cessation of operations by Skyways Coach Air.
The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): With permission, I shall now answer Question No. 95.
In October, 1970, the Transport Holding Company, which, in 1967, had purchased a half share in Skyways Coach Air Ltd. for £27,000 sought my permission to lend it £300,000.
As the Transport Holding Company had already lent the company £1,200,000 and was owed a further £160,000 by way of interest, I considered that the time had come to put a limit on the amount of public funds invested in such a high risk venture. I had in mind also the fact that the company had made an estimated loss after interest of £200,000 in 1970.
Accordingly, while I agreed to a loan of £100,000 to meet immediate liabilities, I refused consent for the larger amount.
Subsequently, in order to give the company further breathing space to find alternative finance, and having in mind the number of jobs at stake, I agreed that the Transport Holding Company should make available a further £50,000 to tide the company over until 20th January. I was influenced in this decision by the fact that many people had booked and paid for passages over Christmas.
Neither the Transport Holding Company nor Skyways was, however, able to secure any firm offer, and the Transport Holding Company decided, with my full
32
agreement, that there was no justification for putting further money into the company.
The Transport Holding Company, has, therefore, appointed a receiver but has undertaken to make such payments to employees as would, in its opinion, be fair and reasonable in the light of their contracts of employment, to make refunds for unusable tickets, and to pay in full claims of the company's outstanding trade creditors up to 20th January.
I should, perhaps, add, in view of some suggestions of the number of people whose holiday arrangements have been affected, that the figure of 300,000 people represented hopes rather than bookings.
Mr. Mulley: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement on this matter. Since he can, I understand, in respect of the Transport Holding Company give directives which he does not need to report to the House as he does in respect of other nationalised industries, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement when he gives directions to the Transport Holding Company on this or other matters?
Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that the injection of a little more capital, as is suggested, would save this company, to the benefit of the employees and those who do business with it? Further, although I have sympathy with his desire to reduce the losses in this case, will he give an assurance that he will not sell Transport Holding Company assets which are profit-making?
Mr. Peyton: I gladly undertake to keep the House informed on this matter. As regards the other point which the right hon. Gentleman makes, I have no idea when the call on public funds would cease, and this led me to my decision, which I reached with great reluctance, that the time had come to halt this process. I felt that the process should stop.
Mr. Costain: I accept the reasons which made him come to his conclusion, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his decision will lead to increased unemployment in the Folkestone and Hythe constituency? May we have an assurance that an effort will be made to keep the aerodrome in operation, thus helping to continue the employment of the people concerned?
Mr. Peyton: My hon. Friend has brought his anxieties very much to my notice. I greatly regret that this misfortune should have fallen upon many of his constituents. I would hope that the airfield could continue to be used as an airfield, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be able to help in finding alternative jobs for the people who are thus displaced.
Mr. Barnett: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his decision to approve the payment of creditors in full in this case while agreeing to a scheme in respect of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board under which small investors were to have 30 per cent. of their investment written off—in addition to which we are now told that there is to be a moratorium, which may mean their not getting anything at all?
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to realise that I am not answering questions about the Mersey this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] I shall look forward to doing so on Wednesday. The cases are in no way comparable. What one wanted to do here was to terminate Government liability in this matter as quickly and as decently as possible.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on calling a halt to the pouring of public funds down this particular open drain. As there are even larger open drains about, may be have an assurance that his example will be closely followed by the Government as a whole?
Mr. Peyton: I am sure that my right hon. Friends will speak for themselves. For my part, if there are any open drains which I can stop, I shall be glad to do so.
Mr. Tinn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) asked, that, as regards this undertaking for which he is responsible, he will not sell off assets which are yielding a profit?
Mr. Peyton: I am concerned only with the public interest. If I find that assets owned by the State have either become a source of loss or are not earning inything like what they ought to earn, I shall consider what action is appropriate.

CAMBODIA
Mr. Dalyell (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make immediate representations to the Soviet Government as co-chairman of the Geneva Convention in view of events in Cambodia and seek to act as mediator between the opposing forces outside Phnom Penh.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): Her Majesty's Government have already made abundantly clear on repeated occasions their willingness to take any action, either as Geneva co-chairman or in any other way, which might help end the war in Indo-China. Unfortunately, the Russian co-chairman has shown no willingness to agree to joint action.
Mr. Dalyell: Has the Russian co-chairman been approached within the last 72 hours? If we are not to take an initiative, who can help these unfortunate Khmer people? In the light of Senator Mansfield's call for an inquiry by the Senate owing to American forces going beyond what he calls the spirit of the ban on ground forces arranged by the Senate itself, could not the Foreign Office take the initiative?
Mr. Royle: We last raised the matter when Mr. Gromyko visited this country and had talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If we see any suitable opening, we shall, of course, be prepared to do so again.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Pending more hopeful developments in the matter, will Her Majesty's Government give all moral support to the United States Administration in supplying air support to Cambodia?
Mr. Royle: Yes, Sir. The root cause of the trouble in Cambodia, as in South Vietnam and Laos, is the illegal presence and activity of large numbers of North Vietnamese troops, who, clearly, are responsible for the attack.
Mr. Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply? I do not think that he can have considered it very carefully.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, he did. He read it out.
Mr. Healey: I do not accept that he read it out. Is not it really in the interests of everybody, not least the United States people, that the war should be brought to an end as soon as possible and that the United States should disengage its forces from the combat not only in Vietnam but even more in other parts of Indo-China? Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that the Government support air action by the United States in Cambodia at this time and at this stage in President Nixon's withdrawal policy?
Mr. Royle: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We share his concern and his desire to get talks going. I was in Cambodia in October and on my return was with my
36
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he raised the matter with Mr. Gromyko. If the opportunity occurs again, we shall naturally take it.
Mr. Healey: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question? Is it really the Government's policy to support bombing in Cambodia by United States forces at a time when the United States has given an undertaking that it will not involve its ground troops in that country at all?
Mr. Royle: We are not ourselves involved in Cambodia in any way. As my right hon. Friend is co-chairman of the Geneva Conference it would be wrong for me to say that we will in any way get ourselves involved in the events in Cambodia at the present time.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
3.43 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the Bill after the day on which this Order is made:—

Allotted days for Committee and for Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Bill after the day on which this Order is made shall be completed in ten allotted days.

(2) The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in four allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the last of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(3) Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the Bill as if the words 'sub-paragrahp (b) of' were omitted from that Order.

Reports of Business Committee

2.—(1) The Business Committee shall report to the House their resolution—

(a) as to the remaining Proceedings in Committee on the Bill not later than the 26th day of January 1971;

(b) as to the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and Third Reading not later than the eighth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Proceedings in Committee are concluded.

(2) The resolutions in any report made under Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further report so made, whether or not within the time specified in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph, and whether or not the resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

Proceedings on going into Committee

3. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.

Order of Proceedings in Committee

4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in Committee.

Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory motions

6. No dilatory motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on allotted days

7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any postponement under this paragraph shall be in addition to any postponement under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).

Standing Order No. 13

8. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Leader of the House discusses his Motion, I wish to announce my selection of Amendments standing in the name of the right hon. Lady the Member or Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I have decided to select the Amendment to line 5,
"leave out 'ten' and insert 'thirty'",
and the Amendment to line 7,
"leave out 'four' and insert 'six'".
We can either have a general debate on the Motion and the two Amendments taken together, followed by Divisions first on the two Amendments and then on the main Question or, if that proposition is not acceptable to the House, I am prepared to give some hours for discussion on the main proposal and then at a later hour call the right hon. Lady or the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) to move successively the two Amendments. Then when the Amendments have been disposed of we should return to the main Question, with or without amendment, which would fall to be decided by the House.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving us this choice. We would wish to adopt the second course, namely, to start with the general discussion on the principle of the guillotine Motion and
42
then, when that has come to a conclusion, to go on to the Amendments and return to the voting afterwards.
Mr. Speaker: In that case, we adopt the second course.
Mr. Whitelaw: Over the years all Governments have found it necessary to move timetable Motions, and HANSARD is full of quotations justifying their use by my predecessors in all parties. It can surely, therefore, be accepted that there are occasions when timetable Motions have to be used and that they are a necessary part of our procedure.
The case I have to answer this afternoon, then, surely is why a timetable Motion is justified in the case of the Industrial Relations Bill, and subsidiary to that, why it is justified at this stage in the discussions on the Bill.
It is to the credit of our Parliament that much controversial legislation is conducted through it with give and take on timing and arrangements between Government and Opposition, but there are some Bills on which quite understandably the views of the Government and Opposition are so much opposed that reasonable arrangements cannot work. I contend that this Bill is such a case. We on this side of the House believe that its passage is urgent in the national interest.

43
We can claim with justice that we have a clear mandate for it from the people in a recent General Election.
On the other hand, the Opposition was stated by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) with the utmost clarity in the debate on the Consultative Document on 26th November when, leading for the Opposition, she said:
"Because we believe that it will be a political Bill, we shall fight any legislation based on these proposals tooth and nail, line by line, and, however long it takes, we shall destroy the Bill."
There is not much sign of a voluntary agreement there.
In the same debate the right hon. Lady was reinforced by her hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who said:
"My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn made it clear that we would oppose this Measure root and branch."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November 1970; Vol. 807, cc. 666 and 733.]
I simply cannot see how such words can offer any prospect of voluntary co-operation from the Opposition. Indeed, I should have thought that they were used quite deliberately to indicate to the House and the country that the Bill would be relentlessly opposed in the House, and the main weapon with which Oppositions fight Bills is by the use of time. It is for that reason that in my judgment the Bill is one of those where a timetable Motion at some stage is inevitable. That, then, is the answer to the first question—a timetable Motion on the Bill at some stage was an inevitable fact of parliamentary life.
The precedents for the introduction of a timetable Motion on wide-ranging constitutional Measures are innumerable. Only three years ago right hon. Gentlemen opposite guillotined discussion on a Finance Bill of major importance, and with practically no notice they guillotined the ill-fated House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, which affected the very constitution of the House.
So we turn to the second question, whether the introduction of the Motion at this stage of the discussion of the Bill is justified. I cannot do better than to quote the views of the late Herbert Morrison as Leader of the House in 1948. Introducing a timetable on the Iron
44
and Steel Bill even before the Committee stage had started, he said:
"… we have to face that position. We seek to get this Bill through. That is what it was introduced for. The Government are, however, prepared, and, indeed, determined, to allow reasonably full time for the discussion of every aspect of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1429.]
I must admit that when I considered together those words from a distinguished member of the party opposite and the clear declarations of the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, I seriously considered following his example and introducing a timetable Motion as he did before the start of the Committee stage. But we decided against that course. We wanted to see what would happen in Committee without a timetable Motion. The result has been two non-controversial Clauses in 20 hours' sitting, including one all-night sitting. It has been made quite clear on numerous occasions by the Opposition that they do not regard the Committee stage as a means of improving the Bill. They wish to see it frustrated and delayed. If the Committee stage is not to be used to improve the Bill, it has only one other purpose, as has been made perfectly clear by the Opposition —to delay and frustrate it.
Then I may be asked, "Why not wait a little longer and progress might be better?" The danger of such a course is that far too much time is taken on relatively uncontroversial Clauses at the start and then debate on the really controversial and important parts of the Bill is cut short when eventually the timetable Motion is introduced, as it is so often, too late.
Once it was clear to me that a timetable Motion was inevitable, I had no doubt that the sooner it was introduced the better. Only then is it possible for the House to have an orderly debate at reasonable hours; only then is it possible to ensure that the really controversial parts of the Bill are properly discussed. So I claim that, once a timetable Motion is clearly inevitable, as in the case of this Bill, it is in the interests of a reasonable discussion in the House that the Motion should be moved as soon as possible.
Now I turn to the question of the time allocated by the Motion. Finance Bills apart, it offers by far the longest

45
Committee stage on the Floor of the House for any Bill since the war.
Mr. Ivor Richard: The right hon. Gentleman has enunciated a principle—namely, that when it became clear to him that the Opposition were determined to hold up the passage of the Bill in Committee, a timetable Motion became right. Can he tell us when it became clear to him that the Opposition were going to hold it up? If it became clear to him before last week, why did he not see fit to inform the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Whitelaw: First, I heard and saw the words of the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends. As I have said, I believe that, on that basis, I would have been perfectly justified in moving this Motion before the Committee stage started at all. I did not do so. I decided, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to wait and see what would happen. What we saw was 20 hours of debate on two non-controversial Clauses. That led me to the conclusion that this was the right moment at which to move a timetable Motion.
Mr. Charles Pannell: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned timetables on previous legislation, including such Measures as the Iron and Steel Act and, probably, the Transport Act. But he has not dealt with the precedent for industrial relations legislation such as this. Has he looked, for example, at the timetable allocation on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, which was the nearest Measure we have to this Bill, in order to understand how meagre is the allowance he is making for this Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have looked at that precedent. I do not think that what happened in 1927 is necessarily in tune with 1971. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because—it sounds surprising to hon. Members now—the Labour Party proclaimed in 1945, when it was returned, that a great new world had started in our parliamentary history. I find it difficult to accept, after that, that hon. Members opposite wish to go back to the period before the war. I am thinking of what we are offering in terms of modern parliamentary history. In such terms, our Motion offers—Finance Bills apart—by
46
far the longest Committee stage on the Floor of the House for any Bill since the Second World War. The concluding time of midnight is the latest proposed for any Bill under an allocation of time Motion.
If the Motion is accepted as it stands, then, on the assumption that each day starts at 4 p.m.—a reasonable average—there will be 10 further days in Committee, adding up to 80 hours of debate in addition to the 20 hours we have already had. That means a Committee stage of 100 hours' debate. Then it is proposed that there should be four days on Report and Third Reading—a total on the same basis of 32 hours. We have already had two days' debate on Second Reading, totalling some 12 hours. I have not included the one day's debate on the Consultative Document but that could be added. The total of what I have included is 144 hours of debate allowed to the Bill, to which must be added any time allocated for discussion of Amendments received from the other place. That could not conceivably be less than six hours and most likely more than that.
It is clear, then, that the proposed timetable allows opportunity for 150 hours' debate on the Bill at the very least, and all of it on the Floor of the House. We on this side had a clear mandate for the Bill at a recent General Election. We immediately carried out our promise to the electorate and introduced it. To quote the late Lord Morrison again,
"We seek to get this Bill through. That is what we introduced it for."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1429.]
The Opposition have dedicated themselves, as the right hon. Lady so clearly stated, to fight the Bill every inch of the way. A timetable Motion is, therefore, inevitable. This Motion allows full time for reasonable discussion of the Bill on the Floor of the House. It provides for the sort of orderly debate at reasonable hours which I believe the people of this country expect from their Parliament. For these reasons, I commend the Motion to the House.
3.56 p.m.
Mrs. Barbara Castle: We have just listened to the scantiest, flimsiest and most dishonest argument for an arbitrary action that I think anyone has ever listened to in a guillotine debate.

47
We on this side are as aware as anyone that debates on timetable Motions are very often a ritual dance but if the right hon. Gentleman believes that our sense of outrage at his action is purely ritual, he is merely compounding a succession of misjudgments on how the Bill should be handled in the House.
I know that very often spokesmen against a guillotine Motion speak with their tongues in their cheeks. We are not doing that on this occasion. We have better uses for our tongues. We want to use them to examine what the Secretary of State for Employment himself called in the Consultative Document,
"… the first comprehensive Industrial Relations Act that this country has ever had."
We want to examine it because we believe that this is a bad Bill born of pedantry out of prejudice, and we want to spend all our available time in examining it.
Of course, all Governments guillotine, although Labour Governments, as postwar history has shown, do so far less than Conservative. So the Opposition are usually inhibited in these debates— "There but for the grace of God …" et cetera. This time it is different. No one on this side is going to say, "There but for the grace of God …" about this action by this Government, because we have had a new element imported into politics—not only the element of class arrogance but the mechanistic coldness which has lifted high-handed injustice into a principle. Every human issue which the Government have touched since taking office has gone sour on them. What we are witnessing today is an overflowing of the Government's treatment of ordinary Citizens into the conduct of the business of the House of Commons, and we are astonished that the Leader of the House, whom we used to hold in such respect, has made himself a party to it.
What we are discussing this afternoon is not whether a Government are entitled to get their business. Of course they are since that is the essence of parliamentary democracy. We are discussing whether they should be entitled to get it only after proper debate and explanation of what they propose. We on this side believe in the politics of persuasion and not of force. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is the most provocative Bill affecting the rights of millions of our fellow citizens
48
for over half a century. He knows perfectly well—and certainly the Secretary of State knows—the violent feelings which have been aroused about the Bill outside the House.
Hon. Members: By whom?
Mrs. Castle: And they know, and will admit if they are honest, how we and the trade union movement have sought to persuade all those concerned to channel their protests through Parliament. But we can only hope to do so if Parliament remains the proud custodian of the rights of argument. That is what we are seeking to retain this afternoon.
What have we had from this Government during the course of this provocative Measure?
An Hon. Member: Good government!
Mrs. Castle: First and foremost, a refusal to consult the T.U.C. And now a refusal to consult the Opposition, even about the possibility of a voluntary time-table. That is the reason the Government have refused to use the new procedure which we introduced for dealing with Motions of this kind. They have refused to do so because the new procedure depends on the breakdown of a general agreement. There has been no attempt to seek a general agreement in this case.
Secondly, they have refused to use the new procedure because under it the rights of the Opposition are better preserved; because under the new procedure the House is not faced with a detailed spelling out of the number of days allocated to Committee. It is faced merely with the terminal date by which the Committee stage should be reported to the House and it is left to the Business Committee, defending the rights of Opposition in our Parliament, to decide the number of days, and therefore the number of hours, which ought to be devoted to the Committee stage. However, instead of the new procedure, the Government are now returning to the old procedure which enables them to impose on Opposition spokesmen what they have imposed on the trade union movement: an arbitrary straitjacket.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said that the Government had a clear mandate for this Bill. There is, only one thing this Government had

49
a clear mandate for and that was to bring down prices. All the rest about its policy was obscurity— and nothing was more obscure than what they really propose to do about industrial relations.
Hon. Members: Nonsense.
Mrs. Castle: Hon. Gentlemen say "Nonsense", but at the moment it is they who are depriving us of the opportunity, through full debate, to prove it. We do not accept that the Government have a clear mandate for the massive provisions of this Bill, because we do not believe the country knows what the Bill means, nor does this House, nor does the Secretary of State himself know what the Bill means. That is why on Second Reading he could not answer even the simplest question put to him. The Solicitor-General certainly knows what it means, but he is not telling if he can get away with it.
The House up to now has been kept inexcusably in the dark. Here is a massive, complex, obscure Bill—I am sure the Secretary of State will admit that—and we had a right to expect a White Paper on it, and so had the country, telling us what would be the effect of its complicated legal provisions on individual rights and on the industrial relations system. But we have had no White Paper. We had instead a Consultative Document about which even lawyers cannot agree.
The Leader of the House said that we had had two days' debate on Second Reading. He is right, but they were two days in which we saw merely a repetition of the generalised statements of political propaganda points both by the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General.
An Hon. Member: And by the right hon. Lady.
Mrs. Castle: We have always known that our best hope of fighting this Bill, as we are fully and democratically entitled to do, has lain in the Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman quoted as though it were a "bull" point some words of mine that we were going to fight this Bill root and branch—which were the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I had said that we were going to fight the Bill Clause by Clause and line by line, but the right hon. Gentleman
50
must understand that what we mean by it, and have always made clear we mean by it, is that we shall examine and fight the basic principles of the Bill. That is why we have not swamped the Order Paper with Amendments. We have made clear in all the debates so far what our handling of the Bill was to be. The right hon. Gentleman's quotation of words of mine prove our case against this Motion.
We made it clear, on the contrary, that we would concentrate our Amendments on issues of principle. That is why on the Order Paper there is not, and never has been, an Amendment to Clause 7. We thought that it involved a principle which we did not want to amend. We will concentrate our discussions solely on the Clause. Any hon. Member who has ever served on a Committee stage knows that it is possible to raise hundreds of points of detail legitimately upon any Bill. We have refused to be distracted in that way from an examination of the general principle.
We are not interested in wreathing the handcuffs with daisy chains. We are concentrating on snapping off the handcuffs. I say advisedly to the Leader of the House that this approach of scrupulously concentrating on the major principles provided a perfectly workable basis for a voluntary agreement, if only the right hon. Gentleman had ever made the slightest attempt to obtain one.
The Leader of the House said that we have spent some 20 hours in Committee discussing two Clauses. That is not our fault. It is no fault of ours that the Government chose to preface this Bill, most unusually, with an omnibus statement of general principle and then said that these were to be the guiding principles to be taken into account in a quasi-judicial sense right through the rest of the provisions of the Bill. How could any self-respecting Opposition fail to examine them? Then the Leader of the House went on to say that they were non-controversial Clauses. That proves that he at any rate has not read the Bill. He for one does not begin to grasp what it is all about. Non-controversial—when the very first of these principles asks us to commit ourselves to the Government's version of an incomes policy; because that is what our first Amendment, which took a fair amount of time, was all about.

51
The purpose of that Amendment was to make the Government tell the House what they meant when they said that collective bargaining must be conducted "responsibly".
The Secretary of State was very petulant about this and said that everybody knew what was meant by the word "responsibly" and he accused us of nit-picking filibustering, slightly inelegantly. All I say to the Secretary of State is that if it is self-evident what is meant by that word, what is the Wilberforce Inquiry all about? We all know that it is about the fact that the Government refuse to discuss these issues in the House and to spell out their own policy, that they leave it to a court of inquiry to do the job of defining the national interest, and then they send Treasury officials to give their evidence for them. The result is chaos, and we have Sir Douglas Allen, Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, refusing to answer some of the court's questions on the grounds that they are political. So the issues are brought back to the House, where the Government again want to guillotine to evade answering.
Was the Chrysler Corporation acting responsibly when it gave an 18 per cent. increase to the Linwood workers? If not, why did not the Secretary of State raise an objection when the award was reported to him by the Chrysler directors last December? If the Secretary of State includes such far-reaching issues in his Bill, he must expect them to be debated, as long as there is anything resembling parliamentary democracy. The first two Clauses were important, they were controversial and they were far-reaching.
Even so, I repeat it was not our fault that 20 hours were spent discussing them, as any objective person who was in the House during those two days would have to testify. I say to the Leader of the House very seriously that it would have been perfectly possible for the Government to have obtained Clause 4 in those two days, because we wanted to start fresh on Clause 5 on the third day, on what we assumed would be the resumed Committee stage, because in Committee we wanted to get away from the generalisations and down to discussions of how they would apply in day-to-day industry.
52
I give the Leader of the House this in proof. We let Clause 1 go through without debate on "Clause stand part", "on the nod". Can it be said that an Opposition doing that are filibustering, wasting time, seeking to make the passage of Government business impossible? The real whipping during those two days was done by the Opposition Whips, not by the Government Whips trying to restrain speakers on the Government side. One had only to see the lethargy of Government spokesmen, their reluctance to get up and bring the debate to a conclusion to realise that they had no sense of urgency.
We had a most remarkable situation during those two days when I was signalling the right hon. Gentleman to get up and answer the debate—[Laughter.]—yes, we were. I want to say to the House advisedly that we believe that the Bill covers a deeply serious issue. We know the amount of material to cover in the Bill's 150 Clauses and eight Schedules. We knew that the Government were looking for an alibi to guillotine, and it was we who were trying to make greater progress on that night. At 4 o'clock in the morning my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the Opposition Chief Whip, was asking his opposite number on the Government benches to get Ministers to stand up earlier.
The Leader of the House cannot ride away on that one. As the B.B.C. said on its 8 o'clock news bulletin, there had been "no time-wasting speeches, just a sober, business-like scrutiny of the wording of the Bill." The Leader of the House has no ground whatever for his presumption that an overture for a voluntary timetable would have been turned down. Indeed, this specious pleading is all a part with the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. First, he claims that the time he is allowing us will give us, and I quote "by far the longest time of any Committee stage of any Bill since the war on the Floor of the House, Finance Bills apart": I think that I have fairly reported him.
The Leader of the House is slipping rapidly from his pedestal. How dishonest can one get? It was the Leader of the House who said that the Government agreed that the Bill should be taken on the Floor of the House because of its

53
"fundamental importance", and now he argues that, because it is on the Floor of the House, it is to be limited to some arbitrary maximum totally unrelated to the size or importance of the Bill. Let me give the House the comparisons with measures taken on the Floor of the House since the war, and they are fairly recent. The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of 1961–62 had 21 Clauses and three Schedules. It was given six days in Committee, approximately two hours per Clause. Another illustration is the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill of 1955–56 which was not guillotined. It had only 38 Clauses and one Schedule and yet it had eight days in Committee, more than an hour and 20 minutes per Clause. Yet what the right hon. Gentleman is now offering us on the most fundamental Bill affecting trade union rights since 1906, a Bill of 150 Clauses and eight Schedules is 10 days in Committee, 100 hours in all, 45 minutes per Clause.
Mr. Nicholas Scott (Paddington, South): The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill had one other thing in common with this and that was that the Opposition committed themselves to repeal it. Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether we are expected to take this pledge more seriously or less seriously than that?
Mrs. Castle: I am not surprised that Tory Members are seeking distractions from my main argument— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] They have conducted the whole of the business on the basis of trying to avoid the main argument— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am perfectly prepared to answer that in the appropriate debate, as I have answered it earlier.
What we are discusing this afternoon is what kind of Bill will emerge at the end of the Committee stage. We are discussing whether it is possible to examine, or even understand, the Bill on the basis of 45 minutes per Clause. What the Leader of the House is doing is grossly distorting the proportionate time per Clause, which is the only valid comparison. I do not want to engage in what the late Iain Macleod once called the battle of quotations that took place on guillotine Motion debates, though if I did the evidence would all be on my side —[Laughter.] All right; if hon. Members would like a few examples, I shall be delighted to give them a few. I take
54
the Trades Disputes Act, 1927, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has referred. In that Bill, there were eight Clauses and two Schedules, to which 12 days were given in Committee on the Floor of the House. It is no good the Leader of the House saying that that was a long time ago. Does freedom date so rapidly? It is no good right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that a Bill of eight Clauses and two Schedules is a small one. Does injustice become any less iniquitous because it is widely spread?
Let us take the Transport Bill, for which I was responsible and which was referred to by some hon. Gentlemen in exchanges in the House the other day. That Bill contained 152 Clauses and 18 Schedules and was guillotined only after 104 hours in Committee and many personal attempts by me to get a voluntary timetable. That had 190 hours in Committee in all, yet we are to have 100 hours on this 150-Clause Bill, if we are lucky.
Then let us take the Ports Bill, which was another highly controversial Measure about which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite felt very strongly. It had 61 Clauses and was guillotined only after 84 hours of debate. It had nearly 100 hours in Committee for 61 Clauses, which is as much as we are offered on this massive Bill.
Most compelling of all, let us consider the Iron and Steel Bill, which contained 44 Clauses and five Schedules. That was not guillotined, because the Labour Government knew that, to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, the nationalisation of iron and steel was like taking the Ark of the Covenant. It was not guillotined, even though it meant a protracted Committee stage giving 2¾ hours' debate per Clause.
I ask the House to discuss seriously and on its merits how much time we need for proper discussion of this Bill and how much time we have a right to ask for, even taking into account the requirements of Government business.
Clearly most right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not read the Bill. If they had, they would realise that it has one outstanding characteristic. There is very little padding in it. There are very

55
few Clauses which one could safely allow to go through without debate, which will be the fate of so many Clauses if we accept this Motion.
Those of us who really care about the Bill and have studied it have divided it into some 16 main policy groupings. There are only 10 days of Committee left. Each group contains a number of Clauses, nearly every one of which embodies a fundamental new principle. At the same time, many of them are linked to lengthy Schedules the examination of which will have to be crammed into the few minutes that we are given for them.
Let me take the first group, Clauses 5 to 10, dealing with what the Bill calls the rights of workers. Has the House any comprehension of what is comprised in that single group? It deals with the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union, the right to pay contributions in lieu of membership, the exercise of those rights in an agency shop situation, the conscientious right to contribute to charity instead of joining a union, making the closed shop void—[Interruption] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen cheer. We have as much right to boo, and the Government are taking away from us the right to exercise that equivalent expression of view.
Let me continue. The group defines the period of grace for the payment of contributions in lieu, which is a very urgent practical point for many unions. Then there are the special arrangements outlined for the construction industry, the creation of a number of new unfair industrial practices, as well as the concept of irregular industrial action. There is also the right of appeal to a tribunal against contributions in lieu.
Those are just some of the issues crowded into those five Clauses. Can anyone seriously say that we can discuss all of them on the basis of devoting 40 minutes or so to each Clause, of which time the Secretary of State and Government supporters will take a large part since any Government always have their own Amendments?
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York): Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State took 45 minutes to answer the debate on the first Amendment in Committee?
Mrs. Castle: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. On another occasion, the right hon. Gentleman took 50 minutes or so. I do not suggest that we shall not all have to curtail our speeches, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman, who up to now has had the reputation of being a fair man, to accept that it is impossible and intolerable to expect us to debate each of these vitally serious issues in 45 minutes at the maximum, when in that time Government Amendments have to be taken, and when Opposition cheers about the right not to belong to a trade union will claim more of the time.
Mr. Stanley Orme: My right hon. Friend must mean Government cheers.
Mrs. Castle: Yes, I apologise. I am so used to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite forming the Opposition. That is their historical rôle and we shall make them resume it soon. I meant to refer to Government cheers taking time out of the 40 minutes when the right not to belong to a trade union is considered. The period must also give time for any Divisions which we feel compelled to call and, judging from the contents of these Clauses, there will be many.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite think that every kind of uncomfortable argument can be dismissed with a laugh. Do not they realise that many employers are deeply disturbed by these Clauses that I have enumerated which they feel will make a mess of their industrial relations, rather than improve them? Do not they know that many employers condemn the Government's outright rejection of the closed shop, and that I have a list of Amendments from the Tory G.L.C. which have just reached me and which call on the Secretary of State to amend Clauses 11, 31, 30, 22, 41 to 45, and 124 to 141? The Tory G.L.C. has to be accommodated at the same time. Do not right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that certain unions could be totally destroyed unless some of the provisions are altered—or do not they care about the consequences?
Let us take the group of Clauses dealing with the registration of trade unions and the powers of the registrar. Twenty-two Clauses fall within this group, each one packed with details affecting the very right to operate as a trade union at all.

57
Do right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that we could begin to deal with the Clauses in half a day? If they do, they are making a mockery of Parliament and democracy.
Even the miscellaneous provisions at the end of the Bill, Clauses 132 to 150, are not the kind which we dare allow through on the nod, for they raise such important issues as what happens to an unregistered trade union. The Interpretation Clause, which normally can safely be allowed without debate, contains an historically important new definition of a trade dispute. Anybody who understands the first word about industrial relations will know that we ought to spend 40 minutes discussing that alone.
But, more important still, this is a constitutional Bill in a far more fundamental sense even than the Restrictive Trade Practices Act which was taken on the Floor of the House, not guillotined, and allocated far more time per Clause than this Bill will get.
This Bill not only creates a new court; it creates a whole range of issues which were formerly considered policy issues for government, wraps them up in legal language and makes them justiciable. So it alters the place of the judiciary in the workings of the constitution as a whole. For example, Clause 35, under this new approach to the rôle of the judiciary, provides that the court has to take a prima facie view about a policy situation which could lead to the imposition of a legally enforceable procedure agreement.
Under Clause 102(3), dealing with one of the important aspects of the complicated compensation provisions, the whole size of the damages which an employer can get against a union can depend on the court's decision whether the employer was partly responsible for causing the strike. Since when, in this country, have we made it the duty of a court to decide who might or might not have caused a strike? Whether or not hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of this profound constitutional change, they cannot in all justice deny that the House ought to have time to examine it and its implications. Does anyone seriously suggest that we can discuss issues like this in less than 40 minutes per Clause? Therefore, we denounce this guillotine Motion as a grave abuse of our democracy.
58
The right hon. Gentleman quoted Mr. Herbert Morrison. Let me give him Lord Butler in 1961 talking on the principles of a guillotine Motion, and talking about them realistically. He said:
"Before introducing a timetable Motion, a Government have to be satisfied about three things: first, that it is not possible to get the business done by agreement, secondly, that under the proposed timetable there will be adequate time for discussion and that the most efficient use is made of Parliament time—we attach great importance to this—and thirdly, that the use of the Guillotine is essential."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 45.]
I suggest that the Leader of the House has not proved any of those three propositions this afternoon. In the Amendment which we shall be discussing later I think that we have given absolute proof that a voluntary timetable would have been possible. In asking for 30 more days for this Committee stage, we are not asking for anything wildly unreasonable or anything which would make it impossible for the Government to get their business. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman who led for the Opposition when I put through the Transport Bill who, when faced with a guillotine Motion which would have taken that Bill out of Committee by 15th May, said that that was intolerable and that we ought to have until the end of June, we have made our estimates and calculations very carefully, and what we are proposing for the extra 30 days would enable the Government, without sacrificing the Easter Recess, to get the Bill out of Committee by 14th May, sitting the kind of hours about which the right hon. Gentleman has been talking—and that on only two days per week. Can the Government honestly and honourably say that there is any impediment to allowing that kind of reasoned and detailed argument? This Motion is totally unjustified. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw it and get back to consultation for a change.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: It is more than 50 years since Mr. Asquith said that he had slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that we could not carry out legislation here on large and complicated subjects without treating a timetable as part of our established procedure.
I do not think that I have heard a better case for a guillotine Motion than the speech of the right hon. Lady for

59
Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Any innovation in this House which would preserve us from these ritual dances of debating guillotine Motions, when we can swap the speeches as we can swap the Government because exactly the same arguments are being put forward and instead can spend the time talking about the reality of the legislation under discussion, would be a major step forward.
We have heard the right hon. Lady a lot recently, and no word has passed her lips more frequently than "hypocrisy". We can understand why that word springs so readily to the right hon. Lady's lips. We have heard her denouncing with increasing hysteria measures similar to those which she was advancing only a short time ago.
Today the right hon. Lady has talked about not swamping the Order Paper with Amendments. Really, the right hon. Lady knows as well as anybody else in this House that that is part of the tactical manœuvrine of the Committee stage of any Bill. Of course the right hon. Lady would not swamp the Order Paper with Amendments, because she knows that she has to make this speech sooner or later. But they are all in the pipeline; they will all come through.
The right hon. Lady said that there is no need to pick on the details of the Bill. Of course not, if we spend 20 hours discussing Clauses 1 and 2. If we are prepared to go on and argue that every Clause in the Bill is crucial, that none is padded, that they all contain essential pieces which require debate, and accept the kind of progress which we have had on the first two Clauses, there will be no chance of getting the Bill through Committee in this Session of Parliament.
The right hon. Lady also said that she wants all available time to discuss the Bill. Very well. Let us have it. Let us finish this discussion on the guillotine now and we can have until midnight discussing some of these essential points —[Interruption.] Why not, if the right hon. Lady does not want to be condemned as hypocritical? The right hon. Lady has said that she wants all available time to discuss the Bill. We have got it from now until midnight. Let us take that time discussing the Bill rather than the Motion.
Mr. James A. Dunn: If the hon. Gentleman's view were accepted, could he assure us that efforts would be made to extend the other time which would be available?
Mr. Scott: I am sure that when these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] —come to be discussed through the normal channels, my right hon. Friends would be prepared, within the overall time which has been allocated, to ensure special provision for those parts of the Bill which are considered most crucial by the Opposition. I am sure, even as a back bencher, that that kind of approach would be followed by my right hon. Friends.
Another point which I want to make on the Motion——
Mr. Dunn: That is not an answer to the question I put. I asked whether we could be assured that there would be an extension of the timetable on the second part.
Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that, first, I cannot answer that question and, second, if it was in my hands I should not advise it. The time available is adequate for the rest of the Bill.
There is another matter that I want to put to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) who shares his approach to the Bill. We are discussing the Bill in Committee. There are many things that we all hold precious. Some of the things that I hold precious are not so held by the other side, but parliamentary democracy and liberal democracy are, and some of the shouts from the other side of the House the other day about taking this battle on to the streets gives rise to something which I think hon. Gentlemen opposite should consider very seriously, especially when we see what is happening in another part of the United Kingdom. It behoves every hon. Member in this House to beware of even appearing to threaten the fundamental principles of parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Orme: I think that the hon. Gentleman has a nerve to lecture this side of the House about parliamentary democracy, in view of what the Government are doing about the Bill. Is the hon.

61
Gentleman aware that the trade union case will not be able to be put in this House, which is the forum of democracy? Is he aware that the trade unions are to have a law forced on them and that they are to be given no chance to answer the case that is being made for that law? What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that?
Mr. Scott: My simple answer is that I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I believe that adequate time will be available for the trade union case to be put, for the whole case against the Bill to be put, and for it to be answered.
Mr. James Tinn: The hon. Gentleman believes that the time being allocated to the Bill is adequate. Can he say why, when controversial Bills were introduced by the previous Government, the then Opposition complained, when they were given more time per Clause?
Mr. Scott: I remember one other guillotine Motion being introduced which I was able to discuss, and that was the one on the proposal to impose selective employment tax on the people of this country. The Bill was guillotined even before the Committee stage began.
I do not believe that it is valid to criticise the Government for introducing this Motion. Erskine May says that a guillotine Motion is not usually moved until the rate of progress in Committee has provided argument for its necessity. Having sat through virtually every minute of the Committee stage discussions on the Bill, and only once having intervened on a point of order which got me into slight trouble with the Chair, I believe that I have a right to make my judgment and it is that the progress in Committee proves the necessity for introducing a guillotine Motion.
Indeed, once the Opposition had pressed for and received the Government's agreement that the Bill would be taken on the Floor of the House they knew that it would have to be timetabled. Whatever may have been the wishes of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who represent the official Opposition, we all know that there was no chance of their being able to speak for their hon. Friends below the Gangway. Any chance of agreement entered into by the Opposition Front Bench being followed by those who sit below the Gangway was remote, indeed,
62
and thus we have this ritualistic dance of a timetable Motion, instead of getting on with the real business of the House.
Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that guillotine Motions should be put before the House and passed without debate?
Mr. Scott: The ideal situation would be for every piece of major legislation to be referred to a timetable Committee of the House and to be produced with a timetable. All I am saying at the moment is that if the right hon. Lady is sincere in wishing to spend as much time as possible debating the Bill we should get on with that now.
We are, after all, faced with a choice. The Government have a choice of giving the Opposition as much time as they want to debate the Bill, which would mean that the Bill would never get to the end of its Committee stage, or of imposing a timetable and seeing that they got their business through, and it seems to me that they have made the right choice.
As it seems inevitable that nobody can end a speech on a timetable Motion without a quotation from the other side, may I quote a former Leader of the House, Mr. Bowden as he then was, quoting Mr. Chuter Ede? He said:
"My experience of the House has been that under no Government of modern times has legislation been too swift. The danger to Parliamentary democracy in this country is not from the speed but the slowness of the forms that were used when this country was less populous than it is…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 125.]
I think that anybody who sat through the two days of Committee stage will agree that consideration of the Bill has been much too slow. It needs to be speeded up, and I shall vote for the Motion.
4.46 p.m.
Mr. Charles Pannell: The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) is a respected figure in the House, but he has betrayed the fact that he knows nothing about guillotine Motions or about the procedure of the House. If there had been a proper meeting between the Patronage Secretary, the Leader of the House and the usual channels on this side there would have been an opportunity to report to Mr. Speaker. There 'would have been a

63
Committee recommendation, and the Government would have got a guillotine Motion in a far more respectable way than this, but they would have had to give longer notice.
It was only last Thursday that we had this notice. The Cabinet had met in the morning. The Patronage Secretary had looked for the Chief Whip on our side, but he was at a three-hour meeting with the National Union of Seamen, which will practically be abolished by the Bill. In effect, the usual channels had no opportunity to work, and we did not get a decent approach on the matter. In the weekend papers the Patronage Secretary put it out that he did have a conversation with the Opposition Chief Whip in the early stages of the Bill. But that was before Christmas, and to have said to the Opposition Chief Whip at that stage, "I suppose there is no chance of our getting a timetable for the Bill" was to invite only one answer. We heard at five minutes to midnight on this business.
There would have been no difficulty in obtaining this guillotine Motion on Wednesday next, when at least we could have gone through the normal courtesies. I know of few occasions in which bitterness has gone so deep and the Opposition have been overridden in this way. Minorities have their rights, and majorities must govern. I understand that principle full well. The Government have to get their business at the end of the day, but there are ways of doing it and the way in which it has been done here has outraged all the procedures that we have known.
Mr. Peter Tapsell Mr. Peter Tapsell (Horncastle)rose——
Mr. Pannell: I am dealing with the hon. Member for Paddington, South at the moment. For the hon. Member to say that the word "hypocrisy" is the word used most often by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Barbara Castle) is an assumption of superiority as impertinent as it is unworthy, bearing in mind the ignorance displayed in his speech.
Mr. Tapsell: If the sense of bitterness is as sincerely felt and as deep-seated as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, why is it that there are fewer than 25
64
Members of the Labour Party in their seats at the moment?
Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman had better hold back his remarks until the early hours of tomorrow morning.
Consequently, his whole speech was founded on an ignorance of procedures. He seems to think that we were being done a favour by the Bill being taken on the Floor of the House. If one says that the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill of 1962 was a fundamental Bill then this Bill, which deeply affects the natives of this island, surely could not have been taken anywhere else but the Floor of the House. It would have been an outrage.
Of course we knew—every parliamentary realist knows—that, directly a Bill is taken on the Floor of the House, the guillotine, when it comes, is likely to be tighter. But I suggest that this Bill is very different from those which I have quoted. I took the hon. Gentleman up on the 1927 Act. In this respect, I have some first-hand experience. That Act is the nearest thing I know to the present Bill.
It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying, in effect, that we were old-fashioned in believing that a brave new world started when we were returned in 1945. The first thing that we did in 1946 was to repeal the 1927 Act, and there were few apologists on the opposite benches to excuse that Act of bitter revenge for the General Strike in which I took part. On the 1927 Act, there were three and a half days on Second Reading, then two days in Committee and then an allocation of time motion with 12 days for the remainder of the Committee stage, three days for Report and one day for Third Reading. Every Clause was given two days. That was an Act which was bitterly resented on this side—so bitterly that Ernest Bevin, who was our Foreign Secretary in 1945, asked to take a leading part on the Front Bench: it bit so deeply into his consciousness.
Now, of course, we are dealing with a Bill of 150 Clauses and eight Schedules. The repeal of the 1927 Act was the first thing which was done in 1946—a pledge was kept, after all those years. But in some ways this Bill goes deeper than the 1927 Act. It tries to overturn practices which are far wider and older

65
than those covered by that Act. The Times today says, speaking of a trade union which refuses to register:
"First, it will lose its legal title to call itself a trade union. According to this Bill, a trade union is 'an organization of workers which is for the time being registered under this Act'. Otherwise its status declines to an 'organization of workers', without any of the immunities built up over the past century
This is more than a nominal degradation"
of one of the great estates of the realm which was born of the voteless peasantry and proletariat fighting against transportation and for recognition. It was more than that: it was for their very existence. This Bill wants a man on his knees, not a man standing on his feet.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Would the right hon. Gentleman, however, not agree that registration as a condition for trade union membership was recommended by a Royal Commission——
Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Black-ley): In a different context.
Mr. Carr: —was recommended by a Royal Commission after three years' study, was also recommended by a Labour Government, and therefore is a principle which, so far as discussion goes, has had the widest and deepest discussion and consideration that is perhaps imaginable?
Mr. Pannell: I do not accept that either. I did not accept Donovan in its entirety. At any rate, to finish the quotation, The Times—this is not me—goes on:
"This is more than a nominal degradation. The present definition of a trade union in the Act of 1913 is 'any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are under its constitution statutory objects … the regulations of the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters, or the imposing of restriction commissions on the conduct of any trade or business and also the provision of benefits to members'."
It then adds—and this is why this Bill is different from any other Bill and deserves special treatment—
"This passage and the whole of the 1871 and 1906 Acts defining union amenities are repealed."
Never has there been such a great Act for the repeal of one of the great voluntary
66
agents of the State. This gets down to bedrock and all the patient negotiations built up in good firms as well as bad go down and are overturned for a lawyers' paradise.
Of course, the shop stewards, of whom I was one, have always held out for the occasional strike which receives so much publicity, but nothing is said about, particularly, the war years and the demarcation lines which I myself took some part in altering in the national interest, day after day. This applies not to me particularly but to thousands of others.
Consequently, it should not be thought that this does not bite very deeply. This is a different Bill. It is not like the Parliament (No. 2) Bill on which we spent days and days, considering an elite. It is even more fundamental than the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, because it refers to the status which people have built up by collective bargaining, and negotiations which are now turned over to the courts. All the way through, there has been an undue hurry.
The T.U.C. complained at the start that the Secretary of State had given them very little time to consult. As a member of one of the organisations, I think that that time was far too short. There could have been far more convincing, or attempts to convince, but we were told, "No, we have our mandate", and were told that 47 per cent. of the electorate—
Mr. Orme: Of those who voted.
Mr. Pannell: I am not making any alibi for scabs, political or otherwise; I have no cause for complaint. But 47 per cent. of all the people gave their mandate there.
But the election was not fought only on this issue. There was also the matter of reducing prices "at a stroke", and the matter of the trade returns. I am a trade union candidate—in fact I think that I am the doyen of the trade union candidates—but I was never asked about this. It was never an issue. My constituency is in the cradle of the Industrial Revolution, where they tinge justice with memory and where one can still evoke a response from people whose fathers and grandfathers took part in industrial struggles even going back to the times when the trade unions had to beseech the larger parties, before the Labour

67
Party was born. This is part of the weft and woof of traditions of our people.
I want to mention the background that I have known since the Bill came along. On 12th January, I was invited to address a meeting at Rochester. I suppose it was that I used to be deputy leader of my party on the Kent County Council. I was astonished. Over 1,000 people were crammed into that hall and were literally jammed up to the walls. In a lime when the big meeting has gone out, this Bill has brought it back. They were in a rampant mood. When one speaks about Gallop polls and whether people like legislation dealing with abortion or euthanasia, these are largely the silent majority. The thousands of people who attend these big meetings are extremely important in this context. Each one is worth 100 of the average person who records his opinion in a Gallup poll.
The meeting about which I have spoken was a difficult one to contain, though I am used to dealing with large meetings. The questions began, and what questions they were! One chap asked, "What about a general strike?" I replied, "If you have a general strike it will be settled only by having a General Election afterwards because I believe in the paramount importance of Parliament." It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to lecture us about an industrial response.
As for the Communist Party, that always turns its attention first on the forces of the Left with the idea of fragmenting them before turning on the rest. The most important elements involved in fighting the Communist threat in this country in terms of dictatorship rests with people like me. Certainly one does not have to fight the splinter groups in the Conservative Party or the Primrose League or the Monday Club. They are the very antithesis of that. One may find Fascists in those groups, but certainly not Communists; and the Fascists are not against the Bill.
The people about whom I have been speaking have in many cases taken direct action against things which could not possibly be defended in other ways. One of the greatest causes of unofficial strikes has been procrastination in procedures. These procrastinations will be multiplied
68
if this Bill is passed because the already lengthy processes of the law will be still further lengthened. The mere fact that certain chaps on the factory floor will stand for some things only so far and will then stand them no longer is one of the greatest deterrents to injustice we have.
When one speaks about injustice one does not refer to the big corporations. I.C.I. and the rest have got these matters sorted out. They have ironed out their procedures and many of them have 100 per cent. closed shops to ensure that there will be industrial peace. It is in many of the smaller shops throughout the country where the workers are not organised sufficiently well. I have seen a lot of little tyrants in my time. The little ones often do much more harm than the odd big one here and there.
We must cast our minds back to the General Strike for a comparable period in history of resentment. Only then was there a similar sense of outrage. My complaint is that to bring in a cheap guillotine Motion to save a few parliamentary days for the sake of this useless piffling Bill, the Government are going a long way towards destroying belief in democracy. When the Bill of 1906 was introduced the then Government were prepared to spend the whole summer going through it line by line. Gradually we built up a bastion of liberty, and we do not intend to have it knocked down now.
One must look into the history of trade union affairs as well as parliamentary affairs to get this into perspective. The men in Government in 1945 were not the men of 1922—the hard-faced men who did well out of the First World War. In 1945 we had a brand new lot with new ideas. The Tory Party hid its head in 1945. The Tories did not know what had hit them. In 1951 Churchill appointed Sir Walter Monckton to the Ministry of Labour and told him to introduce a bipartisan policy for the unions. "Take trade union affairs out of politics, for goodness' sake", Churchill said.
Sir Walter did not know what to do first. Finally he refused to address meetings in the country because he thought he had succeeded in taking trade union affairs out of the party battle. It was well known that Churchill was extremely

69
good at inviting the T.U.C. over to Downing Street, where he discredited quite a few people when he got them there. We have a memory of that, as we have a memory of the General Strike and other times. So keen was Sir Walter Monckton on his rôle that when he became Minister of Defence he thought he could take defence out of politics as well.
Churchill was dead scared of creating the sort of situation which the present Government are fast in danger of creating. He wanted to have trade union affairs above the battle. He played it soft all along the line—and there was no Donovan Commission then or any chance for there to be a leisurely appraisal of matters to get them settled. I suppose it was inevitable that when one day we got an insensitive Prime Minister—and we have certainly got one now—he would try, from his position in the saddle, to change all that.
Had I been a member of the Conservative Party with the knowledge that I possess of the history of these matters I would have counselled a great deal of delay and caution on this point. I would have made sure that there were no loopholes which would enable the trade union movement to say that it has been trodden underfoot. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, or at least some of them, know sufficient about the history of this to have taken that course. I regret that they have not done so.
One need only consider a few examples to see the folly of the Government. Look at Equity, which certainly cannot be called a great left-wing organisation. Considering the trouble that Equity has had over the years, with the individual contract and so on, in a profession which is so desperately hard to organise, one must feel sympathetic, because it is said that this Bill will be its death knell.
With Lord Eccles in charge of the Arts, one would have thought that Parliament would be allowed to spend at least one full day discussing the position of Equity and the way in which the Bill will affect the actors and actresses who give us so much pleasure. These people do not have the loud voice that is possessed by those in other professions and industries. They showed great bravery in organising their profession. Shall we give them half a day or a couple of hours of our time?
70
Another important lot are the seamen. In time of war we admire them and we hear great rolling phrases about Drake's Drum and the men who go down to the sea in ships. No praise is too high and anybody with any knowledge of the history of merchant navy affairs, from the days of Havelock Wilson, knows how this Bill could affect the seaman. I spoke of small tyrants. If a man can be a tyrant in a small factory, how much greater a tyrant can he be aboard ship? We are told by the general secretary of the union which represents these men that the Bill will mean the destruction of their organisation.
How many days—or will it be just an hour or two—will be devoted to the seaman? Will they be contemptuously rattled over in a matter of minutes? Are we to be selective about them? Are they not worth a day of our time? Considering all the sentimentality that is poured out in time of war about the seaman, I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite will make representations on their behalf. I see seated in his place on the benches opposite an hon. Gentleman who writes screeds in the evening newspapers. He should devote at least a full page to this problem.
Whoever drafted this Bill—be it the Solicitor-General or any of the other legal luminaries—did not know what he was doing. Whatever has been said about the consequences of the consequences in other matters, the consequences of this Measure will be enormously far reaching. At the end of the day there will be contempt for the law, which is what I do not want to happen. An Act is useless unless it can be enforced. Already the police are silent on many Acts which they cannot enforce. One need only think of the taxation of road vehicles. The ordinary man will not respect what seems to him to be absurd.
So it is with the trade unionists. If any hon. Member has ever seen a great workshop meeting reacting in full fight against what those present believe to be an injustice, he will realise that one does not ask, "What does Clause 53, subsection (3), say?" They will be up and away. What this present lot on the Treasury Front Bench needed—and they are as obstinate a lot as one could ever find—was a slow policy of education.

71
Instead, we get a quick policy of disenchantment with the democratic process. They could have afforded to have taken the House all through this business but, instead, they seek to save a little parliamentary time. They cannot lower the cost of living at a stroke, but they think that they can penalise the trade unionists at a stroke.
The curious thing is that it is usually decent, honourable men who seek to do this sort of thing. The Leader of the House is an admired figure. He always seems as reasonable as he is competent on a Thursday afternoon, and that says a lot. I believe that he interprets his job as Leader of the whole House in a reasonable way. At the same time, let us be quite frank and recall that, strictly speaking, the Leader of the House is merely the leader of Government Business; that his very title goes back to the days when the Prime Minister was in the House of Lords. Nevertheless, as I say, the right hon. Gentleman seems a reasonable man.
The Secretary of State for Employment, too, is a reasonable man—a nice man—an admired figure in this place. I can honestly tell him that the House felt deep distress when he had that misfortune in his home. He must well understand the great sympathy there was for him and his wife and family.
But sympathy is not enough. The right hon. Gentleman has a great responsibility. He remembers the days of Churchill, because the right hon. Gentleman came here in 1950. He was Under-Secretary of his Department when that Department bent over backwards to secure an accommodation with the trade unions. He remembers all these things. He has a flat duty to tell his Leader that the brash sort of manner in dealing with, say, the Resale Prices Bill, or entry into the Community, is not the approach we want here.
We are here dealing with our own people, not with an enemy. Trade unionists have all the best qualities of the British infantryman; able to fight a losing battle, able to stand by his comrade, if necessary to keep his mouth shut; to show great and deep loyalty. But the right hon. Gentleman thinks nothing of those qualities at all. He thinks that he can produce something
72
from a Conservative working party but the Conservatives, after all, are the traditional enemies of the trade union movement.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)indicated dissent.
Mr. Pannell: And it is no good the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head. We all know that he used to write things in the Chiswick Observer that he cannot say here.
We are told about the three million Tory trade unionists, but their activities are not very evident in their trade unions. Who are they on that side of the House? We have the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) who occasionally speaks here, but I cannot remember anything that he has said. And the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) is looked on as some sort of apostate. Those two hon. Members are all that the Conservative Party can produce here. It has never produced any respected trade union figure. The views of the Conservative Party are reason enough for not many Conservative trade unionists being elected. The Conservatives, as I say, are the traditional enemies of the working class and of the trade union movement. We cannot take this sort of thing from them, and the trade union movement will not take it.
In the end, the sort of rage I feel now will be transmitted right down the line When I next speak at a great mass meeting, whether at Rochester or elsewhere. and speak about parliamentary democracy, I shall be really up against it, because the rules have been changed. It is no use the Government saying that the guillotine has been brought in before—the only guillotine Motion these people are concerned about is this one.
These people are not masters of small margins. They are not the synthetic type which wants to consider every dot and comma. In the main, they are people with a rough history and, year by year, they have built up practices that are well-known and respected. They will stand by the sort of things they love and know.
The year 1927 may seem a long way off, but the speeches made from the other side then mocked those who spoke of an act of punitive revenge. We can count

73
the years, and there is no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is wasting his time. Eventually, the people whom I and others represent will rise and sweep this Measure from the Statute Book.
5.16 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery: I listened with considerable attention to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who is a respected figure here. No one on either side would want in any way to suggest other than he said, that this Bill is fundamental. It affects a very large number of people, and not only those who are trade unionists, it considerably affects a lot who are not trade unionists. No one would wish to contradict that or to contradict the strength of feeling which the right hon. Gentleman has shown. But, quite honestly, when he appears to suggest that there will be a disregard of parliamentary democracy because of a timetable Motion such as we have seen time and time before, I just do not accept it.
What worries me, and what has been worrying me about all this opposition, is that those who oppose the Bill seem to want to see that "the demonstration" shall be a greater influence than the vote: that the demonstration shall play a greater part than the democratic answer in an election. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman means, let him say it.
The action of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and of a number of other people in the last few months leads one very much to an unpleasant belief. Whilst they are attempting to appear reasonable in Parliament, one gets the feeling that outside the right hon. Lady and others on the Opposition Front Bench particularly concerned with the Bill have been stirring up trouble, not attempting to calm it down.
Mr. Pannell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I had said, he would know that my difficulty had been to calm down that meeting at Rochester, because I believe in parliamentary democracy. At that meeting, I said that the matter could not be solved by industrial response, but that we must give a political answer.
Mr. Emery: If the right hon. Gentleman was listening to me, he would know
74
that I was not talking of that particular action. In this instance, I did not refer to him at all. I referred to the right hon. Lady and to other members of the Opposition Front Bench and other persons. I specifically excepted him, and I hope that he will realise it.
Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley): Will the hon. Gentleman give way to the Front Bench now?
Mr. Emery: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let us underline the fact that whether the Opposition like it or not, this is what is happening. Indeed, when we hear hon. Members opposite suggesting that there might be a general strike, I say—and I hope that everybody, including the Opposition Front Bench, will want it to go out from this House—that that is not what is required by any parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Rose: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that during the past weeks I have spoken at meetings where I have faced barrages from the audience demanding a general strike, and that I have had to parry those demands and disagree with the people who made them? We have had to calm people down. This guillotine Motion is put forward deliberately to provoke industrial action in order to discredit the trade union movement.
Mr. Emery: The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I would accept that. I do not. I dismiss it.
I sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in order that I might be allowed to refer to one specific matter which affects me and has affected a number of hon. Members of both Opposition and Government parties, who were carrying out duties, for which they were nominated by this House, at another parliamentary assembly, namely, the Council of Europe. This morning, on my calculation, there were about 15 Members of Parliament all carrying out this specific business at the request of this House at Strasbourg. Now we have a guillotine Motion, and we have had a very wide debate. I know that the Opposition do not like this matter being brought up, but because we have had a very wide debate and because we have been talking about consultation, I want it understood

75
that certain people who have been given duties by this House to perform at the Council of Europe have, without consultation, by unilateral action of the Opposition, had to return here. This petty political manœuvre has done this House no good; neither has it done any good to Britain's interests or influence within Europe.
When the President of that Council, a highly respected Swiss, sends telegrams to the Opposition and to the Government asking that the British Members of Parliament should stay in Strasbourg because their presence is essential to the working of that Council—[An HON. MEMBER: "Tripe."] It is not tripe; this is what has happened. In fact, that appeal from M. Reverdin has been completely ignored by the Opposition.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whilst I appreciate that the bringing back of people from Strasbourg may be incidental to the proceedings of this House, may I submit that we are debating a guillotine Motion and that, therefore, references to Strasbourg, unless they are in passing, are entirely out of order?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The Chair is aware of what is in the hon. Member's mind, but the hon. Member who had the Floor was relating it to the Motion before the House. I hope that he will do so a shade more closely.
Mr. Emery: I am delighted to continue to relate it to this Motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This has been brought about because of the Motion and because of the unilateral action of the Opposition. The moment the Opposition get hit and the moment they realise that their action is unreasonable, they are on their feet with points of order.
I shall draw my remarks on this issue to a conclusion. It is evident that when the Opposition are willing to take action in an entirely unilateral manner and bring back two former Foreign Secretaries who are taking part in the proceedings of the Council of Europe, they deserve to be condemned. I am delighted to see that there is the possibility that Members will be able to return to those activities tomorrow. I only hope that common
76
sense will prevail with the Opposition benches.
Mr. John Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Emery: May I mention another matter of considerable importance——
Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Emery: I have been giving way regularly, but I shall be delighted to do so to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Fraser: Now that the hon. Gentleman has come back from Europe, would he enlighten the House on some other experience? One listened to his clatter on the Prices and Incomes Bill in 1968 for 79 hours in Committee upstairs, on a Bill that extended to only about 20 Clauses. My ears suffered afterwards from his clatter. The hon. Gentleman spent many hours talking on a Bill affecting trade union rights, and which was therefore fundamentally important. How does he justify speaking 79 or 80 hours on a short Bill like that, and allowing only 40 minutes to each Clause in a Bill which is far more fundamental and which introduces a new concept into the law?
Mr. Emery: Although the hon. Gentleman was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at that time, I thought that he did not understand the Bill that we were discussing, and his intervention now makes it quite clear that he did not understand it. The whole of the debate then was on the alteration of the criteria—that which the Labour Party were trying to keep out of the Bill. It was only through my action that we managed to get the discussion on to the Bill.
Let us get on with this guillotine Motion. It is quite obvious that there is an immense amount of artificial rage. There always is on a guillotine Motion. I have indulged in it myself.
Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman is doing it now.
Mr. Emery: So has the right hon. Member for Leeds, West at different times. He knows this. He has been in the House long enough to know that this is what happens. This was obvious from the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Nobody has denied that this is the longest amount

77
of Committee time on the Floor of the House on any Bill, other than the Finance Bill. That is the fact which has surprised the Opposition, including the Opposition Whips. It is one of the facts which have cut the ground from under them and it is one of the reasons they are finding it difficult to sustain the debate in any reasonable manner.
Another argument used by the right hon. Lady was equally incorrect. The Opposition have suggested that nobody knew about this Bill. Hon. Members have said that no questions were asked at their election meetings about trade union reform. I can only say that in the West Country for over three and a half years there was hardly one speech that I made—and I certainly made five a month—in which there was not a reference to trade union reform. What is more——
Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley): What does the hon. Gentleman know about it?
Mr. Emery: I have been a trade unionist on both sides of the Atlantic, which is more than the hon. Gentleman can claim, so perhaps he will realise that his experience is not everything.
Any suggestion coming from the Opposition that the Bill is being thrust upon the people, that it has not been considered, or that there is no great support for it, is absolutely untrue. There has seldom been a policy introduced by any political party in modern times which was so well propounded before an election and so nearly to the letter carried out after an election. The right hon. Lady suggests that there is something wrong because there was no White Paper. Never before has there been a more open Consultative Document about a proposed piece of legislation than we have had from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In this debate today, the Opposition are exhibiting a lot of artificial frenzy, and it should be treated as such.
5.31 p.m.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I do not deny the contention of the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) that the Government have a mandate for their Bill. They have left the country in no doubt that they intend to do something about the trade unions. But
78
precisely what? I know the villages in and around Honiton, a delightful part of the country, and the people are delightful, too. I know how pleasant campaigning is in East Devonshire. I have done it in Tiverton. But is the hon. Gentleman sure that the people at his meetings—I say this with all respect to the fine and honourable people of his constituency—were left in no doubt about all the implications of "Fair Deal at Work"?
Mr. Emery: Not only are they aware of them, but the criticism which they make to me is that the Bill is not strong enough.
Mr. Duffy: That is a better response than I bargained for. I have no doubt that there is a widespread mood of irritation about all our institutions. There is a growing mood of irritation about so many aspects of policy in society today, and especially about the management of our economy. So it is not enough to say that the public want something done about this and, therefore, the Government are justified in doing what they now propose.
I suppose that, at bottom, most people are sensitive about strikes, not because they are against strikes, for at some time in their lives most people in this country are party to strike action, but because they do not want the inconvenience. I suppose that people like the airline pilots, who only a few months ago were wanting a rise of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, were privately outraged when the garbage workers asked for £3 or £4 a week. I can understand that.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am surprised at my hon. Friend. Why mention the airline pilots? Why not come nearer home? What about top civil servants, judges, and the chairmen of the nationalised boards, who had a 62½ per cent. increase from the present Government? They did not have to strike. They got it voluntarily, with no trouble at all.
Mr. Duffy: I agree with my hon. Friend. That point should be taken. I imagine that many people are not aware of it, just as they have only an inchoate impression of the incidence of strikes in this country and their impact. If one were to press the constituents of the hon. Member for Honiton—he reminded me of this when he claimed to have been a

79
trade unionist on both sides of the Atlantic—they would probably say that what the Government are trying to do has been inspired by what happens in the United States. But I do not suppose that they realise for a moment that the police were on srike in New York last week, that the taxi-drivers were on strike in New York the week before, and that the garbage workers are out again in New York this week. So much, therefore, for the model for the Government's Bill to end strikes.
Mr. James Hamilton: My hon. Friend has referred to the strikes in America. We have been hammering that point in the House, warning the Government about the avenue along which they are going. Does my hon. Friend recall that the schoolteachers were on strike in Pittsburg and that over 70,000 children were without education?
Mr. Duffy: I was vaguely aware of that, and it was that sort of information which I had hoped that a prolonged discussion of the Bill would bring out.
Mr. R. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House or to take up time unnecessarily. Is he aware that in the United States it is illegal for public servants to strike— [HON. MEMBERS: "But they do."]— but there is no such provision in our Bill? We are not copying the United States.
Mr. Duffy: It is illegal for the garbage workers, for example, to go on strike, but when they were on strike just over a year ago, a coming-out-of-gaol party was held for their leader when he was released from prison.
Mr. R. Carr: There is nothing in the Bill of that sort.
Mr. Duffy: That is an indication of how, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) prophesied, policies and industrial legislation of this kind will bring the law into contempt. The right hon. Gentleman is right when he says that there is nothing about that specifically laid down in the Bill, but none of us on this side is in any doubt but that it will eventually come to that. It lies at the end of this legislative road. There are some people in this country—they may not know it now, and
80
they are, so to speak, anonymous—who will go down in history, like the Tolpuddle Martyrs, immortalised simply because they were the early victims of this Bill and went to prison because of it. I have not the slightest doubt that that will happen.
Mr. R. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. Is he not aware that the Bill specifically and deliberately reduces the risk of any trade union official ending in prison compared with the position under the present law? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We are reducing the risk, not increasing it.
Mr. Duffy: I want to be fair, because the right hon. Gentleman has a reputation for fairness. I content myself with saying that this, also, is one of the highly contentious points which I had hoped we could clarify during a prolonged discussion on the Bill. Because there are many such points arising on the Bill, it deserves nothing less than a prolonged discussion. Without it, the Government, and especially the right hon. Gentleman, are vulnerable to the charge of deliberately exploiting the lamentably low level of public awareness of both the implications of the Bill and the complexities of industrial relations.
Trade unionists as well as the public need help and clarification on the Bill. I return here to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, and I am sorry that it was taken up so light. heartedly by some hon. Members opposite notably the hon. Member for Honiton. Those of us on this side—I know this to be true of many of my hon. Friends—who have had contact in recent weeks with trade union gatherings, with their branches, with weekend schools and with trade union conferences, know something of the deep anxiety as well as the temper which is felt and displayed by so many people about the Bill. I should be interested to know how many hon. Members on the Government side have had such contact in recent weeks with privately organised trade union meetings, not forums, not television appearances, but branch meetings, weekend schools and the like, and have tried honestly and conscientiously not merely to keep down the temperature of such gatherings but also to explain to them the provisions of the Bill.
Mr. John Page: The proposition that the hon. Gentleman is now putting forward is extremely important. I am glad to say that after an open meeting on Friday night in Newark, at which there were a large number of trade unionists, the chairman of a local trades council has invited me to address a meeting of local trade unionists with him in the chair. I believe that this is an example of responsibility which may be followed. I said in reply that I hoped that there would also be a trade union official on the platform so that we could take questions together and nail any misunderstandings that could possibly exist about the Bill.
Mr. Duffy: I am delighted to hear that, but the hon. Gentleman has not done it yet, and I am led to the presumption that none of his hon. Friends has.
Mr. David Mitchell Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)rose——
Mr. Duffy: I must get on, or I shall be in trouble with some of my hon. Friends. I shall give way in a moment. The fact that so far no evidence——
Mr. Mitchell: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to call for his Members on this side to answer a question and then not allow them to do so?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman did not hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) say that he would give way to him in a moment.
Mr. Mitchell: In that case, I apologise for having raised the point of order. There was so much murmuring from the other side of the House that I did not hear. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way now. I have met my trades council and discussed the Bill at considerable length with it in private, without the newspapers present to have as careful and objective a discussion as possible. I know that other hon. Members have done the same.
Mr. Duffy: I am glad to hear that, but, with respect to the hon. Gentleman, it was a small gathering. It was not the kind of gathering about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West talked. Tempers are more likely
82
to escalate at a larger gathering. If the hon. Gentleman had attended such large gatherings in recent weeks he would know something about the temper of trade unionists nowadays, which is all that my right hon. Friend was trying to communicate to the House. It is not good enough that on the slight pretext of a reference of that kind the hon. Member for Honiton should accuse hon. Members on this side of stirring it up.
Mr. Emery Mr. Emery rose——
Mr. Duffy: I shall not give way at the moment.
This House has a teaching function as well as a legislative function. Therefore, it is of prime importance that we have a long discussion on the Bill. How better to discharge that teaching function than through a full discussion? If we do not have it, more and more trade unionists will do what some have told me privately during the past week they plan to do, which is to apply to the Human Rights Committee at Strasbourg for redress after the Bill becomes law. That is how deeply some trade unionists feel about the Bill.
My third point is that the application of the Bill depends on the widest basis of consent. Consent is a function of understanding, and how better to acquire that understanding than through what I have repeatedly counselled my own trade union meetings in recent weeks—a reasoned, positive and constructive approach, which the Motion will make impossible? Yet the workability of the Bill will depend largely on the co-operation of those trade unionists who have been active and concerned enough to attend meetings with their Members of Parliament in recent weeks. They are just the people on whom the value of the Bill will depend and who feel the greater sense of outrage.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to a meeting in the city of Sheffield this weekend, at which the point was made repeatedly that the T.U.C. will now find well-nigh impossible to continue imposing caution and restraint on the rank and file. Tomorrow night, according to today's Sheffield Morning Telegraph, the industrial section of the Sheffield Trades and Labour Council, representing 200,000 workers, will consider calling for a one-day national strike. Will the hon. Member for Honiton persist

83
in accusing hon. Members on this side of stirring it up when such spontaneous meetings are taking place in industrial cities like Sheffield? Let me read to him an expression of opinion voiced this weekend by Alderman Will Owen, President of the Sheffield Confederation of Trade Unions, who said:
"If the Government is prepared to use force in order to gag Members of Parliament and interfere with Parliamentary democracy, it must not complain if the Trades Union Congress is overwhelmed with demands from its affiliated unions to take industrial action as the only means of smashing the Bill."
As far as I know, although several Members knew that those meetings were going on, none of them attended. It was not necessary. This was entirely a domestic matter, and the quotation I have just read fairly reflects the outraged feelings of the rank and file. Does the hon. Gentleman still persist in accusing hon. Members on this side of stirring it up?
Mr. Emery: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last. I have been trying to catch his eye. What I have to say to him is quite clear. The action of trade unionists when they are discussing the Bill with their Members of Parliament in private and their attitude at public meetings, when pushed by the extreme left and Communist elements, are entirely different matters.
Mr. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman portrays a situation that is entirely outside my experience and so far as I know that of all my hon. Friends. I know personally that many of my hon. Friends have in recent weeks counselled patience and caution on the part of trade unionists. We shall go on doing that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West said, but if the Motion is passed it will make our position almost impossible.
The Leader of the House described the time that would be available to discuss the Bill. Is it enough? He spoke about the time that was made available for what he regarded as similar Bills in the post-war period. But we have not had a Bill like this before. It is not merely that it is big, though it is three Bills in one, having three models—the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the Wagner Act of 1935, and the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959. But it is also very complex. I do not wish to sound impertinent, but in my
84
view, and that of many people with whom I have discussed it, it has many obscure passages. Some parts can be understood only in the context of other parts, so frequent cross-reference is necessary.
I was interested to read in yesterday's Sunday Times an analysis of the time that would be available to Members for debate. It concluded that the residual, net time, for debate is not even the 40 minutes per Clause that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) suggested, but 10 minutes. This seemingly, is irrespective of the varying degrees of priority that we may accord the Bill as we work our way through it.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does my hon. Friend recall that the same article talked about the sloppy wording that needed to be tidied up?
Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman referred to this Bill being three Bills rolled into one. Has he forgotten that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) introduced a Transport Bill which was three Bills rolled into one and guillotined that?
Mr. Duffy: My right hon. Friend's Transport Bill was not as long as this Bill. Nor was it as far reaching in its implications. Nor could it be regarded as a constitutional Bill.
My fourth point to the Leader of the House is whether he is quite sure that, in restricting discussion on the Bill, he will not make it more and more difficult for the Secretary of State to get the consent that he will need for the successful implementation of the Bill. Fifthly, I recognise that the Government have the right and the duty to govern, but this is, in my view, the most important Bill since the war and I want to give four reasons for my belief.
First, the Bill represents a fundamental break with tradition in relation to the courts and the unions. The unions have often been accused of having a privileged position. No one who knew anything about the historical development of the relationship between the unions and the courts over the last 100 years could really believe that. Those relationships have been largely shaped by a tacit recognition on both sides that each should have as little to do with the other as possible.

85
Secondly, the Bill represents a departure from voluntaryism, the basis on which our industrial relations have hitherto been conducted, to such an extent as to mark a revolution of quite remarkable proportions. Thirdly, it sets up new courts with fundamental changes in human rights. Finally, the Bill is an attempt to tip the scales of industrial bargaining sharply against the trade unions. It affects the basic structure of our society and the balance of forces within it, and it is therefore a constitutional Measure.
I want to say a word, therefore, about the conventions that govern constitutional Bills. In the absence of a written constitution in this country, the most important task of Parliament is to ensure that the agreed objectives of policy are not changed before there has been full and frank discussion, before there has been an attempt at the widest possible agreement and at least an understanding. I wonder how far this is any longer attainable in view of this Motion. We are all familiar with the taunt sometimes levelled at us as Members—that this place does nothing but talk. But John Stuart Mill, a century ago, wrote:
"There has seldom been more misplaced derision. I know not how a representative Assembly can more usefully employ itself than in talk, when the subject of talk is the great public interests of the country, and every sentence of it represents the opinion either of some important body of persons in the nation, or of an individual in whom some such body have reposed their confidence."
To Mill, the proper function of a representative assembly was to be a congress of opinions, a great inquest of the nation, a place for talking, not a place for doing. Laws should not be made without its consent and the price which the Government must pay for consent was to listen to the advice of Parliament.
At a time when the shadow of violence lies across British politics, when there is accumulating evidence of growing estrangement between the intelligentsia and power, between ideas and responsibility, and, above all, between youth and the State, what Mill advocated a century ago is even more applicable and desirable than it was in his own time.
I shall not follow the taunt made by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott), when he referred to my right hon. Friend's attachment to rights. I
86
shall address myself to the Leader of the House and say that, in recent months, I have been much impressed by his repeated proclamations of the rights of Parliamentarians. I still have faith in him and I ask him, if he wants us on this side to go on believing in his attachment to the rights of hon. Members, to hesitate before he lends himself to an arrangement that smacks of unnecessary, unreasonable and premature restriction of the rights of Members.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Richard Hornby: I hope that the House will forgive me if I say that I find that the way in which the debate has been going was, rather sadly, predictable. Once this Motion is out of the way, we have before us a Bill which on both sides of the House presents some thorny problems and on which many hon. Members have worked very hard in many different ways. It is a Bill that we want to get down to discussing, yet here we are spending a whole day in not discussing it. Many people must feel that we would be serving the interests of our constituents and the country best by getting down to discussing the details of the Bill, and that the sooner we get down to it the better for everyone concerned.
Timetable Motions have been brought in under successive Governments. With the exception of the 1964–66 Labour Government—and I give them credit—all Governments since the war have brought in timetable Motions. Of course such a Motion must be debated, but I share the view that was put by witnesses in discussion on procedure as far back as 1931—that there may be a case for agreeing to shorter debates on the procedural matter of a guillotine Motion—say, two or three hours—and then getting on with the details of the Bill.
Mr. John Fraser: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, under the new procedure, if the Government had tried to get an agreed timetable but had failed, there would have been a two-hour procedural debate? We are having a long debate because the Government, by their own admission, have put down a Motion before there has been any attempt to agree a timetable.
Mr. Hornby: I understood that a great deal of preliminary contact had taken place. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I may

87
be mistaken, but it seemed perfectly clear to me from the evidence given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that no agreement was possible.
Hon. Members opposite made the point that the Bill is of a particularly special kind. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) said that its consequences are far-reaching and that it involves, unless adequate consent can be obtained, a real danger of contempt for the law. Those are both important points, but it is not good enough for the right hon. Member to leave the situation like that, as clearly he would like to have left it. As to his point that the consequences would be far-reaching, I would make the counter point that the consequences of doing nothing in this matter will be equally far-reaching since in industrial relations we face a very unsatisfactory situation.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not feel that this Bill by itself will solve anything, and I am sure that nobody would be rash enough to contest that. He is saying that he hopes that its provisions, after mature and careful discussion, can usefully be put into a framework of law—a law that in many respects is out of date—and thereby create a better climate in industrial relations.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman says that this has taken place after considerable consultation and discussion. Consultation and discussion with whom?
Mr. Hornby: I will come on to that point a little later.
The other point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West was that there was danger of contempt for the law. The serious answer is that there is always a danger of contempt for the law unless people stand up for the law. There is real danger in our institutions if we take the line of disliking one particular aspect of the law. I had hoped to hear from somebody like the right hon. Gentleman a rather more substantial defence for our institutions.
I come on to the matter of consultation, about which I was questioned by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). This has not been a rushed Bill, it has not been prepared
88
without a good deal of thought and consultation. Hon. Members opposite know this well. The Royal Commission has taken a great deal of evidence and much of the Bill is drawn from its work. We have seen the publication of the Consultative Document, which has been debated in this House. It was open to the trade union movement to discuss that document. We have had carefully prepared submissions and documents from both the main parties. We have had "In Place of Strife" and "Fair Deal at Work". This is not something that has been hurriedly rushed into. It has been carefully thought out. Furthermore, this was clearly a priority item in our election manifesto—hon. Members opposite do not like to be reminded of this—which was endorsed by the electorate.
I suspect that we all in our hearts know that this guillotine Motion was inevitable, and those opposite know it. Indeed, they intended to force the Motion on the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This has been evident in practically every intervention and in every question by hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose——
Mr. Hornby: I will give way in a moment. We had from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) some intimation about when a collision was coming, with the sort of attitude "Such-and-such will happen if you dare to put this legislation forward", and so on. She was trying to push the matter that way. We have seen the sort of progress that has been made so far on the Bill——
Mr. Heffer: What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely untrue. We on this side went out of our way to ensure serious and responsible discussion on each Clause of the Bill. The Front Bench speakers on this side of the House restricted themselves. As a matter of fact, the total time taken in the three speeches which I personally made on Clauses was less than the time taken in one of the speeches made by the Secretary of State in summing up one Amendment.
We went out of our way to avoid a guillotine, and it is totally untrue to say that we were working for one. Surely the reverse is the situation. The right hon. Gentleman himself put the four

89
principal Clauses at the commencement of the Bill knowing that each one would be of great interest to Members on the matter of principle, so that he could then argue that those Clauses were taking too long and could bring in a guillotine Motion.
Mr. Hornby: The hon. Gentleman can take that point of view, but my impression of the first four Clauses of the Bill is that they do not comprise the meat of the Bill. They relate to general principles similar to matters raised on Second Reading. It seems to me that the progress we were making caused the introduction of a guillotine Motion in the fairly near future to be almost inevitable.
However, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have now got their guillotine Motion. There is undoubtedly much to be discussed in this Bill. They complain that the allocation of time Clause by Clause is not enough. They might bear in mind the many Clauses in the Bill which one hopes will be universally welcomed as an asset to good industrial relations and in protecting individual rights within and without the trades union movement.
I hope that at the end of the day, after discussion of these matters, hon. Members opposite, having argued their case in whatever way they wish, will come to recognise that, whether or not they like the shape of the Bill, this legislation was foreshadowed by the election and has the backing of public opinion. Therefore, they should decide whether they will help to make it work.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I should like at the outset to try to clear up the fact that we are having a protracted debate today. I am sure that no hon. Member would seek to deny to the House a right to debate a guillotine Motion, but time and again hon. Members opposite have sought to imply that this debate has taken place because of the Opposition's desire for it to take place. We are debating this guillotine Motion because we believe it should be debated for a number of reasons, not least the right of hon. Members to determine the business of the House. But if it is wrong that this debate should be protracted, one cannot charge
90
the Opposition with being responsible for it.
As I understand the situation—I am subject to correction by the Leader of the House, who is now present—if the normal procedures for consultations had taken place, it would have been possible for the Government to have had a debate on the guillotine Motion under the new procedures, which would have taken two hours. I am glad to see that the Leader of the House appears to be in agreement with what I say.
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There are two courses open to the Government, and I make no complaint. I chose the one which allowed a full day's debate if that was what the Opposition wanted. I did this in the full knowledge that, if the Opposition decided to do that, it was their affair.
Mr. Loughlin: I hope that the statement by the Leader of the House will now disabuse the minds of all hon. Members opposite who have been charging us with seeking a spurious debate rather than getting on to the main debate on the Bill.
I am glad that the Leader of the House has returned to the Chamber—I do not say this in any spirit of criticism because I appreciate his many responsibilities—since I wish to say this to him. I have had a very great regard for the right hon. Gentleman for many years, but I say sincerely that I have never in the whole of the years I have been in this House been subjected to such a disgraceful speech in justification for a Government sanction than that made by the Leader of the House today. I cannot understand how the Leader of the House can justify the introduction of the guillotine on a Bill of this kind and address the House with a speech which was the flimsiest I have heard in my life, inside or outside the House.
There is an overwhelming reason why the Bill should be completely adequately discussed. It is not a trivial Measure. As has so often been said, it has 150 Clauses and eight Schedules. Even this afternoon, the Secretary of State and some of my hon. Friends were disputing whether the Bill's effect would be that people would go to gaol. The Secretary of State has evidently been involved in

91
all sorts of detailed official discussions with his civil servants and colleagues in the Ministry, as must anyone piloting a Bill of this kind. It is amazing that he should not have grasped that in practice people in industry may be sent to prison as a result of the Bill. On Second Reading, there were repeated complaints that the implications of Clause after Clause were imprecise and that the wording of provisions was so vague that no one knew precisely what the full implications would be.
On Second Reading, lawyer after lawyer, some barristers and some Queen's Counsel, argued the precise meaning of given provisions. The Government will readily accept that there is an indecisiveness about the wording. If that is not so, perhaps a Government spokesman will tell me the precise meaning of "induced to commit", and that is only one of many examples. How can anyone in the context of the Bill know what offence he is committing by "inducing"?
All legislation affects all of us. Sometimes we are affected directly, but, fortunately, that is only occasionally. When we are, we have to go to the lawyers for advice. We go to see our solicitors and, for example, say, "I have a letter which suggests that I am in breach of some law and I seek your advice". We do what our solicitors tell us and, if needs be, we get advice from barristers.
Normally, it is reasonable to assume that the average person—and it is for the average person that we are now legislating—will be affected by the law infrequently, and that, when he is, it will be appropriate for him to get advice from his solicitor. There might be some justification for curtailing discussion of some legislation on the ground that it would affect the average person only occasionally and he could then have recourse to legal advice.
But this is not that kind of legislation. This is not legislation which will affect the average person once in 10 years. It will affect thousands and thousands of men and women in industry every day of their working lives. If my reading of the Bill so far is any guide, it will be extremely difficult for the average man or woman in industry to be sure of not being in breach of the law. It will be not once every 10 years, but every working
92
day. In circumstances of that kind, this is an occasion when, instead of limiting the time for the Bill, we should take into account the implications of each Clause for the general populace. Irrespective of what we normally do, we should ensure that these proposals have the maximum discussion.
That is the overwhelming reason. If 100,000 shop stewards, for instance, may be in breach of the law six days of the week and 52 weeks of the year as a result in the Bill, it is imperative that the House gives absolutely adequate time to discussing it.
There has been an argument about how much time in fact is being given to the Bill. The Leader of the House takes the view that it is about 40 minutes per Clause. That is the average, because some will not take as long, but in that total time there will be variations for procedural incidentals such as Divisions, and that will subsequently reduce the average time of 40 minutes. We are not giving what would be considered normal in average circumstances and it could be legitimately argued that this is a Bill which requires substantially in excess of the average time.
The Bill is conceived in the belief that it will contribute to industrial relations. The Government have now accepted it as the cornerstone of the whole of their economic policy. What other economic policy have they? Several hon. Gentlemen are shaking their heads. But the sum total of the Government's economic policy is to put a Bill on the Statute Book that will shackle the trade union movement and thus reduce the increases in wages—de-escalate as they term it—which will consequently solve the problem of inflation. That is economic nonsense, but nevertheless it is the case which the Government are presenting.
If that is the key to the Government's economic policy and if the Bill is to make any contribution to industrial relations, I should have thought that it was imperative from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view that there would be more than adequate discussion of the case. I do not wish to be arrogant. We are all a little arrogant. I will concede to the right hon. Gentleman that some of us are more arrogant than others. I try not to be so. We all have to live with

93
ourselves. I do not suggest for one moment that I have any specialised knowledge or can make any outstanding contribution to a debate about industrial relations. All that I have is my experience in industry. But there are many hon. Members on this side of the House who can make a substantial contribution to moulding the kind of legislation that would be a contributory factor in improving industrial relations. God knows, they need a great deal of improvement.
One of the most amazing things is the acceptance by too many people that all the faults of industrial relations are on the part of the trade union movement. So often are arguments advanced against the shop stewards of the union when in practice a substantial part of the difficulty arises from the failure of management. Too many people put that to one side. If management has its failings or wishes to make a contribution to the improvement of industrial relations in the discussion of the Bill, obviously there are right hon. and hon. Members on the Government benches who have had a measure of industrial experience. But with due deference, a far greater contribution on industrial relations can be made from this side of the House, largely because hon. and right hon. Members on these Benches have had a far greater and more intimate knowledge of industrial problems by virtue of being closer to them. Some right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the House have been involved in industrial consultancies. Some of them have had industrial experience, but very few.
It is imperative that the Leader of the House, if he wants to end with a Bill, moulded possibly to some extent by this side of the House, which serves his primary purpose of improving industrial relations, should forget his heinous crime of introducing the guillotine. This would take him back to the man he was before he introduced it, and we could appeal then to his usual generosity. He is usually generous, but not on this occasion.
Where we have very important legislation that is bound by its very nature to involve many, many men and women, good, ordinary decent folk in their day-to-day lives, when even their freedom is put in jeopardy, as it can be by the
94
Bill, I ask the right hon. Gentleman even at this stage to reconsider the guillotine Motion. It is not the slightest bit of good the Secretary of State saying that people will not go to goal because of the Bill. They will. It will not matter so much if the Bill is delayed for a month or two. It is better that it be delayed two or three months, so that at the end of the day we have a Bill which is more equitable to ordinary men and women, than that we rush the Bill through and risk freedom.
I do not want to use exaggerated language, but if the approach of the Government is carried further than it is today, it will be the beginning of a Fascist state in Britain. I should not like to feel that, wittingly or otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a great admiration, contributed to bringing about that situation.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. R. H. Turton: I can assure the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that I do not regard the debate or his speech as spurious. My complaint is that it is exact repetition of the speeches on guillotine Motions which I have heard year after year, sometimes by Conservatives and sometimes by Socialists.
Lengthy debates on guillotine Motions do not add to the reputation of the House. Sooner or later we have to come to the decision which was reached by the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Session, that when we have a major Bill on the Floor of the House we have to have a timetable. That is inescapable. It is nonsense to talk, as the hon. Gentleman has talked, as if this were some undemocratic move. I pray in aid for the view that we must have the timetable Motion and that it has to be to some extent an imposed Motion, that in the end it must be the majority who have to say how many days we should devote to the Bill.
The Select Committee on Procedure discussed this, I remember, when the Leader of the House was the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man), and he spoke to us about his views on the timetable. I remember that the present Mr. Speaker put to him that if one had a timetable one could not test the Minister, and that, as stated in the

95
Sixth Report from the Select Committee on Procedure, 1966–67:
"One of the disciplines for a Minister is that if he wants to get his Bill through he must not lose his temper and become unreasonable."
There can be no danger of that with the present Miinster who is in charge of the Bill. The answer of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East was:
"… I think it is true to say that the quality of the debate could be greatly improved under the time-table, and I would not have thought that the point about temper was quite as important as was suggested to me at the beginning, because the Minister will have plenty of tests of it if the Opposition know their way, even with a time-table giving him 10 days for his Bill. I am not sure that I would say that it justifies the disadvantage of the unlimited time, that it tests Ministers' tempers."
That is the issue here. The Opposition must have the democratic right of protest, but they should not be too long. They should remember that, certainly by the protests this afternoon, every minute and hour which they take in making those protests they are denying themselves the time allotted by the Government for further examination of the Bill.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to this point? Even if, ultimately, no agreement is possible, and the Government must reserve the right to impose a guillotine Motion, at least a serious and earnest attempt to reach agreement should be made.
Mr. Turton: The Government have to see whether it is possible to reach some agreement, obviously. Here we have the position where the Government offer 120 further hours. They offer the equivalent of 23 normal days of parliamentary working for the examination of the Bill. Instead of asking for an extra day, the Opposition seek another 30 days in their Amendment, which shows the disparity between the two sides. Those 30 days are the equivalent of 60 normal working days. In a parliamentary Session, there are 180 working days, and the Opposition say that the equivalent of 60 normal working days should be devoted to the Bill. That is how far apart the two sides are.
Addressing myself to the point raised by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), again it is clear. I sat through the recent all-night sitting, and anyone getting to my age finds all-night
96
sittings highly inconvenient. At the same time, they are always enlightening. I wanted to test the attitude of the Opposition and to see whether they were trying to curtail the debates. Among others, I listened to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). Incidentally, I warned the hon. Gentleman that I proposed to quote from his speech. He said:
"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 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 proceedines."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 969–70.]
That is my answer to the hon. Member for Putney. Anyone who listened to the speeches in that all-night sitting knew that the only answer was a timetable Motion if the Bill were to be considered on the Floor of the House. All the evidence pointed to the fact that there was no likelihood of an agreed timetable between the Government and the Opposition.
I beg right hon. and hon. Members opposite to be their age and to get down to this inescapable Parliamentary fact. We have important matters to discuss. The best way of doing so is to find a timetable that is reasonable. In all the years that I have been in the House, I have never known a longer time allowed in a guillotine Motion for any major Bill. Let us find a way. Surely we can get a greater measure of agreement between the two sides. If the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) would only say that she would be happy with 11 days—and, after all, she would have had 11 days if it had not been necessary for this debate—then we could get down to it.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Father of the House, for whom I have sincere respect, referred to the all-night sitting that he attended. I also sat through it and, like him, I am getting old. However, every spokesman from the Treasury bench is on record as admitting that there was no filibustering or unnecessary delay. Indeed, the first two Clauses were obtained on the one and only day after

97
my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) asked those of my hon. Friends who had had Amendments selected by the Chair not to move their Amendments. Obviously there was no filibustering.
Mr. Turton: I thought that the Opposition conducted the proceedings in that all-night sitting extremely cleverly. I have known all-night sittings when hon. Members on both sides have made filibustering speeches. The art of Parliamentary debate is to prolong it without making it appear that one is filibustering. I must congratulate the right hon. Lady. The way in which she did that was extremely adroit. However, the hon. Member for Tottenham admitted that, at the rate that we were going, devoting 15 hours to a Clause, it would be March, 1972, before our consideration of the Bill was complete. He clearly anticipated a guillotine Motion and accepted that that was the only possible consequence of that debate.
Mr. F. A. Burden: Has not the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) shown how anxious he is that the Bill should be got through in reasonable time by tabling over 300 Amendments?
Mr. Turton: I think that that point has been sufficiently discussed already, and I do not want to take up an undue amount of time.
Like the right hon. Member for Coventry, East, I am convinced that every major Bill must have some form of timetable, as he said in evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure.
This is not a spurious debate. It is right for the Opposition to make a short protest. However, they should remember that, the more that they prolong this debate, the less time there is for discussing the details of the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: As a relatively new Member of this House, I find this debate extremely interesting. I am glad to follow the Father of the House, as I do not question the prerogative of the Government to introduce a timetable Motion at some stage, and I doubt whether anyone is surprised that they have decided to do so. However, I am concerned with the timing of it and
98
the lack of consultation which took place before its introduction.
I believe that the conventions of a constitution are just as important as what is written down. Dicey had a good deal to say on this matter, and he pointed out in Chapter XIV that the conventions of a constitution are rules for governing the exercise of a prerogative. I suggest that it is this convention which is important. It is the prerogative of the Government to introduce a guillotine Motion. It was expected, and I do not deny them that right. But it is the exercise of that prerogative and the way in which it is done which should concern us. Unless that prerogative is used with respect for the conventions, it is likely that Parliament may be put at some disadvantage. While Dicey was writing about the Crown and the prerogative of the Crown, it is also true that the prerogative of the Executive should be used with due regard to the conventions. Unless it is, people's confidence in Parliament will be undermined.
Many people outside this House are intensely interested in our debates and study the procedures adopted by the Government, especially when they touch on controversial Motions of this kind. For their A-level examinations, thousands of students use a textbook entitled "The British Constitution", by Harvey and Bather, published by Macmillan. Referring to the guillotine, it says on page 124:
"… it is a drastic procedure obviously disliked by the Opposition. Even the Government prefer not to use it, for a day is often lost in debating the motion. Hence, an attempt is first made to agree on a timetable through the usual channels. If this fails and the guillotine has to be used in Committee of the whole House, or on Report, Standing Order 43 provides…."
and so on. I do not say that this book, which is a relatively short volume—although it is based on longer writings by Sir Ivor Jennings and others—should necessarily circumscribe what we do here, but these points will cause anxiety to people who have a concern for parliamentary democracy. These conventions are important not only in this place; they are important throughout the institutions of democracy and, in particular, in industrial relations.
If we are to maintain in this country what my hon. Friend the Member for

99
Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has called the politics of persuasion, as distinct from other sorts of politics in other parts of the world, the place of these conventions must be recognised, and they must always be observed.
Conventions in industrial relations are equally important. I heard in a works not long ago of a convention operated by shop stewards joining together with the management in a joint consultative council, and minuting their agreements. The manager agreed with a certain proposal, but some time later a new manager arrived who said—as was his prerogative —that he was not bound by the agreement made between the unions and the previous manager. He said, "I do not accept this arrangement. "Unfortunately, that arrangement had certain implications. The manager threw it out and there was a prolonged strike in the works mainly because the manager did not understand the implications of his decision. That strike had implications for many members of the general public.
These conventions in industrial relations—just as in the case of conventions in the House—make all the difference between smooth procedure, or a smooth discussion of public business, and one that is rough. I tell hon. Members opposite that they do not seem to understand the importance of conventions inside industrial relations—conventions which are not legally binding. The sort of decisions that we have had in the last two or three days indicate that the Government do not understand their significance.
Conventions can sometimes be very unusual. A fortnight ago the Sunday Times referred to the case of the Cowley car workers, where, although the manager wanted to get a decision, he could not do so because he could not clear it with the London head office, in Berkeley Square, I believe. He said to his senior shop steward, with whom he was on good terms, "You go on strike. Then we can make them listen." Sometimes conventions work even in that way.
At another works, not far from my constituency, the conventions worked fairly well—unlike the situation at the Cowley works. It was known that there would be short-time working about a fortnight
100
or three weeks beforehand. We all know how the message gets through; it runs through in this place in the same way. The management was expected to take a decision. It called in the shop stewards and, by amicable agreement, the short-time allocations were divided between the various departments, perhaps with some distrust of the shop stewards by some of their supporters. There were no industrial difficulties, because the operation was carried through using the conventions.
It is unfortunate that the Government have not used the important convention to which I have referred. Every speech from hon. Members opposite—even the speech of the Leader of the House—has admitted that this convention was not followed. I realise that hon. Members opposite can say, "We knew that you would not agree to a timetable". If there is a bone of contention between a man and his wife and the man knows what the wife's view will be but takes a decision without consulting her, she is liable to become annoyed. He may say, "I knew what your answer would be", but there is not likely to be a very good relationship between them after that.
The Government do not seem to have realised that conventions are essential, whether they be between a man and his wife, management and labour or Government and Opposition. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Employment is not here, because I suggest that this question has little to do with the law but everything to do with human relations. The analogy is fairly plain. In this House we are not concerned with short-time working or with wages; the scramble between us is for parliamentary time. Everybody in the House knew that within a measure of time there would have to be a guillotine Motion. People were talking about it. We knew that we would have to have it. There was a discussion about what sort of time would be made available, which were the important Clauses, and which Clauses the Government would wish to amend. Outside the Government, some of their friends at the Greater London Council have put down several Amendments which will have to be discussed at some stage.
We then had what amounted to a board meeting, at which suddenly, for

101
reasons that we can only surmise, there was a sudden decision. We know that it was made suddenly, because of what we read in The Times and The Guardian. Those reports have not been denied. The equivalent to the personnel manager scurries out to get the shop steward on the telephone. Then the works manager makes an announcement in the afternoon. Is there any wonder that there is distrust?
I am concerned at the fact that there is an almost direct parallel with the sort of industrial situation that the Government want to clear up. They have not applied it to their own works. The Secretary of State for Employment has said many times at the Dispatch Box, "We want to encourage voluntary agreements". I do not believe that the Government know how to proceed, because if they did they would not have treated the House as they have.
Dicey says that when the convention is broken it almost always leads to a breaking of the law. The Standing Orders of this House are equivalent to the law of the land, but it is easy to get round them. The House can be disrupted within the law just as the Bill before us—if it becomes an Act—can be circumvented within the law. It would be possible to achieve legal disruption on a scale that we have never seen before, just as it would be possible—I hope that it will not happen—for hon. Members on I am concerned at the fact that there is an almost direct parallel with the this side of the House to disrupt the workings of this Chamber within the law and within Standing Orders.
It shakes me to realise that hon. Members opposite seem to be quite unaware that this is a basic mechanism not only for the House but in most industrial circumstances. There have been arguments about the European situation, and suggestions that the withdrawal of hon. Members could bring the House into disrepute. There is a great wrangle and a waste of time. Commentators talk about Parliament's being disrupted. Reasonable men will eventually agree to reopen the usual channels; then there will be an agreement to disagree, and the conventions are brought back into play. But in the meantime much time is lost.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton talks about his concern for parliamentary time, but how much time will be lost because of the way in which
102
the Government have proceeded in this matter? It is they who are bringing Parliament into disrepute. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have been approached by their constituents and others, who have said, "Parliament is a waste of time. Do not worry about it. The Tory Party is just doing the bidding of somebody outside. You are wasting your time in Parliament. They will drive it through; they do not worry about discussion".
That has been said to us time and again by many people—not only people who would be dismissed by many hon. Gentlemen opposite as the irresponsible fringe. It is very difficult for us to persuade even reasonable people to say that industrial action for political ends is wrong.
The Secretary of State for Employment, apart from talking about voluntary agreements, which I have already mentioned, has time and again talked about responsibility and responsible action. I agree that responsibility can mean a chain of responsibility to an individual; but I suggest that it also means that one is aware of the implications of one's actions. I do not believe that the Government are being responsible in that sense by bringing forward this Bill which they say will mend the situation so far as industrial relations are concerned. We on this side know that any framework of law must encourage good conventions. The Government, by bringing law into the situation, will destroy and discourage such arrangements which are the heart of democratic bargaining.
The Government do not even know—and are not aware of—the implications of the decision not to consult. We have been chided about bringing Members back from the Council of Europe. This was not done as a direct result of the guillotine Motion; it was the way it was launched. It would have been a matter of moments to discover that this side of the House was not willing to agree to a timetable; but, as I have said in other contexts, it is a question of how it is done and who is consulted.
I believe that in many ways it is against the Government's interests to do it in this way, as they will soon discover. It was a disservice to the unique British constitution, which many of us hold so dear, because our conventions play a vital and

103
important rôle, for the Government to go about their decision in this way.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us time and again that all over the world democracy is under attack. But they are doing their best to call into disrepute the very organ of democracy of which many of us are so proud and which we are defending as best we can.
When people ask, "On whose orders are they doing this; is it Heath; is it the City; is it Tory Central Office?", we cannot answer. I believe that the Lord President of the Council, from his demeanour and the decisions which he has previously announced—and, indeed, the Chief Whip—are honourable men. But I wonder how far this was their decision. On reflection. I wonder how far they would have advocated this course. Were they doing it under orders from somebody else? These are the questions which come into people's minds, and we can make no reply.
I believe that the introduction of this Motion is a bad day for the Tory Party, for democracy, and for Britain.
6.54 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke): I listened to the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) with considerable fascination. The hon. Gentleman posed a number of questions, the last being: on whose orders was this procedure undertaken? I should have thought that it was clear that it was undertaken not on orders from anybody in this House, but from a sense of duty—the duty of a Government to govern. The country is beginning to recognise and respect that this Government are governing.
The hon. Gentleman also observed that the relationship of the Government to the Opposition was rather like that of a man towards his wife. I can only say that when a situation has reached the guillotine stage, it has long passed the divorce court.
The hon. Gentleman gave an illustration of management breaking an agreement which it had made. I join the hon. Gentleman in deploring that, but one of the advantages which the Bill, when it comes into operation, will give to trade unions is redress other than being forced to strike.
104
The Opposition have concentrated upon two points in their attack on this legislation today. The first question is: should we have a timetable and, if so, when should we have it?
Either we have an early guillotine Motion or we have a late one. An early guillotine Motion at least has the advantage that all parts of the Bill will be discussed; whereas, a late guillotine Motion, a late timetable, means that a long time is spent meandering through the early Clauses and then we have to canter through the last part at a tremendous pace.
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) gave us an extraordinary display of hypocrisy, in view of her history on the Transport Bill, when she piloted through a Bill large slabs of which were never discussed in Committee because the timetable Motion was too late to ensure an even spreading of the time.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield): Will the hon. Gentleman give way? I was a Whip on that Bill.
Mr. Mitchell: I should like to make my speech without being interrupted by several hon. Members who will have ample opportunity of making their own speeches. I have the HANSARD of the guillotine Motion debate on that occasion. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), whom I am delighted to see——
Mr. Dan Jones: On a point of order. The hon. Member is taking a very cowardly action. I will not refer in detail to that, except to say that hon. Members on this side gave way very often to the hon. Gentleman. However, that is not my point of order. My point of order is that the hon. Gentleman has indicted my right hon. Friend. The indictment is completely false, and I feel that it should be answered.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's first point, I think he realised, was not a point of order. Nor was his second point. It was a point of argument. Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Mitchell: I said earlier that I was about to call in aid the right hon. Member for Coventry, East. Hon. Gentlemen

105
opposite will recall the occasion, because it was a comparison by the then Leader of the House of his method with that of previous Conservative Leaders of the House on the timing and introducing of guillotine Motions. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"To show what I mean, I should like to compare what we are doing with this Bill with what the Conservatives did in 1962. When they were in office the Bill was allowed to crawl along day by day at little more than the speed of one Clause every two weeks. That was the pace which was achieved in the period before the guillotine. And then, suddenly, when the guillotine was introduced, the process was accelerated by approaching 1,000 per cent. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West decided to accelerate the process from a slow crawl to a breakneck Gadarene drive. We have timed ourselves better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1667.]
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that on this occasion the Leader of the House has taken the advice which he gave on that occasion and has timed things better. I realise that the main question is whether there should be a timetable Motion; but as to when it should be introduced, I think that we have the very good precedent in the advice then given, which has been followed by my right hon. Friend on this occasion, to introduce a timetable Motion early rather than late.
Mr. Richard Crossman (Coventry, East): I am glad that the hon. Gentleman liked our method. However, we took the greatest care to consult the Opposition throughout according to all the normal practices.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but my point was about the timing. In due course, I shall deal with other points, some of which have already been adequately dealt with by my hon. Friends.
I congratulate the Leader of the House on having introduced this timetable Motion early enough so that we do not dawdle through a quarter of the Bill and then have to skimp the rest. We can now spread our time evenly over the whole of the Bill. I am sure that that is an advantage to the operation of Parliament and of democracy.
We come to the main question, which is whether we should have a guillotine on this Bill at all. The Opposition said
106
that they intended to fight the Bill line by line. I have no doubt that unless they had been stopped they would have taken until the next General Election to do that, with great happiness throughout the time, and there would have been no prospect—and everyone knows it—of getting the Bill through without a guillotine Motion. If Bills such as the one to gerrymander constituencies. the Transport Bill, and a host of far less controversial Measures than this required a guillotine Motion to get them through the House, it was quite clear that this Bill would require one, too.
I have just come back from visiting the North-East. In Newcastle and Middlesbrough I spoke to ordinary members of the public and to trade unionists about the Bill, and two things struck me staringly and glaringly. First, there is enormous and widespread distortion and misrepresentation about the Bill. Second, trade unionists, employers and ordinary members of the public, while wishing to see some details amended, are broadly in favour of the Bill. In Middlesbrough I even heard of a counter-petition being got up in favour of the Bill which has collected a substantial number of signatures in a very short time.
Perhaps I might give the House an example of the wild distortion that is being put about. I was told that thousands of trade unionists would be fined if the Bill went through. I was told that hundreds of them would be sent to prison if Parliament passed this Measure. How completely misleading—in many cases I fear intentionally—has been this deception and distortion. I was told that the Government were going to make rules for the trade unions and the trade unions would have to fit exactly into what the Government ordered.
The distortions are becoming wilder and wilder, and in the House this afternoon we heard the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)—I am sorry that he is not here, but I realise that there is a good reason for his absence —talking about the Tolpuddle Martyrs, about the future martyrs of the trade union movement who find themselves in gaol as a result of the Bill. What utter nonsense! Of course one can get into gaol if one tries hard enough. If I leave the Palace of Westminster and hit a

107
policeman on the head, I shall go to gaol. Anybody can get into gaol if he wants to, but, my goodness, someone will have to try jolly hard if he wants to be sent to prison under the provisions of the Bill.
In view of the widespread support in the country for the Bill, I ask myself why it is that in the trade union movement, in the T.U.C., amongst the leaders of the trade unions and amongst the Opposition there is such vociferous opposition to and distortion of the Bill, why so much public clamour is being whipped up against the Bill? I think that if one looks at the situation one has to accept that there is a simple, straightforward historical reason for it.
The reason is that during the time the last Labour Government were in office the trade union leadership, the T.U.C., co-operated with the Government over the control of wages, and this split the trade union movement. It split hon. Gentlemen opposite, and we know that 30 or 40 hon. Members below the Gangway consistently refused to vote for the then Government's policies in this respect. The co-operation of the T.U.C. and union leaders with the Government split the union movement down the middle so that the activists, the people who did the work on the shop floor, found themselves increasingly separated from trade union leaders and the T.U.C., and what is going on now is nothing more than a last fence-mending operation, nothing more than an endeavour to reestablish the T.U.C. and trade union leaders as the acknowledged voice of the activists and the whole trade union movement. They are endeavouring to outspeak, to outclamour, to be more extreme than the extremists, to regain their historical position as leaders of the trade union movement.
When one recognises that fact, one has the only logical explanation for the deep difference between the attitude of ordinary members of the electorate and ordinary trade unionists and that of those who seek to represent them in this House and on the T.U.C.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. David Steel: The Father of the House and several other hon. Members have referred to the predictable and repetitive
108
nature of these guillotine debates. We have all come armed with our favourite quotations from previous debates of this kind. My favourite is from the speech of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Harold Macmillan, who, when introducing a guillotine in 1954, said:
"What happens is this. The right hon. and hon. Members who find themselves for the moment in opposition are filled with an extraordinary devotion to the principles of constitutional Government, to the free rights of Members, to the long historic struggle of Parliament against the Executive, to the cause for which Hampden died in field and Sidney on the scaffold. But when, with the all-healing flow of time, these same Members find themselves upon the Government benches, they become comparatively immune to these high-flown sentiments. They are influenced by the urgent necessity which every Government feel to carry through their Parliamentary business with some relation to the calendar and to the march of events."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1954; Vol. 524, c. 42.]
I think that that rather nicely put what many Members feel about the similar nature of these debates as and when they occur.
The objection which we are entitled to take on this occasion, and certainly one which the Liberal Party will take, is both to the manner of the introduction of the guillotine, and to the amount of time that is given to the Bill once the guillotine comes into operation, bearing in mind the length and complexity of this Measure.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has come in for a good deal of fairly bitter criticism. I do not think that he will mind if I refer to things said about his predecessor in March 1968, when the now right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), talking about the guillotine Motion on the Transport Bill, said:
"Naturally the right hon. Gentleman had to endeavour to persuade the House that the necessity for guillotining this Bill was similar to the necessity for guillotining past Bills. In the manner in which he has done it and the complete lack of fundamental argument behind his case, in my view the right hon. Gentleman has completely and utterly degraded the position of Leader of the House of Commons." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1675.]
Strong words are therefore nothing particularly new when it comes to referring to Leaders of the House.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is open to criticism. He has told the

109
House this afternoon, and he has been reported in the Press as saying, that he believed that no voluntary timetable could have been obtained. I shall not say that I dispute that, because it may be right, but the right hon. Gentleman is open to criticism because he did not put his belief to the test—and this is the point of principle involved—and no attempt was made to obtain a voluntary timetable.
The right hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon to the Government's view that at some stage a guillotine would have been inevitable on the Bill, and to justify his decision to bring in the guillotine after only two days of debate he maid that he had done this to get a balanced debate on the Bill and not to let it run. I understand that, but that argument leads one to conclude that the timetable ought to have been introduced before the Committee Stage started and properly discussed through the usual channels. That seems to be the logical process.
Moreover, it is unfortunate that the usual form of notice was not given in dealing with the week's business. As I think the House knows, by long-standing convention the Government, as a matter of courtesy, always let the Opposition parties have a note on Wednesday of the provisional order of business for the following week.
Mr. Whitelaw: I should make it clear that the notice which we endeavoured to give on this occasion was as long as I ever received when I was Opposition Chief Whip and, indeed, longer than several.
Mr. Steel: I certainly would not dispute that, if the right hon. Gentleman says that that is so, but I am saying that, in the climate of opinion created on this matter, it would seem rather unusual not to put it down in the provisional order of business circulated to the other parties on the Wednesday evening. The result of doing it an hour or so before the announcement on Thursday was to provoke considerable feeling on the matter, and led to the withdrawal of the delegation, of which I was one, at Strasbourg.
On that point, I do not believe that the whole of Europe will collapse because we have not stayed in Strasbourg, but we have been made to look very foolish among our European colleagues, and it
110
will become a serious matter if the Government's negotiations to enter the Common Market succeed, and if, next year, we are sending a delegation not to the Council of Europe but to the European Parliament. Then, there could come a situation in which a general change in the predicted order of business in this House, involving the recall of our delegation, could seriously affect the interests of this country in a decision taken by that European Parliament.
This is all the more reason why the wise words of the Father of the House tonight should be heeded and attention paid to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure in the past. Indeed, I remember, when evidence was about timetabling, Mr. Herbert Bowden, being given to the Select Committee as he then was, went so far as to suggest —as his personal view—that time-tabling of the Committee stages of Bills should be automatic, and one of the procedures of the House. The Committee did not agree, but he wanted to move in that direction. The fact is that we have not adopted any sensible mechanism of the sort for timetabling the Committee procedures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), taking part in the debate on this Bill at about four o'clock last Wednesday morning, answered a criticism about the absence of the other Liberal Members when a Liberal Amendment was being discussed. He said:
"I, and most other people in the country, would regard their absence at 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 Benchers 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Wednesday, 20th January, 1971; Vol. 809 c. 971–2.]
That is precisely the conclusion of the Select Committee on Procedure some time ago, and I hope that, out of this unhappy incident, we might agree to implement the recommendations and to agree to a proper timetable for these contentious Bills on the Floor of the House before we begin the Committee stage.

111
Otherwise, we shall get a repetition of this situation, in which about 40 or 45 minutes will be given to each Clause, which I do not think is at all adequate. If that is all the time that can be given on the Floor of the House for such a complex Measure, it would have been far more satisfactory if it had been sent to Standing Committee in the first place. Few hon. Member will be able to move their Amendments or to discuss each Clause in these circumstances. We might, therefore, have let a few people do it in a more thorough manner, instead of in this skimpy way.
It is because of the manner in which this has been done and because of the inadequate time which has been allowed that we on this bench will vote against the Government tonight. Our legal system has always incorporated the ideas of the reasonable man and his judgment. I do not think that any reasonable man will think this a reasonable proposal.
7.14 p.m.
Mr. Robert Redmond: I am a very new Member, having come here in June, so this is my first experience of a guillotine Motion—and I wonder why we are hearing the rumour that the House is to sit all night on it. With one or two notable exceptions, the debate seems to have been another Second Reading debate. Surely the House has already made that decision. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) stuck to the point, and, on behalf of the new Members, I would thank him for that.
We have had a repetition tonight of the sort of things which were said on Second Reading and are now being said all over the country. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that the Bill was to shackle trade unions. Many people in the country are saying that the Government should be doing that. As a candidate for some years and as a Member since June, I have been resisting that sort of argument. I bow to the knowledge of many hon. Members opposite of trade union organisation, but I bow to no man in my knowledge of people, particularly of the trade unionists whom I have been meeting, both industrially and politically, for many years.
112
I know that management can be to blame as much as trade unions, and indeed more so, for many of the industrial disputes. When I was in the engineering industry, I hope that I was known as an employer who supported the trade unions. I have always worked to let trade unions do their jobs within my industry. From that, I think that I can speak with some knowledge of industry, particularly in the smaller companies which make up the bulk of British industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) referred to meetings being held in Devonshire for a long time when this Bill, or the consultative document, "Fair Deal at Work", was discussed. I can confirm that exactly the same thing has been going on in Lancashire for a long time. For two years at least before the General Election, "Fair Deal at Work" was the most popular subject at every political meeting and discussion that I attended.
It became particularly of interest once "In Place of Strife" was discussed, but now, the main question put to me is about the incidence of criminal law. I have great difficulty sometimes in drawing attention to the fact that this Bill contains the implication of the civil law, and in trying to explain the difference. That is where we are in trouble, because the criminal law was invoked in "In Place of Strife".
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) talked about crowded meetings. Is he aware of the correspondence in the newspapers in our part of the world, and particularly in the Bolton Evening News. after the strike of 12th January, when various people were saying that they had to sign their letters with pseudonyms because they could not put their names forward for fear of victimisation? They drew attention to the fact that they were forced to go on strike against their wishes and that 85 per cent. of the people in factories in Bolton had no desire to strike at all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is quite right, that this matter of representation of the incidence of the civil law is being invoked wrongly. The fears of trade unionists follow the leaflets which are being put out, sometimes by trade union organisations and sometimes by so-called trade union organisations, some of which

113
are spurious, which are an absolute travesty of the facts of the Bill.
Therefore, the sooner that the Bill becomes law and the sooner that the people see the law operating and stop being misled by travesties of the facts, the better it will be for industrial democracy. Therefore, it is right to have a guillotine Motion.
7.19 p.m.
Mr. Neil McBride: The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said that we opposed this only as a timetable Motion, but that is only partly true, because we believe that it militates against the survival of the trade unions. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said that the Bill was propounded and known at the General Election. That is not true. Its terms were known only on 3rd December, so there could have been no mandate for a Bill which was published then, no matter what nebulous assertions may have been made before publication. Under the Motion the Leader of the House promises 150 hours of debate, but this is inadequate to ensure proper consideration of a constitutional Bill which imports a huge segment of American legislation into our law.
It is becoming known as the "Tory Strike Bill". While hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly complaining about the number of working days lost through strikes, they should realise that one strike at General Motors last year involved 400,000 people, lasted for eight weeks and resulted in more days being lost in that one American firm than all the days lost through strikes in this country in the previous two years.
The speech of the Leader of the House was arrogant and will result in the anger which is at present felt by trade unionists being increased. Much bitterness is now felt and the Tories are dividing the nation. Discussion of this constitutional measure has been arbitrarily reduced and I construe this as the action of a weak and irresolute Government. The inadequacy of the time proposed shows the ignorance and incompetence of hon. Gentlemen opposite to govern the country because this Measure involves the rights of the citizen, especially as new offences are being created.
114
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred to large meetings being held. As a trade unionist of many years standing, I confirm what he said. The size of these meetings represents the size of the resentment that is felt among workers. Last Saturday in the pouring rain I had the privilege to attend a rally in Cardiff. The crowd was estimated by the police to be many thousands in excess of the newspaper estimate of about 5,000. We walked through the streets of the Welsh capital and despite the normal competitive attractions of a Saturday afternoon, there was a tremendous turn-out. There can be no doubt of the bitter resentment that is felt about the Bill and the way in which it will be opposed with great sincerity.
I have always believed in adopting a peaceful approach and allowing the processes of law to operate. I have urged people to oppose the Bill to the utmost limits of the law, but they are demanding that there be extra-parliamentary opposition by every means possible.
The Motion shows something else; that in political terms the present Ministers of the Crown have dropped their mask of amiability. We now see the doctrinaire hard-line Tories that they are. I see no sense in adopting an attitude of sweet reasonableness over this.
Much is said these days about Europe and the E.E.C. It is interesting to note that Article 118 of the Treaty of Rome —this is the English translation—says:
"Without prejudice to the other Members of this Treaty, and in conformity with its general objectives, the Commission shall have as its task the promotion of close collaboration between Member States in the social field, particularly in matters relating to …"
and seven points are given, of which I will give three. They are, first, employment; secondly, labour, law and working conditions; and, thirdly—though this is No. 7 in the list—the law of trade unions and collective bargaining between employers and workers.
Bearing that Article in mind, one is bound to wonder whether there is any clandestine arrangement in what is being proposed by the Government now. In other words, is this Bill part of the price of our entering the E.E.C.? If this question is not answered and if we are

115
met with total silence, we shall draw our own conclusion, and the inference to be drawn will be as wide as a barn door.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have outraged British trade unionists and there is no doubt that the Tories wish to destroy the British trade union movement. Certainly they do not wish to strengthen it. The result of the Bill will be fragmentation. For example, under Clause 42 the whole question of recognition is raised in connection with bargaining, but inadequate time will be available to discuss it.
This Government of mediocrity has a hatred for trade unions. This Motion is the measure of the statesmanship of hon. Gentlemen opposite. About ten million trade unionists and their families will be affected by the Bill. If hon. Gentlemen opposite will not bend to public opinion, which is increasing in its tempo of resentment, they will be heaping coals on their own heads. It is obvious that the Government are bereft of economic policies and are using this Measure as a means of distracting attention from the problems which the Government have no policies to tackle. From Singapore no policies have arrived and the Prime Minister has no proposals to cure our ills, not even at a stroke. The Government have shown a complete contempt for democracy.
Trade unionists are slow to anger. We prefer to take the peaceful way out. The aggressors have always been the political forebears of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Motion will ensure that there will be inadequate time to debate a Bill which is designed legally to strangle the trade union movement. It is inescapably true to say that no hon. or right hon. Member opposite has ever shown any love for the trade union movement.
It is bad statesmanship on the part of the Government to introduce this Motion, and it will redound against them. They should have allowed longer time for debate. Hon. Members opposite have for some time seen the Bill as a vote catcher, and they have never been more sure of that than they are today, but I believe that the Measure will prove a political boomerang, because its inevitable effect will be to make people realise that they
116
are faced with a Government who are better knocked into the limbo of things forgotten.
7.30 p.m.
Earl of Dalkeith (Edinburgh, North): Flowing directly from what has been said by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) about our intentions towards the trade unions, I can honestly say that I would not be supporting either the Bill or the Motion unless I was convinced that the Bill's whole purpose was to strengthen the trade unions in such a way as to enable their leaders to get to grips with some of their lunatic friends who force wildcat strikes upon them. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, that I support the Motion.
One of the highlights of the debate came from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), who openly admitted that the other side recognised that it was only a matter of time before such a Motion as this was tabled.
Mr. Spearing: I thought that I made it clear that I was myself expecting it. My speculation was that there might be a guillotine Motion. I expected it, but I am not sure that my hon. Friends did so. It was a matter of speculation.
Earl of Dalkeith: Speculation or not, I enjoyed every word of the hon. Gentleman's speech.
I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) because, as a result of his allegiance to the Liberal Party, whichever party is in power he is fated always to find himself at the wrong end of the guillotine. In the circumstances, therefore, his quotation was very apt.
It may seem rather strange, Mr. Speaker, that I should seek to catch your eye at all——
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Earl of Dalkeith: —bearing in mind that the guillotine is not exactly my favourite weapon, but I have a vested interest in so doing. I have tabled an Amendment, but it comes at the very end of the Bill. It is my hope to see that Amendment reached some time in 1971 rather than in 1981, which would seem to have been the probability had we continued at our previous rate.

117
I also have some sympathy with the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) because, according to what she herself has said, she has been having a very trying time. In the first place, she evidently found the Tory Party's General Election manifesto somewhat obscure. I am only thankful that their views were not shared by the majority of the electorate.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East also found it rather obscure, as the Industrial Relations Bill had not then been printed. That is correct, but let us remember that a long time before the General Election we had the publication of "Fair Deal at Work", which was the blueprint of this piece of legislation. That publication was broadly advertised, and the electorate knew very well what they could expect the Tory Party to do about industrial relations.
I feel even sorrier for the right hon. Lady, because she now says that she finds herself in the dark over the Bill. I hope that it will not sound ungallant of me to say that I am happy not to be in the dark with her, either on the Floor of the House or anywhere else, particularly when she said that she intended to engage in eliminating principles.
There is one reason above all other reasons for my supporting the Motion. We are living in a time when anarchy appears to be becoming more fashionable in certain quarters. I believe that in the interests of parliamentary democracy it is time to stop making asses of ourselves, making a laughing-stock of ourselves by blethering on from midnight to 7 o'clock in the morning. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite, and perhaps the right hon. Lady, may be at their best between midnight and 7 a.m., but I am certainly at my best before half-past six in the evening, and as it is now well past that hour I beg to move that I be no longer heard.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. James A. Dunn: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) referred to some of the Reports of the Select Committee on Procedure and, in particular, to the suggestion that with any major controversial Bills there
118
should be an agreement on timetabling. He did not add that that suggestion implied full consultation with the other parties. I am not now complaining about the timetable Motion, but about the amount of time that it is proposed to allocate to the various stages of the Bill.
During the debate on the Bill on Tuesday morning, the Secretary of State for Employment expressed the hope that cooperation would be given at the end of our parliamentary procedure and once the Bill had been enacted, but I ask him now to consider what the situation is. If the amount of time for debate is curtailed and there are no opportunities for expressions of view from all parts of the House, the right hon. Gentleman may well find that some of the draftsmanship leaves very much to be desired. If the right hon. Gentleman really means that he seeks co-operation and understanding, and that he wants acceptance of some of the principles in the Bill, I must tell him that he is doing many things that will not help him achieve that objective.
It is true to say that outside the House there are a considerable number of people who have grave reservations about the Bill's draftsmanship—and in saying that I do not imply criticism of the draftsmen. In any circumstances, such a Bill is a very complex matter to deal with. The Secretary of State himself has recognised this because he himself has put down some major Amendments, and as, according to the Press, professional organisations are asking for his considered opinion of their amending suggestions, many more Amendments will probably be introduced before we get to Report.
If that is so, it would not be unreasonable to estimate that the time that would be required to consider Government Amendments of such a character would be in excess of 25 to 30 hours. If we subtract that amount of time from the time allocated, there is even less time for Members to discuss the points that they wish to bring to the attention of the House.
I am all for 10-minute speeches. In fact, I am on record as supporting that principle in the Select Committee on Procedure. What I am not in favour of is the selection and rigidity as to the number of 10-minute speeches that one can hear. I believe that if a person cannot make his point in 10 minutes, it would perhaps be

119
better if he did not attempt to do it at all. That is a personal opinion, and it is no reflection upon anybody who speaks for longer than that. Probably such people have more to say on a specific issue than I have to say this evening.
However, I say to the Secretary of State that on the major Clauses of this Bill, to limit discussion to a maximum of 45 minutes, and probably a minimum of 30 minutes, would allow only three speeches of 10 minutes, one from each Front Bench and one from the back benches. This would imply that wisdom belongs to the Front Benches, and I do not accept that.
I say, with respect to the Secretary of State, that when in the early hours of Tuesday morning he made that remark to which I have already referred, I accepted the sincerity with which he uttered it. I did not agree with him, but I accepted his sincerity. I say now that I doubt that sincerity. If the intention was to destroy consultation, this is the easiest way to do it.
There are many points in this Bill which are of grave complexity. My hon. Friends have illustrated many. Although I come from Liverpool where there are many more examples of industrial unrest that one could quote, I shall resist the temptation to do so. I appreciate that at times it is not always easy for these difficulties to be understood by those who are asked to understand them, but the Industrial Relations Bill seeks to deal with a pattern of behaviour—I am using the right hon. Gentleman's own words—and the only way that it is possible to deal with a pattern of human behaviour is to persuade people that what is suggested is in the interests of the individual himself. Anything less than that is doomed to failure.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his customary courteous way, has always engendered a quiet response in answering questions put to him. But now that this matter has been taken out of the forum to which it rightly belongs, there will be great difficulty in advocating causes to others outside the House. There are many on this side of the House who, while not agreeing with the Bill, and believing that the Bill will do other than that which is projected by the sponsors of the Bill, nevertheless are cautious by nature.
120
Some of them are modest in the things that they say and in the way that they say them, but I tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is destroying the credibility and the ability of the moderates to exert influence in these times. At the end of the day, if the things that should be said in this House are not said, they will be said elsewhere but with a vigour that can cause great difficulty.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House to reconsider the allocation of time. They have some basis for doing this. In the Report stage on complex matters it has been the practice to allocate approximately two hours before the Clousure Motion is moved or accepted. If that is the basis of the reconsideration, I am sure that could be no further objection from this side of the House to the allocation of time. That would show a willingness to meet us. Unless that willingness is shown, there will be difficulties in this House and outside, and the ultimate success of the Bill will be in grave jeopardy.
7.45 p.m.
Captain Walter Elliot: No one will deny that this Bill is extremely important. But from the way in which hon. Members opposite talk, one would think that it was only important to the trade unionists. That is far from being the case. It is most important to the whole nation and just as important to the non-unionists as to the trade unionists.
I would be only too delighted if we could give more time to the discussion of this matter. But, of course, there never is enough time in which to discuss these Bills. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) referred to the first two Clauses and said how important they were. I sat through most of the debates and I heard a discussion for over four hours on what was meant by the word "responsibility". Of course, at the end of it there was no agreement. This is not surprising. The Opposition had no intention of agreeing with the Government's interpretation of the word. At that rate, we would have gone on for ever. Inevitably a time limit must be set, or we should never get anywhere.
My main point tonight is this: I said that this is a most important Bill, and

121
I believe that it is at least one of the most important that we have had since the war. Why then, I ask, is there—and it is my opinion that there is—an air of farce over much of our proceedings? Several times I have heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) complaining about the laughter and saying, quite rightly, what a serious Bill this is. Of course, the laughter does not come only from this side of the House. When we on these benches hear hon. Members opposite, particularly the right hon. Lady, their voices trembling with indigation, condemning the Government for proposing to do what the Labour Government proposed to do a year or so earlier, it is too much for the House. That is why I say that in so much of our discussion there has been an element of farce.
We even heard an hon. Member opposite today telling us seriously that some trade unions were considering taking the matter to the committee for human liberties, or some such body, at Strasbourg. When we hear that sort of remark, hon. Members must agree that there is some element of farce in these proceedings. The more this sort of argument proceeds, the more the threats, the more the parades and all the rest, the more it is impressed on the country how necessary this Bill is. Many hon. Members opposite know this only too well. It would help them as well as the Government in the long run if we could get on with the Bill and make progress. For that reason, I support the Motion unreservedly, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will do so, too.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Dan Jones: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain Elliot) has, like many of his hon. Friends, made snide remarks about my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). References have been made to her work on the Transport Bill. In fact, my right hon. Friend has more guts in her little finger than can be found in the character of almost the whole of the Government side. [Interruption.] Yes, as a result of her work on the Transport Bill, many people are alive today who would have been in their graves, yet what she did was opposed by the Tories and the brewers. Let us have that matter in perspective at the outset.
I regard the Motion as not only dangerous, but dangerously so, for by it the
122
Government are compounding what may well be an infamous instrument. To illustrate what I mean, I shall give the House an example from my own recent experience. Last week, on two occasions. my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and our Chief Whip asked me not to speak so that progress on the Bill could be maintained, and I acceded to their request although the two Amendments in question raised matters on which I particularly wished to address the Committee. If evidence be needed, that, surely, is evidence to convince the Government that there was absolutely the minimum of anything which could be called filibustering from this side. I recall that, on other important Measures in the past, the Tories, when they were in Opposition, took more time on spurious points of order than we have taken in proper debate.
To turn now to the Bill the subject of the Motion, I have a record of attempting to maintain industrial peace comparable with that of any hon. Member, and certainly far better than any Tory could pretend to have. For 14 years, I was works convenor in an engineering shop, and during that period not one day was lost through a stoppage. Last year, when my right hon. Friend brought out her White Paper, "In Place of Strife", I supported it initially, and I do not mind admitting that I had some stick both from my colleagues and from constituents for so doing. It should be remembered that the only reason why I, in common with the rest of my trade union colleagues, begged my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister at that time to withdraw their proposals was that they would have taken industrial matters into the law courts. We were convinced that that could not work and that it would compound the evils already existing in industry.
Mr. John Page: At what stage did the hon. Gentleman cease to support "In Place of Strife"? When came his change of mind, and was it entirely in connection with the criminal law which the right hon. Lady brought into the Bill?
Mr. Jones: We brought our pressure to bear at the point at which the Attorney-General advised us that those were matters which could eventually be settled in the courts. We were not prepared to allow industrial matters to go

123
to the courts because we knew that there would inevitably be protracted delay, and we knew also of the sort of industrial disturbance which would inevitably follow a decision which went against the best interests of the trade union movement. We were not prepared to accept that.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to mention at the same time that, when the T.U.C. agreed to accept its responsibility in that connection, that was an additional reason, and one of the best of reasons, why the matter should be dealt with in that way rather than the way proposed by my right hon. Friend, the trade unions and the employers accepting responsibility according to the methods which have been traditional in this country, methods which, it should be added, have worked far better than the systems adopted in many other countries, although not as well as many of us would like.
I refer now to Clause 5 of the Bill, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will pay attention to what I have to say. Clause 5 gives to every worker the right to belong to an independent trade union, to take part in its activities, and to seek office in that union, but it also gives a worker the right not to belong to an independent trade union or other organisation of workers. Does the Minister disagree with Mr. Jack Jones, the leader of the biggest trade union in this country, that that will encourage spies and "narks" in industry? Does he deny that that is a dangerous opportunity?
Again, I speak from my experience as a works convenor in industry. I have many times, and rightly so, approached people and asked them to join the trade union. Workers rarely fail to take the benefits. They ought, accordingly, to pay their dues. What will be the situation now if someone of peaceful inclination such as myself makes a proper approach to a new entrant into industry or, for that matter, to someone who has been in industry for some time? From practical experience, I know that there are many people in industry who will get away with a free ride if they can. It would be naive to believe otherwise. If such a person is upset at being approached and asked to join a union, he could report the shop steward to the management. There is no doubt that this will encourage
124
the sort of practice which Jack Jones has properly described in the way I have mentioned, and it will make for a good deal of industrial dispute.
The Secretary of State is not responding to my invitation, so I shall press on.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: He is afraid.
Mr. Jones: No, I do not think that one could say that. However, not being psychic, I do not know. All I can say is that one of the great fears—this is one of the factors in my mind—is that it will make for industrial disclocation. Yet the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, would say that the purpose of his Bill is to try to bring about industrial peace.
Mr. R. Carr: I was just conferring with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, who dealt with these very points in Committee. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt, let me assure him that there is nothing in the Bill which would in any way prevent the persuasion of any employee to join a union, and it is nonsense to suggest otherwise. There is no unfair industrial practice about that. What we believe is unfair, illiberal and contrary to human rights and liberties is to compel people to join a union when they have deep convictions, whether mistaken or not, against doing so.
Mr. Jones: We have it from the Minister that there will be the opportunity to make the approach so long as the approach is not made with compulsion. That is going some distance, at least. But it will have been noted that the Minister had to have the advice of his Law Officer.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, all the time.
Mr. Jones: It illustrates the fear in our minds. What chance has the shop steward or the local trade union official to consult an eminent legal man such as the Secretary of State has at his side? However, I have at least extracted some kind of elucidation, and for that I am obliged.
Mr. R. Carr: Perhaps this will also help to reassure the hon. Gentleman. When the Bill is on the Statute Book, as I am confident it one day will be, we shall take every possible measure to publicise, in down-to-earth terms, what it means for the ordinary worker on the

125
shop floor. That will be very important, and we shall do our utmost to do it.
Mr. Jones: It would not have been a bad idea if that had been done before the publication of the Bill. I speak with every respect to the Minister, but he cannot deny that as many as four lawyers have argued the point here and we have had four different opinions. [An HON. MEMBER: "More than four."] I do not like exaggeration.
Let me go on to talk about the non-unionists. I do not believe that the Minister realises the injustice he will cause to a good number of people in industry. It has been my experience as a Member for some years, holding my advice bureaux and meeting sick and disabled people, that as much as 25 per cent. of a working person's life could unfortunately be occupied outside industry. Therefore, they will need attention and expert advice, sometimes costly medical advice. They will be in the wilderness. It is no good the Minister saying that they can pay towards a charity, because no charity will advise them of their rights and what action can be taken. No charity will send them to a specialist when they have a medical opinion against them which can affect their way of life after an accident. The truth is that the Government do not know what they are doing. They are not experienced in these matters.
Mr. James Hamilton: If 95 per cent. of the personnel in a factory are in a trade union, who will carry out the negotiations for the 5 per cent. who are not? If those 5 per cent. carry out negotiations that could be detrimental to the 95 per cent., what will be the situation?
Mr. Jones: That is a very valid point. No explanatory notes, however framed, will answer such a situation. As a result of the position outlined by my hon. Friend there could be unnecessary disturbance within a factory. Will the right hon. Gentleman make any provision for that in the Bill?
Mr. R. Carr: I am in difficulty, because this is developing into a debate on the Bill. But I must point out that the Bill specifically makes provision in its machinery for the C.I.R. to recommend sole bargaining rights for a union or panel of unions which must cover the
126
terms and conditions of the, say, 1–5 per cent. who are not union members. The hon. Gentleman's point is specifically guarded against in the Bill.
Mr. Jones: I beg to differ. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that if men or women want to cock a snook at the trade unions they have a legal right to do so. Our point, based on experience, is, who will represent those people in negotiations on wages and conditions in the factory? Who will represent them if they become disabled as a result of toil in that factory, and where will they obtain the benefit to which they would normally be entitled if they were properly represented?
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend go one step further? What will happen in factories is as he has explained, but the very people who have drawn up the Bill can and do insist that every member of their profession must be a member of their trade union, and they are not allowed to contract out. The Minister consults the man who drew up the Bill, who takes away from industrial workers the rights which he insists upon for himself.
Mr. R. Carr indicated dissent.
Mr. Jones: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. That is an absolutely fair point.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do the Opposition now accept the guillotine Motion? Are we now debating the Bill? If so, it is a very happy situation, but the hon. Gentleman is debating the Bill while we are keeping to the Motion. If we want to get on to debate the Bill, we should conclude the discussion on the guillotine Motion.
Mr. Jones: It is true that I am discussing the Bill——
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order. May I have your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether we are now discussing the Bill and have left the guillotine Motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that the first thing I need to do is to beg the pardon of the House and to ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his point.
Mr. Jones: Almost every right hon. and hon. Member who has contributed to the debate today has done precisely what I am doing. However, I shall immediately come to order because of my respect for the Chair, which does not extend to some hon. Members opposite.
Mr. Dunn: On a point of order. A point of order was raised by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), who has not been in for the major part of the debate. He has raised a very important issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I feel that it should be dealt with in the way that is open to you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that there is anything out of order at present. I think that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) is quite in order and should be allowed to continue his speech.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) is mistaken. It is true that I have been out, but I was here for many of the speeches, including both opening speeches and a great number of the back-bench speeches.
Mr. Jones: I will come now to my conclusion. I firmly and sincerely believe what I have to say now. The Government argue quite wrongly that they have a mandate for the Bill from the people. They have a mandate for bringing about industrial peace, but it will bring about industrial chaos. The Minister will regret the day he took industrial relations from its proper place between the trade unions and management into the law courts.
8.8 p.m.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I want to make only a brief intervention, and I think that it will be on the Motion.
Do we want parliamentary Government to continue? Do we want the procedures for governing this country in a civilised way, even when controversial legislation is under discussion, to continue?
When the procedure for introducing a guillotine was written into the rules of the House, I believe that it was for such an occasion as this. If ever it was intended as a means of keeping the parliamentary system working, it was with
128
this sort of debate, on this sort of topic, with this sort of hard difference of view, in mind. If it is that one could remove the prejudice and excitement that have been engendered in this topic over the last two years, I believe that we would recognise the importance of having a guillotine.
What is the position? Quite apart from any dialectical sorts of points which we may want to secure, from the moment the Government made it clear that they intended to honour their promise in their manifesto to bring in such a Bill, the Opposition and their ardent supporters in the country made it clear that they intended to wage an unrelenting struggle within the procedures of power to try to prevent the Bill getting to the Statute Book. There is nothing wrong with that. Never was there a time when an Opposition made it clearer that they intended to use the procedures of Parliament to try to defeat the intention of the Government, which was made clear at the General Election and for which they have a full mandate.
The Government think that this legislation is vital for the safety and the prosperity of the country in the future. It is not a last minute think-up. It is a point of view that they have held for years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the last three or four years has given almost the whole of his time in politics to working out the details and scope of what is now embodied in the Bill. Notice was given to the nation and to the Labour Party when it formed the Government that this was what the Con servative Party intended to do. That intention was underlined in our manifesto. It was perhaps the outstanding claim we made to the nation for the voters giving us the power of government.
Before "In Place of Strife" was withdrawn, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) intended to bring in legislation which was not dissimilar from this Bill.
Mr. Dan Jones: No.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I did not make the point, which could be made, that it was very similar but watered the phrase down to "not dissimilar" in order to avoid offending the feelings of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones). It

129
was recognised that some legislation such as this was necessary. It was recognised on both sides of the House as being to the good of the country. It was only the very excited and the very extreme, both in this House and outside, who resisted what the Labour Government were trying to do. From the time that "In Place of Strife" and the Labour Government's legislation were withdrawn, those people made it perfectly clear that, if the Labour Government or any other Government tried to bring in legislation of this sort, they would resist it to the ultimate. No one was left in any doubt about it, and I do not complain about it.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I have sympathy with some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I have supported the Bill generally. But is it not a weakness of the timetable Motion that it treats all parts of the Bill as of the same value? Some Clauses of it are of greater value than others, yet the Motion treats them all alike and reduces them to one hour each. Would it not have been better, in this situation, to have had a discussion in an attempt to agree a timetable?
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am coming to that point. I was coming to the terms of the Motion. Not only those who were in the House before the election but the whole country knew that, if the Conservatives were returned, they would bring in a Bill such as this. The whole country also knew that, if that happened, the Opposition would oppose it to the ultimate. They made it clear that they would go to the extreme—and they were justified in saying so: I would have said it myself if I had felt the same way—in order to defeat the legislation.
Mr. Neil Kinnock Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty) rose——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I will give way later.
The Opposition have disclosed their tactics on so many occasions. They have not hidden their intention. They have said, "If we can keep the discussion going on and on so that there is not enough parliamentary time for the Bill to become law, we shall do it." They said, "Anything within the constitutional"——
Mr. Kinnock Mr. Kinnock rose——
Mr. Heffer Mr. Heffer rose——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: No doubt I am paraphrasing what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, but I should like to make my point and later I shall be delighted to give way. The point I am making—and hon. Members opposite know this to be true, for they have put it on record—is that the Opposition disclosed their tactics and made it perfectly clear what they would do.
Mr. Kinnock Mr. Kinnock rose——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: They have said, "Within the constitutional rights of Parliament we shall oppose this Bill to the ultimate, and if it is that we can drag it out so that there is not enough Parliamentary time to get it to the Statute Book, we shall do so." They disclosed their hand, as honourable men ought to.
So the position we had arrived at before the Motion was put down was that the country knew, and everyone in this House knew, that the Government intended to introduce the Bill and that the Opposition intended to do what they are now doing. The position now is that, if the Opposition cannot defeat us in the Lobby—and the country's vote made certain that they cannot do that—they will use the parliamentary procedures in order to see that the Bill does not get time to become law.
Mr. Heffer: After making these great statements and supposedly paraphrasing, would the hon. Gentleman now make clear, from any column of HANSARD or from any speech or from any article written by any right hon. or hon. Member on this side responsible for this Bill in the House, where such statements have been made in order that it can be put clearly on record that we have taken this line? The truth is that the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly find such statements.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should try that one on me. I have put that sort of question to people speaking for the Government on such an occasion as this in almost similar terms. I have not come equipped to quote book and verse, although I understand that one of my hon. Friends has evidence. I am not standing on that point. I am standing on the fact that

131
hon. Members opposite know that they made it clear that they intended to use all means at their disposal to defeat this Bill, and unless they are prepared to take credit for having said it and for being prepared to do it, they are prepared to let down many of their own voters. They made it clear that they intended to do it. I am not blaming them for saying it and for intending to carry out what they said they would do.
There are two rights in arriving at legislation in this House—one possessed by one side and one by the other. It is the Government's duty, on a matter which they think in the interests of the country, and when they have a mandate to do it, to get their business through. It is the Opposition's duty, when they believe that the legislation is not in the interests of the country, and when they believe it dangerous and wrong, to use all constitutional rights and powers that there are to prevent it happening.
Mr. Kinnock Mr. Kinnock rose——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I shall not give way. I do not want to prevent others from speaking. The Opposition——
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I are aware of the fact that it would be quite wrong for any hon. Member to call another hon. Member a liar or to say that he is telling lies or that he is untruthful. Therefore it would be wrong for me to say that. Even in view of the fact that the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) gave a promise to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and has not done so, would it not be wrong for my hon. Friend to call him a liar and say that he is dishonest? If that would be out of order, how can my hon. Friend bring the hon. Gentleman to remember the promise he gave?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): There is no point of order for me to decide. Hon. Members give way to each other as they think fit or not, and so long as two people are not on their feet at the same time the Chair carries on in the ordinary way.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Would it not have been advisable for the Conservative Party to have made it crystal clear to the people of the nation, not that they were going to bring in the most blatant piece of class-directed legislation, but that they were going to get rid of strikes.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: It is because the hon. Gentleman believes that that he has taken the line he has. I am not on that matter. I am dealing with the parliamentary system, which I want to defend. I will not do what the hon. Gentleman sought to do, namely to try to discuss the Bill. I believe that it is vital that the parliamentary system should be allowed to work.
I am saying that we have got to a position where the Government have a duty to proceed with the Bill and the Opposition have a duty, constitutionally, within Parliament to try to defeat the Bill. There is a duty on both sides and both are well within their rights to push their duty to the extreme.
I maintain that the Government are right to judge that they have reached the point at which it is clear that, if they are to do their duty to get this legislation on the Statute Book, they will have to use the procedures of Parliament in order to enact this legislation which they consider to be vital.
One of the procedures of Parliament which is allowable and desirable is properly to use the guillotine procedure. The guillotine procedure was designed and intended to be used on such an occasion as this. I would have felt that there was room for criticism of the Government using the powers of Parliament wrongly if it could be argued that sufficient time had not been allowed within the guillotine to do justice to this Bill. That point will go on being argued; it is the only issue that ought to be argued. All this talk about what is in the Bill and what is out of it is out of order. The only matter that ought to be argued is the terms of the guillotine and whether they are fair.
The fact that it is right to have used it is not in any doubt. We have got to a "crunch" and it is clear that, without this guillotine Motion, we shall never get this vital legislation. The argument is as to the time which has been allowed, and on this one can only have opinions.

133
I have been in this House now for 21 years and I have seen many guillotines——
Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East)Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East) rose——
Sir Harmar Nicholls: No, I must continue. Bearing in mind the Bill concerned, the time allowed under the guillotine and remembering the "crunch" situation which has arisen, I believe that the time allowed is generous. I believe that if there is an occasion on which the Government can be generous, it is this occasion. I believe that the Opposition are not doing their case any good by suggesting that the situation has not got to a point at which we should impose the guillotine.
By the Government putting down this guillotine Motion a compliment is being paid to the Opposition. The terms of the guillotine are a recognition that the Opposition have been doing their job to the ultimate. They have made it clear that they intend to use the constitutional powers of Parliament to delay this Measure. The fact that this has been recognised, and has had to be recognised, is to be seen as a great compliment to the tenacity and tactics of the Opposition. I do not expect them to admit it, but they know that that is the position. If this guillotine timetable is put alongside the timetable allowed for other Bills in terms of length and the number of Clauses involved, it will be seen that the Government have been generous due to the tenacity of the Opposition.
I end as I began. What is happening today in this House is to be seen as preserving the parliamentary procedures. It is clear that the situation has been reached at which the Opposition intend to go on delaying this Measure, as they are entitled to do within their rights. It is clear that we intend to get our legislation. This is what the guillotine procedure was intended to do. The Government are right to use it. I am glad that they have been generous, and I congratulate the Opposition on having forced this situation on the Government.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I shall not detain the House long, but I rise to take part in this debate because I am one of the hon. Members who have returned
134
in the last few hours from the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. I understand that earlier in the debate there was reference to the fact that we had been recalled. I hope that what I say about this matter will be relevant to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about proper parliamentary procedure.
I believe that it was necessary that my hon. Friends and I should return because of the extraordinary and wholly unjustified precipitancy with which this guillotine Motion was introduced. I would go some way with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) about guillotine Motions in general although the record will show that the Conservative Party has been a good deal more prodigal with the use of the guillotine than has the Labour Party. The point the hon. Gentleman did not cover was the extreme precipitancy with which this Motion was introduced and the fact that it was done without consultation.
I know that in a discussion of a guillotine Motion neither the Government nor the Opposition can be regarded as entirely unprejudiced witnesses. But let us look at the evidence from outside. The B.B.C. which is not normally all that well disposed to the Labour Party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— when commenting on the first two days' debate on the Bill in its morning news bulletin said that although the debates had been long and difficult nobody could say that there had been any filibustering in those first two days. Then again, in every organ of the Press—and again no one will suggest that the Press as a whole is especially well disposed to the Labour side of the House—it was assumed that sooner or later a guillotine would be introduced but not a single commentator imagined for a moment that it would be introduced with this precipitancy.
It was this that created the problem for my hon. Friends and indeed for members of the Conservative Party who were in Strasbourg. When it is agreed by Government and Opposition that hon. Members from the House should go as representatives, not only of their own parties, but, collectively, of Britain to an international organisation, it is normally understood that we will pair, and this was agreed, and it was known to both sides that during the time we were away there would be some days debating the Industrial

135
Relations Bill, and that we on our side were prepared to accept.
But what the Government gave us no inkling of, although they must almost certainly have been thinking of it at the time, and what no reasonable person could have expected was that a guillotine Motion would have been introduced during that period. For the Government to agree to allow hon. Members to go away and then to produce from up their sleeve something that no reasonable person could expect and when we could not have agreed to pair had we known it was coming has an unpleasant flavour of tricksterism about it.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford): Would not the right hon. Gentleman have shown a much better sense of priorities if, in view of the very high office which he has held with such distinction in foreign affairs, he had remained at Strasbourg and honoured his pair with myself, so that we both could have been there instead of being here?
Mr. Stewart: I will make three comments on that. First, the point I have already made—these pairs were agreed when the Government almost certainly knew that they were going to trot out this guillotine in the middle, something which no reasonable person could have expected. Their behaviour in that matter invalidated all pairs. Secondly, as to my own position; at least I managed to arrive in Strasbourg substantially in advance of the nominal leader of the Conservative side of the British delegation.
Once it was apparent that our duty to the House required our presence here, we had to consider what we could do to show respect to an international organisation. In particular, we all felt it right that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) should remain because of an important part which he was to play in the debate at the Council of Europe tomorrow. We therefore sought to show as much respect as we could to the Council of Europe consistent with our plain duty to the House in the unfortunate position in which the House had been placed by the sharp practice of introducing the guillotine Motion with such precipitancy.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that he decided to return because he decided that his prior duty on this occasion was to the House. Did he know that, while he was away, it was blazoned across the Press that he had been ordered to return, that it was not a personal decision of his at all? Would he be prepared to agree with me, if that is the position as reported in the Press, that it is a sad thing, because pairs are personal and ought not to be under the diktat of either side's officials? [Laughter.]
Mr. Stewart: Even the hon. Member's hon. Friends are laughing at his last remarks. I did not return because I was ordered, but I have been in the House long enough to know the seriousness of disagreeing with the considered judgment of the party to which one belongs. It is not something a man ought to do other than very rarely, although occasionally it may be right to do so. However, I have no doubt personally that it was right to come back to protest against what I have rightly called the sharp practice of introducing a guillotine Motion with this precipitancy.
We considered what we could do to safeguard the position in the Council of Europe and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West had a special job to do there, we all agreed that it was right that he should stay.
Mr. St. John-Stevas Mr. St. John-Stevas rose——
Mr. Stewart: I think that I have given way sufficiently and I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House.
It was known that M. Reverdin, the President of the Council of Europe, had written to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party. I therefore felt it right before leaving Strasbourg to leave a message for M. Reverdin expressing my great regret that my Labour colleagues and I had had to leave Strasbourg prematurely and saying that we had come only because it was the careful and considered judgment of the British Labour Opposition that the Government's behaviour on this occasion showed so little regard for the customary functions and procedures of Parliament that it was necessary for us to protest against it by every possible vote.

137
I put it to those hon. Members who think that there is too wide a gap between discussions here about the Industrial Relations Bill and the proceedings of the Council of Europe that it is far from clear whether some of the Bill's provisions are in line with undertakings into which all parties have entered through the European Social Charter. That is a matter to which we may need to return.
The hon. Member for Peterborough was very eloquent about parliamentary Government. I will go with him thus far. A Government have a right and a duty to use their majority to try to get through the House the legislation which they believe to be in the national interest. They have also a duty, and one which falls particularly on the Chief Whip and the leader of the House, to see that there is full opportunity for the minority views to be expressed. I should have thought that this is a doctrine which we have all known and understood for some time.
Mr. Dan Jones: And practised.
Mr. Stewart: Part of our case rests on the precipitancy of the decision to introduce a guillotine Motion, when no one could show any evidence of filibustering on the Bill earlier, when no reasonable person could have expected it, and when a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House were at an international engagement abroad and none of them were expecting—although the Government may well have known—that this would be sprung on them in their absence. It is a deplorable misuse of the powers of the majority in Parliament. I believe that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip know this very well indeed.
8.37 p.m.
Mr. J. R. Kinsey: As a newcomer to the House, may I give my impression of why I support the imposition of a guillotine at this stage? It is an impression gained from the first two days of the debate, and I recommend it to right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
It is an impression of a past member of the Post Office Engineering Union, and that of an ordinary, but active past member of that union. I ask hon. and right hon. Members opposite to remember that there are people who disagree
138
with the points of view which they are putting forward as those of the trade union movement at present.
I thought that in this debate we were talking about the specific. But it has turned out to be a very wide-ranging debate.
Mr. Swain: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) is criticising the Opposition and using the word "filibustering", which to me would mean a vote of no confidence in the Chair. He has used the word "filibustering". I challenge him to say how many times the Chair ruled any hon. Member from this side of the House out of order during the whole debate in the first two days of the Committee stage.
Mr. Kinsey: If I had used the word "filibustering", Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would answer the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), but I did not use that word. I spoke about a wide-ranging debate, and that was allowed by the Chair. I thought that it was a debate during which hon. Members opposite were approaching a degree of irresponsibility in their anger against the Bill.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I sat through the whole of that debate. The Minister is present now, and so is the Leader of the House. The Minister, the Government Chief Whip and everyone connected with the Bill said that there was no filibustering and that there was no waste of time. Indeed, it is on record that there was no debate up the Question, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, and on Clause 1 the Government spoke for 62 minutes and the Opposition spoke for 53 minutes. How can that be called "filibustering"?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I think that we had better leave what happened in Committee and return to the terms of the Motion.
Mr. Kinsey: With due respect to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), I neither used the word "filibustering" nor referred to delaying tactics. I said that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite came near to showing a degree of irresponsibility when they should have been taking a much more balanced view in such a debate, especially

139
as the Opposition had an important contribution to make from their point of view, just as we on this side have from ours.
It is damaging to trade union relations to approach this debate in the way in which many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have approached it, especially when one bears in mind the voluntary courses of action which we all want to obtain. Arbitration itself was undermined, to the extent that I become worried at one stage whether we could ever return to arbitration in trade union relations at any time. That is but one reason underlining the need for a Motion of this kind.
The Bill was designed to encourage good relations in industry and to speed up procedures with a view to eliminating injustices. We have not heard any of these admirable aims expressed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Instead, they have relied on negative and wrecking speeches. I cannot imagine any greater disservice to trade union members.
It is necessary to introduce a timetable so that we may be able to concentrate our discussions on points which are of great importance to the House as a whole. An hon. Member opposite spoke of the way in which relations in this House have broken down and said that there was a need to return to the rules of law that have governed them hitherto. That rather underlines what we are trying to do by this Bill, and in a way it is a compliment to the Bill. The statements of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are proof positive of the need to speed up the procedures of the House. The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said that the Opposition had not overloaded the House with Amendments, and I was inclined to agree with her. However, she rapidly declared her hand by saying that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends intended to vote against nearly every Clause. I agree that that is democracy, but such a statement demolishes the right hon. Lady's argument.
In the course of a number of heated exchanges, the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) shouted, "We will show you". It reminded me of a discussion in which I took part in the Birmingham Trades Council, when a young trade unionist said, "If everyone disagrees with us, we will nail them". That
140
is hardly the sort of atmosphere that we want in our industrial relations. Such statements show the need to get away from those tactics and adopt a more realistic approach to industrial relations.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) made an excellent speech which revealed to us the trade union mentality. I can say from experience that what the right hon. Gentleman said gave a true picture of the way that trade unionists feel. He underlined their fears and their desire to do the best for themselves. The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge is shared by many right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House. We have tried to facilitate the spread of this knowledge. There was no question of the opportunity to know being denied; it was offered. We wanted a discussion of the matter. I believe that they did not want to know. They took the action they did because they deliberately wanted to go against it. The Minister offered his services in explaining the Bill.
Ten West Midlands Conservative Members have said that they were ready to consult trades councils, trade unions and individual trade unionists in order to explain any points that were raised.
Mr. Loughlin: I remember, many years ago, debating with the hon. Member in King's Stanley, when he was referred to as the Tory shop steward. Can he tell me why, instead of being the Tory shop steward, he is now a Tory small shopkeeper?
Mr. Kinsey: The point is that all the trade unionists opposite are Members of Parliament. I even wrote to the secretary of the Birmingham Trades Council drawing attention to the offer.
When hon. and right hon. Members opposite talk about the clamour at meettings they refer mainly to the activists within their party, but a shop steward who saw me explained that he had spoken against the strike but had assented because of his loyalty to a trade union that had taken a democratic decision. He had come out on strike although he had no need to do so. He told me that many other trade unionists did the same because of fear.
I do not welcome the imposition of a guillotine at any stage, but I accept the

141
need for it now. Having heard the first two days' debate on the Bill, I say, as many trade unionists would say, "Cut the cackle and get on with the job".
8.49 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) has openly revealed the genuine hostility to the trade union movement that exists inside Government ranks. The Government Front Bench have succeeded in concealing that hostility. They have told us that the Bill is intended to help the trade union movement, but outside the House many Conservatives are by no means suggesting that they wish to help that movement in any way.
Behind all their verbiage it is fairly clear that the Government intend to get their Bill, and in doing so to override all the democratic procedures of the House. It is as well to know the real situation. There has been a lot of double talk from hon. Members opposite, but they are occasionally unwise enough to admit that in the limitation of the powers of the trade unions they see the means of having an incomes policy without having to say so. Therefore they say, "We want to hurry the Bill through to get legislation which will have the effect of clipping the trade unionists' wings, hold them under restraint, and, by this means, we shall be able to curb the wage inflation tendency". This is the proposition which hon. Gentlemen opposite have put to us. But, in putting forward that proposition, I believe that many hon. Gentlemen opposite do not realise the real complexity of the Bill.
Until now I have exercised restraint in intervening in the debates. I did not succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading, and in Committee I have so far made no attempt to intervene because, in my judgment, the real debate begins at Clause 5.
Mr. John Page: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jenkins: The Government have followed a course deliberately designed to make it impossible for them to avoid bringing in a guillotine Motion. They have stated in the first two or three Clauses, quite unusually, a succession of broad general principles which my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, at any
142
rate, have been compelled to attack. We could not possibly allow this broad statement of general principles in Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, against which we are deeply opposed, to go by without challenge. Therefore, a substantial debate is required on Clauses 1 to 4. I believe that this was a deliberate action by the Government so that they would be able to say, "We have had a considerable debate on these Clauses. Therefore, quite a lot of time has been taken up", and, before we get to any serious discussion on the operative Clauses, which commence at Clause 5, the Government will have already got the guillotine on.
Mr. Keith Stainton: The hon. Gentleman is making a very ingenious point. However, if he reflects on the fact that the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) commenced with definitions in Clause 1, he will have to agree that there is less substance in the point which he is making than formerly appeared.
Mr. Jenkins: I shall have to disagree. My view is that there is a great difference between the statement of definitions contained in the previous Bill and the broad statement of general principles in this Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman may disagree if he wishes. I believe that the strategy adopted here was for the purpose of creating the present situation. That seems fairly obvious. If not, if the Government wish to have a detailed examination of the operative Clauses, which begin at Clause 5 and go to Clause 16–and many of the Clauses beyond that contain important provisions—would they not have withheld the operation of the guillotine until after those essential Clauses had been discussed?
I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite realise the importance of Clause 5. I think that some hon. Gentlemen probably realise its importance, but do they realise the importance placed upon it in some sections of the trade union movement? The Bill dismisses and makes impossible the philosophy of obligatory trade union membership. Some hon. Gentlemen may genuinely believe that this is not arguable; in other words, that this is so obviously wrong that there is no need to argue about it, so out it goes.

143
This is not a universally held view. I think that a large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and certainly many Conservative supporters in the country, believe—possibly because they have been misled by the Press—that the notion of an obligatory form of trade union membership is obviously bad and needs to be got rid of without much attention and, therefore, we need not spend too much time on it. Yet, when we think about it, society is founded upon the basis of acceptance of obligations. Everybody in this House accepts that the Government are entitled to require people to conform to the rules which they lay down.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite may say that that is the beginning and end of it, that the Government's requirement is all that is necessary, but if they examine society they will see that these obligations are required of us by all sorts of organisations. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who accept the statement that an examinational qualification is the right thing in professional organisations and that as far as scholastic and academic organisations are concerned an examinational qualification is one which they will support and accept, at a different level say that a craft organisation is not entitled to impose its obligatory qualification, which is membership of the trade union.
One of the things that makes this Motion is a way understandable from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but completely objectionable to us, is the enormous variety and complexity of the trade union movement, so that something which may be accepted without too much trouble in one trade union is totally disastrous for another. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not realise that in trying to lay down generalised rules applicable to all trade unions they are bound to do grave injustice to some trade unions. This is one of the things which hon. Gentlemen opposite have not realised.
I have been a full-time trade union official, a professional, where some of my colleagues are only amateurs. I have worked full time at that, as well as being an executive committee member of another trade union. I have worked full time as a research officer with the National Union of Bank Employees, and
144
as assistant general secretary of the British Actors Equity Association. If those two organisations, both operating in a non-manual sphere are considered, we see that in one case——
Mr. Bidwell: I think my hon. Friend will agree that the two unions to which he has referred cannot be called Socialist-inclined trade unions. In fact, at one time the general secretary of one of those unions was a member of the Conservative Party, and the other union looks like being predominantly Conservative.
Mr. Jenkins: I do not wish to argue that. I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend should seek to attack me on this subject. It seems that trade unions have certain characteristics which they acquire from the industries in which they grow up. This may be shown by the National Union of Bank Employees, for which I once worked. This organisation——
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my hon. Friend forgive me?
Mr. Jenkins: No. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to complete my argument. The point I wish to make is that the operation of Clause 5 and the removal of the ability of the union to run obligatory trade union membership may be of little importance to the National Union of Bank Employees, but for the British Actors Equity Association the removal of the power to operate obligatory trade union membership may destroy the organisation.
I believe that at a later stage it will be possible to deploy that argument at greater length. For the moment I shall refrain from doing that. The point I want to make is that if hon. Gentlemen opposite had recognised the real complexity of the trade union movement throughout the whole field, would they have tried to bring forward a Measure which seeks to ram all the trade unions into a single pattern?
Later, we shall have Motions before us, and hon. Gentlemen opposite may seek to bring forward Amendments, which will ameliorate in some respects the consequences of the Bill. What hon. Gentlemen opposite should do, and what we on this side of the House should do, is to remove the Bill in toto. Amelioration for one particular organisation is not a

145
satisfactory development. What we must have is a variation of the principle in the Bill, so that this Measure can operate fairly in respect of all organisations which find themselves in difficulty.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Houghton: The debate so far has been about whether we have a timetable Motion at all at this time. This question can be put to the test when we vote on the suspension of the rule at 10 o'clock. We shall vote against suspension because we do not want the Motion and we shall vote against the Motion because we do not want the Bill. Our two Amendments will come on later, if the suspension is carried. I shall therefore address myself for the moment to the main question of whether we should have a timetable Motion on this Bill at this stage.
I should first of all like to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby) and the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), both of whom criticised the amount of time which is taken up by the House in debating timetable Motions. They suggested that we might make it shorter and spend more time on the Bill and less on the timetable on the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) pointed out during the speech of the hon. Member for Tonbridge that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), when Leader of the House, introduced a shortened procedure, which is now in Standing Order No. 43A. There are two alternative procedures—Standing Order 43 and the shortened procedure, 43A, which is conditional upon consultation having taken place between the Government and the Opposition, and failure to reach agreement.
The consultation is essential if that procedure is to be used, so I imagine that the Government were unable to use it because they had not undertaken the necessary consultations. If the shortened procedure is followed, on reporting disagreement to Mr. Speaker on an effort to get a voluntary timetable, the debate on the timetable Motion can be restricted to two hours. That was an attempt by my right hon. Friend to get a shortened procedure where efforts had been made to reach agreement by consultation.
146
It is important to note that the Government have had to use this full-dress debate, for a full day, if not longer, because they did not go through the necessary condition of consultation.
Mutual charges of hypocrisy are flung across the Chamber on these occasions. It is very bad for Parliament, to say the least, if hon. Members on one side charge others with hypocrisy on an issue like this. We are bound to hear, in any debate on a timetable Motion, the pot calling the kettle black. Of course the pot will call the kettle black. Both are black, but each has its separate function and responsibility.
I do not think that any opposition should be chided for what it did when in Government on this matter, because each has its separate duties and responsibilities. It is the duty of the Opposition to act as a deterrent against too free a use of the procedure of the timetable Motion. No Opposition should make it easy for any Government to get a timetable Motion, unless it is by agreement. And, if it is not by agreement, it should be debated and resisted.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite will reflect on this as a feature of parliamentary government, they will see that it is not a sham or hypocrisy but the discharge of a duty by the Opposition corresponding to a duty being discharged by the Government; that of getting their business through.
In a situation of this kind, it is important, however, that the Government should recognise how highly selective the timetable Motion procedure is. Short of having a timetable for all Bills, it is bound to be selective, and the Bill selected for a timetable Motion must be looked at on its merits, significance and importance to the country as well as to the House.
Why are the Government doing this? Why have they done it in such an objectionable way? On the necessity for this Motion, the Leader of the House said nothing about lack of parliamentary time. There was not a word about the great radical reforms which are waiting in the queue. There was nothing about the relief of poverty, the evils in our society, price control and about fulfilling all the other pledges which were made in the Conservative manifesto.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to justify the Motion on grounds of urgency.

147
Industrial relations will never be improved by ill-considered haste. Those who have given their blessing to the concepts of the Bill admit that its effect must be long-term. It will take a long time for the Bill—if it has any benefit to bring to industrial relations —to have its advantages seen.
The Leader of the House made three points. The first was that recourse to the timetable Motion had been found necessary by successive Governments of all parties. That is true and it is not disputed. Nor is it disputed that the procedure should be used with restraint and a deep sense of the feelings of the House and the country. As I said, it is highly selective. It should be governed more by what the Bill is than by how big it is.
If, for example, we are to have some special exemption given to Finance Bills because of length of time in Committee and in the House, without a guillotine Motion being proposed, then presumably we are being asked to concede that money comes before men—that financial business is more important than the liberty of the subjects and the rights and traditions of trade unionists.
The second point which the Leader of the House made was that a timetable Motion on this Bill was inevitable. That is highly questionable. I do not think it was as clear as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Despite the militant war cries of my hon. Friends about this Measure, the fight against the Bill was resolved upon was not a threat of filibuster but a critical and detailed scrutiny of what the Bill contains.
We thought, and still think, that the Bill can be condemned out of its own text. We wanted to fight the Bill, and still want to fight it, by exposure of its iniquities, its follies and its weaknesses, and not by tedious repetition. Indeed, having been present at so many consultations on this Bill with my hon. and right hon. Friends I can assert that time and again we said to them, "We do not want to give the Government any excuse to introduce a timetable Motion. We want to debate the Bill in a responsible manner, and we do not want to delay getting on with it, because there is enough and more than enough in the Bill for Parliament to tackle in the weeks and months ahead."
148
Another thing that I can say to the Leader of the House is: never take the Opposition for granted. The right to consultation does not depend on a presumption of the answer one will get, and this point was made very strongly indeed by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) in a very penetrating speech. Consultation is something to which we are entitled for its own sake. It is for us to say whether a voluntary agreement can be reached. It should never be presumed that we give that answer without consultation.
The third thing that the Leader of the Opposition said was that if there is to be a timetable, if it is inevitable, the sooner it is introduced the better. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) made the same point. But what may seem inevitable to the Government may not seem inevitable to the Opposition. What may seem inevitable to the Government the Opposition may be doing their level best to prevent—as we were, indeed, in the earlier Committee stage. The important thing about a timetable Motion is timing. While it is unlikely ever to be fully acceptable it should never be deeply offensive, and this is what this Motion is.
The House can function only if there is a measure of acceptance of its conventions, which includes consideration for the feelings of the position of the Opposition, especially when no great gap divides the numerical strength of the Opposition from the Government themselves. The Government need the tolerance of the Opposition to make this place work. If the Opposition are deeply wounded and react with a savage indignation, the functioning of Parliament itself is put in peril. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton also stressed this point. I do not think that the Leader of the House has been fully seized of this consideration. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that in this matter he has shown some of the characteristics of a bull in a china shop. He has not exercised the finesse and understanding we have come to attach to his position as Leader of the House.
I am sure that after listening to the debate those on the Government benches know how much we deplore the way in which this has been done. We are undoubtedly very angry indeed. It is

149
nothing but an affront to the Opposition to present to them a Motion for a timetable in the circumstances in which this was done, and I think that it will be agreed that despite the very strong and militant feelings of thousands and millions of our colleagues and friends outside, we in this House have conducted ourselves with moderation and with tolerance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
Of course we have. No criticism whatever of our conduct in the Committee stage or in the earlier stage of the Bill has been uttered anywhere. The benches opposite have failed to understand the pressures that we are under from our friends in the trade union to show more militant action against the Bill. But the Bill proposes to amend the law and that can only be done here, and we have stressed again and again that no matter how strong our opposition to the Bill we must go through the processes of parliamentary government in a responsible and constitutional way. That is what the Parliamentary Labour Party is resolved to do. That up to now is what we have done. The alternative is anarchy, and we do not stand for that.
In the short beginning of the Committee stage we have had no filibuster, no obstruction. The longest speech, I think, in the whole proceedings was from the Minister himself. There were 12 Divisions on the Monday and the Tuesday, and not a single one on the Closure. The leisurely way in which the debate was conducted from the Government benches was somewhat surprising. There was one stage when we wished that we had got a button to get the Solicitor-General on his feet. He was sitting there looking round to see whether anybody else wished to rise. We were getting impatient. Our Chief Whip came to us and said, "We want to get Clause 4". We had a special, historical and magical attachment to Clause 4. We wanted to get Clause 4. But, no. The Opposition Chief Whip was doing the speeding up and some of my hon. Friends wanted to know whose Chief Whip he was. I am sure that there is no criticism which can be attached to us for the progress that we hoped to make in those earlier stages.
Another thing referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) just now is of considerable
150
importance. The statement of general principles in the first few Clauses of the Bill was bound to prolong the Committee stage. They opened up a review of the whole scope of the Bill, and the Government must surely have realised that and must have known what they were doing when framing the Bill in that quite unusual way. On the score of not having impeded the progress of the Bill, we are entitled to regard this not only as an affront but as a provocation.
I am not going over all the details of the events of last Thursday, but both the Leader of the House and, no doubt, the Secretary of State know that when the Opposition Parliamentary Committee were given a sight of the provisional business for this week at 5 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, there was nothing on it about a timetable Motion. Monday, Wednesday and Thursday were down for further progress on the Committee stage of the Bill. We on the Opposition side had our usual weekly deliberations in the light of that, and made our dispositions accordingly.
Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Gentleman will surely accept that that is exactly the same position with which we were faced when we were in opposition, when I was Opposition Chief Whip, in relation to all the Bills which were guillotined, with the exception of the Redistribution of Seats Bill. That was guillotined the same day and, therefore, I was naturally told on the same day on which it was guillotined. It is also fair to make it clear that in all those cases I was asked beforehand, because the Opposition were operating under the new procedure, whether I was prepared to agree to a voluntary timetable. I said that I was not. Having said that I was not, after that I was never given any indication, quite rightly and reasonably, as to when the guillotine was likely to be used because that is something that the Cabinet always decides, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, on the Thursday morning before it decides on the business for the following week. The procedure that was followed was exactly the same as happened on previous occasions.
Mr. Houghton: Does the Leader of the House not realise that what may always be done may be quite unsuitable and wrong when dealing with a Bill of

151
this nature? It was undoubtedly his duty, in view of the explosive nature of many of the proposals in this Bill, that he should treat the Opposition with full respect. We did not get any intimation that a timetable Motion was to be used until Thursday afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has come back from the Council of Europe and has expressed some weighty criticism of the precipitate way in which the Government have introduced this Motion. It is inexcusable for the Cabinet to reach a decision on the timetable on Thursday morning, hope to have contact through the usual channels during lunchtime, and announce it in reply to the business question on Thursday afternoon. It was quite excusable on this Bill, and that is what has given rise to so much feeling on our side.
Mr. Whitelaw: It was exactly what was done on the Transport Bill, and we felt just the same about that.
Mr. Houghton: But this is not the Transport Bill. The Transport Bill had had many sittings in Standing Committee before any question of a timetable Motion was raised. On this Bill, it was done after the first two days, a very different situation. It is shocking that we were given no opportunity to consider the position before the Leader of the House was making his statement on Thursday afternoon. It is surprising that we are at work today at all. I wonder that the Government had not got a strike on their hands. Indeed, this sort of behaviour in industry gives rise to unofficial strikes. Yet it comes from right hon. and hon. Members opposite who are trying to tell the unions and the workers about industrial relations. They cannot even get their Parliamentary relations right. In 1927, incidentally, there was a strike; all the Labour Members got up and walked out after the guillotine Motion had been moved. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on, then."] Hon. Members opposite know that the House would be a duller place the moment we left. They want us to stay. If we did not stay, what would they stay for?
The Leader of the House said earlier than 1927 was a long time ago. I remind him that the last punitive Measure against
152
trade unions was that Bill in 1927. There has not been a Tory Bill on trade unions since then until now. That is why it is not irrelevant to go back to 1927 and find out what was done then. After 43 years, the Tories are behaving on this Bill very much as they behaved on the Bill in 1927. The story of that Bill shows how little they change. On that occasion Mr. Baldwin, then Prime Minister, did not give the Opposition any notice; he just stuck the Motion down on the Order Paper and said that it was in accordance with precedent. No wonder the Labour Members walked out in those circumstances. But at least, on the Motion itself, much more liberal time was provided for a Bill of eight Clauses and three Schedules than is being provided for the present Bill.
I want to say a word now about the Leader of the House and the reasons for the Motion. Is he telling us that the Bill is so long, so complicated, affects so many millions of workers and so many hundreds of trade unions, and is so controversial, that Parliament cannot spare the time to deal with it? Is that what it comes to? Is he saying that it is too big a Bill for Parliament to deal with? Is he saying that the first Tory trade union Bill for more than 40 years must be hustled through the House more speedily than the last one in 1927?
Last Thursday, the Leader of the House said that, Finance Bills apart, this will be the longest Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war. Does he realise that the Bill is unique? It can be distinguished from any other Bill in its content and in its impact on the trade union movement and on industrial relations. Surely, the first Tory trade union Bill for more than 40 years should be given full treatment in the House. The point about the Bill and the timetable Motion lies in the nature of the Bill itself. That is the importance of it.
The Government should not introduce a Bill of this contentious and controversial nature without being quite sure that Parliament has adequate time to deal with it. It must not only have time to deal with it properly but must be seen to have time to deal with it properly. Two powerful speeches were made from these benches on this point. One was by my right hon. Friend the Member for

153
Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), who said that the credibility of Parliament is at stake with millions of people whose respect for it is becoming more tenuous year by year. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) also stressed the need for strengthening the position of Parliament in the eyes of those who are losing their faith in it.
A greater load is being thrust upon Parliament with the Bill because of the unhappy breach of relations between the Secretary of State and the T.U.C. He laid down such conditions for consultation and advice from it that it was unable to accept his invitation to join in consultations. Therefore, he is without all the help that the T.U.C. and the unions could give on the Bill. Much of it is being channelled through to my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is an additional burden upon us which is bound to prolong the Committee stage. We had a Consultative Document by which far too little consultation took place. As a result, more work is made for all of us, particularly on this side.
The Motion should never have been put down without consultation. I recall what was said in similar circumstances on the Transport Bill when, on 14th March, 1968, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East, then Leader of the House, said—column 1667 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day—that more time would have been given to that Bill under the timetable Motion than in the history of Parliament. He said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the Minister responsible, had tried to obtain a voluntary agreement, promising that if we could agree on the timetable she would aim at meeting the then Opposition's wishes as to the distribution of the time. But all was in vain and a timetable Motion was introduced.
After full consultation, after every effort to reach agreement, after every accommodation within the overall limit of time, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), now Secretary of State for the Environment, said of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House:
"In the manner in which he has done it and the complete lack of fundamental argument behind his case, in my view the right hon. Gentleman has completely and utterly
154
degraded the position of Leader of the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1968; Vo1. 760, c. 1675.]
That was the verdict of the right hon. Gentleman, who is now a member of the Government, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East had gone to all those lengths to get agreement on a timetable Motion on the Transport Bill after many scores of sittings in Committee upstairs.
The Leader of the House has failed on this occasion to treat the Opposition with the consideration with which we, when in Government, treated right hon. and hon. Members opposite. My criticisms, though strong, are in more temperate language than his right hon. Friend used about my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East.
I urge the Government to drop the Motion and let us get on with the Committee Stage. Better still, I urge them to drop the Bill and let us get on with more fruitful and sensible work. Most of the Bill is quackery——
Mr. Ray Mawby Mr. Ray Mawby (Totnes) rose——
Mr. Houghton: It is quackery introduced by Tory witch doctors who think they have remedies for ills they cannot understand and cannot diagnose. A lot of this Bill is objectionable, a lot of it is foolish and some of it is malicious. There is no doubt about that. So I say that this Motion will deepen the revulsion of millions of people against the Bill and will weaken the sovereign power of Parliament.
9.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Early in his speech the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) posed the question, "Why the urgency?". He might have asked that question of himself and his right hon. Friends. Has he forgotten that, more than two years ago, the Labour Government, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), told the country that legislation, including in that case penal sanctions, was absolutely essential that summer—that is to say, within six months—in the national interest because the unofficial strike position was so bad and getting worse? It is much worse today than it was over two years ago

155
when the Labour Government said that to the country.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that this was a long-term Measure, so why the hurry? Just because it is a long-term Measure is the very reason why it is important to get it working as soon as possible. He also said that it was quackery. But, to the vast majority of the electorate, the main lines of our proposals look remarkably similar to the proposals which the Labour Government told the country were essential to the national interest two years ago. The right hon. Member for Huyton said then that the measures he proposed then were central to the continuance of the Labour Government in office. In that, he was right.
Hon. Members have spoken about proper discussion and time for proper discussion. The right hon. Member for Sowerby says that it is a mockery of Parliament. Yet we are offering a longer time on the Floor of the House than has been given by any Government to any Bill since the war.
Mrs. Castle: This statement has been made several times. When the right hon. Gentleman says that it is the longest time given to any Bill since the war, is he talking irrespective of the Bills concerned?
Mr. Carr: I am talking about the length of time given to any major Measure since the war—certainly proportionally longer than the time the right hon. Lady gave to her Transport Bill.
Mrs. Castle: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to get his facts checked, as I have done, he will find that the amount of time he is allowing us for what is a constitutional Bill is considerably less per Clause than on the Transport Bill.
Mr. Carr: If it is any consolation to the right hon. Lady, I have checked my facts. I would remind the House that what she alluded to was in Committee upstairs, not on the Floor of the House of Commons. It worked out at about 41 minutes a Clause. [Interruption.] I have checked my facts, and that is what I make it. We will check our arithmetic afterwards, if the right hon. Lady likes.
The right hon. Lady and her colleagues produced an Industrial Relations Bill on
156
30th April last year. I think I am right in saying that that contained 97 Clauses and 8 Schedules. How much time was she envisaging for that legislation to take on the Floor of the House, even assuming that there had not been a General Election? Or was she just producing that Bill as a public relations exercise?
Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman well knows that the duration of a Session is completely elastic. Sessions can go on until November. I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to answer the point about democratic consultation and to say whether his Government would not be prepared to extend this Session to enable us to have a proper discussion of his much more far-reaching Bill.
Mr. Carr: The House can judge what that answer is. As for the length of time the right hon. Lady was planning to have in this wonderful vision of a Session—had it not, thank goodness! been broken up by a General Election—which had been extended so that her Bill could be discussed day after day, I will leave to people to work out for themselves.
Mr. Loughlin: Talk about the guillotine.
Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed, I will talk about it.
Mr. Loughlin: Do not waste time.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt from a sedentary position.
Mr. Loughlin Mr. Loughlin rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can interrupt from a standing position only if the right hon. Gentleman gives way.
Mr. Loughlin: But I am in a standing position now, Mr. Speaker. Let the right hon. Gentleman give way.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member must not pursue the matter in this manner.
Mr. Loughlin: Let the right hon. Gentleman give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Loughlin Mr. Loughlin rose——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Loughlin Mr. Loughlin rose——
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is for a right hon. or hon. Member to decide whether he or she gives way. He must not continue to rise in this manner.
Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order.
Mr. Carr Mr. Carr rose——
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Loughlin: I rose on a point of order, but, apparently, immediately I put my point of order, the right hon. Gentleman showed that he wished to give way. If he wishes to give way, I will withdraw my point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to give way?
Mr. Carr: I am quite willing to give way. [Laughter.]
Mr. Loughlin: I can wait. I have been here long enough—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I shall wait. Will the right hon. Gentleman now deal with this debate, in which many of us have taken part in a reasonable and sensible manner? Will he reply to the debate?
Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman's idea of replying to a debate seems rather different from that of other people. Had he started by asking whether I would give way instead of merely shouting at me from a sedentary position, we might have reached this situation much sooner.
The first thing which the House needs to consider in deciding the time and method of conducting the debate on the Bill is the fact that if ever a Government had a mandate for anything in a General Election, this Government obtained a mandate for this Bill. Moreover, we obtained a mandate to introduce it as a matter of urgency in this Session of Parliament.
Mr. Alex Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Carr: I prefer to do so in a moment, but I will give way then if the hon. Gentleman still wishes to interrupt;
158
I cannot give way the whole time, as I am sure the House realises. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) reminded the House, not only do we have a mandate for it in the normal sense of the word, but no party ever before has been so firmly and so publicly committed for so long in so much detail——
Mr. Eadie Mr. Eadie rose——
Mr. Carr: I will give way to the hon. Member if only he will let me finish. No party ever before has been so firmly and publicly committed for so long in so much detail as this Government to this Measure.
We first committed ourselves to it in principle in an official party policy document in October, 1965, just over five years ago. We repeated that commitment in our election manifesto in the General Election in March, 1966. We expanded the detail of that commitment in our party conference in October, 1967. In April, 1968, we published "Fair Deal at Work". In October, 1969——
Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this debate is about the guillotine Motion, not the Tory Party manifesto. Why does not the Secretary of State reply to the debate and why is he not told to do so? My point of order is that it is entirely out of order for the Secretary of State to give us a resumé of the Tory Party manifesto. His job is to reply to the debate, which is on a guillotine Motion.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be a point, but it is not a point of order. The Chair has no responsibility for what hon. Members say—fortunately.
Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman has sought to argue that his party has a mandate to implement this Bill. I suggest that by the mere publication of his Bill, the right hon. Gentleman does not have a mandate for it. He is applying a concept of democracy to trade unions in that Bill that he is not applying to Parliament. Not one single Tory hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency and only 17 Tory hon. Members in the rest of Britain had a majority of the electorate in their constituencies voting for them when they were elected. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman does

159
not have a mandate for this Bill—[Interruption]——
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Order—[Interruption.] Order. If hon. Members defy the Chair —[Interruption.] Order. Throughout the debate, I have allowed opportunities for a reasonable expression of opinion on the Motion. The conduct of hon. Members is very disorderly—[Interruption.] Order. This is getting almost as boring as a standing ovation—[Interruption.] I really must ask hon. Members—[Interruption.] I understand their strength of feeling, but I must ask hon. Members to leave the front of the Table and return to their seats—[Interruption.] If hon. Members persist in challenging the authority of the Chair in this way, I shall suspend the Sitting for 15 minutes.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to the Standing Order (Power of Mr. Speaker to adjourn House or suspend Sitting.)
Sitting resumed at 10.5 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: The sitting is now resumed.
It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Industrial Relations Bill (Allocation of Time) may be entered upon and proceeded
  with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed; and that the Proceedings on the Industrial Relations Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of two hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Pym.]
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Loughlin (seated and covered): On a point of order. It is now eight minutes past Ten o'clock. The Motion on the Order Paper is stated quite specifically as being at Ten o'clock, but it was not put by you until five minutes past Ten. If there is a Motion stating that at Ten o'clock the House shall take a course of action, how is it possible for that Motion to be put at five minutes past the hour? I wonder whether you will——
  Mr. Speaker: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman, the Question is as I have read it. Mr. Loughlin, to raise a point of order.
  Mr. Loughlin: I had put my point of order. The Order Paper, at page 4321, gives notice of a Motion to be put at Ten o'clock. I submit that you put that Motion, not at Ten o'clock, but at five minutes past Ten, and that therefore it was out of order.
  Mr. Speaker: I rule that at Ten o'clock the sitting of the House was suspended. I put the Motion at the earliest moment thereafter, and it was in order.
  The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 276.

  Division No. 67.]

  AYES

  [10.5 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cooke, Robert

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Braine, Bernard

  Coombs, Derek

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bray, Ronald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Cordle, John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Brewis, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Costain, A. P.

  Astor, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Critchley, Julian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Crouch, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Crowder, F. P.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Bryan, Paul

  Curran, Charles

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Balniel, Lord

  Buck, Antony

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Batsford, Brian

  Burden, F. A.

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dean, Paul

  Bell, Ronald

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Benyon, W.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Dixon, Piers

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Biffen, John

  Channon, Paul

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Drayson, G. B.

  Blaker, Peter

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Dykes, Hugh

  Body, Richard

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Eden, Sir John

  Boscawen, Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Clegg, Walter

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cockeram, Eric

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

  Emery, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Farr, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Fell, Anthony

  Kitson, Timothy

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Fidler, Michael

  Knox, David

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Lambton, Antony

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Lane, David

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Foster, Sir John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Fowler, Norman

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

  Rost, Peter

  Fox, Marcus

  Longden, Gilbert

  Royle, Anthony

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

  Loveridge, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gardner, Edward

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Sharples, Richard

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Simeons, Charles

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Goodhart, Phillip

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Goodhew, Victor

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Soref, Harold

  Gower, Raymond

  Madel, David

  Speed, Keith

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Spence, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Sproat, Iain

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Stainton, Keith

  Grieve, Percy

  Mather, Carol

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maude, Angus

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Grylls, Michael

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mawby, Ray

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gurden, Harold

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stokes, John

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

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

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Moate, Roger

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Money, Ernie

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monro, Hector

  Temple, John M.

  Havers, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hay, John

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mudd, David

  Tilney, John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hicks, Robert

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Trew, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Neave, Airey

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

  Normanton, Tom

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nott, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Waddington, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Welder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hornby, Richard

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wall, Patrick

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walters, Dennis

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hunt, John

  Peel, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Percival, Ian

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  wells, John (Maidstone)

  James, David

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Jessel, Toby

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wilkinson, John

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Worsley, Marcus

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Raison, Timothy

  Younger, Hn. George

  Kilfedder, James

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)

  Redmond, Robert

  Mr. Jasper More and

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Mr. Reginald Eyre.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Alldritt, Walter

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Albu, Austen

  Allen, Scholefietd

  Ashley, Jack

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Ashton, Joe

  162

  163

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendelson, John

  Barnes, Michael

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Barnett, Joel

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Baxter, William

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Beaney, Alan

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Molloy, William

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Booth, Albert

  Hamling, William

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hardy, Peter

  Ogden, Eric

  Bradley, Tom

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Oram, Bert

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Buchan, Norman

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Padley, Walter

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Paget, R. T.

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cocks, Michael, (Bristol, S.)

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prescott, John

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  John, Brynmor

  Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, South)

  Rankin, John

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Barry (Flint, East)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Richard, Ivor

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lambie, David

  Roper, John

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davis Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lawson, George

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leonard, Dick

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sillars, James

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Skinner, Dennis

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, East)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stallard, A. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  English, Michael

  Mackie, John

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Evans, Fred

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Swain, Thomas

  Fernyhough, E.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Taverne, Dick

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

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Tinn, James

  Foley, Maurice

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Foot, Michael

  Marks, Kenneth

  Torney, Thomas

  Ford, Ben

  Marquand, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  Forrester, John

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Varley, Eric G.

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  164

  165

  Wallace, George

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Watkins, David

  Whitlock, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Weitzman, David

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Mr. John Golding.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)
  Question again proposed.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mrs. Castle: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 5, leave out "ten" and insert "thirty."
  This is an attempt to get the Government even at this late hour, to face up to some of the realities that we have been discussing.
  I noticed with some interest the cheer which the Prime Minister got when he arrived belatedly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. I am glad that this gives such comfort to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because I must tell the Prime Minister that during the debate of the last few hours they have certainly needed it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]. As will no doubt happen on more than one occasion for, at any rate, some few months ahead, the Government will win the vote and lose the argument.
  If the Prime Minister had taken the Bill as seriously as he said he does and had therefore been present to listen to the debate on the timetable Motion. he would have realised—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Amendment?"]—that what has been happening in the House of Commons during the past few hours is that his followers, loyally in pursuit of his leadership, have been riding roughshod —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—over the rights of the Opposition in this Parliament. In moving this Amendment I am giving him and his followers an opportunity to try to save some of their shattered reputation.
  We have during the afternoon been discussing the number of hours that the Government intend to devote to the Committee stage of the Bill—[Interruption.] I know that democracy is not a matter of concern to hon. Members opposite— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that is why they intend to try to drown the argument that I shall seek to put. None the less, I shall continue to put that argument, and it will be heard in the country if it is not heard here.
  What we are putting forward in the Amendment is a totally reasonable claim
  168
  for the amount of time necessary for the Committee to give serious consideration to what the right hon. Gentleman claims is the priority piece of legislation of his Government. It is he who has given the importance to the Bill we shall be attempting to discuss in Committee in the coming weeks. It is he who has said that it is vital to the economy of the country. It is he who has said that it has far-reaching consequences. So, taking his assessment of the Bill, we are arguing now that the Government should give a corresponding amount of time to it.
  The facts of the position have been admitted by the Leader of the House earlier in the debate; namely, that for this massive and complicated piece of legislation, consisting of 150 Clauses and eight Schedules, the Government intend to dictate to Parliament that it shall have 100 hours of debate in Committee.
  I have conceded that when we discuss a guillotine Motion we are discussing something intended to enable a Government to attempt to get their business through the House. I have been arguing —nothing has prevented right hon. and hon. Members opposite from having their vote tonight, so they need not make any great issue of it—that what we are discussing here is not a wrecking Amendment by the Opposition but a reasonable and legitimate claim to a fair share of debate under Parliamentary democracy. I am afraid—it is a failing of mine—that in putting my argument earlier I have been over-generous to the Government. Leaning over backwards, as is my wont, to be fair—[Laughter.]—and this is one of the occasions when one deeply regrets that the people of this country cannot see
  the frivolity of the Government—[Laughter.]—who believe that provocation is the equivalent of strength, who believe that laughter is an argument, a Government who rely on the vote instead of reasoning to get their business through.
  In saying that this guillotine Motion, as it stands, would allow something like 40 minutes for each of these very important Clauses, I was being totally overgenerous to the Government. Indeed, it has been pointed out to me, as the Sunday Times was pointing out yesterday, that this is indeed a travesty of the truth. Out of those 40 minutes—the Sunday Times put the estimate much

  169
  lower than that; it put it at something over half an hour per Clause—10 minutes
  "will be occupied with reading and voting on the Clause as it is finally amended and another 10 taken up by the Opposition Amendment (assuming there is only one) itself. This leaves a meagre 10 minutes for the debate."
  I have argued, and will continue to argue —I believe that all thoughtful people will be with me in this—that in a constitutional Bill of this importance, to allow something like 10 minutes per Clause is to make a travesty of Parliamentary argument.
  Mr. John Wells (Maidstone): If the right hon. Lady—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I hope that hon. Members will behave in a proper parliamentary manner. The right hon. Lady has given way to the hon. Gentleman and he is entitled to be heard.
  Mr. Wells: If the right hon. Lady will be kind enough to read a little further on in the article, as far as my memory serves me, I think it went on to say that this is a gross over-simplification of the facts.
  Mrs. Castle: I shall be delighted to continue to read from the article. It continues:
  "It won't work out like that in detail, of course"—
  Hon. Members: Get on with it.
  Mrs. Castle: Yes, hon. Members want the whole of it, and they will get it.
  Hon. Members: Just read it.
  Mrs. Castle:
  "because the timetable Motion groups many Clauses together, but that is the hypothetical average.
  The Opposition's answer must be to impose a tough discipline on speeches by Labour"—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Castle:
  "by Labour militants".
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mrs. Castle: Are hon. Members suggesting that militants have no rights in the House? Have they their own selective version of democracy? [HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I shall. Hon. Members need not worry. Our version of
  170
  democracy is that every hon. Member elected to the House has the right to express the views of his constituents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We do not say that that right is to be modified according to whether they be Right, Left, Centre, extreme Right or extreme Left; they are Members of the House and they have the right to speak. I am glad to see that the Leader of the House repudiates his own backwoodsmen who so degrade parliamentary democracy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] Yes, I shall read on. "Ironically", it continues——
  Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping)Mr. Norman Tebbit (Epping) rose——
  Mrs. Castle: I have been asked to read on, and I intend to do so when the filibusters allow me to.
  "Ironically, Tory backbenchers who would otherwise stay silent—or at least be brief—in order to help the Government's progress, now have no incentive to do so."
  Therefore, one of the by-products of this guillotine is that, out of the 30 minutes per Clause, we not only have the 10 minutes taken up with reading and voting on the Clause and another 10 minutes taken up by the moving of an Amendment, but we shall have in addition the claims made on the time by Government backbenchers liberated by the guillotine to make the travesty of opposition even more obvious. It is totally impossible in that situation for the Opposition to exercise even minimal rights in the coming debate.
  The very same passage in the Sunday Times goes on to warn us of what a backlog of Government Amendments is now waiting to break forth upon us. We are told that the Government are planning at least
  "two radical changes in the Industrial Relations Bill during the Bill's Committee stage."
  One of them is to deal with the fact that the whole of the work of the C.I.R. is now in jeopardy because the Government's high handed imposition of legal restrictions on trade unions has led to the resignation of the two most prominent trade union members of the Commission. The Government know perfectly well that, in the context of this Bill, the Commission on Industrial Relations as an independent body will cease to exist, so they are in great difficulty about how they can get the so-called representative trade union membership.

  171
  We are told that "a big concession" is to be made by the right hon. Gentleman,
  "one that has been forced on him by the recent resignation of trade union representatives Will Paynter and Alf Allen from the Commission."
  So the right hon. Gentleman is to introduce an Amendment in a desperate attempt to give a phoney appearance of independence to the Commission, which he has now made the instrument of his legislative restrictions on trade unions.
  Next, we are told that the second big Amendment
  "planned for the Committee stages comes under Part IV, the section that sets out new rules for the Registrar of Trade Unions".
  This—I quote with delight for the hon. Gentleman's benefit—is what the Sunday Times said:
  "It apparently requires a complete overhaul to make sense, and the plight of parliamentary draftsmen is not helped by the concession Robert Carr has made to the 'professional' lobby.
  Doctors, nurses, and dentists have wrung from the Government a commitment that a second register will be set up to deal with their special interests. The Commission on Industrial Relations will have its terms of reference extended to include the interests of professionally qualified workers and a 'professional' person will be appointed to the Commission.
  Riding hard on the backs of the doctors are other bodies like the various associations of engineers. The rules will be changed to help them too.
  The Government also plans to clear up the mass of sloppy wording in the Bill during the Committee stage. Bluntly, the Bill is in a technical mess. It will take more than 50 Amendments to clear things up."
  And these 50 Amendments to clear up the right hon. Gentleman's technical mess will be taken out of our 30 minutes per Clause, thus denying us the opportunity——
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The article also refers to my Amendment. Why is the right hon. Lady anti-Equity?
  Mrs. Castle: The article has a whole lot about how the Government will try to persuade the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment, which will also take up a large amount of time, on behalf of Equity. What amount of time will be left for the National Union of Seamen, which has equal rights with Equity, professional bodies or anyone else? Can
  172
  hon. Members opposite dare to explain their attitude when representatives of that Union come to the Bar of the House and protest against the gagging of the expression of the views of their union? This is a total travesty of Parliamentary democracy.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——
  Mrs. Castle: I will give way to the representative of the National Union of Seamen from the Government benches if there is one, but I will not give way to anyone else.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls rose——
  Mrs. Castle: I shall not give way.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Is it not a rule of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if the right hon. Lady mentions an hon. Member, as she has in my case, she gives way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. That is not a rule of the House. The right hon. Lady does not have to give way if she does not wish to do so.
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman will take enough of our small Commitee time. He will not take the time of my speech now.
  I ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness, does he think that we can make Parliamentary democracy work when on a Bill of this kind, which strikes at the rights of democratic institutions in this country, those institutions will not even have a couple of minutes to put their case in Committee? That is the reality of the situation we face. The Prime Minister has talked a lot about uniting the nation. My heavens! He is hell bent on dividing it now. The guillotine Motion is the practical demonstration of that. He is fond of saying that he will be judged by deeds, not words. We have had the Government perpetrate a deed tonight that is evidence of the divisions they will force through our society.
  I say in all seriousness to the Prime Minister that in moving the Amendment I am giving him a realistic and constructive alternative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite really believed in argument, they would stop tittering and try to listen.

  173
  What are we asking for in the Amendment? We have been told that we can have ten more days—ten more days for those 16 groups of detailed Amendments that I spelt out in my speech earlier in the debate. We are asking for 30 more days.
  Mr. Speaker has indicated that he is not calling our Amendment relating to the lengths of sittings. I make it clear that, even if he had done so, if the Government were prepared to concede the number of days we are asking for, we would not have asked for the further extension of hours proposed in that Amendment because what we are seeking to do is just to get the minimum requirement for a proper discussion of the Bill, Clause by Clause, through the Committee Stage, because we know—because we have studied the Bill, as most hon. Members opposite have not—the grave implications of every one of these Clauses for people whose interests are being damaged through this Bill. We are fighting for their right to have those interests expressed in Parliamentary debate.
  If we were to get 30 days in Committee instead of the allotted ten, at eight hours each that would still merely give us, with the time we have already spent on the Bill, 260 hours in Committee. If that time were allotted, it would be perfectly feasible, at two sittings a week of eight hours each, to get the Bill out of Committee and reported by 14th May. That would be compatible with the Government's normal right to keep to their timetable and the minimum necessary to make the discussion in Committee compatible with anyone's conception of democracy.
  Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to accept the Amendment without further debate. It is asking far less than the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) asked for when I was Minister of Transport and we were discussing the Transport Bill. [Interruption.] Yes, it is true. We had already had 104 hours in Committee on that Bill and several times I had personally tried to negotiate a voluntary agreement with the right hon. Gentleman before we reluctantly were forced to introduce a timetable Motion. When we came to it, the right hon. Gentleman said, "Yes. I
  174
  said when I was asked about a timetable that I wanted 450 hours in Committee." —[HON. MEMBERS: "It was a much bigger Bill."]—No. It was a Bill of 152 Clauses because the then Government, to meet the arguments about the length of the Bill, dropped 14 Clauses in Committee because they were not strictly essential.
  Mr. Robert Adley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Castle: No. I am sorry, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman can catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
  We pointed out to the right hon. Member for Worcester that such a timetable as he proposed would mean that we could not get the Bill within a normal Session. He said, "We will sit throughout the Whitsun Recess, all the hours of the day and night, because we are so passionately concerned with these issues of quality licensing and quantity licensing and rural buses and the rest."
  But here we have a Bill of profound constitutional importance that not only sets up a new court but makes a whole lot of new policy issues justiciable. It is a Bill that anyone who understands the importance of the situation to the country would be very anxious to have properly discussed, because what it does is to alter the whole rôle of the judiciary in our constitution, and that ought to be the concern of every one of us, apart from the fact that it is dealing with individual rights of citizens and the collective rights of the massive representative bodies of the trade union movement, which hon. Members opposite treat with contempt but which we in this House ought not so to do.
  Therefore, I say that, in asking for 240 more hours of Committee stage at the reasoned pace of two days a week, sitting until midnight each day, and getting the Bill reported by 14th May, we are asking for the very minimum of our democratic rights. We are to have far less time than our own Government gave in an equivalent debate on the Iron and Steel Bill, which we knew aroused great passions on the opposite side of the House and on which the time allocation was far more generous. We are asking for less then we were given on the Trade Disputes Bill of 1927. We are asking for

  175
  than we have a right to expect, if we are to retain respect in the country for the proceedings of this House of Commons.
  We on this side of the House believe in Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite no more believe in Parliament than they do in the Commonwealth, and they are hell bent on destroying both. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It will be a sad day when we here at Westminster are treated like some people were treated at Singapore.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Singapore is not quite in order on this matter.
  Mrs. Castle: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I am the most orderly Member of this House, I bow to your Ruling, but I hope that some hon. Gentlemen opposite are restrained as you are restraining me.
  The approach of the Government is all of a piece. It is high-handed arrogance. They believe that the number of votes in the House of Commons is the only thing that counts. It will be the undoing of the Government, because the people of this country care about democratic debate, if hon. Members opposite do not. The people know who are the real custodians of it. I put a simple test to the Government tonight: "Accept this Amendment and prove you really believe in democracy".
  10.46 p.m.
  Mr. Swain: I support the Amendment, because the Motion that has just gone through the House has disfranchised me in this House, and my constituents and my trade union from having a voice in the Committee stage of this Bill from now on. You have got enough here in the Smoke Room to pass ten Motions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman please address me?
  Mr. Swain: Will the right hon. Gentleman who keeps opening his trap address you with the same courtesy as I address you?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All hon. Gentlemen address me with great courtesy.
  Mr. Swain: It appears to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when a man becomes
  176
  a right hon. Gentleman on the Tory benches he changes biologically from a man to a pig. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is an insult to pigs. Shame on you!
  Mr. Swain: The Government appear not to be prepared to listen to any argument. I make no apology for taking part in the demonstration, which was so successful. With the speed and efficiency with which the Smoke Room emptied at a quarter to ten, one would have thought that someone had rung for a count. Hon. Members came into the Chamber like wildcats. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] Hon. Members opposite have not been here all day and do not know whether we are debating a guillotine Motion or the abolition of hanging.
  The point that I want to make, if I am allowed to do so in the atmosphere of ignorance which I am now facing, is that my trade union, a very proud trade union, the National Union of— [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] When hon. Members have had as many blisters on their hands as on their backsides, they can talk like that. I want to defend the right of that trade union, which has a set of democratic rules and which has 20 members representing it in the House, not as many as the C.B.I. by a long way—
  Mr. Michael Fidler: On a point of order. Are there any hon. Members in the House who represent trade unions? Are we not representing constituents?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Swain: Unlike the hon. Member, I am honest enough to declare my interest, which is more than he can say. He comes sneaking in here at ten minutes to ten——
  Mr. Fidler: On a point of order. Is it in order for any hon. Member to misrepresent another hon. Member's attendance—almost throughout the day in my case—and to allege that it is so different from the facts?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: These things are done a great deal in the House. There is nothing very serious about it. However, I ask the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) not to seek

  177
  inspiration from the other side of the House but to make his own speech in his own way.
  Mr. Swain: Anyone seeking inspiration from the Government side would be like a surgeon performing a delicate operation and washing his hands in a dustbin.
  Coming back to the Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—this is the first speech which many hon. Members opposite have heard tonight. They want a filibuster; all right.
  The Amendment would allow Opposition Members to make their case, but it would also allow Government supporters to make theirs, if they have one. Not all constituents voted for hon. Members opposite. We believe in representing constituents whether they voted for us or not, but Tory Members represent only the Tory section of the community and not the large Labour minority, which is 100 per cent, against the Bill, both inside and outside the trade union movement. The Labour supporters in their constituencies do not use the same clubs, so I do not know how the hell the Tories know what they are talking about.
  We know very well that the Leader of the House rarely takes any notice of anybody who speaks in the House, either from his side or our side.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is not a shame because he is chattering away like a cageful of monkeys. He is not listening to anybody. He has no intention of listening. He is depending on the new lobby-fodder to get him out of the hole he has dug.
  The Amendment would give us all an opportunity of ventilating the case. We shall not always be right, and we shall not always be wrong. But in the House we have every right to claim the democratic right to represent our constituents in the way for which they elected us. That is not only to go through the Lobby as lobby-fodder, as does the Smoke-Room first team every night, but to make a case on behalf of our constituents.
  I am proud that I represent a majority of Socialist-inclined people. But during the last few weeks I have met quite a number of employers in my constituency who really understand the situation and the problems facing the nation, and who have tried through consultation to rectify
  178
  the troubles which they have had in and around their works. I am putting their case tonight equally as much as I am putting that of the trade unions, because, thank God, everybody in the House does not represent bad employers, if that mob over there do.—[An HON. MEMBER:" Which mob?"]—You lot.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) must address his remarks to me.
  Mr. Swain: I would not dream of bringing you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, down to the level of that lot over there. It would not be my dying wish to do that. I respect you far too much to bring you to their level.
  I hope and trust that the House will accept the Amendment. It was moved very moderately and sensibly, which is more than we can say of the speeches we have heard from the Government Front Bench tonight. If my right hon. Friend's Amendment were carried, I am convinced that if we have to have a trade union Bill—this Bill is not the answer to the problems—I should have been prepared to vote for it from its title to its full stop without trying to amend it. But this Bill is so vicious in its reading and possible application that it should have been guillotined at birth, and the people who conceived it ought to have met a similar fate. I say that in all seriousness because the Bill will be not only the ruination of consultation within the trade unions—[Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members opposite would be quiet. I think that some of your wives do not let you talk when you are at home.
  I would ask the Leader of the House, if he has a grain of fair play in him, which I very much doubt, to accept this Amendment, in the interests of parliamentary democracy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] Someone says "Oh". Hon. Members may say that what we did tonight was not in the interests of Parliamentary democracy, but it was. We objected to the way something was done and we used parliamentary methods. No one was named by Mr. Speaker, so we must have been reasonably well within order.
  This is a reasonable Amendment which deserves serious consideration by the Government because it is in the interests of their Bill. I have been among trade

  179
  unionists this weekend and I know that the possibility of the guillotine has enraged not only the militants but the moderates whom the right hon. Gentleman was claiming to have on his side.
  He said that 80 per cent. of the rank-and-file moderates supported his proposals but I would say that even the moderates have turned against him.
  If this Bill becomes law, which in the final analysis it will, then it cannot possibly work without the co-operation of the trade unions. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman this— and I would have told the Prime Minister it if he had waited to hear the debate: this country cannot carry on without the co-operation of the trade union movement. It has been proved that the trade union movement is the backbone of consultation, a strong influence—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] on which the whole of the economy is based. The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) says "Oh."
  Mrs. Peggy Fenner (Rochester and Chatham)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Swain: I apologise to the hon. Lady. There are so many people over there who sound like women. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think about the effect of introducing the guillotine. Give us another 30 days. If, as my right hon. Friend says, the Bill needs all these Amendments, then it needs ripping up. Nevertheless, we have it before the House and I claim the right as a back-bencher representing the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East, let alone the National Union of Mineworkers, to take part in any debate in this House, within certain limits and within the rules of order. I claim my franchise as backbencher to speak when I want, if I want and how I want, within the rules of order, on any Bill that is brought before the House.
  11.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: We have listened to two pompous lectures from the right hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) on parliamentary democracy. If my speech is held to be pompous I hope that it will not contain the synthetic indignation contained in those two speeches. The hon.
  180
  Member for Derbyshire, North-East—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are afraid to hear about it. The hon. Member tried to give the impression that he was passionately defending the rights of those who elected him. Then, in the middle of his speech, he made knockabout jokes, seeking giggles from those behind him. He talked of his wish to make speeches in defence of his constituents, within the rules of order. I may be doing him an injustice, and I will withdraw my remarks if I am wrong, but the Mace, on the Table now, is on one side because he moved it——
  Mr. Swain: On a point of order—[Interruption.] This is not an intervention in the hon. Member's speech. I would not lower my dignity to intervene in his speech. During the demonstration this evening the Mace inadvertently got knocked off its brackets. I replaced it. The hon. Member should withdraw his allegation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not sure to what point of order I am supposed to reply, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for his information. I see the Mace quite safely in position.
  Mr. Page Mr. Page rose——
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Mr. Page: I do not have to withdraw. The hon. Member moved the Mace, as I said. He might have been efficient enough to put it back properly.
  The right hon. Lady produced another great act of indignation. It would have been valuable for the country if people had been able to see her when she was speaking in her passionate way and then immediately returning to her seat and relaxing and laughing and joking with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who used to be her left-hand man, but who retired to the back benches and then came forward again. It would be interesting to know from her— in view of the part that he took in the undemocratic demonstration tonight against the rules of order—whether the hon. Member for Walton is still a member of her Front Bench team.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. I have sat here listening to the hon. Member continually talking about the Mace, my hon. Friend the Member for

  181
  Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my right hon. Friend. Is not the Motion concerned with the question whether we should have 30 days or ten days for debate? What can the Mace have to do with that question? What has the hon. Member said up to now that has anything to do with the Amendment? Not one word!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to allow a fairly wide debate on the Amendment. The hon. Member's reference to the Mace I took to be a passing reference. He did not labour the point. I do not think that anything that has been said so far is out of order.
  Mr. Page: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your remarks, because we are discussing a procedural Motion. I should think that the position of the Mace was really significant in a parliamentary procedural Motion.
  The right hon. Lady, in her previous speech, said that one of the most important aspects why more time was needed for the Bill was the new court procedure and the legal framework of the Bill. It is surprising, in view of that, that neither the right hon. Lady nor any of her hon. Friends who are members of the legal profession, I think I am right in saying, took part in the proceedings on the Courts Bill which was debated on 14th January. That was a Bill with 56——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, please show or point out to me how another Bill dealing with another subject can possibly have reference to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, in line 5, to leave out "ten" and insert "thirty"? The short point of the discusion is whether it shall or shall not remain ten or thirty. Another Bill cannot possibly have anything to do with that Amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must leave it to me to decide when anything is in or out of order. I have said that I was prepared to allow some tolerance, and I have. The last speaker could possibly have been called to order on the same lines by the other side, but no one did so. I think that so far the hon. Gentleman is reasonably in order.
  Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. You have, either consciously or unconsciously, explained exactly the point that I was making—namely, that, whatever Mr. Speaker did or did not allow, no point of order was raised with him and he allowed whatever he allowed. That is entirely up to Mr. Speaker, and I make no comment. But I am drawing your attention to the fact that we are on a limited Amendment which specifically lays down what we should be discussing. With respect, if you say that you are going to allow the hon. Gentleman to raise all the points which he has been raising in a wide-ranging debate, I hope that you will not show bias to me when I come to speak as you did on a previous occasion.
  Hon Members: Oh!
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that, on reflection, the hon. Member would wish to withdraw the last part of what he said. I ask him to withdraw that last remark.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Lewis: When I come to speak, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to be able to explain why I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—it should be thirty, not ten, I because I have evidence to prove that you showed bias on the occasion of the Committee——
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows the rules of the House in cases like this. If the hon. Member feels aggrieved by anything which the Chair has done, there is only one course open to him—to put down a Motion. Meanwhile, I call upon him to withdraw the offensive remark which he made to the Chair, or to resume his seat, at any rate.
  Mr. Lewis: I will ask the Leader of the House to look into this, because the evidence is in HANSARD—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—and if he looks into this then I will withdraw.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that that cannot be. The hon. Gentleman has, as I have said, one option open to him—namely, to put down a

  183
  Motion upon the Paper. The hon. Gentleman must never—nor must any right hon. or hon. Member in this House—make offensive remarks about the Chair. To do so is only to denigrate our House of Commons. Therefore, I ask the hon. Gentleman—I am sure I shall not ask in vain—to expunge that remark from what he said and, if he wishes, to put down a Motion for which, I am sure, the Leader of the House will find time, if necessary.
  Mr. Lewis: If I can catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I tried to do on several occasions before, I will deal with this matter on this Amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—In view of that, I withdraw.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not wish to put too fine a point on the exact wording. I accept what he said. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: Further to that point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, none of us is aggrieved at your totally impartial Rulings, but would you, for the guidance of the House, be good enough to explain why it is that a five-second reference to Singapore merits a reproof from the Chair, while a long digression from the subject under discussion is permitted?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is quite a different thing. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) made a speech during which it would have been possible, if the Chair had wished to put a fine point on the tightness of the Motion, to have called him to order, or for hon. Members on the Government side of the House to have pointed it out to the Chair, but they did not do so. I thought it better not to call the hon. Member to order. I know that the House is under some emotional strain this evening, and I know that on these occasions the Chair should give some tolerance to all hon. Members. That being so, I hope that the hon. Member will be prepared to let the matter rest there.
  Mr. Tinn: Further to that point of order. I do not wish to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it
  184
  appears to many of us on this side of the House that the tolerance allowed by the Chair, which we welcome in a debate such as this, is perhaps being unduly strained when an hon. Member is allowed to speak for more than ten minutes without mentioning the Amendment before the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, West, who has the Floor of the House, having heard all that has been said, will bear it in mind, and that we shall now be able to get on with the debate.
  Mr. Page: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not to the criticism of my speech by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  There are many reasons why I support the opposition to the Amendment. It is obviously one that needs to be turned down. I give as one reason for rejecting the Amendment the Opposition's management of their case. During the closing stages of our previous debate in Committee the Opposition showed that their ability to manage their case had broken down completely. I am referring to what happened on 19th January, when the Government's Amendment to give managements direct responsibility for the promotion of good industrial relations was replied to, rather surprisingly, by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).
  The hon. Gentleman began his reply by saying,
  "I have been asked to reply for the Oppostlion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1007.]
  The hon. Gentleman then said that he was going to recommend all his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman who is, I think, the Chairman of the Trade Union Group——
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: On a point of order. Hon. Members, particularly from this side of the House, have asked on several occasions that hon. Members who have the Floor should address themselves to the Amendment. In spite of the Chair having asked the hon. Gentleman to take note of the requests that have been made to that effect, he is persisting in addressing the House on a matter of which we are all aware. We are anxious to get on with

  185
  the Amendment. Would you give a Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on this point?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member who has the Floor should direct himself more particularly to the terms of the Amendment. I have given him quite a lot of tolerance, and I hope that he will now—I was on the point of asking him to do so—direct himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. Page: Everyone who has taken part in the debate has had to explain why more time is needed, or why more time is not needed. I was merely explaining what I consider to be utterly to the point of the argument, the management of the Opposition by the hon. Member who was asked officially to respond to a debate and who had to be bailed out later by the hon. Member for Walton because he was taking a view exactly opposite to the official view. That gives me the impression that the ability of the Opposition to oppose had broken down. I feel therefore that the time of the Committee on that Amendment was wasted.
  The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who I think is not here, although I gave him warning that I would mention him if I were lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and who was also, I understood, speaking officially for the Opposition, is reported in column 1013—
  Mr. Leadbitter: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly recall that you indicated to the House that you were about to ask the hon. Member to restrict himself to the Amendment. Since that statement, the hon. Member has had the best part of two minutes clarifying why he said what he said, but he is now on the point of continuing to quote from HANSARD on the incident first complained about.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. Member was just about to mention the Amendment again.
  Mr. Page: I thought I had been clear on the point of the Amendment—that more time was necessary—by explaining that more time is not necessary in view of the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, as reported in column 1013, which shows that if more
  186
  is given, more time will be wasted. I suspect that when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw speaks, he will waste whatever time is available. I wish to quote from column 1013 of 19th January, when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw said:
  "Yesterday we had a reference by the Minister to filibustering on Amendments, and I wondered whether this was the sort of Amendment 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." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 1013.]
  If hon. Members opposite share the view of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, that it is not the duty of the Opposition, when they speak on an Amendment, to try to improve the Bill, I consider that the granting of any extra time would be futile.
  11.24 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I begin by apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the few references I made earlier. Now that I have the opportunity to speak, which I failed to get in Committee, I, unlike the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), will speak on this narrow Amendment, without asking the Chair in any way to allow me to go wide of it. Sticking strictly to the rules, I think I can deal both with the Amendment and with the points which I had in mind when I intervened. The narrow point of the Amendment is whether there should be ten days or 30 for the Committee stage, and the question whether the Bill is good or bad is immaterial.
  I put down 350 Amendments to the Bill, and some were selected. When I tried to move my Amendments, I saw something that I have not seen before in 26 years in the House—that hon. Members who had not been in the Committee up to that time were called in preference to myself. Seven were called and I was not even called to move my own Amendments——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is getting perilously near being critical where criticism is not accepted.
  Mr. Lewis: I am not putting it in a critical sense of the Chair. I am stating a fact which is shown in HANSARD, to show that 10 days will not be sufficient. In those two days, the first two

  187
  Clauses were passed but there was not the usual debate on the Question that they should stand part of the Bill. The Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Minister in charge of the Bill admitted that there was no delay or filibustering. I was not called to move my Amendments, while seven other hon. Members were called and other hon. Members with Amendments were called immediately their turn came.
  If the Chair was not biased—I accept that the Chair cannot be biased—and if the Chair could not see me, even though, despite some loss of weight, I am very "see-able"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is wandering towards the Chair once more in his speech. Perhaps he would restrain himself from doing so.
  Mr. Lewis: I will wander back a little and explain why I think that if, on two days' debate, I was not called as the sponsor of the Amendments which were debated, 10 days may not be enough. If, after I have been sitting here hour after hour—having been told by the Chair that some of my 350 Amendments would be called—hon. Members on both sides can be called in preference to me, I would think that then 10 days being extended to 30 might give me the chance to move some of my Amendments. So I ask the Leader of the House, who is responsible here, to look into this. I have never known this to happen before; and if we are restricted to 10 days, it will probably happen again. Certainly there will not be time to debate any of my 350 Amendments, whether or not the Chair selects them.
  It is clear from the OFFICIAL REPORT that in disposing of the first two Clauses of the Bill my hon. Friends did not indulge in time-wasting. On one Amendment my hon. Friends spoke for 53 minutes and hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke for 62 minutes. If there were filibustering, which there was not, they filibustered more than we did.
  The Government Chief Whip had to urge his back benchers to shut up, because of the time they were taking. Eventually he succeeded. If he could not control his supporters on that occasion without difficulty, we are bound to wonder how much of the time that will be allocated
  188
  to the Bill under the guillotine will be occupied by them. We quickly followed the advice of the Opposition Chief Whip when he said at one stage that we should stop debating an Amendment and move on. In every case that request was complied with. But even with all that co-operation by all those concerned we were still able to deal with only two Clauses. And on some of our Amendments, in order to save time, we never even voted. That being so, it must be apparent that 10 days is not enough time in which to discuss 150 Clauses and 8 Schedules.
  Sometimes when his Amendment is not called or he is unable to take part in a discussion, an hon. Member may say, "I am not worried about that, but I will really get cracking on the Clause stand part debate. I will widen that debate". Not so much as a second was taken up in such debate, though with perhaps four speakers from each side making a quite genuine contribution, as much as 40 or 50 minutes would not be considered unreasonable.
  Mr. John Fraser: My hon. Friend will recall that we were even more generous than that. There was one occasion when on two Opposition Amendments we could, with the permission of the Chair, have had separate Divisions, but in order to save time they were dealt with together, so saving the time necessary for one complete debate.
  Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for being so helpful to the Government in pointing out how accommodating we then were. And I mean that, because the Opposition Chief Whip was accused of working more for the Government than for us in trying to get Clause 4. There was a joke going around to the effect that he ought to get the salary that the Government Chief Whip was getting. We all know that when hon. Members make a statement in this House it is accepted as the truth. I am saying—and hon. Members can check on this—that my right hon. Friend was going around saying to my hon. Friends "Please do not speak; do not take part in the debate. I am trying to get Clause 4 of the Bill".
  Mr. John Gorst: Get on with the Amendment.
  Mr. Lewis: I am getting on with it.
  Mr. H. J. Delargy: May I remind my hon. Friend that we were even more generous than that? He has said several times that we got two Clauses in two days. In fact, we got two Clauses in 1½ days. One the first day we began to debate the Industrial Relations Bill at 7.15 p.m. and we stopped at 11.40 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Whitelaw: To put the record straight, the hon. Gentleman has perfectly fairly referred to the second day when, following the debate on Dutschke, the debate started at 7.15 p.m., but he will remember that on that occasion we carried on till 6.30 a.m.
  Mr. Lewis: This shows how understanding the usual channels are. It is only a matter of one day instead of another; the principle is the same. I accept that it was on the Tuesday and not the Monday, but the point that my hon. Friend made was that we did not discuss the Bill the whole day, even though we sat till 6 a.m. People outside this House might think that we start the Orders of the Day at 3.30 p.m. and then discuss them right through the day and night. But in fact we did not. Therefore, we spent less time on those Amendments than might have been thought.
  I was going on to explain that the Opposition Chief Whip was more than accommodating. All hon. Members know that I am not one who can be accused of patting my own Front Bench on the back. That is not my custom. Very rarely can one say that I try to curry favour by saying things in favour of the establishment, or the disestablishment. But I think that my right hon. Friend deserves every bit of praise. Therefore, I am amazed that we have this situation, knowing how he co-operated and went out of his way to do so.
  Not that he has been kicked in the pants; if my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) were here, he would use blunter language. I appreciate that we are not discussing the guillotine Motion now; I could not get into that debate, anyway. We are now discussing whether ten or 30 days should be allowed for completing the Committee stage of this Bill. But my right hon. Friend is entitled to be upset
  190
  and annoyed. He is entitled to say to the Leader of the House, "You have not been fair or reasonable to me personally, let alone how you have treated the House, bearing in mind all my efforts, after trying to keep my troops in order". There could not have been a better brigadier-general, sergeant and corporal rolled into one than my right hon. Friend.
  One would have expected them at least to say to him, "Having made the faux pas"—I am putting this seriously— "having made the mistake, we now make this suggestion"— or, to be even fairer, the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip could have said, "You have accused us of being unfair and unreasonable. You have accused us of doing everything wrong. We deny that, but when you talk about the guillotine"——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has not been saying these things, so far as I recall. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would wish to rephrase that and put himself in order.
  Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but did you not hear me say that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip could have said, "You have", and so on? I was quoting what they might have said, and I think that that is a normal way of putting it. The Leader of the House or the Government Chief Whip could have said, "You have"—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but that is ordinary parliamentary practice, and, to my knowledge, it has been for the last 26 years.
  If one paraphrased what the Chief Whip would say, one would say that the Chief Whip would say—[Laughter.] I am trying to explain that he would have said, "We have had a bit of a disturbance about the guillotine, and we have had a bit of a row about whether we have been fair or reasonable"—though I should not expect the Government Whip or the Leader of the House to admit that he was wrong. Anyway, accepting for the moment that they think they could have said "Even though we still say we are right, even though you, the Opposition Chief Whip, feel that you have a right to be aggrieved and that we have snubbed you, let us nevertheless get together"—I am coming now to the ten

  191
  or 30 days—"This is what we have in mind: we suggest ten days. How do you feel about that?".
  My right hon. Friend is the most easy chap to get on with, he is most accommodating and courteous. [Laughter.] There is nothing laughable in that. It is a straight, honest statement of fact, and all hon. Members know it to be true. My right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is a very easy, reasonable, courteous, decent sort of chap to get on with. No one could say otherwise. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Who is patting on the back now?".] I am not patting him on the back. I am stating fact, fact which is known to all hon. Members. I am sure that the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House will agree.
  I am pointing out that the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary missed the opportunity at that stage. After all the kerfuffle, they could have said to my right hon. Friend, "We have this Timetable Motion in mind. Can we do a deal, even now? What do you have in mind? We say ten days". Obviously, my right hon. Friend would have asked for 30. I should have thought that that would have given the Government an opportunity to show how to get industrial relations going properly. They could have explained to the workers in industry and to the people in the country that, when they talked about getting normal communications going and happy industrial relations established, they knew what they were talking about. "Look here", they could say, "look how we have solved our relations. We were going to insist on ten days; the Opposition wanted 30. We have met and comprised, and"—who knows?— "we have settled for 25". [Laughter.] The Government Chief Whip probably thinks that as usual I have underestimated. It could have been 28. My right hon. Friends are more accommodating than I am. I probably would not have settled for less than 30, with perhaps 28 at the minimum. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip is probably very upset and wonders why he should come here when he is treated in such a shabby manner.
  It is said that the Post Office workers should go to arbitration, but what about the Government? Let them try a little
  192
  bit of arbitration. I do not expect them to come to me or any other Opposition back-benchers, although my union executive and general secretary do discuss matters with the rank and file. It is a pity that the Government will not discuss whether it should be ten or 30 days with me, but I do not complain. But they might go one better and say, "We will discuss this with the Official Opposition and show the country, the Post Office workers and trade unionists as a whole how we shall deal with matters that are in dispute. We shall show the good trade unionists how they should not cause trouble and unrest, because we would not do it." In fact, they have been guilty of the very thing of which they have falsely accused the trade unions.
  Even now we could easily get the matter settled by the Leader of the House saying, "Without commitment"—because obviously negotiations mean negotiations— "let us go away now and discuss whether we can get something in the region of what you have in mind. Then the House can go home. We will have a discussion and return and say, 'We have achieved what the Opposition want, or near enough what they want.'"
  Then the Government would have two advantages. They would be able to get progress on the Bill and to say to the people, "We have been reasonable and understanding." They would be able to say to the trade union movement, "This is not only what we preach but what we practise, and it is proof of how it is possible to discuss and negotiate." Who knows? We might wake up in the morning and find that the Post Office Board has done the same thing with Mr. Tom Jackson and invited him to sit down at the table and negotiate.
  That would do away with many problems. The Leader of the House might find that we do not need even the 30 days, because in discussing things with the Opposition in convivial, off-the-record, free and frank negotiations he might well find himself persuaded that the Bill is not worth proceeding with. Then he could find plenty of time to deal with the other matters that he has in mind, such as cutting prices at a stroke. If we can split the difference between ten and 30 we may be able to assist the Prime Minister to keep his pledge to the electorate to cut prices at a stroke. That is

  193
  more likely to be achieved through the safeguarding of industrial peace and industrial relations than through this Bill. It is much more important than the question of having either ten or 30 more days because, if prices were reduced at a stroke, it would be welcomed by the trade unions, the employers, the housewives and this House.
  I am offering the Government an opportunity to say that they slipped up—well, perhaps I could not expect them to agree to do that, but at any rate I am offering them an opportunity to say that they will take this timetable away and invite my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) to discuss it with them. I have been accused of patting on the back an hon. Friend who is not here now, so I will do it to my right hon. Friend, who is here. We on this side—and I am sure most hon. Members opposite agree—consider my right hon. Friend the most reasonable, most understanding, most accommodating man—[Laughter.]—I do not want any laughter because the last point is even more true—with more knowledge in his little finger about trade union affairs than anyone else in this House has in his whole body, certainly among hon. Members opposite and I think even among hon. Members on this side.
  My right hon. Friend has had a lifetime of experience, from the highest to the lowest, in all trade union activities. He is a former member of the T.U.C. General Council. He is a former Chairman of the T.U.C.—or could have been. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh but I am speaking from memory, going back over 30 years. My right hon. Friend took a job in the Government and I am not sure whether he was indeed Chairman of the T.U.C. He certainly could have been had he stayed on. My right hon. Friend is known as the most reasonable and accommodating of men. He is the obvious man to discuss with the Government the opportunity of getting a reasonable period of 30 days instead of ten.
  I am supporting the Amendment but I am not sure that even 30 days is enough. If it took two days to deal with two Clauses, then I would want another 70 days for the rest of the Committee stage. Indeed—perhaps my arithmetic is not so good—if the Government think it reasonable to deal, without filibustering, with
  194
  two Clauses in two days, then as the Bill has 150 Clauses, without counting the Schedules, a total of another 75 days in Committee would be the appropriate figure that I would negotiate. But I am not a trade union leader; nor am I the Leader of the Opposition.
  After all, if we could get the usual channels working again in this way, all those hon. Members who wish to do so could go back to Strasbourg. Incidentally, they have all vanished now. They were here earlier. They could then go back to Strasbourg and those who are interested in the Bill could proceed with the Committee stage.
  We could then go to our constituents and to the trade union movement and say that we had persuaded even this reactionary Government to get down and negotiate to give us our Amendment. They would then know that, instead of our being limited to an unreasonable ten-day period, we should be able to have a 30-day period for discussion. I could then say to my constituents who are Ford workers, "Don't come out on strike, do not take the law into your own hands"— as they may have been falsely accused of doing on some occasions—"because the Government have listened to reason and have agreed to this extended period to allow workers in industry to put their points of view, through their Members of Parliament."
  12.02 a.m.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: The House will be sorry that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has been overcome by exhaustion before finishing his speech. I am sure that there was a lot more he would have liked to say if only his frame could have sustained him.
  I will return to the Amendment, and particularly to the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Those Members who heard it may agree that its most remarkable feature was not the way in which she kept insisting that she would be heard when nobody was trying to howl her down, not the way in which she kept trying to erect the edifice of a charge of dictatorship against the Government when no such charge can be sustained, but that she made no reference to the disgraceful and

  195
  disorderly proceedings that took place between the time my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was forced to sit down and the time when she herself got up to address the House. Indeed, those of us who had the advantage of being able to watch the proceedings from this side of the House must have been extremely struck at the way in which the Opposition Front Bench showed its embarrassment at what took place, and the way in which they dissociated themselves from the milling mob of Renta-crowd that occupied the Floor of the Chamber.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick): On a point of order. I find things very difficult to understand at this time of night, Mr. Speaker. I should be greatly obliged to you, Sir, if you could explain to me in what way the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I think it is for me to say when I think an hon. Member is out of order. Nothing the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has said is out of order.
  Mr. Onslow: I do not wish to try the understanding of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). It may be for this reason that I am moving to my point more slowly than otherwise, so that he may remain with me.
  Mr. Kaufman: Further to that point of order. It is not that I am unable to understand the limited vocabulary in which the hon. Gentleman expresses himself. It is just that I am unable to understand in what way the hon. Gentleman's speech is relevant to this Amendment.
  Mr. Speaker: I have ruled that nothing the hon. Member has said has been out of order.
  Mr. Onslow: If the hon. Member will bear with me long enough for me to explain myself, I shall be seeking to demonstrate that were the Opposition successful in getting an extra 20 days, as their Amendment seeks, not only would they not be able to make good use of it, but it would be in their own worst interests.
  I return to the behaviour of the Opposition Front Bench and the embarrassed
  196
  silence which it maintained while the hon. Member for Ardwick was otherwise occupied. This parallels the way in which the country as a whole is looking at the behaviour of the Labour Party for the way in which it is approaching our proceedings on the Bill. Where the Opposition Front Bench demonstrates its disapproval of this disorderly and pointless demonstration, so we can see in the country as a whole a growing belief that the Opposition are making fools of themselves, and we in the House who see them and hear them know that this must be the case.
  We know that there was no spontaneity in the demonstration. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) was good enough to tell us that everybody knew that there was to be a demonstration at a quarter to ten, and everybody knew that the cue word was "hypocrisy" which was mumbled by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), when those who remembered their lines and had the courage to do so descended to the Floor of the House and displayed their intellectual nudity. This was a disgraceful and pointless proceeding.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I should prefer the hon. Member to look to the future rather than to the past.
  Mr. Onslow: So should I prefer, because it was not an occasion of which Parliament has any cause to be proud.
  The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said that there was respect in in the country for the House of Commons and I retort to her that there will be no respect in the country for the proceedings in the House if the Opposition are so foolish as to go on behaving in the way in which they have behaved, and particularly if they have an extra 20 days in which to behave in this foolish way.
  The right hon. Lady seemed to want us to be here until 14th May on the Bill; she must be jesting. She cannot have taken time out to consider the effect that another 20 days on this kind of thing means for the standing of the party which one day may have the chance to aspire again to form the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Never"] I am trying not to be controversial.

  197
  Twenty more days watching the hon. Member for West Ham, North tugging at his moorings trying to get in and move some more Amendments will do no good. Twenty more days watching the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Salford, East getting into a terrible knot as to whether the Opposition are supposed to vote for or against the Amendment which one or other of them is officially moving will do no good. Twenty more days of this pointless behaviour of little demonstrations with muttered imprecations. [Interruption.] I am grateful; does an hon. Member wish to intervene? Twenty more days of interventions from sedentary positions like that: will that do the reputation of the Opposition any good? Will it do Parliament any good?
  Hon. Members may reflect that among the advantages of the postal strike, which include the fortunate absence of bills and that kind of thing, is the fact that it gives time to reflect, time, of which hon. Members may not have enough when the House is sitting, to consider the effect of their actions on the reputation of Parliament and the reputation of their party in the country at large. If Labour Members take a little time to think for themselves, how much good it may do them! If they were to have 20 more days in which to expose the shallowness, the hypocrisy, the manoeuvring the overacting, that has characterised their behaviour on the Bill so far, it would do them no good at all.
  12.10 a.m.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick): The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), in a speech which was to a certain extent relevant to the debate, referred to the Amendment which is reported at column 1012 of HANSARD on 19th January. He was reasonable in so referring because he was at that stage being relevant to the Amendment moved tonight by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). What the hon. Member for Harrow, West omitted to point out was that that Amendment was moved not by a member of the Opposition but by one of his hon. Friends, and that of the three speeches made in the debate on that Amendment, two were made by Government speakers and only one by an Opposition speaker.
  198
  Just as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was anxious not to extend the debate in the interests of the Opposition, I am axious to extend it and anxious that the Government should accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment in the interests of Government back benchers. I have been studying the proceedings of the House so far on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I have been deeply struck by the interest shown by hon. Members opposite.
  What has been a remarkable feature of the debate and what makes it so astonishing that the Lord President should have seen fit to bring in a guillotine Motion, with its implication that the Opposition has been wasting time, is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) said, incidentally to his other very relevant remarks, it is Government back benchers who have been using quite rightly—nobody complans about it—their opportunities to debate what they regard as a very important Bill. They have shown its importance not only by participating in the debate at length, as I shall show, I trust, relevant to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend; but they have also been justifiably exercising their right to move Amendments and to speak upon them at length.
  In the Committee stage of the Bill we have had so far proceedings which amount in total to 331 columns of HANSARD. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President has moved a guillotine Motion would lead one to suppose that hon. Members on this side of the House have taken up an over-whelming part of those 331 columns. That is far from being so. Of those 331 columns of HANSARD that the Committee stage has so far taken up, Labour Members have taken only 177 columns, little more than half the proceedings. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side, rightfully exercising their rights as back benchers, and speakers from the Front Bench availing themselves, as they should, of the opportunities to explain why they accept or reject Amendments from the Opposition, have taken 103 columns. Recording of the Divisions has taken up 38 columns. Hon. Gentlemen of the Liberal Party have used up 13 columns. Thus we have a situation in

  199
  which only just over half the time of the debate has been taken up by the Opposition.
  It is always the case on a Committee stage that Opposition takes up a higher proportion of time than Government, because Opposition opposes and the Government generally urge their supporters to remain silent.
  It is also interesting that so far on the Committee stage, omitting the Liberal Party, 39 hon. Members on this side of the House have participated and 25 hon. Members opposite have participated. Taking the 177 columns of HANSARD taken up by the Opposition and the 103 columns which hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken up, this works out at an average of just over four columns per Member, both on the Opposition side and on the Government side. [An HON. MEMBER: "So what?"] The hon. Gentleman asks "So what?" I am about to explain why this is extremely relevant to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, so eloquently supported by my hon. Friends, and which I am seeking to support by providing this statistical evidence.
  Was that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) who intervened from a sedentary position? I have always thought it out of order for the hon. Member to intervene in anything in this House which did not concern handing over the telephones to private enterprise or adding radio to commercial interests. I thought that he entered the House solely for those purposes and that no other topic of any kind was of interest to him. I thought that he sat there ready to receive those who raised these matters and to intervene.
  The average speech on this Bill, for Government and Opposition Members, works out at just over four columns, which means that Government Members have, quite rightly, been exercising their right to speak for exactly the same time as have my hon. Friends. They have a point of view; they won the election on a manifesto which included this as well as their promise to bring down prices at a stroke and to abolish S.E.T. in their first Budget.
  They gave a good many pledges in that election. One was to bring in an Industrial Relations Bill, but the Bill
  200
  they have brought in is not the Bill which they promised the country. They did not tell the country that they would introduce a Bill which would place trade unions on licence, like a Facist corporate State. Nevertheless, they promised that they would bring in a Bill on trade unions, and now they wish to address themselves to the Bill promised to their constituents. Looking at the debates that have taken place over these 331 columns and the speeches made by hon. Members, it seems that those 25 hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken have shown that they have relevant things to say.
  It is my opinion that the Government, in accepting this Amendment, would be proving that their supporters could show to the country, by their speeches, the importance and relevance of this Bill, which the Secretary of State is always telling us will work slowly but fruitfully. We have had speeches from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I want to hear more. We have had speeches from the "trade union group" opposite—the hon. Member for Bath (Sir E. Brown) and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby). We want to hear more from them, because they have direct and relevant experience. We want to hear from the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), who has already spoken on this Bill and who represents the proletarians of South Kensington. We want to hear more of what he has to say on behalf of the workers in South Kensington.
  There is the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He has intervened in this debate, and it is right that he should do so and that he should have more time to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is more popular in the country than any of his other 328 colleagues, including the Prime Minister and everyone else on the Front Bench. Therefore he speaks more for the people than does anyone else on his side of the House. In addition, he has opinions about trade unions and their attitudes which strike a chord among trade unions. He has offered to give evidence to the loaded and biassed Wilberforce Court of Inquiry proving that the trade unions do not cause inflation and that it is the monetary supply situation which does. The Chancellor has told the business men of Birmingham that he does not intend doing anything about the monetary supply

  201
  situation. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has things—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who is a slavish follower of the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Patrick Cormack Mr. Patrick Cormack (Cannock) rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Ardwyck (Mr. Kaufman) does not give way, the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) must resume his seat.
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly give way later to the hon. Member for Cannock because, since I have referred to him, it is right that he should be able to intervene and put me right if I have made an error. I promise that I shall give way to him when I have finished this point.
  The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West has things to say about trade unionism with not all of which I agree, but which he has a right to say. He has been sent here by half the people of Wolverhampton. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), who is a trade union-sponsored Member, also has things to say; in fact, it could be said that the two hon. Members for Wolverhampton have, between them, more things to say than any other two Members representing different parts of the same town—always excepting Salford.
  Mr. Cormack: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his late decision to give way. He accused me of being a slavish follower of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I want to put him right. I am a member of the Conservative Party, as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. We agree on some things and differ on others. I am not a slavish follower of his. I support the Bill entirely. I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who has so eloquently pioneered the Bill and introduced it. I shall vote on the right side all the time.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry that the hon. Member was so ungracious in the way that he referred to my giving way to him. As you have occasion to say
  202
  many times, Mr. Speaker, when one hon. Member rises to intervene, the hon. Member who has the Floor is not obliged to give way. I gave way as a courtesy to the hon. Member, because I had referred to him. I am glad to hear that he repudiates the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because there is no doubt that the election campaign which the hon. Member fought in Cannock was a Powellite campaign. If, in the hon. Member's next election campaign, he repudiates his right hon. Friend, he will be defeated. I think that he will be defeated anyhow, because of the boundary changes which his right hon. Friend forced through and for which the hon. Member was compelled to vote.
  Mr. Cormack: On a point of order. Is the hon. Member able to make broad comments about an election campaign of which he had no knowledge and to make inaccurate comments about it? Is it in order in this debate?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has said nothing out of order yet.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. In the intervals in my own election campaign I paid particular attention to the hon. Member's election campaign, because I had heard so much about him—and read so much about him in the columns of The Times—which indicated that he was a slavish supporter of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He has now repudiated his right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Cormack: I apologise for taking up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. Member is inventing quotations. If he can produce them I shall be grateful.
  Captain W. Elliot: Further to that point of order. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, will it be in order for me to discuss the adoption of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) as a candidate at the last election, and his election campaign?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman catches my eye and makes a speech, I will rule upon it then. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's point of order was a point of argument, not of order.
  Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) for warning me that this may come along. If I happen to go outside the Chamber for a cup of tea, or something like that, if I get thirsty, and I see his name on the annunciator I shall come back.
  So we have the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who has already intervened in the debate, and wishes to do so again, and the House, I am sure, would wish to hear him.
  Then we have the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott), for whom I have great respect, who has spoken in the debate and wishes to speak on the Bill in Committee. I submit that the hon. Gentleman should have more occasion to speak. We listened to the hon. Gentleman with far greater respect than we do to most hon. Gentlemen opposite, since he has a proud and unsullied record on racialism and would never have to be asked to repudiate his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, because all his actions repudiate the right hon. Gentleman implicitly. Whenever the hon. Member for Paddington, South intervenes in the debate, he does so, by some curious chance, by referring to racial Measures—the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, the Race Relations Act, and other legislation of that type. I should be glad to hear more of the hon. Gentleman relating those issues, which he has raised very well and in order, to the issues which we have to debate.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: If I understand my hon. Friend, he is saying that he would like to hear various right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill. Is my hon. Friend therefore suggesting that he supports 30 days as against ten to allow them to speak? If so, my hon. Friend has not understood the point which I made—namely, that 30 days is not sufficient for all the points which we on this side want to put forward. If, with his usual generosity, my hon. Friend is seeking to extend the time so that hon. Gentlemen opposite can also take part, surely 30 days are not sufficient; we shall need 50 days.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has been in this House for a very long time and his experience of what is and what is not in order is far greater than mine. I
  204
  have been speaking in support of "thirty" because I was under the impression that that was all I could speak on. Therefore, I have been doing that. Obviously, the longer we have for the Committee stage the better. We should then have a greater opportunity of hearing many hon. Gentlemen, and hon. Ladies, whom we would wish to hear.
  I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) is not here, because it is always a pleasure to look across at her. The hon. Lady has spoken on the Bill, and it is important that she and other hon. Ladies opposite should have further opportunities to speak on the Bill in Committee. The hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham has expressed the women's point of view, and we are always told that not only strikers' views but strikers' wives' views are important in industrial disputes. The hon. Lady has shown, by her presence here and by her interventions in the Committee stage last week, that she has something relevant, important and interesting to contribute. It would be sad if she were to be squeezed out because hon. Gentlemen on both sides took up the time.
  The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has shown that he has a deep interest in industrial relations. In this House, in the country, and in the correspondence columns of The Times, the hon. Gentleman has said that he wants an incomes policy, and he is always calling upon the Government for an incomes policy. One of the submissions which has been made from this side is that if the Government had created conditions in which the trade unions were ready to enter into a voluntary incomes policy there would have been no need, on the Government's criteria, for the Bill to be brought forward. The contribution of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would be extremely relevant to our debates.
  There is yet another hon. Member who has participated a great deal in the debates on this Bill and who, we feel sure, has more to say. I am thinking of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). He was given the duty, which with his great distinction as a lawyer, he has been fulfilling more than adequately, of inquiring into scientology. The hon. and learned Gentleman has

  205
  shown, therefore, that he has the ability, knowledge and perception to inquire into practices that are restrictive, and are the kind of practices which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say they wish to abolish by the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman, from his experience of conducting this inquiry, has a great deal to say, and that is why it is important that both sides of the House should have more time in which to contribute to these debates.
  I do not wish to weary the House. The last thing that I wish to do—and I am sure that, you, Mr. Speaker, would warn me if I were in the slightest danger of so doing—is to indulge in tedious or otiose repetition, but there are many other hon. Gentlemen opposite who have shown by their readiness to intervene in these debates that they have something of importance and of relevance to contribute. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not only the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, are eloquent as well as knowledgeable. There are others on the benches opposite who have come along and taken part in these debates, and it seems to me that they should have greater opportunties to take part in our debates again.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, who has just intervened, has taken part in these debates. I wish to listen to him talking about many things. I wish to hear his experience of matters involved in the Bill. It is only right that the Government should provide more time to enable that to happen.
  I think, next, of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who proposed the Amendment to which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) referred. He introduced a relevant and interesting Amendment, and I cannot——
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I want to be helpful to my hon. Friend, just as he wants to be helpful to the House, but I am surprised that he is going out of his way to be helpful and accommodating to the Tories. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would have mentioned the Liberals, who are supposed to be the great champions of freedom and democracy but who, as always, are conspicuous by their absence. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would want to say something on their behalf, rather than on behalf of
  206
  the Tories. Perhaps my hon. Friend would give us his views on that.
  Mr. Kaufman: I do not wish to be provoked by my hon. Friend. I have a great respect for the Liberal Party. Indeed, ever since my first day in the House I have sat near the Liberal Members in order to be inspired by them. It may be that before long it will be necessary for me to refer to the kind of thing that they would wish to say if they were given the extra time. So far they have been extremely self-controlled and have taken up only 13 columns of the 331 columns devoted to our Committee proceedings. They have far more to say, and it seems to me that they should have the right to say it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North will regard this as weakness on my part, but I am far more interested in what the Members of the Conservative Party have to say, because they are responsible for the Bill, and they have their own views to put forward.
  The hon. Member for Carlton moved the Amendment referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow, West. Having moved one Amendment, why should he not have the opportunity to move further Amendments? Why should he not have the opportunity to speak to other Amendments proposed by either side of the House? It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman should have the right to do that, and I am ready to champion him. I do not always detest what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am ready to champion what he says whether I detest it or not.
  There is the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). I am sorry that he is not in the House, but perhaps he, unlike the hon. Member for Cannock, would not repudiate the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were he to be asked to do so. The hon. Member for Yarmouth can speak, like the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food—although it would not be appropriate for him to take part, as the Minister of another Department—as an East Anglian coast Member, on behalf of fishery Members. It is not only my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) who does that, although he is sponsored by the National Union of Seamen. The right

  207
  hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), whose constituency I had the pleasure of visiting some time ago, is an expert on these matters and would be glad if the hon. Member for Yarmouth would speak on his behalf. I am glad to see him present. I have had great pleasure in listening to him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hendon, North is intervening again, but I am not saying anything about commercial radio. I have not even spoken about handing over the telephones to private enterprise, but he will keep on intervening. He should remember that these things are nothing to do with him. He was not sent here to deal with this, but with handing over the telephones to private enterprise.
  The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) has spoken with knowledge on these matters, and he is a person, if I may say so, to whom the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) should show even greater respect, for the hon. Member for Peterborough has shown his powers of persuasion by, in four years, increasing his majority from three to several thousands. An hon. Gentleman who has such powers of persuasion should be able to use them on us to see whether he can get us to stop opposing the Bill. The hon. Member for Ipswich, whose majority is only 13, has a great deal to learn from his hon. Friend. Just as we look forward to listening to the hon. Member for Peterborough—and I wish him to have much more time—so the hon. Member for Ipswich could benefit by learning how to increase his majority from 13 to a larger figure, by using such powers of persuasion. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) has a majority only a little larger, and he, too, could learn how to speak on these matters.
  I have had great pleasure in listening, on his occasional visits, to the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) and I am fascinated whenever I hear him, because he is an agreeable and persuasive hon. and learned Member. I wish to hear more from him. I am always ready to be persuaded, and I am not biased. I do not always do what my Whips tell me. If the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood were to have greater opportunities, it might be that he would be
  208
  able to persuade me to abandon my opposition to some of the more contentious parts of the Bill.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood might, if the ten days were extended, perhaps try to extend the Bill to include the legal profession among those covered by it? Surely that would not be in the interests of the country—or would it?
  Mr. Kaufman: I do not understand legal matters in any way and that is one reason why I wish to listen to the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood, because he made an interesting speech in the debate on judges' salaries a little while ago. He did not quite persuade me on that occasion and, in the end, I had to go into the Lobby and vote against his view, but I wish to listen to him and I might be persuaded.
  There is the hon. Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell), with whom I have had long acquaintance and whose views I respect on a large number of matters. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South, he has admirable views on the racial question, for example. With all his experience in Africa and in banking, he has much to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Tapsell: Since the hon. Member has referred to me, perhaps I might take advantage of his suggestion that I should intervene. Does he accept that his speech in itself provides incontrovertible reasons for the introduction of the Timetable Motion?
  Mr. Kaufman: I have known—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—I would not dream of not answering the hon. Member, for whom I have great respect. I have known him for some time, and I am surprised that he should make so inapposite and irrelevant a remark. But there is no guillotine on the guillotine Motion, and such a procedure would not cut short individual speeches—only the whole debate.
  I have referred to my hon. Friends the two Members for Salford, but that is not the only city whose Members are interested in the Bill. The two hon. Members for Ilford have both spoken in this debate——
  Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South): I have not so far spoken in the debate.
  Mr. Kaufman: I would not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member, but perhaps he misunderstood me. I did not mean that he had spoken in this debate—only that he had spoken in Committee on the Bill. Going through HANSARD to prepare myself adequately for the debate, I found that both he and his hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) had interesting things to say. I have listened to the hon. Member for Ilford, North with a great deal of profit. I have heard what he said about the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, and have listened to him with a great deal of approval.
  I do not wish to run the gamut of all hon. Members opposite who have spoken, but if there is not to be time for Government back benchers to speak in this debate, it is all the more important to allow time for the Front Bench. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary have spoken, but we have not yet heard from the Minister of State on the Committee stage. The House may wish to hear him. The Solicitor-General too, like the Secretary of State, has rightly exercised his right to speak at length. While hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to restrain themselves because of the guillotine, it would be wrong if the Front Bench spokesmen opposite did not speak at reasonable length.
  I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted, because that would ensure that Ministers at least had time to give us their reasons for the Bill.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) put an important case forward for the Amendment, which she moved in difficult circumstances. I will deal with the Amendment shortly. First, however, I will refer to some of the other speeches that have been made.
  Mr. Thin: On a point of order. Does the intervention of the Leader of the House at this stage mean that the debate on the Amendment is being wound up? I ask that because several of us have important points still to make.
  Mr. Speaker: I called the right hon. Gentleman to make a speech.
  Mr. Whitelaw: To deal with the last speech first, the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) had a great deal to do with research in his past career, and no doubt it was research for others. On this occasion he applied his experience of research with equal skill to his own speech, and while I cannot pretend that I entirely enjoyed all of it, because obviously we want to get on, nevertheless I admired the skill with which he put it together.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) pointed out that ten days was sufficient to save the Opposition from themselves. Much the same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page). The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain), who I recognise is absolutely sincere in his work on behalf of his constituents and the N.U.M., was very rude about me. I do not resent that. Everyone is entitled to be rude about me, and I accept it. As I have also been accused recently of being arrogant, I assure hon. Members that I take a great deal to heart of what is said about me, often because people may not realise that I am quite a sensitive human being. However, I understood the hon. Gentleman to put it in his usual friendly way, so I took no offence from it.
  The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), having complained about not getting into the debates earlier, this time, when he had his opportunity, took advantage of his right and was loud in his praise of the Opposition Chief Whip. Having some affinity with that job, I am always delighted when any hon. Member praises the work of his Chief Whip. I could agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, though I have regretted that there should have been any misunderstanding between the Opposition Chief Whip and myself over the events of the last few days because in the past, for a considerable period, we have worked well together. I regret that on this occasion there has been a misunderstanding.
  I turn now to the right hon. Lady's Amendment and to the case she put forward. It has to be accepted that there is no meeting of minds on the subject

  211
  of the ten days or 30 days. The ten days, as I have said, I regard as a longer period—Finance Bills apart—than has been given to any Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war. I believe that it is a very reasonable amount of time for the Committee stage. But there is little meeting of minds between that ten days and the 30 days proposed by the right hon. Lady.
  If the 30 days were to be granted, it would be two-thirds of the total legislative time now available to the Government in the Session. Already, under the proposed timetable Motion, the Government are giving one-third of their whole legislative time in this Session——
  Mr. Clinton Davis: The right hon. Gentleman complains constantly about lack of Government time, but why did we have such an extended Summer Recess? We had as much as 13½ weeks.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The Summer Recess was very little longer than the normal Summer Recess, and the Christmas Recess was deliberately shortened to be one of the shortest in modern times, because I had in mind the importance of the Bill and the time necessary for it and other Measures.
  Perhaps I should explain now what the grant of 30 days would mean in regard to other business. We have in the period ahead, inevitably, the private Members' time already allocated. We have two days on the defence White Paper, and four days on defence Supply. We then have the normal Supply days available to the Opposition, which they naturally like to have at the rate of approximately one per week. We have the spring Civil Supply—two days.
  So if the 30 days were granted in addition to all the other inevitable business—including the Budget, and the debate on the Budget which must come within that period—there would be no time at all for other legislation of any sort. There would be no time at all for debate on the expenditure White Paper; no time at all for debate on foreign affairs; no time at all for debating the Roskill Commission Report; indeed, no time at all for many of the other Measures for which on Thursdays on Business I am constantly asked to give time.
  Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): But would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that he is making out a very good case of rank bad management by the Leader of the House? Surely the whole point of bringing for-ward a Bill of this size is to plan to fit it into parliamentary time. It is no excuse for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "We have brought forward the Bill. Goodness, we have no time for it, so we must have a guillotine." This is an admission of sheer bad management by the Government.
  Mr. Whitelaw: That is not the case I am making. I am pointing out the implications of the right hon. Lady's proposal of 30 days for the Committee stage. I am making it perfectly clear that, for the reasons I have outlined, I could not possibly accept as much as 30 days, because to do so would rule out all the other debates and legislation which many hon. Members in all parts of the House consider very important.
  Therefore, I believe that it is right and reasonable to have offered, as the Government have, ten days more, following 20 hours already of debate in Committee. Within that time my right hon. Friend will be most anxious, through the Business Committee which will be set up if the Motions are passed, to see that those Clauses to which the Opposition attach importance are given as much priority as possible, and every chance of debate. We shall be ready to meet the Opposition on all these matters to the very best of our ability. But I must say, for the reasons that I have given, that I am afraid that a period of 30 days is quite impossible.
  In response to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that as I have already said, Finance Bills apart, ten days being easily the longest Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war, it fits in with the rest of the Government's legislative programme, and that is why I have proposed this Motion. That is why I believe that it is reasonable, and it is why I must ask the House to reject the right hon. Lady's Amendment and to support the proposition that we should have ten days in the Committee stage.
  Mrs. Castle: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer two

  213
  questions? He keeps saying that it is the longest time of any Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war. Will he not admit that he is not talking about length of time pro rata to the length of the Bill, and that therefore his argument is totally misleading? Secondly, when he says that it would be impossible to give 30 days because of all the other things that have to be discussed, is it not a fact that at two days a week, 30 days would only take us to 14th May? When I was putting my Transport Bill before the House we were willing to carry on the Committee stage debates to the end of May and we found that perfectly compatible with all the other matters which had to be dealt with in the House.
  Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. Lady's Transport Bill was in Standing Committee, which is a very different matter from a Committee on the Floor of the House. As for my point about the longest Committee stage, Finance Bills apart, on the Floor of the House since the war, it is simply a fact. I am prepared to accept the right hon. Lady's point about pro rata for Clauses. I am merely stating the actual fact that I believe that, Finance Bills apart, ten days being by far the longest Committee stage on the Floor of the House since the war, that is a reasonable time in which this Bill can be debated, and, as I have said, we shall be careful to work with the Opposition to
  ensure that the important Clauses are given priority.
  Mr. James Sillars: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, when the Labour Party approached him through the usual channels and asked for this Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House, he informed our Whips that it would be taken on the Floor of the House but that this meant an early guillotine? Will he say whether or not at that time he told the Labour Party of the possibility of an early guillotine?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to add to the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip last week. Both the Government and Opposition Chief Whips have made statements. It is much better for me to leave it there and to say no more. I was most cautious in the words that I used in the House last Thursday, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the usual channels. Since then statements have been made. I quite accept them. I do not think that it would be right for me to add to them.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 262.

  Division No. 68.]

  AYES

  [12.58 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Brewis, John

  Crouch, David

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Curran, Charles

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Davies, John (Knutsford)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Astor, John

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

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

  Dean, Paul

  Awdry, Daniel

  Buck, Antony

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Burden, F. A.

  Dixon, Piers

  Balniel, Lord

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Batsford, Brian

  Carlisle, Mark

  Drayson, G. B.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bell, Ronald

  Channon, Paul

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Eden, Sir John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Benyon, W.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

  Biffen, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Emery, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Farr, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fell, Anthony

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Body, Richard

  Coombs, Derek

  Fidler, Michael

  Boscawen, Robert

  Cooper, A. E.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cordle, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Costain, A. P.

  Fortescue, Tim

  Braine, Bernard

  Critchley, Julian

  Foster, Sir John

  Fowler, Norman

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Ridsdale, Julian

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

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Fry, Peter

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

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Loveridge, John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rost, Peter

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Royle, Anthony

  Goodhart, Philip

  McLaren, Martin

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gorst, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gower, Raymond

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Sharples, Richard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Gray, Hamish

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Green, Alan

  Maddan, Martin

  Simeons, Charles

  Grieve, Percy

  Madel, David

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Grylls, Michael

  Marten, Neil

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

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mather, Carol

  Soref, Harold

  Gurden, Harold

  Maude, Angus

  Speed, Keith

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Spence, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mawby, Ray

  Sproat, Iain

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Stainton, Keith

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)

  Harrison, Brian (Malden)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stokes, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Moate, Roger

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Havers, Michael

  Molyneaux, James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Money, Ernle

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monro, Hector

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

  Hicks Robert

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Tebbit, Norman

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

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Temple, John M.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Holland, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Neave, Airey

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hornby, Richard

  Normanton, Tom

  Tilney, John

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Nott, John

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Trew, Peter

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hunt, John

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  James, David

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Waddington, David

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Peel, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Jessel, Toby

  Percival, Ian

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Wall, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Walters, Dennis

  Jopling, Michael

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Pounder, Rafton

  Warren, Kenneth

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kershaw, Anthony

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

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Kilfedder, James

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kimball, Marcus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wiggin, Jerry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Quennell, Miss J.M.

  Wilkinson, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Timothy

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kirk, Peter

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Kitson, Timothy

  Redmond, Robert

  Worsley, Marcus

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Knox, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Lambton, Antony

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Lane, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Albu, Austen

  Barnes, Michael

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Alldritt, Walter

  Baxter, William

  Booth, Albert

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Beaney, Alan

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Armstrong Ernest

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Ashton, Joe

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Bradley, Tom

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  216

  217

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Oram, Bert

  Brown,Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Buchan, Norman

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Padley, Walter

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire,W.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Palmer, Arthur

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hunter, Adam

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Coleman, Donald

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prescott, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  John, Brynmor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

  Rankin, John

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Richard, Ivor

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

  Jones,Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Kelley, Richard

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

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kerr, Russell

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roper, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lambie, David

  Rose, Paul B.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Deakins, Eric

  Lawson, George

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Delargy, H. J.

  Leonard, Dick

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dempsey, James

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Sillars, James

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silverman, Julius

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunn, James A.

  McBride Neil

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dunnett, Jack

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Eadie, Alex

  McElhone, Frank

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Edelman, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Strang, Gavin

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackie, John

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Summerskiil, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Evans, Fred

  Maclennan, Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Fernyhough, E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Taverne, Dick

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

  McNamara, J. Kevin

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Tomney, Frank

  Foley, Maurice

  Marks, Kenneth

  Torney, Thomas

  Foot, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ford, Ben

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Varley, Eric G.

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mayhew, Christopher

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

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wallace, George

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mendelson, John

  Watkins, David

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Weitzman, David

  Ginsburg, David

  Millan, Bruce

  Wellbeloved, James

  Golding, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt Hn. P. C.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Molloy, William

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Whitlock, William

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Hardy, Peter

  Ogden, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Malley, Brian

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—

  Division No. 69.]

  AYES

  [1.12 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Albu, Austen

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Alldritt, Walter

  Foley, Maurice

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Foot, Michael

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

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ashton, Joe

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Barnes, Michael

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Barnett, Joel

  Garrett, W. E.

  Meacher, Michael

  Baxter, William

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Beaney, Alan

  Ginsburg, David

  Mendelson, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Golding, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Gourlay, Harry

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Molloy, William

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Booth, Albert

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Ronald King

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Buchan, Norman

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Malley, Brian

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hilton, W. S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Horam, John

  Orme, Stanley

  Cant, R. B.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Padley, Walter

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Clark, David (Coins Valley)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Coleman, Donald

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pendry, Tom

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  John, Brynmor

  Prescott, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Cronin, John

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Barry (Flint. E.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Richard, Ivor

  Darling, Rt Hn. George

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lambie, David

  Roper, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Latham, Arthur

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lawson, George

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dempsey, James

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Devlin, Miss Bernadette

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sillars, James

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silverman, Julius

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Small, William

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spearing, Nigel

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McElthone, Frank

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McGuire, Michael

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Evans, Fred

  Mackie, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

  Maclennan, Robert

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  220

  221

  Swain, Thomas

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

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Taverne, Dick

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Wallace, George

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Watkins, David

  Wison, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

  Weitzman, David

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Tomney, Frank

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Torney, Tom

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Varley, Eric G.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Whitlock, William

  Mr. William Hamling.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Eden, Sir John

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kilfedder, James

  Astor, John

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

  Kimball, Marcus

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Emery, Peter

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Farr, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fell, Anthony

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kirk, Peter

  Balniel, Lord

  Fidler, Michael

  Kitson, Timothy

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Batsford, Brian

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Knox, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lambton, Antony

  Bell, Ronald

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lane, David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Foster, Sir John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fowler, Norman

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Henry

  Benyon, W.

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

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fry, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bitten, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Blaker, Peter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Loveridge, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Body, Richard

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  MacArthur, Ian

  Boscawen, Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Goodhew, Victor

  McLaren, Martin

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gorst, John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gower, Raymond

  McMaster, Stanley

  Braine, Bernard

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Brewis, John

  Gray, Hamish

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Green, Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Grieve, Percy

  Maddan, Martin

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Madel, David

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Grylls, Michael

  Maginnis, John E.

  Bryan, Paul

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Marten, Neil

  Buck, Antony

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mather, Carol

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maude, Angus

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Channon, Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hastings, Stephen

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

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Havers, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Molyneaux, James

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Money, Ernle

  Clegg, Walter

  Hicks, Robert

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Cockeram, Eric

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Monro, Hector

  Cooke, Robert

  Hiley, Joseph

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Coombs, Derek

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

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Cordle, John

  Holland, Phillip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Mudd, David

  Costain, A. P.

  Hordern, Peter

  Murton, Oscar

  Critchley, Julian

  Hornby, Richard

  Neave, Airey

  Crouch, David

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Curran, Charles

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Normanton, Tom

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Nott, John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Onslow, Cranley

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hunt, John

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Dean, Paul

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn, W. F.

  James, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Dixon, Piers

  Jessel, Toby

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Peel, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn, Sir Alec

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Percival, Ian

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jopling, Michael

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  222

  223

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Trew, Peter

  Pounder, Rafton

  Simeons, Charles

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

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

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Soref, Harold

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Speed, Keith

  Waddington, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Spence, John

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Raison, Timothy

  Sproat, Iain

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Stainton, Keith

  Wall, Patrick

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Walters, Dennis

  Redmond, Robert

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rees-Davis, W. R.

  Stokes, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Sutcliffe, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Ridsdale, Jullan

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Rost, Peter

  Temple, John M.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Boyle, Anthony

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monomouth)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Scott, Nicholas

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mr. Jasper More.

  Sharples, Richard

  Tilney, John

  1.23 a.m.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: I beg to move,
  That the debate be now adjourned.
  We are now in the still watches of the night, and this is a suitable moment to reflect where we are. We are in a state of deadlock, because the Leader of the House gave a disappointing reply to our Amendment, and this is the worst possible beginning to the further stages of work in Committee. How can we go on day after day in this state of acute controversy?
  What we are asking for is time, more time. Whatever the allocation of time, it is bound to be arbitrary, whether ten or twenty, or any number of days. But this is a matter on which some attempt should be made to reach agreement, or at least some arrangement less objectionable than that which the Government propose. Much of this acrimony could have been saved had there been proper consultation, and I heard with regret the use by the Leader of the House a few moments ago of the word "misunderstanding." There was no misunderstanding. There was a failure to consult, and that is the only way to put it. We were not consulted about a timetable Motion, nor informed that such a Motion was contemplated. This has caused deep resentment. The way in which the matter has been handled has caused as much anger on these benches as has the proposed limitation of time for debate.
  224
  I must refer again to the cardinal sin in the whole tragic affair. No attempt appears to have been made by the Leader of the House or the Patronage Secretary to take the Opposition into their confidence and to ask for help or at least comment on what was proposed. The degree of mutual trust built up within the usual channels has been of great value to both sides of the House and has facilitated our work. But it has now been temporarily destroyed.
  Why did the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip bring their reputations crashing down through failure to consult the Opposition about the Motion? It is no good saying that it has always been done this way or that the Labour Government did it this way. The present Government asked for election on the ground that it would do better. The "Better Tomorrow", surely, was intended in part for the House of Commons. If things have always been done in an unsatisfactory way, it is up to the Government to show they can bring about some improvement.
  Parliamentary procedure is evolving all the time. We very often rely on precedent. Precedents should not be a drag; they should be a spur for improved procedures. I sometimes think of the House when I recall what the Frenchman said about the Civil Service:
  "Precedent is to the Civil Service what brains are to man."
  That applies to some extent to the House.

  225
  We want time to persuade and convince the Government and the people that the Government are on the wrong track. In other words, we want the opportunity which seemed to be welcomed by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith), in a speech he made on 15th January at Leamington Spa. He referred to the forthcoming start of the crucial stage of the Bill and said:
  "As you know, this is the stage when the Bill comes under detailed Parliamentary scrutiny. And it is, of course, to be taken on the floor of the House of Commons instead of in a small committee upstairs. This means that the detailed examination of our legislation will attract the full glare of public attention. It is right that such important legislation, which will exercise a great—and, I believe, highly beneficial—influence over our industrial life, should be subjected to this treatment. This treatment has also become necessary if we are to have an informed debate in the country, in view of the gross distortion and misrepresentation which our proposals have suffered at the hands of our opponents over the three months or so since we published them."
  The Under-Secretary of State was welcoming the opportunity of having full and detailed examination of the Bill in the full glare of publicity, and of sweeping away all the misconceptions due to the wicked distortions of the Bill by its opponents. He was positively agog and aglow with excitement at the opportunity of doing all this. I do not believe for a moment that he had a clue about a timetable Motion. If, a week last Friday, he had know that the Government were proposing to put the clamp on all of these exciting possibilities, he could not have made that speech.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: The right hon. Gentleman, like me, did not know then that we would have had 20 hours' debate on barely two Clauses. In putting forward the proposal that the debate was rightly being taken on the Floor of the House I thought it might do something, with the national publicity that it would attract, to put right the damage being done by those deliberately distorting the proposals—[HON.MEMBERS: "Why gag it then?"]—and therefore I thought it perfectly fair to state that it was a good thing to take it on the Floor of the House. I believe that the valuable
  226
  amount of time being devoted to the Bill is perfectly adequate.
  Mr. Houghton: The first 20 hours is a small amount of time for the "full glare of publicity". In any case, those 20 hours did receive a great deal of publicity because there was discussion on some of the fundamental parts of the Bill which would be gone into in greater detail later.
  I am reminding the House that this is not a debate on the Bill but a debate for more time for the Bill. The Secretary of State spoke of urgency. What we want is extra days, meaning extra weeks, several extra weeks, which in the long timetable of this legislation is surely worthwhile if it will remove the deep-seated grievance that the Opposition have about present proceedings. It just depends how much value the Government attach to restoring the relationship between Opposition and the Government on matters of Government business and procedure.
  Unless they are restored, our future work and effectiveness is put in jeopardy, and that would be a great pity. I beseech the Government to pause for a while for thought about the possibility of some more tolerable arrangement. I have the deepest misgivings about the way in which this legislation will leave the House if this timetable is adhered to. I do not think that the Government yet realise what milling this Bill requires to make it a viable piece of legislation.
  It has had a bad Press in informed quarters and a great deal of the criticisms and doubts of informed persons have been drowned in the din of union protest and marching. But it is very significant doubt which is being expressed about the Bill in some weighty quarters. I wish that calmer counsel could prevail. The Bill needs drastic amendment, and everyone knows that. I imagine that the Government's Amendments alone are bound to take up a great deal of the time allotted to Committee stage. The Government have lacked the valuable advice and assistance of the Trades Union Congress and the unions. Much of the rethinking of their proposals will have to be done internally in the Ministry and with such advice and help as can be given during the Committee stage from these benches.

  227
  Some parts of the Bill will be extremely difficult to apply in their present form. A large part of it will be absolutely unenforceable in its present form. I do not think, if the Bill becomes an Act, that there will be any Act, apart from those dealing with road traffic offences, which will be more ignored or defied. That will be very bad for legislation. It will be loosely applied and capriciously enforced, and that, too, will be bad.
  The Government take a grave responsibility upon themselves if they let legislation leave this House defective and ambiguous—providing a new source of wealth for the lawyers. If the Bill becomes an Act it will send many more lawyers' sons to Eton. Unions in Britain will be like those in the United States; they will have to have tame lawyers on tap all the time to advise shop stewards and union branches. The fabric of legal help and advice that the unions will require will be astonishing when the time comes.
  From my experience of the trade union movement, industrial relations, staff relations, and the law of trade unions—which is not inconsiderable—I view the Bill with the deepest apprehension as a workable instrument for bringing about improvement in industrial relations. I do not think that opinions like mine and other trade unionists of equally long experience and of sound judgment can be ignored, especially when fortified, as they are at present, by skilled legal advice about the weaknesses and follies of the Bill.
  References to this Bill's having the longest time on the Floor of the House of any Bill since the war—Finance Bills apart—do not take account of the fact that this is the longest Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. It is not the length of the Bill that matters; it is what is in it, its complexity, and what it does to people, that matters. It is a reversal of the legal rights and traditions of the trade union movement, as built up over many years under the protection of the law. Many articles are being run in the Sunday Times and The Times, bringing out the real significance of many parts of the Bill. No hon. Member can feel satisfied about the treatment of the Bill unless he is sure that adequate time for
  228
  discussing it in a rational spirit, with a desire to make constructive improvements, is available—and in present circumstances it is not.
  I hope that the House will take this opportunity—perhaps the last opportunity—of taking stock of where we are and where we are going. Is there nothing to come from the Government benches that will help break this deadlock? If the House adjourns this debate it can come back to it when fresh discussions have taken place through the restored usual channels. That, surely, is a conciliatory proposal to make to the House. If it is rejected, the House will have to put up with what is coming to it from an angry Opposition, feeling thwarted, cheated and deceived about this timetable Motion—a feeling which is bound to express itself in a hundred different ways and to make life in Parliament less desirable and less satisfactory than we all hope to see.
  1.40 a.m.
  Mr. R. Carr: The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) tries to be very persuasive. The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that one reason for adjourning the debate was that we are now in the still watches of the night. I thought that we were at the time of night when the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends wished to be debating the Bill. Am I not right in thinking that one of the proposals which the Opposition wished to put before the House tonight was that our timetable Motion should include sitting until six o'clock every morning for 30 days; that is, two days a week from now until the middle of May?
  Mrs. Castle: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was present in the earlier part of the debate or was listening. If the right hon. Gentleman had been listening he would have heard me say that if the number-of-days Amendment were conceded to us, we would not intend to move the hours Amendment, because we were seeking to get another 240 hours. If we could get those hours by more days, we certainly did not want to sit through the night.
  Mr. Carr: I apologise for not hearing that earlier. Anyhow, it is the time of day or night which, for ten days or so, the Opposition would have wished us to

  229
  sit. I cannot advise the House that that is a good cause for stopping our debate now. I should think that we wanted to take all opportunities to get on with the Bill. Had we got on with this debate somewhat more quickly, we could, some hours earlier, have gone on to the Bill and had many hours on it in addition to the allotted days proposed in the timetable Motion.
  The right hon. Member for Sowerby also spoke about this time of night being the worst possible beginning. I should think that we had other beginnings earlier which might possibly have been candidates in that competition.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talking about a misunderstanding between the usual channels. The right hon. Gentleman said that what was wanted was consultation. I could not help wondering what would have happened to the Opposition Chief Whip or to the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) had some of their colleagues on the back benches discovered that they had been in genuine consultation, shall I say, about a voluntary timetable Motion. I think that they would have had a rather thin time.
  The basic fact is that it was crystal clear from the Opposition Chief Whip's very firm official reply to my right hon. Friend, from the right hon. Lady's words in the debate on the Consultative Document which the Leader of the House quoted in his opening speech at the beginning of this debate, and from the attitude of many hon. Members opposite in speeches which they had made both inside and outside this House, that any talk about a voluntary timetable was absolute nonsense and not a subject to be pursued.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the decision about a Timetable Motion was taken before or during the Christmas Recess? That is the only conclusion which we can draw from his remarks. If so, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that he and his colleagues, during the debate, have been misleading the House and the public? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to check my point?
  Mr. Carr: I am not saying anything of the kind; nor should anything that I have said be interpreted in that way. I was saying that one of the accusations being made against the Government is the lack of exploration of the possibility of a voluntary timetable. The strong evidence is that such pursuit would not have produced such a result.
  Mr. Freeson: The right hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding my point, because he is adducing as evidence in support of the Government's case that statements made at the start of the debate on the Bil—on Second Reading and outside this House—led to this judgment that there had to be a Timetable Motion. That means that the judgment must have been made before the Christmas Recess. The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House and the public if he is saying otherwise.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman has no right to make, and there is no evidence to support, accusations of that kind.
  Mrs. Castle: What evidence does the right hon. Gentleman have?
  Mr. Carr: We have some evidence. There are the right hon. Lady's speeches, as well as many other things. When we decided to accede to the very strong request made by the Opposition that the Bill was of such constitutional and national importance that the Committee sage ought to be taken on the Floor of the House rather than in Standing Committee, we naturally took into account that it would need a considerable length of time in Committee. We could not have made the decision to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House unless we had been prepared to grant the Bill an exceptional amount of time, by any standard, on the Floor of the House.
  Mrs. Castle: It is not exceptional by any standard.
  Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady mutters that it is not exceptional by any standard. It is exceptional for a Committee stage on the Floor of the House. That is a fact which cannot be denied.
  Mr. Robert Hughes Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
  Mr. Carr: I am sorry. I gave way to the hon. Member for Willesden, East

  231
  (Mr. Freeson), and he did not have very much to contribute.
  In acceding to the Opposition's request we realised that we should have to make available an exceptional amount of time for the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, and we had in mind this period of about 12 days, which is what we are talking about now. We decided that it was right to start—[Interruption.]—It is an exceptional amount of time. As my right hon. Gentleman said, this represents about one-third of the legislative time available to the Government on the Floor of the House.
  Mrs. Castle Mrs. Castle rose——
  Mr. Carr: I shall give way to the right hon. Lady in a moment. We decided, rightly or wrongly, and this must be a matter of judgment, that the thing to do was to let the Committee stage begin and to see what progress we made.
  Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that what is to be allotted is an exceptional amount of time on the Floor of the House by any standard. That is what we are challenging, because if the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill which was taken on the Floor of the House he will realise that we were given 57 hours for a Bill consisting of 38 Clauses. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman is giving us 100 hours in Committee for a Bill of 150 Clauses and eight Schedules. What I am saying to the right hon. Gentleman is that by the standard of the size of the Bill this is not an exceptional amount of time. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that we have to disregard the size of the Bill, or the importance of the Bill, because the amount of time available is to be limited to an arbitrary amount, that ought to have been made clear to us when the Government said that they were prepared to take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Carr: I still say that by any standard the amount of time being allotted for the Bill is very long. The amount of time allotted cannot be judged only by numbers of Clauses. Whatever the right hon. Lady may say, the fact is that there are many proposals and Clauses in the Bill which, if the right hon. Lady does not support now, she did until
  232
  very recently. Some part of the proposals on unfair dismissal is surely agreed between us. A number of Clauses altering the Contracts of Employment Act contain proposals which are the same is those put forward by the right hon. Lady. There is the question of registration which is now—[Interruption]—It is no good the right hon. Lady saying that it is not remotely like it. It is very like it, and it is also like what was proposed unanimously by the Donovan Commission. Large sections of the Bill and the idea that trade unionists should be able to appeal to an independent board and a registrar were essential parts of the Donovan Report and her proposals "In Place of Strife".
  Mrs. Castle: The right hon. Member knows perfectly well that on every one of those issues, even on workers' rights, where my Bill contained proposals, he has parodied them—and we claim that they are a parody. Even on unfair dismissal, the vital issue of the right of reinstatement is a matter on which we are not satisfied and which we have a right to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that we have to take his word that his proposals are similar to mine, even though every expert denies it. Because the right hon. Gentleman says that they are the same, we are to be denied time to examine his proposals. We call that dictatorship.
  Mr. Carr: It is a little hard for the right hon. Lady to maintain that case. Earlier this evening, when she was moving the last Amendment, the right hon. Lady said something about winning the vote and losing the argument. I thought that in order to be able to lose the argument one had to be allowed to speak, which I was not allowed to do. She also spoke of this Government's contempt for democracy. I though one essence of democracy was free speech in Parliament which is something else—[Interruption.]——
  Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North) rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must try to keep the temperature down. It is rather late. The Minister is entitled to say what he thinks fit. Hon. Members will have the opportunity afterwards to reply to him, but he should be heard in reasonable silence.
  Mr. Carr: I do not wish to be unnecessarily provocative, but provocation in some hon. Member's minds seems to be perfectly all right as long as it goes one way only. Does the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wish to intervene?
  Mr, Molloy: This whole issue is involved with industrial relations. Does the Minister realise that his deceptive and mean attitude a moment ago is completely in line with the same argument about trade unionists which caused the irony, agony, and upset we have seen in the House of Commons today? If he is not prepared at least to try to be honest with the House, how does he expect to get any consideration for his Bill?
  Mr. Carr: I am being honest with the House. I am saying that we met a strong request from the Opposition for the Committee stage to be on the Floor of the House. We accepted that and made considerable room for it in the parliamentary timetable. We have given about a third of the time to be spent on legislative matters in the Session to this Bill. That is a substantial allocation of time which, if we could use it properly and constructively, would enable all the important measures and proposals in the Bill to be adequately debated.
  The House and the country must bear in mind that the main principles and lines of action with which we are dealing in this Bill have probably been more widely debated inside and outside this House during the last three or four years than this or any other subject has ever been debated before. As I was saying earlier tonight, we as a party, while in opposition, put forward our plans in great detail. We made no secret of them. Because also of the Donovan Report and of the right hon. Lady's White Paper "In Place of Strife", this subject has been widely and thoroughly debated over and over again, and has therefore been fully debated in principle.
  Of course we agree that detail is just as important as principle, which is why I said in answer to an earlier intervention that we decided, having made up our minds to have the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, that we must make an unusual amount of time available. We thought that we would start and see how
  234
  it went, but the first two days, the first 20 hours, made it clear that the Opposition were not wishing to spend the time——
  Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman took 40 minutes to reply to one Amendment.
  Mr. Carr: Because of how many interruptions, on a wide-ranging subject? One cannot get it right for the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. If one gives way, one is criticised for taking too much time, and if one does not, one is shouted at from a sitting position.
  May I ask the hon. Gentleman and others to bear in mind what a Member of the last Labour Cabinet, the right hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) said in the debate on the Bill? Referring to me, he said:
  "He is certainly not doing anything new by inserting this as the principle upon which the Bill is based. Clause 1 lays down a number of principles, none of which is new, and all of which have come to us over the years and could surely … have been put in some way not really included within the Bill itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 591–2.]
  That is the view of the right hon. Gentleman. Why should the right hon. Lady want a debate of 20 hours? Her right hon. Friend, who everyone says knows his business from long experience in this field, says that these principles,
  "none of which is new, and all of which have come to us over the years",
  need not have been part of the Bill or subject to that kind of debate.
  Mr. Rose: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in Clause 1, he was setting out a number of very complex legal principles, of which even he was unable to give us an interpretation, with a number of courts of law, one of which is entirely new, the N.I.R.C., which was entirely new and unprecedented, and not even mentioned in Donovan, and that he introduced virtually a Second Reading debate, which was calculated to take up the time of the House, and that hon. Members on his side took un almost as much time as my hon. Friends?
  Mr. Carr: I certainly would not agree with that. If one distributed Clause 1 of our Bill among the trade unionists of this country, a very large majority would agree that these should be the guiding principles. What, of course, is absolutely

  235
  vital, and what the rest of the Bill is about, and what undoubtedly is controversial, is whether the rest of the Bill does or does not effectively carry out those principles. But the principles themselves are unexceptionable——
  Mr. Orme: Then why put them in the Bill?
  Mr. Carr: Is it wrong to state at the beginning of a Bill on this sort of subject what are the principles which we wish to see followed in this country? We thought when we put them in that we should be bringing comfort and reassurance. Of course we did. I know my own Bill.
  Having considered the matter closely, and having had two days in which to examine it thoroughly, we came to the conclusion that if we were to be able to have proper discussion of the Bill in a reasonable time, then, while giving to it an exceptionally large amount of time by any standards, it was necessary to have a timetable Motion. As we concluded that there was no chance of getting an agreed, voluntary timetable, my right hon. Friend felt that he must take responsibility for moving the guillotine Motion, and to do so earlier rather than later. The House will agree that if we are to get a full discussion of the most important points, it is better—that is, if, unfortunately, there must be a guillotine Motion—to have such a Motion at a very early stage, so enabling the House to use the time available on what it considers to be the most important points.
  I assure hon. Members that in arranging how we use this time, it will be our intention to bend over backwards to try, within what is a substantial measure of time, to arrange that the points which hon. Gentlemen opposite believe to be the most important get the maximum time spent on them.
  Mr. Freeson Mr. Freeson rose——
  Mr. Carr: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  If and when that stage is reached, in the Business Committee we shall put forward and discuss propositions in the most helpful way possible to try to ensure that what the Opposition regard as the major and key points in the Bill get adequate debating time; and I believe
  236
  that the ten further days in Committee and the generous time on Report will enable us to succeed in debating the Bill adequately. We shall succeed in doing that if we go about our business in an orderly way.
  I therefore recommend to the House that we continue this debate tonight and pass the main Motion so that we may get on with making arrangements for the orderly and full discussion of the Bill.
  2.4 a.m.
  Mr. Tinn: Each Government spokesman on this subject makes a worse speech than the last in reply to the points my hon. Friends and I are making on this Bill. I cannot understand how it is possible for the Secretary of State to complain about so-called delay on our part when one thinks, as he must, of the 1964 and 1966 Parliaments.
  In those days similar situations arose, but what was the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite then? They were in opposition and frequently, when the Chair announced that it was prepared in due course to accept the Closure Motion, they spent two hours raising bogus points of order, each one more or less challenging the authority of Mr. Speaker. It was then that we had a right to complain. On this occasion not one point of order has been raised, and hardly one complaint, about the action of the Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House.
  The Secretary of State's attitude to any kind of discussion of this very important Measure is that it is time wasting delay. When one recalls his inability to explain some of the more complicated legal provisions one can understand his reluctance to have the kind of detailed discussion we think absolutely essential.
  The right hon. Gentleman made what must be regarded as a shabby attempt to explain away the Government's failure even to attempt to reach some kind of voluntary timetabling agreement. The attempt might not have been successful, but it should have been made before the present procedure was adopted. It was utterly unworthy of the Secretary of State flippantly to try to explain it all away by saying that it would have been very embarrassing to our Front Bench if back benchers had heard of such discussion. Such a retort was not worthy of him, and does not measure up to the situation.

  237
  There would be great weight in the Government's argument if they could show that the Opposition had already wasted time in Committee, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) spelled out clearly and factually by reference to the number of column inches in HANSARD, no such charge can lie against us; and that despite the tremendous pressures many of us have been under to pursue what might be called a more vigorous opposition.
  The Treasury Bench attitude was well summed up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) on Second Reading. His speech was a model of restraint and responsible approach to a Measure which we all detest from end to end. Nevertheless, many of us recognise that, we having lost the General Election, and the Government having the power to carry the Measure through, we have an obligation to assess the position realistically. We recognise that we have an obligation to try to improve the Bill, as far as that is possible, in the hope that the Government may have the wisdom to accept such slight improvement as can be made in a Measure which is at best irrelevant to the problems it purports to solve, and which most probably will greatly and savagely increase them.
  The restraint of the Opposition can be illustrated if I mention a little incident that took place during the Committee stage. One does not usually refer to the activities of the respective Whips in their discussions with backbench Members. Most of us on the back benches feel that those activities are best left in obscurity. But it is worth saying that on one occasion four of us on this side of the House who had sat right through the debate and were anxious to speak on an Amendment were approached by the Opposition deputy Chief Whip who asked us very seriously to refrain from speaking on that Amendment. Reluctantly we agreed. We did so because we recognised that on a Measure of the size and complexity of this one there needed to be some sort of team work, a readiness on the part of the Opposition to be reasonable and to impose self-discipline, in order that we would get to the later part of the Bill which was even more contentious. So we acceded to this request from our Front Bench, as members
  238
  of a team. Our behaviour during some of the longer-running Committees on steel, prices and incomes, transport and so on, when the Labour Party was in office, was in complete contrast with the behaviour of Conservative Members in a similar situation.
  One possible justification for time-tabling this Bill in such a speedy fashion would be if we abused the time available. But that accusation cannot possibly be made. It cannot seriously be claimed that the time proposed is adequate. The Bill is not only long, but complex. I have been looking through some of the later parts of the Bill which are very likely to be omitted from detailed consideration if this timetable Motion is adhered to. The whole of Part III is on collective bargaining, consisting of 25 Clauses, some of which are of tremendous importance. Clause 32 creates the presumption that any written collective agreement concluded after the commencement of the Act will be held to be a legally enforceable contract unless the parties write into it a provision expressly to the contrary.
  Can one conceive of this Bill getting on to the Statute Book without that highly contentious Clause being debated, particularly when one sees all over the developed world those countries in which this kind of provision exists either ignoring it, as in Western Germany—where presumably it would be most needed in view of the recent spate of strikes—or actively seeking to withdraw such provisions from their legislation?
  In the same Part, Clause 35 gives power to the Secretary of State to apply to the Industrial Court for remedial action where he believes that procedure agreements are either absent or are defective. That, again, is a tremendously important power which should be carefully considered.
  There are 23 other Clauses in this Part alone. Clause 48 struck me as interesting It provides that, in one circumstance, one-fifth of the employees within a bargaining unit, or, in another circumstance, two-fifths of the workers there employed, may apply to the court on the ground that the recognised union or joint negotiating panel does not adequately represent the employees or a section of them. There are two points here. First, I fear that a provision of that kind will cut across and

  239
  tend to replace the working of the voluntary Bridlington agreement which the Trades Union Congress has operated successfully for many years. Surprisingly enough, considering the source of the proposal, it will be likely to open the door to competition in militancy between rival unions seeking to gain the right to negotiate in a particular factory.
  Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley): There is a great fear among the legal profession that it might affect the lawyers' system for organising themselves.
  Mr. Tinn: That point is well taken by my hon. Friend. I notice a significant difference in the way that voting proceedures are treated in Clause 50 as compared with Clause 13. Under Clause 13, if a majority of the workers eligible to vote have voted in the ballot in favour of an agency shop agreement, it shall be the duty of the employer to take all such action as is requisite on his part for the purpose. It is a stiff voting requirement—not a simple majority as in any other democratic procedure which comes readily to mind but a majority of those entitled to vote. That seems an odd provision.
  One would expect some consistency, but under Clause 50, which I call loosely the splinter union Clause, giving people the chance to dismiss their union, a union can lose its negotiating right by a simple majority of those voting. Why the difference in voting procedures?
  Part IV, consisting of 28 Clauses, dealing with the registration and conduct of trade unions and employers' associations, has enough genuine material not merely for controversy but for constructive debate to require on its own at least the 30 days for which my right hon. Friend asked.
  Throughout the controversy on the consultative document and the Bill there has been inside the Labour movement a natural difference of view as to how the Bill might best be opposed. Many people, particularly outside the House, have felt that Parliamentary resistance, given the Government's majority, is futile. The majority of us on this side, whilst understanding that point of view, have nevertheless felt an obligation honestly to resist the Bill legitimately in the House to the
  240
  best of our ability, and to improve it where possible. But that responsibility on our part requires a similar response from the Government, which has been totally lacking, as illustrated by their arrogance and their refusal to make any concessions today to the Opposition's very reasonable and legitimate requests.
  2.21 a.m.
  Mr. Molloy: My right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) presented coolly and logically an argument that was for the benefit not only of the Opposition or the Government but of the House of Commons. It was so devastatingly logical that it completely floored the Secretary of State, who made one of the most miserable responses to an argument that we have ever heard in the House. It is not usual for him to be so ludicrously provocative as he was tonight. His contribution was no help to the millions of trade unionists who are examining the Measure and are apprehensive whether they will get a square deal through their representatives in the House. They will now be convinced that it is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to see that the Bill, a fundamental attack on the democratic freedom of trade unionists, is rammed through the House. To do that they will deprive elected representatives on this side of any right to present proper opposition to the Bill.
  I do not like to have to say this about the Secretary of State, because there have been times when he has leaned over backwards to be accommodating on other Measures with which he has been involved. When he was in Opposition he took a similar point of view.
  Mr. Orme: He was an entirely different man then.
  Mr. Molloy: The right hon. Gentleman built up for himself a reputation for being at least always willing to listen to a different point of view, but we can now see that he was engaged in a very cunning piece of preparatory work. He has revealed this tonight. The attitude of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman on this issue will not be lost on millions of trade unionists. I fear a situation might arise in which appeal from anyone in this House—from either side—might be ignored by those in industry unless there are serious second

  241
  thoughts by the Government about restricting discussion on one of the most controversial issues to come before Parliament since the Second World War.
  I say to those hon. Members perched on the benches opposite that they should take it easy. They can rest for another half hour or so. They must recognise that there has been a certain degree of treachery over this issue by their hon. Friends in speeches outside the House. My right hon. Friend quoted from a speech by the Under-Secretary of State, who said he was proud of the fact that there would be thorough, exhaustive and searching discussion in the House and that the glare of publicity would be on the House and the Bill so that the public could understand the issues. Then the Under-Secretary and the rest of the Government come here and say, "We were deceiving you. We were living up to the standard of the Conservative Party". Benjamin Disraeli once described the Conservative Party as an organised hypocrisy, and it is that of which right hon. and hon. Members opposite are guilty.
  Yet, if hon. Members opposite, who seem to find this matter amusing, try to provoke trade unionists and to show them that the Conservative Party takes the issue lightly, and then find that trade unionists are reacting against such a banal attitude, they will turn round and accuse them of not heeding the will of Parliament and the law of the land. Trade unionists must beware of that situation. We must take note of statements made by hon. Members opposite on this issue.
  The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) always seems to me to be guilty of stating the truth by accident. He argued that there was no point in having extra time because the Opposition would advance absurd arguments which he did not like and could not accept. Because he does not agree with our arguments, apparently he does not think that the Opposition have a right to more time. We have travelled this road before. This was the argument for the closing of the Reichstag. First, one cuts down the arguments advanced by the Opposition on the ground that one does not like them. One can find all sorts of reasons for stopping people from opposing one. When the hon. Gentleman was making
  242
  that disgusting argument, there were many serious faces on the benches opposite—faces of much older and more experienced Conservatives who seemed to me to find his approach as nauseating as I did.
  Although we may disagree with an hon. Member's argument and find it useless, we nevertheless agree that he has a right to express it. But this principle was rejected by the hon. Member for Woking. That sort of argument can lead to the establishment of an authoritarian State. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not here, but I hope he will read his speech carefully. If the hon. Gentleman himself does not condemn it, I hope that the Secretary of State will.
  I was amazed by the argument put forward by the Secretary of State this evening. Indeed, we had the same sort of speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The essence of this whole debate concerns the rights of ordinary people to discuss their working conditions and their rates of pay. What has happened very often is that they have been denied the right to negotiate and time to explain their point of view. The result has been industrial unrest. Everybody—particularly hon. Members opposite—condemns industrial unrest. We on this side of the House have a little more experience from the working man's point of view. And we know that if the working man is denied the opportunity to negotiate with his employer on his terms of engagement or to discuss any emergency that arises on the factory floor or in the mine, this leads to industrial unrest.
  This is what has happened in the House of Commons in this recent period. There has been a denial of the right to negotiate. It would appear that the normal standard of discussion through the usual channels has not been maintained. Something has gone wrong. It is no good hon. Members opposite saying how sorry they are, if the Government will go not any part of the way towards what is contained in our Amendments.
  The reasonable and logical arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) were rejected by the Government. One can see in the Government's attitude a reflection of some of the reactionary managements which cause industrial unrest. Because of that attitude, we had a form of parliamentary

  243
  unrest in the House this evening. Although the Bill is misconceived, we were trying to come to some arrangement by which we could not only make a contribution to establishing industrial peace but also make the Bill a saner piece of legislation.
  We acknowledge that the Government have a right to introduce a Measure, no matter how distasteful, and we hope that they appreciate that we have a right to oppose and amend it.
  The rights of the Opposition are being removed on a vital Bill which has been the main subject of discussion among trade unions and managements all over the country. The Government have revealed the Bill's irrelevance to the problems of the time, and they condemn their own incompetence and uselessness.
  2.36 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: I should like to add my own less eloquent and less authoritative voice to the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) to the Government to stop pushing us as hard as they are, going through the night on the Bill, which is what it looks like, and to allow a bit more time, a bit more leisure, a bit less pressure, so that there may be some reflection and cooling of the temper.
  In an earlier debate and tonight the Secretary of State has referred to his claim that the Government had a complete mandate for the Bill. What the Government had a mandate for was a package, contained in the Conservative Party's manifesto. There will be many people who voted for the right hon. Gentleman, although they disapproved of one or two or three items in that manifesto, because they thought on balance that they liked the look of that better than whatever alternatives were offered, and there were people who voted for me who did not like one or two things I said in my election address.
  Two parts of the package are particularly closely linked. They have been linked for several years in the minds of all hon. Members and the minds of many people in the country. They are prices and incomes. It will not be a secret to the right hon. Gentleman, or anyone else in the House, that I was not the most passionately enthusiastic supporter of the
  244
  prices and incomes policy and the Prices and Incomes Acts of the Labour Government, but I must pay tribute to them for keeping, or trying to keep—they did not always succeed—those two horses, prices and incomes, in tandem. They showed the country that they were two things to be considered together.
  Put in a grossly oversimplified form, the arguments always were that prices could not be kept down if incomes were allowed to roar, and, as against that, that wages could not be expected to be kept down if prices were allowed to run loose. On both sides of the argument the two were closely linked.
  The right hon. Gentleman may fairly claim that more people in the country approved of his package on prices and incomes than approved of ours. What he cannot claim, because he cannot possibly know, and nor can I and nor can anyone else, is that many people, or a given number of people, voted for one item in the package, because that is something which none of us will ever know. But I will hazard a guess that there were linked together in the minds of many people who cast Conservative votes the idea that they were prepared to take what the Conservative Party were proposing in legislation against the trade unions—the purpose of which, let us not mince words, is unilaterally to disarm one side in the wages struggle—because they had linked to it a commitment at-a-stroke to make an immediate reduction in prices.
  What the right hon. Gentleman has a mandate for, if he has one for anything, is the Bill as part of a package of which the other major ingredient is the immediate reduction at-a-stroke of prices. He cannot say that he has a mandate for the kicks without the halfpennies or the halfpennies without the kicks. I hope that we shall not hear any more from him or his hon. Friends about the mandate until the day when they have at-a-stroke reduced prices. Then they will have every right to talk about it until they are blue in the face.
  The second of the right hon. Gentleman's points was that the reason why they never sought to agree a voluntary timetable with the Opposition was that some observations of right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition had convinced him and his right hon. Friends that there was no chance of getting such

  245
  a voluntary timetable. The right hon. Gentleman is, as I am, a fair old hand in the House. He knows something about the realities of power politics. Every Government likes to put every Opposition in the wrong. If the right hon. Gentleman believed what he was saying tonight, that would have been a very good reason, in practical political terms, for approaching the Opposition in order to reach a voluntary agreement about a timetable.
  If he had approached the Opposition, and the Opposition, either because its leaders—my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and others—did not want a voluntary timetable, or, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, because even if they had wanted it they would have been terrified of some of their hon. Friends behind them, whatever the reason, had given him a dusty answer, what a lovely position he would have been in. He could have said, "Look at me, Robert Carr, known far and wide as the reasonable bloke always ready to offer some accommodation to my opponents, the absolute model, the highest simulacrum of reasonableness, moderation, kindness and tolerance. I go along to these Opposition people bearing gifts, and they kick me in the backside." What a lovely position that would have been for the right hon. Gentleman.
  I suspect that the reason why the Government never approached the Opposition for a voluntary timetable is the precise opposite of what the right hon. Gentleman said and that they were afraid they might get one. But in any case, the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to lose. Every betting man knows that one never misses an opportunity of getting a bet to nothing, where one draws one's money if one wins and does not pay out if one loses. The right hon. Gentleman was on a bet to nothing by approaching the Opposition for a voluntary timetable. If they had agreed he would have got what he wanted. If they had disagreed, he would have been able to represent to the country that the Opposition were being unreasonable. Knowing that the right hon. Gentleman is not one of the daftest of the Members opposite, I cannot believe that he did not think that one through. This makes me—much as I dislike querying the motives
  246
  of people, however much I disagree with them—rather doubt the sincerity of the reasons which he gave for not having approached the Opposition for a voluntary timetable.
  I want to say something about us having a bit more time to reflect and for temperatures to cool. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, from his office and his previous service in the equivalent Department, that he is facing not only opposition across the Floor of the House but a great deal of opposition outside, in the country. He must know that his problem is not merely to get this Bill passed in this House. That is the easier of his two tasks, because whatever arguments we on this side use against the Bill, he has a much more powerful argument in favour of the Bill—the most powerful argument in the world, namely a majority.
  Much the more difficult of his two tasks is to get sufficient, I will not say acceptance, but at least benevolent hostility in the reaction of those who will be affected by the Bill, to make it operable. As others wiser than I have said, nothing brings the law into disrepute so much as the passing of Acts which are widely ignored because they are inoperable. However brave a front the right hon. Gentleman may put on it in the House, I suspect that he has been thinking a great deal in the privacy of his room and his Department about this and that Clause, asking himself, "Will it work if a large body of workers affected by it does not want it to work?" He will be conscious that he has a problem.
  From his experience, the right hon. Gentleman knows the trade union movement well enough to know that a trade union, like the Conservative or Labour Party, is not a bunch of precisely homogeneous people. Like the Conservative and Labour Party and, certainly like the Liberal Party, a trade union has within it people with different tendencies, different outlooks, different sections and affections, even different caucuses. There is in some trade unions—I do not think they represent a majority in any trade union, or anything like it—a very vocal minority which exercises more influence than its numbers deserve.
  We heard them being vocal at the Albert Hall a week or two ago. There is in every trade union one group of people

  247
  going around saying all the time, "All that is going on in Parliament is a charade; that is not the way to kill the Bill. There are other ways of killing the Bill or other ways of killing it in the sense of stopping it being enacted by causing a lot of trouble in its operation." As president of a not unimportant union I should welcome as little as the right hon. Gentleman a growth in the numbers and influence of people of that kind. Once we start on that, it can be a slippery slope. The overwhelming majority of trade unionists are highly responsible people and it is in the common interest of us all to preserve that situation.
  Anything that strengthens the hands of the irresponsible and weakens the hands of the responsible is to be deplored. In this guillotine Motion and the way in which it has been brought about the right hon. Gentleman has given a free gift to the less desirable elements in the trade union movement. He ought not to have done it. He has created headaches for responsible leaders in the trade unions, but he has created superabundant headaches for himself.
  How can I say to the people in the trade unions, "We have a parliamentary democracy. We may not like what the majority party does, but there are ways of dealing with the situation, and we must deal with it in the ways that have for long been traditional in this country." How can I justify that argument? One of the things that we often say when we are talking about South Africa or some other totalitarian regime is, "You can justify extra-parliamentary action only in circumstances in which there is not a free right of parliamentary discussion." How
  can I say to the militants in the trade unions, "Look, boys, you have to drop some of the more extreme things that you are thinking about, because we can argue the matter out in the traditional way of British parliamentary democracy on the Floor of the House" when, whatever the Business Committee proposes, some of the Clauses that adversely affect hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people will not have one minute of discussion?
  How can we not recognise that we are here digging the grave not of the Bill but of the Act—digging its grave after it has been passed? What we are doing is to make the Measure totally inoperable.
  The right hon. Gentleman has seen tonight a very small and not a very worrying example of indignation breaking out when the safety valve is held down. I suggest that he will see many much bigger examples over the next few months and the next year or two—some of which may be very costly. What he is now doing largely stamps him as the architect of that situation. I warn him against this not out of any desire to be proved a true prophet; I warn him against it out of some experience of the matter—an experience which I know he shares. I say even now that he would be well advised to say to the House, "Let us go to bed now. Tomorrow I will talk through the usual channels and see if it is not possible to make a clean start."
  Mr. Pym Mr. Pym rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 297. Noes 259.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Costain, A. P.

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Curran, Charles

  Jopling, Michael

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Redmond, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dean, Paul

  Kilfedder, James

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  King, Everyn (Dorset,S.)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Dixon, Piers

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kirk, Peter

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Knox, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lambton, Antony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Eden, Sir John

  Lane, David

  Rost, Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Royle, Anthony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Emery, Peter

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Farr, John

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Loveridge, John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Simeons, Charles

  Fidler, Michael

  MacArthur, Ian

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Soref, Harold

  Fortescue, Tim

  McMaster, Stanley

  Speed, Keith

  Foster, Sir John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Spence, John

  Fowler, Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Madel, David

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Marten, Neil

  Stokes, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maude, Angus

  Sutcliffe, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Green, Alan

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Grieve, Percy

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

  Temple, John M.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Grylls, Michael

  Moate, Roger

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Molyneaux, James

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Money, Ernie

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tilney, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Monro, Hector

  Trafford, Dr Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Trew, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  More, Jasper

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denb'gh)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hastings, Stephen

  Murton, Oscar

  Waddington, David

  Havers, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nicholls, Sir Harmer

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Heseltine, Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Wall, Patrick

  Hicks, Robert

  Nott, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hiley, Joseph

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Warren, Kenneth

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Holland, Philip

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hornby, Richard

  Peel, John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Percival, Ian

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Howel, David (Guildford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hunt, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  James, David

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

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  250

  251

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Meacher, Michael

  Albu, Austen

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mendelson, John

  Alldritt, Walter

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Millan, Bruce

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ginsburg, David

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Ashton, Joe

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gourlay, Harry

  Molloy, William

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Barnes, Michael

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Barnett, Joel

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Beaney, Alan

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gunter, Rt. Hn, R. J.

  Moyle, Roland

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Bishop, E. S.

  Hamling, William

  Ogden, Eric

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Malley, Brian

  Booth, Albert

  Harper, Joseph

  Oram, Bert

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Orme, Stanley

  Bradley, Tom

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Heffter, Eric S.

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Hilton, W. S.

  Padley, Walter

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Horam, John

  Palmer, Arthur

  Buchan, Norman

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pentland, Norman

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hunter, Adam

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  Prescott, John

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Clark, David (Coine Valley)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Probert, Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Cohen, Stanley

  John, Brynmor

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

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

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Roper, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rose, Paul B.

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitchaven)

  Kerr, Russell

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kinnock, Neil

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Lambie, David

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

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Lamond, James

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Latham, Arthur

  Silkin,Rt.Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lawon, George

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sillars, James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Leonard, Dick

  Silverman, Julius

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Deakins, Eric

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Small, William

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dempsey, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Doig, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Driberg, Tom

  McBride, Neil

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strang, Gavin

  Dunn, James A.

  McElhone, Frank

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Dunnett, Jack

  McGuire, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackenzle, Gregor

  Swain, Thomas

  Edelman, Maurice

  Mackie, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Ellis, Tom

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

  Evans, Fred

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Tinn, James

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Tomney, Frank

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

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Torney, Tom

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Eric G.

  Foley, Maurice

  Marquand, David

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Foot, Michael

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Ford, Ben

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Forrester, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Wallace, George

  252

  253

  Watkins, David

  Whitlock, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Weitzman, David

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Mr. John Golding.

  Question put accordingly, That the debate be now adjourned:—

  Division No. 71.]

  AYES

  [3.6 a.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Albu, Austen

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Alldritt, Walter

  Evans, Fred

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Ashton, Joe

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Atkinson, Norman

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Barnes, Michael

  Foley, Maurice

  McGuire, Michael

  Barnett, Joel

  Foot, Michael

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Beaney, Alan

  Ford, Ben

  Mackle, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Forrester, John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Freeson, Reginald

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Booth, Albert

  Ginsburg, David

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Marks, Kenneth

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marquand, David

  Bradley, Tom

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Meacher, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mendelson, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Millan, Bruce

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cant, R. B.

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Molloy, William

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Horam, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Cohen, Stanley

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Coleman, Donald

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Concannon, J. D.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oram, Bert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Orbach, Maurice

  Cronin, John

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

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

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Padley, Walter

  Cunningham, Dr, J. A. (Whitehaven)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Dalyell, Tam

  John, Brynmor

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Davidson, Arthur

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prescott, John

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Dempsey, James

  Kerr, Russell

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lamond, James

  Richard, Ivor

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lester, Miss Joan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Eddie, Alex

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roper, John

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 297.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wallace, George

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Strang, Gavin

  Watkins, David

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Weitzman, David

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)

  Swain, Thomas

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollak)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Taverne, Dick

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

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

  Whitlock, William

  Sillars, James

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silverman Julius

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Small, William

  Tomney, Frank

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Varley, Eric G.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stewart, Rt. Hn.Michael (Fulham)

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

  Mr. William Hamling and

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Mr. John Golding.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Dean, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Deeds, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Dixon, Piers

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Astor, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hunt, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Awdry, Daniel

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dykes, Hugh

  James, David

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Eden, Sir John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Balniel, Lord

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Jessel, Toby

  Batsford, Brian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Bell, Ronald

  Emery, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Farr, John

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Benyon, W.

  Fell, Anthony

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Biffen, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Kilfedder, James

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Blakey, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Body, Richard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Boscawen, Robert

  Foster, Sir John

  Kirk, Peter

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fowler, Norman

  Kitson, Timothy

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Knox, David

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fry, Peter

  Lambton, Antony

  Braine, Bernard

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Lane, David

  Brewis, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Bryan, Paul

  Goodhew, Victor

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Gorst John

  Loveridge, John

  Buck, Antony

  Gower, Raymond

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gray, Hamish

  MacArthur, Ian

  Burden, F. A.

  Green, Alan

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Grieve, Percy

  McLaren, Martin

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

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grylls, Michael

  McMaster, Stanley

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Channon, Paul

  Gurden, Harold

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hall, Miss Joan (Kelghley)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maddan, Martin

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Madel, David

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Marten, Neil

  Cockeram, Eric

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mather, Carol

  Cooke, Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Coombs, Derek

  Hastings, Stephen

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Cooper, A. E.

  Havers, Michael

  Mawby, Ray

  Cordle, John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Heseltine, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Hicks, Robert

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Critchley, Julian

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Crouch, David

  Hiley, Joseph

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

  Curran, Charles

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

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Moate, Roger

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Holland, Philip

  Molyneaux, James

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Money, Ernle

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  256

  257

  Monro, Hector

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tebbit, Norman

  More, Jasper

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffney

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

  Mudd, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Murton, Oscar

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Tilney, John

  Neave, Airey

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Nichols, Sir Harmar

  Rost, Peter

  Trew, Peter

  Normanton, Tom

  Royle, Anthony

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Nott, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Tinton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Onslow, Cranley

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Scott, Nicholas

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sharples, Richard

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

  Waddington, David

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Simeons, Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wall, Patrick

  Peel, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Percival, Ian

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Soref, Harold

  Warren, Kenneth

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Speed, Keith

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Spence, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Sproat, Iain

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stainton, Keith

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stokes, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Raison, Timothy

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Sutcliffe, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Tapsell, Peter

  Redmond, Robert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  3.15 a.m.
  Mr. Houghton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Motion, in line 7, leave out 'four' and insert 'six'.
  The Motion provides for four days to be allotted to Report and Third Reading and the Amendment proposes to increase that to six days. In an effort to regain the respect and affection of the Opposition, the Leader of the House should find this a pushover because it asks for only two more days.
  I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has yet fully estimated the crowded agenda that there will be on Report. In Committee there will be many things which the Secretary of State will promise to reconsider in time for Report. He might even say that some things can be dealt with in another place, though we should prefer them to be dealt with here on Report. If the right hon. Gentleman is in any difficulty about these two days, we will help him find them. We could probably make suggestions in due season how they could be provided, but a modest request like this, after so many disappointments, so many causes for anger that we have had up to now, offers a last opportunity for the Leader of the House to hold out, if not an olive branch,
  258
  at least an olive leaf in the form of two extra days for Report.
  I shall not detain the House longer on this Amendment because I think that the case behind it is so strong that it is bound to be so persuasive to the right hon. Gentleman that he will be able to say that he accepts it. That would go a long way —a little way; I must not jump too far ahead of my hon. and right hon. Friends —shall I say some way, towards overcoming our difficulties. This is a difficult matter, and others of my hon. Friends still have a sense of grievance that they will wish to express, but I hope that the Leader of the House can make the concession we seek.
  This small request, though important in itself, is important also by reason of the two extra days on Report—the clearing up stage; the stage for clearing up things that have been left aside during the Committee stage. The concession would save time in Committee. There would be no need to spend too long on some things if the Secretary of State would say, "I will look at this point again before Report." If he is not to have the time on Report there will be little in such a promise, but with a little extra time such a promise could be more effective, and would help our proceedings.

  259
  I have said enough. I ask the Leader of the House now to say, "I will deliver you these two days, and in some way repay you for, perhaps, the failure to consult at the proper time."
  3.22 a.m.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman's important speech. I thought that four days for Report and Third Reading—one more day than was given to the right hon. Lady's Transport Bill—was a reasonable amount of time. I still hold the view that four days for Report and Third Reading, which may be divided by the Business Committee however it thinks best, is a perfectly reasonable period.
  However, I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of various Amendments needing to be dealt with on Report, and it may be that after the Committee stage it will be seen that more time on Report would be helpful to the House. The right hon. Gentleman said that he might have some ideas of how more time might be offered by the Opposition and, naturally, I am perfectly prepared to consider on the basis of that proposal whether at some stage, when we have seen how the Committee stage has gone, extra time should be allotted, and how it could be done. I am perfectly prepared to discuss the subject at that stage.
  For the moment, I think that four days is correct. I cannot commit myself finally, but in response to the right hon. Gentleman I am perfectly prepared to consider, at the end of the Committee stage, whether extra days should be allotted; to discuss it with the Opposition and to see whether agreement can be reached. On that basis, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
  3.25 a.m.
  Mr. Greville Janner: As a new Member, I say, with respect, that the right hon. Gentleman's concession seems to be more apparent than real. For the right hon. Gentleman to say that in due course he will consider whether it may be possible for him to grant extra time, subject to the possibility of our having to provide the time
  260
  from Supply Days, does not appear to be any sort of a concession. One would have hoped that we would have had at this stage at least the gift of two more days time so that there could be a feeling in the country and in this House that some extra thought might be given to this Measure on Report.
  I approach this matter perhaps a little differently from most of my hon. Friends. I come from that maligned section of the community known as lawyers. I am affected by this legislation because I see here an entirely new court being created to administer entirely new laws, laws which will affect my constituents far more than most of the laws which are now on the Statute Book. These new laws will also affect hon. Members in their individual capacities far more than most laws.
  If one is not at all well off, one can get legal aid. If a person is rich, he does not need legal aid and he will get the justice he requires. If, like hon. Members, one comes within the middle income group, one will not get the justice that one needs. This Bill introduces a new court which, on the face of it, will make justice available in specified cases. It introduces new forms of law. It is to be considered by this House, as I see it, practically not at all.
  We have, with all the failure of our legal system, an incorruptible judiciary. We have a system of justice of which we are all proud and which is the basis of our freedom. It is founded upon our people having respect for the law which is administered by the courts, and respect for the judges who administer that law. It seems to me that we ought to give careful thought before we create a new court with new judges and with new laws for the court to administer. We ought not to do this without the most careful consideration, which this Bill cannot possibly receive in for the judges who administer that the time allotted to it.
  It is all very well for hon. Members to talk about the difficulties and the time involved in the consideration of the Bill. Here we have a piece of legislation of considerable length in which even one word may affect the future and the happiness of many people. May I give an

  261
  example? In one Clause it is stated that the Industrial Court is to have the power to order the re-engagement of a person who has been unfairly dismissed. This may be right, but what is not right is that the word is "re-engagement" and not "reinstatement". If there is re-engagement, that means that the old engagement ends and a new engagement begins; the period of continuous employment is at an end——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think he will realise that he is straying rather far from the Amendment which we are discussing.
  Mr. Janner: I apologise if that is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am merely pointing out that with one word in this legislation one can have a dispute in this House—indeed, consideration in the House which could result in its change which, in its turn, would affect large numbers of people. If we were concerned with people who wanted redundancy pay which they would not get if there were no continuous employment, we would worry about that word. If we were concerned with the Contracts of Employment Act, which is to be extended, we would worry about the amount by which it is to be extended and the time that is to be given for the consideration of that matter. It may be right that there should be an extension. This is not the sort of provision in this Bill which has received any publicity at all. These are not dramatic Clauses, but they are Clauses which matter to ordinary people in their lives and jobs, but we, as their representatives, will not be able to give the necessary consideration to those matters in the time allowed by the Government.
  Earlier in the debate, it was suggested that our indignation was synthetic. That is to misunderstand the worry and anxiety which the Bill gives to trade unionists and all those people upon whose working lives it will have such a great impact. I urge that the Amendment be accepted so as to give just a little more time.
  In my constituency, I am happy to say—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides who come from the Leicester area will agree—labour relations are, on the whole, good. The Government are now seeking
  262
  to introduce a new court, new laws, and new relationships without adequate thought, without adequate care and without adequate time for consideration. This is entirely wrong. At least, they should change their mind to the extent of accepting this Amendment.
  3.31 a.m.
  Mr. Michael Fidler (Bury and Radcliffe): I intervene with some reluctance on this Amendment, but I do so out of a plain sense of duty. I am a relative newcomer to the House, but, when I came here not many months ago, I came with a feeling that my mind would be set against guillotines and the curtailment of debate. But, having witnessed the squander-mania of time on so many occasions since last June, and notably in the two days we spent on the first two Clauses of the Bill last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish. Sit down!"] Hon. Members might do me the courtesy which I have accorded to them during several hours of debate tonight.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) is not here. He chose to castigate me, quite unwarrantedly, for absenting myself from the debate earlier in the evening although, in fact, I have been present for most of the time. He is not present in the Chamber now, so I shall have to say in his absence what I should have said in his presence. He left the Chamber at 27 minutes past eleven, coincidentally, two minutes after the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) began his speech.
  Mr. Orme: What has this got to do with it?
  Mr. Fidler: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Sillars: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the hon. Gentleman in order, when he should be speaking to the Amendment, in raising matters in relation to the time when——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will decide what is in order. I have given the hon. Gentleman some latitude, but I hope that he will now come to the point of his remarks in relation to the Amendment.
  Mr. Fidler: I referred to those matters because the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) subsequently gave us the fruits of some statistical research which he had done on the question of time spent in debates. He was good enough to give us the Division lists in last week's debate. I shall come rather more up to date. We began our debate at about four o'clock. By the time nine o'clock came, the point at which we had the summing-up by the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, there had been 116 minutes taken up by Members from the Government side, 197 minutes taken up by Opposition Members, plus ten minutes taken by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, which means that the time had been taken earlier in the debate roughly in the ratio of two to one as between Opposition and Government.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman is rapidly acquiring a reputation as a merchant of misrepresentation. Does he not understand the difference between a guillotine Motion and a Bill of vast constitutional importance?
  Mr. Fidler: Yes, I do. Not only do I realise the vital importance of the Bill but I realise also that an invitation was extended earlier last year to representatives of the trade unions to consider these matters. I do not recognise Members of Parliament as representatives of the trade unions. We are all representatives of the constituencies which sent us here. The trade unions were invited to offer their opinions on a certain consultative document. One would have expected that opportunity to be taken.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Amendment is much narrower, and refers to the future rather than the past.
  Mr. Fidler: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I am trying to say in my somewhat inexperienced way is that those who are saying that there is insufficient time to debate the Bill have forgotten that when time was available advantage was not taken of it by those to whom it was available.
  The hon. Member for West Ham, North, has entertained us once again to a knock-about performance. He repeated the cliché that the Opposition's job is to oppose. Accepting that, I say that the
  264
  Government's job is to govern, and the Government were elected with a mandate to introduce this legislation. They had explained it to the people in considerable detail over three years.
  The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has suggested that best advantage would come from the Bill if we had presented to the trade unions and others involved all the desirable things that it could achieve. That was the first time in the debate over last week and this week that a finger was put on the real point. For too long we have had gibes from the Opposition about cutting prices at a stroke. It is forgotten that there is in the country an element that hopes to see government by a strike. On occasion that element has been aided and abetted by Labour hon. Members, who drew attention earlier to threats of general strike and the like. This is not conducive to those better industrial relationships which they say they want.
  We spent two days last week discussing but two Clauses. We have been sent here to put the Bill on the Statute Book, so I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will resist the temptation to filibuster, to which so many have succumbed tonight. I hope that they will instead support the very co-operative gesture of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who said that he was prepared to discuss through perhaps somewhat unsual channels extra time for debate. If that is accepted by the Opposition spokesmen, let us leave it at that. If not, let us go to the Division Lobbies as soon as possible and put an end to this further example of filibustering.
  3.39 a.m.
  Mr. Ivor Richard: The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of the rather more hysterical highways and by-ways of his speech. As someone who has been in the House slightly longer than he has—I think about six years longer—I can tell him that he will have to learn that Oppositions are entitled to talk if nothing else. One thing Government back benchers will have to suffer from time to time is sitting and waiting while Opposition Members talk. From time to time the hon. Gentleman may find this annoying, frustrating and rather time-consuming, and he may lose

  265
  a lot of sleep over it. I promise him that from this Opposition he will get a great deal of trouble in this regard.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend not—unwittingly at this hour—unconsciously misleading the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler)? My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman will have to stay and listen. The hon. Gentleman does not have to stay. He can go home to bed whenever he likes.
  Mr. Richard: My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is an old Parliamentarian, and he is right. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe prefers to go home to bed, none of us will miss him.
  I do not think that Parliament has done itself very much good in the last 24 hours and the responsibility for that lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Leader of the House by his action in putting a timetable on a Bill of this sort. He has so affronted opinion on this side of the House—he must have known that he would do so—that the sort of explosion and debate we have seen were inevitable. If he did not realise that at the time he introduced the Motion, then he is extraordinarily insensitive to the emotions and feelings on this side of the House; if he is that insensitive, perhaps he should not be doing the job he is supposed to be doing.
  We have had four different reasons from the Government about why the Motion was introduced, all of them contradictory. I asked the Leader of the House earlier at what moment of time he had decided that the Motion should be introduced. He said that he had decided on it after he had seen the lack of progress which had been made on the first two days in Committee. That is what he said. Whether he is right or not, I do not know, but that was his answer. No doubt hon. Members can read it in HANSARD tomorrow. In reply to our first Amendment——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now straying rather far from the exact terms of the Amendment and I hope that he will come back to them very soon.
  Mr. Richard: I promise you that I will not stray too far, Mr. Deputy
  266
  Speaker, and that I will come back. But since the Leader of the House has said, on this Amendment, "Trust me and I will take your views into consideration", it is important to make it clear why it is that we find difficulty in trusting him when he says that sort of thing after all the contradictions we have heard in the reasons for the Motion.
  The second reason the right hon. Gentleman gave us for his decision to introduce the Motion was the pressure on parliamentary time. He said that he realised that the pressure would be so great that he would have to curtail discussion on the Bill. Was that before Christmas? If it were, would it not have been more honest of him to discuss the matter through the usual channels with the Opposition? Why did he not?
  The third reason, which we got from the Secretary of State, was, "We realised that we would have to guillotine the Bill when we heard the speeches in this House last November and saw and heard some of the things the Official Opposition spokesmen said about the Bill outside the House." Again, if that were the position, why did the right hon. Gentleman not consult us?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the rather narrow terms of the Amendment, as I am sure he now intends to do.
  Mr. Richard: So far we have had three contradictory versions from the Leader of the House as to why the guillotine Motion is necessary. With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it would seem to me that if we put down an Amendment to a guillotine Motion we are entitled to say to the House that the reasoning which lies behind the original Motion is reasoning which the House should not accept. We are also entitled, with respect, to say that, because of the contradiction from Government spokesmen, we should treat the honeyed words that fall from the Leader of the House with extreme caution. The real contradiction in what the Leader of the House has told us lies in the fact that both he and the Secretary of State accepted that the two days so far spent in Committee——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Amendment requires a

  267
  much narrower discussion than that on which he is now embarking.
  Mr. Richard: I now want to relate it specifically.
  If we behave on Report in the way in which the Leader of the House said originally we had behaved in Committee, there could be no answer to our claim for the two days. The Leader of the House and the Secretary of State have said there has been no undue delay by the Opposition in the first two days in Committee. If those words mean anything, they must mean that such delay as there has been was reasonable in all the circumstances of the Bill. If that is so, the request for an extension of the Report stage to six rather than four days must be regarded as reasonable for the Government to accept.
  Mr. Derek Coombs: The hon. Gentleman shows remarkable insensitivity. If both Front Benches have put out olive branches, why do we not leave it at that?
  Mr. Richard: I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman. If the Leader of the House this evening had genuinely offered an olive branch to us, I would be delighted to sit down. But the way in which he has behaved in the last few days does not encourage us to accept his words at face value. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard and knows my opinion of him as an individual, but I would submit that in the last week he has not played fair with the Opposition. In these circumstances, for him to get up and say, "Trust me and I will see you all right", is something we cannot accept. If he is prepared to go a little further than he has done in regard not merely to the matter of further discussion and consideration but to the promise of further time on Report, I shall be delighted to sit down. But if he cannot go further than that, then I am sorry to say that I cannot trust him on this matter.
  3.48 a.m.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: It is difficult to understand why the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State have dug their toes in on this matter, when at this late stage, as the hon. Member
  268
  for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) suggested, they could have offered us a real olive branch. When the Bill has had ten days in Committee, we shall not know what will be the feelings of the country or how angry the trade unions will be because of the lack of concession and consideration. We do not even know whether the Government would be prepared to give two more days at that stage. My hon. Friends have asked for a total of 36 days on the Bill and the Amendment would give us 16, if the Government gladly made available the two extra days of which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking.
  I cannot understand the Leader of the House. I remember when he announced the Committee stage and was asked whether it would be taken on the Floor of the House. When he said that it would, there was great joy and laughter on the Government benches, because it was to be the full glare of publicity on which the Government were to rely for popular support. They believed that the Bill was one of the most popular pieces of legislation ever to come before the country. They thought that great political capital was to be made out of it.
  But we have seen what has happened. In the last week, an opinion poll may have had some effect. The Government now know that the more the Bill is discussed on the Floor of the House and the more it is publicised, the greater the anger of the millions who will be affected. The Government have completely changed their tune. They want the Bill out of the way as quickly as possible, but they are still determined not to make any concessions.
  I do not know whether the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State are being pushed from behind. They seem to have become as irrational and unreasonable about this argument as the Prime Minister has been while in Singapore discussing arms for South Africa. He dug his toes in and would not make any concessions; equally, the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House have dug their toes in about the Bill. I hope that they will reflect on what my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said about an hour ago.
  They are seeking the authority of the House to introduce legislation which is

  269
  more reactionary and liberty-denying to the men and women who will be affected by it than any measure which has been brought to the House in the lifetime of the oldest Member of the House. Nothing comparable with this Bill has been brought before the House in the living memory of its oldest Member. The Bill is offensive enough, but to bring in a guillotine and to refuse to extend the number of days available to discuss the Bill in Committee, and having steamrollered that through, to sit there resolutely refusing to make a concession of two more days for Report is the height of irresponsibility.
  We are told how generous it will be that one-third of parliamentary time will be devoted to the Bill. But this is one of the greatest constitutional Measures of this century. It ought to be given adequate discussion. Men and women can go to prison and be fined under it in circumstances which never applied to them before. In the end, the final sanction must be imprisonment.
  Mr. Dudley Smith indicated dissent.
  Mr. Scott: Would the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) say under which provision of the Bill anyone can be fined?
  Mr. Fernyhough: I can, and I will gladly deal with that. What is the purpose? What other sanction can there be?
  Hon. Members: Answer the question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will recognise, as the Chair recognises, that both the question and an answer would be out of order.
  Mr. Fernyhough: The Government felt that they were being generous in giving one-third of parliamentary time to the Bill. Let us examine the position. If I had interrupted the Leader of the House about an hour ago and asked him to say what the date of the Summer Recess would be, he could have given me a completely truthful answer. He has already decided when the House will rise for the Summer Recess.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I can give the hon. Gentleman the categoric answer that I have not the slightest idea.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Everybody knows that we shall not be here on 11th August,
  270
  and everybody knows why. There will be grouse shooting—but not for hon. Members on this side of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman has not decided, what would be wrong in saying, "All right, instead of the House rising on 25th, 26th or 28th July, we will make it 1st or 2nd August", so that not only the Opposition but the millions of trade unionists who will be affected by the Bill know that at least, after final appeal, the right hon. Gentleman made a little miserly concession?
  I ask him to make it for one reason. He and his right hon. Friends are in a hell of a mess; the country is in a hell of a mess. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen must understand that they can only begin to begin overcoming the problems with which they are surrounded provided that they have the co-operation of the industrial workers. The trade unions have made it clear that they hate and detest this Measure——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying rather wide of the Amendment, which is quite narrow.
  Mr. Fernyhough: I hope that I have made clear that I want a couple of days in August. If this were given it would reduce, although not remove, the anxiety and apprehension of the workers who will be affected by the Bill.
  What I was about to say was that the Government ought to know that they can begin to tackle the economic, financial and other problems, begin to see a little daylight, only if they have the full co-operation of the unions. It is the men and women in the mines, the factories, the fields, the schools, who will be the victims and upon whom the Government must depend to a large extent to solve the nation's problems. Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House, even at this late hour, to undo some of the evil work he has done and to make this little concession. Let him give us a clear promise that the two extra days we seek will be forthcoming for this unwelcome Bill.
  4.2 a.m.
  Mr. Laurie Pavitt: In supporting this Amendment most of my hon. Friends are trying to make some impression upon the Leader of the House. In some ways it is a compliment to him

  271
  because he has built up a reputation as a Leader of the House with some understanding of his job not only in looking after the Government business but in understanding the rights of the minority in this House. A small concession by the right hon. Gentleman would at least give us some hope that he has not entirely deserted the reputation he has built up. Most of us have learned to respect the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend who has an extremely difficult task. It is precisely because of this that on a fundamental issue like this we want him to understand that we cannot discharge our duties properly because we have inadequate time.
  I have had the privilege of sitting through long debates on guillotine Motions under Governments of both parties. One basic difference about this occasion is that this is arousing our ire, not only on political points but as House of Commons men. We feel thoroughly frustrated and unable to do the job we were sent here to do—in terms of using the procedures of this House, especially on Report—owing to the changes that have taken place in the last 10 years. Under each holder of the office of Mr. Speaker the situation has differed. Sir Harry Hylton-Foster was much stricter, in terms of the amount of time allowed on Report for matters that had already been discussed in Committee. In the last six years it has become the custom that on Report we can deal not only with much of the material that has gone through in Committee but, in a Bill of such major importance as this, can pick up a number of things that have emerged in the country.
  We have had a surprisingly non-committal reply from the right hon. Gentleman—quite out of character for him. This is a matter in respect of which he could say, "I am not so inflexible that I cannot recognise the argument." In respect of matters that are likely to arise on the extra two days, I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of his right hon. Friends to the different treatment that has been given to the question of discussing with interests outside the way in which the Bill should be dealt with in the House.
  On the question of consultation with the T.U.C. a different situation has
  272
  arisen since we started on the Bill. It is one thing for the T.U.C. but another for the British Medical Association, in terms of pay for the doctors. The Clauses that we shall be discussing on Report will have a great effect on the situation, and yet the discussion of the whole question will be curtailed by the guillotine Motion.
  Mr. Swain: On a point of order. It is very difficult to hear on the Front Bench because one hon. Member is making his maiden snore. It is very disturbing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Such sounds did not reach the Chair.
  Mr. Pavitt: I am sorry. If there is anyone in the House who cannot hear it is me. I am wearing two hearing aids.
  The whole question of the relationship of the House to places outside it and to the professional organisations will be touched on on Report. The right hon. Gentleman should concede the two days for which we are asking.
  I come from an industrial constituency. I have all the trade unions and industries in it. When the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) wants to look at telephones he comes to Associated Automation, in my constituency. Viscount Boyd of Merton, a previous Tory Minister, is Chairman of Guinness, which is in my constituency. McVitie & Price is in my constituency. I have everybody there. I shall be put under considerable pressure not only in Committee but on Report, in respect of questions which we shall not have time to pick up. I have a responsibility to discharge my duty to trade unionists in my constituency—trade unionists who have not had such a square deal as the doctors have had.
  The right hon. Gentleman knows that when right hon. or hon. Members get to the Front Bench one of two things can happen: either they grow or they swell. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has grown since he has been occupying the Front Bench, first on this side and now on the other. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to grow bigger tonight in his approach and to come up to the kind of leadership of the House which we expect of him. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be such an adamant opponent of the right of free speech of the minority

  273
  to put their case properly, not only as party politicians, but as good House of Commons men.
  4.11 a.m.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Even as a new Member one does not have to be a seer to recognise that Report stage will be very crowded indeed. The reasonable request which the Opposition make tonight for two extra days on Report puts to the test the good faith of the Leader of the House which, unhappily, in the last week or so has suffered.
  The two extra days for which we are asking could easily be provided by cutting down the Easter Recess by two days. Why should it be at the expense of the Opposition by using two Supply Days, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested?
  Earlier, when I intervened in the right hon. Gentleman's speech—he was good enough to give way to me—I commented upon the length of our holidays. This is a matter for comment in the country. Rightly or wrongly, people say that this House enjoys long holidays. We had thirteen and a half weeks for the Summer Recess. It is not enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that this was balanced up by the unusually short Christmas Recess.
  If the Government have business of the utmost importance they must make provision for it. One way is by cutting down—not very significantly—on the recesses which we have. I do not know how long the Easter Recess will be. I gather that it is usually between three and four weeks —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whatever it is, two days out of that recess would not matter vitally compared with the importance of the Government's programme in this regard. If the right hon. Gentleman's good faith is to be meaningful, this is a concession which he ought to make tonight.
  I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the strength of opinion in the working-class movement. The right hon. Gentleman is totally insensitive to it, because he does not go to the kind of meetings which we address. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that this does not matter. It matters vitally, because Parliament is on trial at every meeting which we attend. At the moment, because of this gap, the
  274
  working-class movement finds that Parliament is wanting.
  The concession for which we ask was put in moderate terms by my right hon Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr Houghton). Unfortunately, the right hon Gentleman chose to resist that.
  It is not too late even now, and I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts, because if he does not the consequences can be alarming indeed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be big enough, as my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) suggested, to represent once again the sort of Leader of the House which I, as a new Member—[Interruption.] Do I gather that another gag is to be put on the debate?
  Mr. Whitelaw: No.
  Mr. Davis: If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make the concession for which we are asking, I shall be delighted to sit down.
  Several hon. Members Several hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Whitelaw.
  Mr, Whitelaw: I think that it might help the debate——
  Mr. Orme: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I thought that you had called me.
  Mr. Speaker: No. Mr. Whitelaw.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it might help the debate if I reply to the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) who made a conciliatory suggestion about time, and I responded, as I thought, in a conciliatory way.
  The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) is entitled to say, and I do not resent it, that he has no reason, and nor has any other hon. Gentleman on the benches opposite, to trust what I say after what they feel has happened over the last few days. If that is what they feel, they are entitled to take that view.
  Having considered very carefully what has been said further in the debate, and as a gesture at the end of the very long debate on this guillotine Motion, I have

  275
  decided that the right course to adopt—and I take the point about the Report stage—is to advise the House to accept the Amendment.

  Division No. 72.]

  AYES

  [4.18 a.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Kirk, Peter

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Emery, Peter

  Kitson, Timothy

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Knox, David

  Astor, John

  Farr, John

  Lambton, Antony

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fell, Anthony

  Lane, David

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fidler, Michael

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Balniel, Lord

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Batsford, Brian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

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

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fortescue, Tim

  Longden, Gilbert

  Bell, Ronald

  Foster, Sir John

  Loveridge, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fowler, Norman

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

  MacArthur, Ian

  Benyon, W.

  Fry, Peter

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McLaren, Martin

  Biffen, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Blaker, Peter

  Gilmour, Sir Jahn (Fife, E.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mc-Nair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gorst, John

  Maddan, Martin

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gower, Raymond

  Madel, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gray, Hamish

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Green, Alan

  Marten, Neil

  Braine, Bernard

  Grieve, Percy

  Mather, Carol

  Brewis, John

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Maude, Angus

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Grylls, Michael

  Mawby, Ray

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gurden, Harold

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Buchanan-Smith Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Buck, Antony

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

  Burden, F. A.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Molyneaux, James

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Money, Ernle

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hastings, Stephen

  Monro, Hector

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Havers, Michael

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Channon, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  More, Jasper

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mudd, David

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Murton, Oscar

  Clegg, Walter

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

  Neave, Airey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Cookem Robert

  Holland, Philip

  Normanton, Tom

  Coombs, Derek

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Nott, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hordern, Peter

  Onslow, Cranley

  Cordle, John

  Hornby, Richard

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Cormack, Patrick

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Costain, A. P.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Crouch, David

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Curran, Charles

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Peel, John

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  James, David

  Percival, Ian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

  Jessel, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Dean, Paul

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jopling, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Dixon, Piers

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Prior, 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

  Amendment agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 252.

  Redmond, Robert

  Sproat, Iain

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Stainton, Keith

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waddington, David

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Wall, Patrick

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stokes, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Rippon, Rt. Hn, Geoffrey

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Warren, Kenneth

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Rost, Peter

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

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Royle, Anthony

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Scott, Nicholas

  Temple, John M.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Sharples, Richard

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Simeons, Charles

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Tilney, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

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

  Trew, Peter

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Soref, Harold

  Tugenedhat, Christopher

  Mr. Victor Goodhew and

  Speed, Keith

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  Spence, John

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hunter, Adam

  Albu, Austen

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Janner, Greville

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Dempsey, James

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

  Alldritt, Walter

  Doig, Peter

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Dormant, J. D.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Ashton, Joe

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  John, Brynmor

  Atkinson, Norman

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Barnes, Michael

  Dunn, James A.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Heaney, Alan

  Eadie, Alex

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Edelman, Maurice

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

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Ellis, Tom

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Evans, Fred

  Kelley, Richard

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Booth, Albert

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

  Kinnock, Neil

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lambie, David

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lamond, James

  Bradley, Tom

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Foley, Maurice

  Lawson, George

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

  Foot, Michael

  Leonard, Dick

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ford, Ben

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Buchan, Norman

  Forrester, John

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cant, R. B.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Carmichael, Neil

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Ginsburg, David

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Golding, John

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McBride, Neil

  Clark, David (Come Valley)

  Gourlay, Harry

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  McElhone, Frank

  Cohen, Stanley

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Concannon, J. D.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Mackie, John

  Conlan, Barnard

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Cronin, John

  Harper, Joseph

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

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

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn, Judith

  Marks, Kenneth

  Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitchaven)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Marquand, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Davidson, Arthur

  Horam, John

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mendelson, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Deakins, Eric

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Millan, Bruce

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  278

  279

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Swain, Thomas

  Molloy, William

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Taverne, Dick

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Richard, Ivor

  Thomas, Jeffery (Abertillery

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

  Tinn, James

  Moyle, Roland

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Tomney, Frank

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Torney, Tom

  Murray, Ronald King

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Ogden, Eric

  Roper, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  O'Malley, Brian

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

  Oram, Bert

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wallace, George

  Orme, Stanley

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

  Watkins, David

  Silkin, Rt Hn. John (Deptford)

  Weitzman, David

  Oswald, Thomas

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Owen, Dt. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Sillars, James

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Padley, Walter

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Palmer, Arthur

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitlock, William

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Small, William

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Pentland, Norman

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Perry Ernest G.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Prescott, John

  Strang, Gavin

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Probert, Arthur

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  NEWPORT (DOCK ACCESS ROAD)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  4.28 a.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: This scheme of an access road in Newport has been given fresh impetus by the Government's decision, announced on 17th November, to authorise the Port of Bristol's West Dock expansion scheme, under Section 9 of the Harbours Act, 1964. But it first came into focus in 1967, although the British Transport Docks Board was aware of its possibilities for several years before.
  The difficulty has been putting the scheme into the road programme, because it cannot be justified as a principal traffic road, and therefore grant aid was not available. Anyone who visits the site does not have to be a planning expert to realise that the project is a "natural", since a rudimentary track already exists on the route of the proposed road.
  Mr. Jim Iles, the former Town Clerk of Newport, pursued the idea energetically, and on 7th September, 1967, the Council's General Purposes Committee agreed in principle to a £500,000 scheme to build the road. The new timber terminal of Messrs. MacMillan, Bloedell &
  280
  Meyer Ltd., which was officially opened on 8th September 1967, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister, undoubtedly encouraged the committee in its decision. It was felt that traffic for the terminal would need quick access to the M4 because it was intended to distribute from Newport as far afield as Manchester and Plymouth.
  The first stage of the road development envisaged was an improvement at the junction of Mendalgief Road with Cardiff Road at the Belle Vue roundabout. Then the long term idea was to take the docks traffic along the existing Maesglas Road and from there by means of a new bridge on the Cardiff Road near the Forge Lane roundabout. The committee tentatively agreed that the council should make a contribution of £100,000, and the Welsh Office was prepared to make a recommendation to the Treasury for a similar amount, and that would have left £300,000 to be found by the British Transport Docks Board and the Ministry of Transport.
  However, the method of financing came adrift because the Board refused to make a contribution. I was keen for the work to go ahead and, in an effort to get the Board to have second thoughts on the matter, on 11th October, 1967, I met the Chairman of the Board, the late Mr. Sidney Finnis, at his London office. However, he was adamant in affirming

  281
  that, in principle, his Board would be just as justified in putting money into the M1.
  Nevertheless, in the past schemes of a similar character have been embarked upon. For example, an access road was provided by Newport Corporation for the Spencer Steel Works, with a contribution from Messrs. Richard, Thomas and Baldwin; a road at Talbot Green, in connection with Fram Filters, for which the Board of Trade made a 50 per cent. grant, and the provision of an access road to Southampton docks.
  However, the Board was right to point out that it, the Board, was a substantial ratepayer in the borough. In 1966–67 its contribution in rates was £226,000. In 1967–68 and 1968–69 it was nearly £140,000. There was a considerable drop in 1969–70, because the docks had been closed for several months due to technical difficulties with the lock gates.
  The amount paid in rates by the Board, it is important to understand, is based on the level of profits, which is another compelling reason for the building of the road, for it would provide a quick linkup with the motorway and directly improve the efficiency of the docks. This, in turn, could mean more trade and bigger profits, with a correspondingly greater return in rates for the Corporation. It would, in other words, be an excellent investment all round.
  There are other important grounds on which this docks access road to the motorway can be justified. Consider, for example, the improvement that would be made in the environment of the area. One of the first decisions of the present Prime Minister on taking office was to appoint a Minister especially to have responsibility for the environment. But it is the practical application of measures to improve things that really count.
  Hon. Members will be aware of the difficulties that arise from the movement of heavy lorries, such as noise, fumes, and congestion. In a busy town like Newport this is a considerable problem. At a stroke, this heavy traffic going through the town and its residential areas, to the docks could be diverted and the journey speeded up. The citizens of Newport would certainly welcome such a development.
  282
  The town is a busy industrial town, and geographically it is excellently sited, with immense possibilities for economic growth. The flats east and west of Newport have been officially designated by consultants acting for the Government as one of the outstanding sites in the whole country for a maritime industrial development area scheme. It also figures very prominently in the projected Sevemside development of which we are likely to hear a good deal in the near future. In July last year we had the report by the University College, Cardiff, on Maritime Industry and Port Development in South Wales, and it pointed very directly to the need to construct a direct road link from Newport docks to the motorway.
  My constituents have a great affection for the docks, for it was there that it all started, and Pill—Pillgwenlly to give it its full title—is still regarded as the heart of the town.
  Now, a new and dangerous situation has arisen with the decision of the Government to authorise the Port of Bristol's major expansion scheme. It is the biggest threat to Newport and the South Wales ports generally for a long time. As the South Wales Argus in an editorial article on 20th November, 1970, pointed out:
  "If carried through such a scheme must inevitably take trade from South Wales and this could mean fewer jobs and less prosperity for the area where there is already under-utilised capacity in the ports. This is not a plea for the spoon-feeding of the Welsh ports. In the end, they will stand or fall on their efficiency or otherwise. But there are more practical and more general considerations. Development could take place at the South Wales ports more quickly, efficiently and at a fraction of the cost of the West Dock scheme."
  I appreciate, though, that commercial considerations have been of little concern to this Government for they have been engaged in a vote-catching exercise, and in the process may have put all the South Wales ports in jeopardy. Regularly every weekend, long before the General Election, one or other of the members of the then Shadow Cabinet trotted down to Bristol and poured out the simple message: "Vote Conservative and you can have your port development." Competition is their parrot cry, but surely even the members of this Government will eventually realise that we are only a tiny

  283
  island that that our ports have plenty of competition from the Rotterdams of this world.
  The present Secretary of State for Wales has a great measure of responsibility for the decision, but I appreciate that his real job in this administration is chairman of the Conservative Party——
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): For which decision?
  Mr. Hughes: Presumably, this was a Cabinet decision, and the right hon. and and learned Gentleman, as I understand things, is the voice of Wales in the Cabinet. One looks back with nostalgia to the days of his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), for then the ports of South Wales had a real and genuine spokesman in the Cabinet.
  Surely, though, even a Government as heartless as this can appreciate the need at the present time for this dock access road in Newport. The total cost was estimated at only £500,000, which is a mere pittance compared with the £12½ million of public money that has been authorised for Bristol. It is Newport of all the South Wales ports that is nearest to its rival on the other side of the Channel, and which will bear the brunt of the new challenge. Is it too much to ask, then, for this small concession to help improve its competitive efficiency?
  The other side of the coin is the Newport Corporation. I apologise for the fact that for nearly four years it has been controlled by the Conservative Party, because for sheer ineptitude it has won a few first prizes. Its housing record, and the entanglement and mess it left over the reorganisation of secondary education are but two examples. On 11th January the planning committee met to consider the future of the docks. The meeting was held in secret session, after the Press had been excluded, but apparently a decision was taken to set aside the sum of £4,000 to fight the Port of Bristol's Parliamentary Bill. Afterwards the town clerk made a statement, and I should like to read some extracts from the statement which appeared in a report in the South Wales Argus dated 12th January:
  "The town clerk, Mr. John Long, warned that the chances of Newport stopping the Bristol plan were nil. He stated that even if
  284
  they were successful in getting the Bill rejected at the Committee stage in one or other of the Houses of Parliament there seemed little doubt that the Government would use its majority to get the Bill through Parliament at the Report stage. The Government was politically committed to allowing the scheme to proceed as promises to this effect had been made before and during the General Election. Mr. Long pointed out that the British Transport Docks Board, who were the sole opponents of Bristol's 1967 scheme, would not be opposing the present Bill. Barry was the only local authority prepared to join Newport in opposing the Bill. He added that at the hearing by the Select Committee, Bristol would be able to make a great play of the fact that the Bill was not being opposed by the Docks Board, Cardiff, Port Talbot or Swansea."
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman is not, strictly speaking, in order on an Adjournment debate. It seems to me that he is talking more about something which is in the purview of the local authority's responsibility and not something for which the Minister has responsibility.
  Mr. Hughes: This, strictly speaking, is a joint exercise between the Ministry and the Newport Corporation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What I want to say is that this statement was a highly charged political statement, and that such pronouncements should be made by elected representatives and not by officials. The best contribution that the Newport Corporation can make to the future of the docks is to push full speed ahead with the plan to build a dock access road, which is the subject of this debate. Yet in practice, one finds that little effort is being made. A joint meeting was held with representatives of the Welsh Office, the Docks Board and the borough council——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's speech is entirely out of order. He had better try to put what he wants to say in a few words and as soon as he can, and get back into order. Government responsibility is what is germane to an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Hughes: In a Parliamentary Answer to me on 2nd November, the Secretary of State for Wales pointed out that
  "Divergent views were expressed about the priority and financing of such a road. In the light of the discussion I am considering whether there is any further way in which the Government can help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 648].

  285
  Questions were then asked about this matter at a meeting of the Public Works Committee on 4th November, but the official requested the Press not to report his reply but confirmed that there was no money in the estimates for such a road and also that no provision was made in the present five year capital programme for such a road.
  I am sorry to dilate on this point, but it is very much an interrelated matter. This is yet another example of what I mean by ineptitude, and the increasing tendency for secrecy is also indicative of a faltering Administration. In any case, I do not share this conception of the inevitability of the Bristol scheme going ahead, and neither do my Labour parliamentary colleagues in South Wales, for we shall fight it in every way possible. On Friday of this week the Caledonian Society in my constituency will recall the immortal memory of the Scottish bard with the visit by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the former Secretary of State for Scotland. I say this because it is worth remainding ourselves that
  "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft a-gley".
  This could well happen with the Bristol plan, particularly when the ratepayers of that famous city realise that it is they who will have to foot the bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member's speech is still not in order. We cannot deal here with the ratepayers' responsibilities.
  Mr. Hughes: I am just coming to my conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is a good deal of concern in Newport today about the future of the docks. On Saturday, 9th January, I met a large delegation representing all registered dockers at the port, and they were led by Mr. James Heaven, J.P., Newport and district committee chairman of the Transport and General Workers' Union. They expressed very forcibly to me their concern about the future, and particularly about the need for such improvements as the access road to which I have referred.
  I want to be able to assure the port workers of Newport that efforts are being made to improve the efficiency of the docks, which, in turn, could mean bringing
  286
  in more trade and successfully competing with Bristol even if the development scheme goes ahead there. What I expect from the Minister, therefore, is an assurance that the money will be found for this vital scheme. It is essential at the present time to improve the efficiency of Newport, and, surely £500,000 is not an impossible sum to be raised by the Government and a prosperous county borough like Newport. I feel that the project should be given the go-ahead without further delay.
  4.46 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): Perhaps it was fortunate that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) made his speech to an empty House at half-past four in the morning, for I do not think that he has furthered the cause of Newport by the partisan line which he decided to take. However, having said that, I very much welcome his raising of the issue of this important road at Newport docks.
  The prosperity of the South Wales ports has been a matter of considerable interest and care to this and to previous Governments. What is happening on the other side of the Bristol Channel has little relation to the Newport problem, as is shown by the fact that very few local authorities in South Wales have sought to support the hon. Gentleman's argument in this case. If the burghers of Bristol wish to find money for their port, it is equally open to the hon. Gentleman and his burghers to support their port if they wish to do so. The Government are not giving money to Bristol.
  Good road access is an important requirement of any modern port, and this is a point which has to be kept constantly in mind by any authority planning highway improvements. It is something which my right hon. and learned Friend and I are particularly conscious of in Wales. Traditionally, the South Wales ports have depended on good north-south road and rail links with the Valleys to provide a free flow of coal for export. The new need is for good east-west links by road to meet the changing industrial pattern in South Wales. I have seen the line of this proposed road and have travelled along part of it as it now stands, as has the hon. Gentleman himself.

  287
  I should not like it to be thought that road communications between Newport and the rest of the United Kingdom are poor. They are already good, and within the next year or so will be still further improved. The M4 motorway which passes around the north of Newport will have been completed to London by the end of this year. Work is also now in progress on the final stage of the new Midlands road, which should be completed to link with the M4 at Coldra, just east of Newport, towards the end of next year. Schemes are, in addition, being prepared to continue the M4 westwards to Swansea and beyond. We are, therefore, considering only the last mile or so of road between the main excellent highway network serving the Borough of Newport and the docks entrance itself.
  I must make clear the limitation which exists in the Government's own direct responsibility for providing a new access road into Newport Docks. The hon. Gentleman himself touched on this. The Government can take, and have taken, a hand in bringing together the interests which are mainly concerned with this problem and can help to secure agreement and action. I think that the borough council and the Docks Board accept, however, that the primary responsibility for building the road must rest with the borough council, which will be the highway authority. I cannot speak for the borough council.
  I should, however, like to make it quite clear that in our discussions with officials of the borough they have left us in no doubt of their very considerable interest in, and concern for, the welfare and prosperity of the docks; they have made it clear that it is their council's policy to do all that it reasonably can to encourage and support the Docks Board in its plans for the future well-being of the docks.
  The stretch of road we are talking about will be about one mile long and will run from Maesglas Road westwards to join the A48 road, east of Tredegar Park, which is the present western terminal of the M4 motorway. Its estimated cost—and I correct the hon. Gentleman here—would be about £700,000 in the first stage, when it would be constructed as a single 24-ft. carriageway. An additional £120,000 would have to be spent eventually to convert it to dual carriage-
  288
  way standards. It is therefore quite a major scheme which needs proper justification.
  This justification can be considered under three heads. The first is the greater attractiveness of Newport Docks to traders if there is first-class road access to the M4 motorway. I can understand that all concerned are most anxious to ensure that the Newport Docks, with the excellent facilities they already enjoy, also provide direct access to the major communication links with all parts of Britain.
  The second advantage results from the speeding up of traffic between the motorway and the docks. The present roads are far from ideal and there will be a reduction in congestion costs if journey times can be reduced.
  I should say here, however, that there has been some doubt about the magnitude of these savings. At our request the Docks Board estimated last year the number of vehicles which might use the new access road as a result of developments within the docks. The borough council is also aware of developments outside the docks which might generate traffic on the new road. It was concluded from these studies that although traffic flows could not be precisely forecast, it would take some time before they came up to the capacity of the proposed road.
  I would not wish to make too much of this point as an argument against building the docks road. The cost of the road is, however, considerable. One of the matters which clearly has to be considered in this, as in other projects, is the need to ensure that such an investment would bring a worth-while return when compared with other important highway improvement schemes within the borough.
  The third advantage lies in the field of town planning. This again is primarily a matter for the borough council, which appreciates that a situation in which heavy vehicles to and from the docks have to pass along residential streets and through built-up areas is undesirable. In so far as a new access road would remove this traffic from the town centre it would therefore undoubtedly be of benefit for that reason.
  I should now like to come to the present situation in relation to the road. As the hon. Member will know, both during the previous Administration's term of

  289
  office and more recently meetings have been held between my officials and officials of the Docks Board and the borough council to discuss this scheme. The most recent meeting took place on 6th January, 1971. It was agreed at this meeting that the most promising way of making progress might now be to consider the docks access road in its broader context, as part of the general pattern of future highway improvements within the Borough of Newport, rather than, as in the past, as an isolated spur road leading from the A48 road to the docks.
  As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were considerable difficulties, mainly relating to finance, in getting agreement to build the road on this latter basis. These difficulties were, in the view of those who took part in discussion about them, not to be overcome by relatively minor changes in the proportions in which the costs might have been borne. This new approach is a matter where once again I cannot speak for the borough council. The council is, however, already preparing plans for future highway developments within the borough in the light of future planning and traffic needs. I understand that one possibility might be a proposal for a new highway of which the docks access road could form a part. It has been invited to submit its views to my right hon. and learned Friend on this idea as quickly as possible.
  290
  Such a proposal would, of course, have to be considered in relation to the transport pattern within the whole of the borough, and there would be planning implications which would have to be the subject of further study. The council might, however, wish to approach my right hon. and learned Friend to see whether such a new road could be given the status of a principal road so that it would qualify for a 75 per cent. grant when it is built. My officials have invited officials of the borough to consider this possibility. Responsibility for the highway system within the borough rests, of course, with the council and it is for the council to make its plans and fix its priorities.
  I must also keep an open mind at present on the planning and financial implications of such a proposal. I can give the hon. Gentleman, however, an assurance that if, as a result of the considerations which the borough is giving to the matter, my right hon. and learned Friend receives an application for a new principal road to be built serving the docks as part of a comprehensive scheme for highway improvement within the borough, he will give it his earnest consideration.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Five o'clock a.m.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Herr Scheel (Ministerial Meeting)
  Herr Scheel (Ministerial Meeting)
  Foreign Secretary of Spain
  Foreign Secretary of Spain
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  United Nations (Convention on Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft)
  United Nations (Convention on Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft)
  Kenya (Farm Settlement Schemes)
  Kenya (Farm Settlement Schemes)
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference
  Malta
  Malta
  Peaceful Uses of the Seabed
  Peaceful Uses of the Seabed
  Israel
  Israel
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Drugs (Imports)
  Drugs (Imports)
  United Nations Disaster Agency
  United Nations Disaster Agency
  World Population Control
  World Population Control
  South Pacific Commission
  South Pacific Commission
  British Ambassador's Car, Paris
  British Ambassador's Car, Paris
  Radioactive Fall-out
  Radioactive Fall-out
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Czechoslovak Citizens
  Czechoslovak Citizens
  Syria
  Syria
  Immigration Applications (Delays)
  Immigration Applications (Delays)
  Foreign Nationals (Appeals for Clemency)
  Foreign Nationals (Appeals for Clemency)
  Ghana (Debt Payments)
  Ghana (Debt Payments)
  European Youth Foundation
  European Youth Foundation
  Jamaica (Banana Growing)
  Jamaica (Banana Growing)
  Botswana
  Botswana
  Swaziland
  Swaziland
  Mauritius
  Mauritius
  Overseas Development
  Overseas Development
  United Nations Volunteer Programme
  United Nations Volunteer Programme
  United Nations Specialised Agencies
  United Nations Specialised Agencies
  Persian Gulf States (Relations)
  Persian Gulf States (Relations)
  Kenya (Mr. John Williamson)
  Kenya (Mr. John Williamson)
  Zambia Defence Forces (British Officers)
  Zambia Defence Forces (British Officers)
  East Pakistan (Military Relief Operation)
  East Pakistan (Military Relief Operation)
  Anguilla
  Anguilla
  Guinea
  Guinea
  Members (Use of Official Embassy Cars)
  Members (Use of Official Embassy Cars)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Industrial and Commercial Projects
  Industrial and Commercial Projects
  Electricity Boards (Consultative Councils)
  Electricity Boards (Consultative Councils)
  Gas and Electricity (Connection Charges)
  Gas and Electricity (Connection Charges)
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Advance Factories (Carmarthenshire)
  Advance Factories (Carmarthenshire)
  Peterlee (Government-sponsored Research Organisation)
  Peterlee (Government-sponsored Research Organisation)
  Meat and Pork Products
  Meat and Pork Products
  Unemployment (North Lanarkshire)
  Unemployment (North Lanarkshire)
  Unemployment (Bootle)
  Unemployment (Bootle)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Local Radio Stations
  Local Radio Stations
  B.B.C. (Licence and Agreement)
  B.B.C. (Licence and Agreement)
  Radio Stoke
  Radio Stoke
  Giro
  Giro
  Radio Derby
  Radio Derby
  Commercial National Radio Service
  Commercial National Radio Service
  Telephone Subscribers (Compensation for Strike)
  Telephone Subscribers (Compensation for Strike)
  Broadcasting (Reports of Violence)
  Broadcasting (Reports of Violence)
  Television Levy
  Television Levy
  Commonwealth Press Cable Rates (Increase)
  Commonwealth Press Cable Rates (Increase)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Children of Broken Marriages
  Children of Broken Marriages
  School Meals (Means Tests)
  School Meals (Means Tests)
  Independent Schools (Unqualified Teachers)
  Independent Schools (Unqualified Teachers)
  School Building (Consortia)
  School Building (Consortia)
  New Construction (Direct Labour)
  New Construction (Direct Labour)
  Drug Taking
  Drug Taking
  Secondary Schools (Teachers)
  Secondary Schools (Teachers)
  Teachers (Foreign Qualifications)
  Teachers (Foreign Qualifications)
  Unqualified Teachers
  Unqualified Teachers
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Primary and Secondary Schools
  Royal Institute of Chemistry (Licentiateship)
  Royal Institute of Chemistry (Licentiateship)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigrants from Australia and New Zealand
  Immigrants from Australia and New Zealand
  El Al Aircraft (Hi-jacking Attempt)
  El Al Aircraft (Hi-jacking Attempt)
  Police
  Police
  Adoption Act, 1968
  Adoption Act, 1968
  Charitable and Sporting Organisations (Income)
  Charitable and Sporting Organisations (Income)
  Crowther Commission (Report)
  Crowther Commission (Report)
  Fire Service (Pay and Conditions)
  Fire Service (Pay and Conditions)
ENVIRONMENT
  Empty Properties (Rating)
  Empty Properties (Rating)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Motorway
  Motorway
  Urban Roads (Capital Expenditure)
  Urban Roads (Capital Expenditure)
  Road Maintenance (Expenditure)
  Road Maintenance (Expenditure)
  Building Regulations (Representations)
  Building Regulations (Representations)
  Land Commission (Sales)
  Land Commission (Sales)
  Smoke Control Orders, Greater London
  Smoke Control Orders, Greater London
  Transport Managers
  Transport Managers
  Continental Lorries
  Continental Lorries
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Dumping
  Dumping
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SMOKING)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SMOKING)
DEFENCE
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
EMPLOYMENT
  General Index of Retail Prices
  General Index of Retail Prices
  Redundancy
  Redundancy
  Port Register, Merseyside
  Port Register, Merseyside
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Schedule E Deductions
  Schedule E Deductions
  Decimalisation Advertising (Weekly Newspapers)
  Decimalisation Advertising (Weekly Newspapers)
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Pension Funds (Investment in Building Societies)
  Pension Funds (Investment in Building Societies)
SCOTLAND
  Local Authority Housing Programmes
  Local Authority Housing Programmes
  Local Authority Houses (Cost)
  Local Authority Houses (Cost)
  Greater Glasgow Transport Study
  Greater Glasgow Transport Study
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  Sheffield Regional Hospital Board
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Improvement of the Dental Conditions of Populations
  Improvement of the Dental Conditions of Populations
  Babies' Cot Deaths
  Babies' Cot Deaths
  Social Survey Questionnaire
  Social Survey Questionnaire
  General Sales List Committee (Representation)
  General Sales List Committee (Representation)
  City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent (Geriatric Unit)
  City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent (Geriatric Unit)
  Invalids (Transport)
  Invalids (Transport)
  Sick and Elderly Parents
  Sick and Elderly Parents
  Welfare Foods
  Welfare Foods
WALES
  Ministry of Agriculture Employees (Redundancies)
  Ministry of Agriculture Employees (Redundancies)
  Bristol Dock Expansion
  Bristol Dock Expansion
  Derelict Areas
  Derelict Areas
  Rabbit Clearance Societies
  Rabbit Clearance Societies

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

SOVIET UNION: MIGRATION RIGHTS OF JEWS
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider making representations to the Government of the U.S.S.R. on behalf of Jewish Soviet citizens who desire to migrate to Israel in accordance with Articles 13 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where such Jewish citizens have not, at the time of application for permission to migrate, been convicted of non-political crimes or of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the Answer to the noble Lord's Question is, No. We have no formal standing in this matter, and I do not believe that further approaches at present would be helpful to Soviet Jews.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that that Answer will give little satisfaction to those of us who are anxious to try to help not merely the Jewish people but the U.S.S.R. in their own problems? Many of us have had sympathy with the problems in general of the U.S.S.R. and feel that they would have nothing to lose by releasing these citizens who apparently desire to go to Israel.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's feeling in this matter, and it is something which I am certain noble Lords in
700
all quarters of the House share. It is very much a matter of judgment as to when and how one makes representations. The noble Lord might like to know that the subject was raised informally with Mr. Gromyko when he was over here in November.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? If, for reasons of protocol, it seems inadvisable to make official and public representations to the Soviet Union, would the noble Marquess care to discuss the matter with his right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, who may feel inclined to indulge in private representations—not official or public representations—indicating his sympathy with this subject? If his right honourable friend should feel so inclined and meets with a favourable or sympathetic response, would he care to notify those noble Lords who are interested in the matter?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to inform my right honourable friend of the noble Lord's remarks in this regard. As I said before, I think we all feel sympathy with the situation of the Jews in Soviet Russia at the present time, and it is just a question of deciding, as a matter of judgment, how best to go about the matter.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the fact that we are signatories to the Declaration of Human Rights, would the noble Marquess consider whether it is possible for some official steps to be taken? Is this possible, in view of the horrible situation which exists at present in the U.S.S.R. and the vast sympathy that was shown to the Jewish community there by the public in this country and in other countries, and particularly in the United States, which I had the privilege of visiting recently? Is it not terribly important that this matter should not go by default and that every possible effort should be made, especially in view of the present situation, with further trials and so on, which are horrifying the world.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I agree that it is a matter of importance. The noble Lord has mentioned the Declaration of Human Rights, and that is something which we may be able to act upon. As I think he is aware,

701
one does not always get the positive results one wants by raising matters at the United Nations. Nevertheless I will certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he thinks that positive harm will be done to these unfortunate people by public expressions of disgust at this recrudescence of the most beastly of political emotions, anti-Semitism?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I hope not, but I will certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is not the noble Marquess aware that the very strong protests that have been raised throughout the world have at least had some influence on the U.S.S.R.? Is it not a fact that they want to be regarded as civilised people, and that what they are doing at present is bestial and uncivilised?
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Marquess at least be prepared to approach his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and ask him to explain to the U.S.S.R. that many people in this country find it impossible to understand how there can be this attitude towards the Jewish citizens of the U S.S.R., hearing in mind the dominant role played by the U.S.S.R. in the defeat of Hitlerite Germany and that régime's persecution of the Jewish people?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly draw the noble Lord's views to the attention of my right honourable friend.

MERCURIC CONTAMINATION OF CANNED TUNA FISH
2.40 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why there has been a major discrepancy between the administrative action taken in the United Kingdom and that
702
taken by the Government of the U.S.A., on the mercuric contamination of canned tuna fish.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the administrative action we have taken is intended to deal with quite different conditions here as compared with those in the United States of America. We have accepted the advice of the Pharmacological Sub-Committee on medical aspects of food policy that there is no need at the present time to set a limit for the level of mercury residues in canned tuna fish. My right honourable friend has also acted on the committee's request that a full study be made of mercury residues in food. My right honourable friend announced recently the details of the monitoring scheme which is now in operation.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Earl satisfied that we have taken such administrative action as we have taken with the fullest possible scientific advice available to us? Is the noble Earl further aware that there appears to be some indication that, in the light of recent action taken by the Government in this matter, certain extremely efficient and competent retail organisations have put this particular canned food back on the shelves for sale to the public, although there is more and more evidence that the absorptive capacity of the human body in the matter of mercuric poisoning is not, as yet, fully understood?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern over this matter. The fact is that my right honourable friend has taken the advice of the Pharmacological Sub-Committee, which was strengthened by five experts on mercuric matters when the United States first found this problem. I would stress that conditions here are different from those which appertain in the United States, if only because we in this country consume one-tenth of the tuna fish which the United States consumes.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us in what respects conditions are different? Is he aware that the fact that we as a community consume only one-tenth is no indication of the total intake of mercury which certain individuals may have. It would be helpful if we could have a

703
fuller statement on these risks. I acknowledge that the noble Earl has to listen to the advice which he is given.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the important point is the amount of mercury consumed by an individual. The Government have taken samples over the period 1966–67 of different quantities of foods consumed, and the amount of mercury available was down to the least detectable amounts. Obviously, conditions are different in this country since the amount of tuna fish consumed is very considerably less than in America. In America there is a guideline of 0·5 parts per million which is acceptable, but in Japan and Sweden, which are both great fish-eating countries, the legal limit is double that at one part per million.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if the same group is consuming this tuna fish, is it not possible that they are getting very near to the danger point?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, when considering this point the Pharmacological Sub-Committee took into account those people who were larger consumers of tuna fish; namely, those people on a slimming diet. Apparently, you can eat up to a tin of tuna fish a day without any risk whatsoever.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that, time after time, the pronouncements of the Food and Drug Administration of the United States have been proved to be better informed than the pronouncements of similar organisations in this country and in Europe, which very often pronounce too late on the same subjects?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my right honourable friend takes the advice of the Committee, and part of the advice which it gave was that a monitoring system should be set up. My right honourable friend has decided to do that, and the system will specifically monitor 3,000 different types of foods consumed by different individuals, on the point of the mercurial residues in them.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl if he will consider again with his right honourable friend whether the advice on these matters comes in time? For instance, is he
704
aware that it is 12 or 15 years since concern was expressed about mercury seed dressings and other toxic chemicals, and that it was some years before the situation was corrected? While acknowledging that advice has to be listened to, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will put to his right honourable friend some of the searching questions which I am sure he himself can think of?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in this matter, and I will certainly pass on his observations to my right honourable friend.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to recall that it was the Food and Drug Administration of the United States which told the people of the United States not to consume thalidomide, and that the Government of this country and the Governments of Western Germany and other European countries reassured the people and told them not to take any notice of that warning? Does the noble Earl recall that in consequence the United States did not have one malformed child, whereas this country and Western Germany had thousands?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the point which the noble Baroness has made. While taking account of the recommendations which other countries make, we in this country must have our own bodies to advise Ministers.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, having listened to the exchange between the two Front Benches, I am satisfied that the authorities will have been alerted about this problem? Finally, may I ask whether he is aware that one of the great anxieties is that the advice tendered to the United States Administration is that it is not really known how dangerous is the gradual build-up of the mercury intake into a human being, when a diet includes the periodical eating of tuna?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is perfectly true, and that is why my right honourable friend has set up this monitoring system. It will then be possible to see whether the levels of mercury in foods which are consumed will lead to an unacceptable standard.

LESOTHO: DETENTION OF MR. MOKHEHLE
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make representations to the Government of Lesotho for the release of Mr. Mokhehle, the Opposition Leader, who is understood to have won the last election in that country.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is, "No". Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi to make representations on Mr. Mokhehle's behalf, and to do so would depart from our policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other Commonwealth countries.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether he can recollect that after the election in Lesotho, when the Government cancelled the results, Her Majesty's Government withdrew for a time aid to that country? In view of the fact that aid has now been renewed, and that British officers have been seconded to Lesotho service, are there not grounds for making some representations that the Leader of the Opposition in Lesotho, who has been in detention since the election, should now be released?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, on the general point I do not think I can add to what I said in my original Answer. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the restoration of aid which followed on the recognition of the Government of Lesotho was of course dependent on the criteria for recognition; and to depart from our policy of non-intervention and use aid to influence internal political developments in any other Commonwealth country would, I think, be unacceptable.

SHIPBUILDING CREDIT GUARANTEES
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended to continue the credit and other financial facilities to the shipbuilding industry which have been in operation for several years.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government are reviewing the situation, but meantime, as announced on July 24, have stated their intention to raise to £600 million the limit on credit guarantees to United Kingdom yards. I cannot say more than this in advance of the completion of the Government's review.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that that Answer goes some way in my direction and in the direction of providing some assistance to the shipbuilding industry of the country. But does he also recognise that although the shipbuilding yards have a substantial number of orders at the present time they are very much concerned about the severity of competition which faces them from those other countries where shipbuilding receives facilities of a credit character, and also a vast amount of subsidy? Will the noble Lord take that into consideration?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; I am sure the Government will take this into consideration in the review which they are making.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I put this further supplementary question? Is anything being done about the position of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and the position on the North-East coast, where they are faced with unprofitability because of fixed charges when tendering for orders?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Upper Clyde Shipbuiders' position at the present time.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in view of the supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Shinwell, will the noble Lord not forget that if it had not been for the support that was given by the previous Government in regard to the Furness Shipyard between 2,000 and 3,000 people would have been unemployed at that particular time but were

707
taken over by the shipbuilding organisation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that this is one of the considerations which will be in the mind of the Government in making their review.

BUSINESS
2.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a question about the arrangement of business to-day. When the House last met, on Thursday of last week, the order of business for to-day showed the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill as coming before the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill. Apparently some time on Thursday afternoon a decision was taken by the Government, or the Government Chief Whip, to reverse the order, and we now find the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill coming before the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill. It is in my experience quite unprecedented to make a change in the order of business not merely without informing the people most concerned but, in fact, without getting their agreement.
I can understand that it may suit certain Lords—whether it is the Lord Chancellor or other noble Lords who are involved—to take the Second Reading first. But I should have thought it would have been reasonable to inform noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, interested in the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill of the change. Knowing that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, had a point of interest arising on the Bill, and having been told that he did not plan to be here until later in the afternoon, I spent quite a lot of time getting a message to him. I am not sure, either, whether the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was consulted about the change. I do not wish to press the Leader of the House too far on this, but my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I am sure, can confirm that when we were in Government we did not change the order of business without getting the agreement of the noble Lords concerned. The position has been made more difficult because on this occasion the Whip went out showing the wrong order of business, and the fact that it was corrected in the Notices and Orders of the Day on
708
Friday was of no help to most people because there was no post to ensure that the Minute was delivered.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I confess that I should like to join with the noble Lord in making a protest. For those of us who live in the country and who have virtually been incommunicado, owing to the postal strike, this sort of thing is exceedingly inconvenient. It was only by pure luck that I happened to come up by an earlier train than I had intended and when I got up to London found the messages which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, passed round to me.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for giving me notice that he intended to raise this point. I would make it perfectly clear at the outset that although, as I shall mention, there was, I think, a regrettable failure of consultations through the usual channels here, there was no contravention of our Standing Orders. The position, as I understand it, is that my noble friend Lord Derwent was asked by the Government on Thursday afternoon, purely as a matter of convenience, whether he would be prepared to put off the Committee stage of his Bill until after the Second Reading of the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill, and the noble Lord kindly agreed to do this. The change of business was of course duly recorded in the Notices and Orders of the Day which were printed last Thursday night, but as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says, as a result of the postal strike it may very well be that certain noble Lords—indeed, the majority of noble Lords—became aware of the change of business only when they collected to-day's Order Paper.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that there did not appear to be the usual consultations through the usual channels about this alteration of business. My Lords, I have not been able to consult my noble friend the Chief Whip about this matter, as I heard of it only during the lunch-time interval, but it is my impression that where Private Members' business is concerned it is always rather hard to draw any sharp line as to the amount of consultation that should take place. On this

709
occasion, however, I have no doubt at all that there should have been full consultation, and if there was not I regret that it was so. I particularly regret the inconvenience which has been caused to those noble Lords chiefly concerned—my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, and there may well be others who are interested in these two Bills. If they have suffered inconvenience I can only regret that that was the case.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I very much appreciate the noble Earl's apology, but judging from his remarks I do not think he fully appreciates the seriousness of the action that has been taken in this matter. First of all, the fact that there is no Standing Order has absolutely nothing to do with it. Most of our activities are not carried out under Standing Orders, and it may well be that if this sort of thing is likely to happen we shall have to have a Standing Order to require an order of the House to alter business. I appreciate that the noble Earl is in a difficulty because the Government Chief Whip, who presumably is responsible for these arrangements, is not available, but I must tell the noble Earl that I think he has been misadvised if he assumes that there is a difference between one kind of public business and another. A Private Member's Bill is equally public business. I should like to know the position, because my information is that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was just told that he had to accept the situation. The noble Earl is in a difficult position and I do not wish to press him further, but it is a very unsatisfactory situation and I hope it will not occur again.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, perhaps I had better explain what happened so that there is no misunderstanding. When I was told that the business would be altered, I then asked how long the inserted business would be likely to take. I was told that it could not take more than half an hour; that there were only a couple of speakers. I said that in those circumstances I would not protest too strongly; although I had been "messed about" before. I was consulted to that extent. Now I find that there are many more speakers, and I am sorry to say that noble Lords taking part in my Bill may have to sit rather late.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I put another point to the noble Earl? Any noble Lord seeing the Order Paper on Thursday would have assumed that the proceedings on the Shops Bill would have gone on for at least two and a half hours. There may be noble Lords who may wish to speak on the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill who have not put down their names. Now, because of the change of business, they are put in the position of perhaps not being able to take part in the debate at all. I hope that the noble Earl will give this matter very careful consideration, because so far as I know it has not happened before. In the past when there was a change of business, there were consultations not only with noble Lords responsible for the Bills, but so far as possible with all noble Lords who had an interest in the legislation. The noble Earl is aware that a great number of Amendments have been put down to the Shops Bill by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, far be it from me to intervene between the Front Benches, but may we have given to us any reason for this change? And is there any reason why we should not return to the order as it was originally?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the reason for the change was that it was a great deal more convenient for one of the main participants in this legislation, the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill—namely, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When this matter was raised, it was my understanding that the change would take place only if it was agreeable to those concerned—not only through the usual channels; but agreeable to all noble Lords concerned. I have made it clear that I very much regret that this was not the case.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I think that it would be technically possible to revert to the previous situation; but I think that it would be a mistake now to do so. I am very much in the hands of the House here, but I think it probably better to stick to the order of business as it is now on the Order Paper. Again I express my regret for the inconvenience suffered by my noble friends and by the other Members of your Lordships' House involved.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, unless the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, himself wishes to press this matter further, I agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that we should keep to the order of business that we now have. May I make one further remark to the noble Earl? In matters of this kind, my recollection is that the Government Chief Whip or some Member of the House has usually personally consulted those concerned. It is not enough, if I may say so—and perhaps the noble Earl will put this to his noble friend—just to assume that things are going to happen; especially when they happen as late in the day as has happened on this occasion. I accept that the noble Earl has expressed very complete apologies and I do not wish to press the matter further.

SYNODICAL GOVERNMENT (SPECIAL MAJORITIES) MEASURE
3.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure concerns a technical point on the way in which the General Synod may vote.
The procedure of the Synod is largely governed by its Constitution, which is set out in Schedule 2 to the Synodical Government Measure 1969. Article 5 of that Constitution requires that every Motion shall be carried by a simple majority of these present and voting except when some Measure already lays down that there shall be a two-thirds majority. There have been cases in the past, and there may well be cases in the future, when the General Synod will feel that a matter before it is of such far-reaching importance, or for the protection of minorities that it would be desirable to provide that an issue shall be decided only if carried by a special majority. So Clause 1(1) enables the General Synod
712
to resolve that the final approval of a scheme for constitutional union or permanent or substantial change in relationship between the Church of England and other Christian bodies shall require a special majority of the General Synod or of the three Houses. The majority required for the General Synod and the Houses may be different.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 gives power to the General Synod to require a special majority for the suspension of Standing Orders. Power to suspend Standing Orders already exists under Article 11. It is, however, felt that it is so drastic a step that the Synod should at any rate have the power to lay down a special majority rather than a straight majority before Standing Orders are suspended. Subsection (3) is consequential. The Ecclesiastical Committee is of the opinion that the Measure is expedient.
My Lords, in presenting this Measure for an Affirmative Resolution, I may remind your Lordships that this is the last Measure to emanate from the Church Assembly. In future, Measures will bear the imprimatur of the General Synod. I see that the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee is its 161st. In passing this Resolution, as I trust your Lordships will, we may look back on the fifty years of co-operation between the Church Assembly and your Lordships' House and look forward to what we trust may be a similarly profitable co-operation with the General Synod. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the right reverend Prelate. In view of the fact that the last week has been an Ecumenical week in various Churches and that we who are members of the various Churches all hope for greater unity, could he tell us what percentage of votes the Synod are likely to require before they pass the Measure of Union with the Methodists?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot foretell what would be the required majority; but

713
in the vote which has already taken place it was required that there should be a two-thirds majority in each House and a 75 per cent. majority for the whole of the Church Assembly.
On Question Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen, and from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to acquaint the House that, having been informed of the purport of the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill, they have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I must apologise for inviting your Lordships once more to enter into the animal kingdom. This time we are no longer concerned with the distinction between animals ferœ naturœ and mansuetœ naturœ, cattle trespass or sheep sitting on the roads. This is a Bill very largely of historical interest. In the course of their attempts to reduce our Statute Book to a manageable size the Law Commission lighted upon an obscure branch of the law, of paramount importance in the days of the Norman and Angevin kings, but largely obsolete for the last few centuries. If we can abrogate this obsolete law, the seven pages of archaic enactments in the Schedule to the Bill can be repealed, and this will be a useful step towards the Commission's goal.
This is not a simple Statute Law Revision Bill, otherwise under our Standing
714
Orders it would be taking a slightly different course. It is a law reform Bill because, as well as repealing many spent and obsolete enactments, it abrogates the whole of the forest laws and abolishes certain of Her Majesty's prerogative rights. I do not think the House will expect me to enter into a great deal of detail, which would be possible were I to embark upon a discussion of essarts and purprestures, free warren, legal parks and galees and the Court of St. Briavel. I think that I can deal with the Bill in a more intelligible and perhaps more contemporary way.
Clause 1 does two things. In the first place, it abolishes certain Royal prerogative rights (together with some now obsolete franchises) relating to wild creatures other than swans; and, secondly, it abrogates the whole of the forest law except in so far as it relates to verderers. These two provisions are the essence of the Bill, and I must explain them a little more fully.
The origin of these prerogative rights is said to be that at common law certain articles thought to be particularly valuable and distinguished are set aside for the King. That they should include swans and sturgeon is, perhaps, only right, as in the Middle Ages they were considered great delicacies, until the native swan was superseded by the alien turkey—and the sturgeon, perhaps, by canned tuna. As for Royal fish, there is an agreeable tradition that the head was for the King, the body for the fishermen and the tail for the Queen. This was based upon an anatomical fallacy, because it was supposed that the whalebone, which was used for the Royal corsets, was in the tail. In fact it is in the head of a whale. However whales, I must rule, are Royal fish, whatever the scientists may say; and if anyone says that a whale is a mammal I shall refer him to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 12, verse 40, and leave him to the Bench of Bishops.
Quite apart from this, the existence of the prerogative right to Royal fish is of no benefit to Her Majesty; and occasionally, as students of A. P. Herbert's Misleading Cases will remember, it causes some inconvenience to other people. In particular, the disposal of the carcase of a stranded whale poses problems, because it is not often realised how to get authority to dispose of the carcase. Everyone thinks that there is

715
something special about it, but not everyone knows what to do. In practice, the Receiver of Wrecks carries out what is a disagreeable business.
My Lords, I have lighted on a marginal use to which the Royal prerogative on whales has been put, and this was well stated in a centre page article in The Times last Saturday. This may be a Committee matter, but I am anxious to reassure naturalists, among the greatest of whom I include my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who, I am glad to notice, is present in the Chamber. The point is that the Receiver of Wrecks informs the British Museum whenever a whale is stranded, and this has enabled the Museum to make an important compilation of information about cetacea. I understand that some noble Lords may be anxious lest the abolition of the prerogative would result in the Receiver of Wrecks no longer being willing or able to inform the Museum of a stranding. I am happy to say, my Lords, that the Receiver—whose present activities anyway are purely discretionary—is willing to continue to inform the Museum of the stranding of a whale, until assurances satisfactory to the Museum are received from any authority who may take over responsibility from the Receiver for the disposal of the carcases. I hope that this undertaking will prove satisfactory to those who are concerned with the point.
Swans, however, are another matter. The existence of the Royal prerogative enables Her Majesty to make highly cherished gifts to foreign Heads of State and is also the authority under which is organised the conservation of swans on the River Thames by the immemorial custom of swan-upping. Her Majesty's prerogative is, therefore, of some value to-day; and this Bill does not seek to interfere with it. I could leave the swans there, but I must make it clear that to be the object of the Royal prerogative the swan must be white, swimming in open and common rivers, and wild and unmarked. Why the black swan should be discriminated against in this way I cannot pretend to know—perhaps the Race Relations Board can tell me. At any rate, as noble Lords may know, the Dyers' Company and the Vintners' Company each have a one-
716
third interest in the swans on the River Thames, these rights having been granted by the Crown by Royal Charter.
My Lords, by Clause 1(2) the forest law is abrogated. Again, to explain fully what it was and still, theoretically, is would take me, even if I had the necessary scholarship, a somewhat long time. If I may put the matter to your Lordships somewhat generally, in mediæval times the King had a special right to preserve his own hunting in what was called "the forest", which did not necessarily belong to him at all. Complaint was made that the Norman and Angevin Kings wanted to expand the area of forest to suit their own sporting convenience, and it was to regulate this that much of the subsequent legislation was passed. In those days protection of the deer was the main object of the law, and it is now.
One of our oldest authorities, the Dialogus de Scaccario—in which scholars will recognise our old friend the Exchequer—makes the constitutional point that the forest law was at the King's will, and it was not surprising that the King's will did not always coincide with his subjects' interests. Be that as it may, the great 16th century authority on the forest law, Manwood, who wrote in 1598, could already say that the forest laws were by then
"gone clean out of knowledge in most places in the law"
and had
"grown into contempt with many individuals in forests."
The fact is that they were largely obsolete by the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and in spite of an unsuccessful attempt by King Charles I to revive them for the purposes of raising revenue, they have been obsolete ever since. The only point in the forest administration which still exists actively consists of the verderers of the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. These will continue to function under enactments which will not be repealed if the Bill is passed.
My Lords, I hope that I can take the rest of the Bill very shortly. Clause 1(3) will not prejudice the close seasons applicable in the Forest of Dean or the New Forest because any currently effective restriction on rights of common for this purpose operates under enactments

717
which are not repealed. Clause 1(4) introduces the repeal Schedule; Clause 1(5) preserves existing rights of common or pannage, which is feeding swine on acorns; Clause 1(6) preserves the system for electing verderers for the Forest of Dean, and Clause 1(19) preserves the statutory right of purchasers from the Duchy of Lancaster to appoint gamekeepers. Whether there are any such purchasers enjoying any such right to appoint gamekeepers I frankly do not know. If there are, they are free under this Bill to go on appointing them. Perhaps it is only a salute to Lady Chatterly's lover.
On Clause 2, which is the application to Scotland, I have only two points to make. Apart from a technical point on the Night Poaching Act, Scotland's only interest in the Bill is in Royal fish. Again, for reasons that I do not pretend to understand, in Scotland, Royal fish do not include sturgeons, and they do not include things like little whales, but only "whales of a large size", the test of whether it is of a large size being the possibility of dragging the whale to land on "a wain with six oxen". In Northern Ireland the forest law is inapplicable, but the prerogative relating to Royal fish and wild creatures applies. To repeal this is beyond the power of Stormont, and it therefore has to be done in this Bill.
There is obviously a great deal of learning behind this Bill, and I should like to express my gratitude to the Law Commission for the pains that they have taken in unearthing this extraordinary piece of almost archæological law. We ought to get rid of it, however picturesque it may be; and this Bill gets rid of much of it. If any noble Lord wishes to cross-examine me on the details of the Schedule, or even of the substantive clauses, I hope that he will give me adequate warning. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the House will want me to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the entertaining manner in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I would respectfully congratulate both the Law Commission for their Report and the Government on having introduced the Bill. Some years ago, being interested
718
in our Statute Book, I read large parts of Manwood on Forests, which is the leading textbook, published in 1598, and a number of the ordinances, charters and statutes, of which there are some 50, and I came to the conclusion that there were so many and they were almost incomprehensible, and that nobody, including the Law Commission, would ever be able to do anything about this particular black patch on our Statute Book. However, nothing seems to be beyond the Law Commission, and I am delighted that they have been able—and it has indeed been a great work of erudition—to produce this Bill for the consideration of the House. I hope that we shall speedily give it a Second Reading.
This having been in the past such a black patch, may I, without I hope trespassing on the time of the House, ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, having given him due notice, about four other rather black patches on our Statute Book. First, there are the burial laws, which the leading textbook in 1956 described in this way:
"This particular branch of the laws of England is indeed unrivalled in its complexity of authorities, areas, enactments, procedures and personnel. For instance, more authorities are directly or indirectly concerned with burial and cremation than any other modern public service. The relevant burial legislation is mainly to be found in nineteenth century statutes which have long been in dire need of simplification, amendment and consolidation."
Whenever the appropriate Ministry—that concerned with local government—has been asked about this the answer always has been that they are just about to produce a Consolidation Bill.
As many of your Lordships will remember, on February 5, 1963, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, took the brave course of himself introducing a consolidating Bill. I remember he told us that when sitting in a train outside Oxford he had composed this verse:
"Stinking gasworks, burning bright,
Beside the sidings half the night,
What immortal hand or eye,
Made this awful cemetery?"
There was a very learned discussion as to when a graveyard is not a graveyard, when it is a cemetery or when it is a burial ground. The Bill was supported in all parts of the House: by my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Birdwood; by the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Milverton, and by the right reverend

719
Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. In replying for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said (and I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226, col. 508) that the noble Viscount had agreed
"to withdraw his Bill in order to leave the way clear for a more comprehensive Bill to be prepared for him on the lines I have described."
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, went on:
"I am sure that this was the right decision. I have, as he has said, undertaken, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that instructions to the draftsman will be prepared as quickly as possible. By that I mean without delay, though I cannot yet say definitely, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, knows perfectly well, when the comprehensive Bill will be ready. Therefore I cannot give a definite date, any more than he would be able to do if he were in my position.
"My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and other interested parties will be consulted regularly and from time to time as the work proceeds, and the House may rest assured that no one will be more pleased than my right honourable friend and I when this bewildering mass of nineteenth century legislation is brought up to date. We intend to proceed on those lines, as I have said, without unnecessary delay and as soon as possible."
Next week, my Lords, it will be seven years since those remarks were made, and I wondered if I might properly ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the instructions to counsel have got there yet; and, if not, when they will.
Then, secondly, are we not a little tired of being told the position about those guarantees, very often with beautiful scrolls, accompanying contracts for the sale of goods, the sole object of which is to take away the statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act of the unfortunate purchaser? Here successive Governments keep making promises. Only as recently as the 15th of this month the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry in another place said—and I quote from col. 483 of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT for the day:
"The fundamental question is whether it is right for anyone to take those rights away from the consumer by the so-called exclusion or exemption clauses to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
"The balance of opinion is clear—that it is not right that such exclusion clauses should be allowed."
720
One might have thought from that statement that legislation was very near, but the Minister ended by saying (col. 486) only that he hoped that:
"one day we will be in a position to bring forward legislation to deal with the matter."
I appreciate that this is one of the branches of our law which the Board of Trade arrogated to themselves and not one, maybe, for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. However, I am sure that the House would be grateful, and particularly those here representing consumers, if we could be told what the immediate prospects are.
The third black patch is the law about hall-marking, of importance to the commercial community. Here again, I am afraid, it is the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and no one would complain perhaps, the Law Commission having quite enough to do, if the Board of Trade decided that it would like to get on with the reform of certain branches of our law. But as the Chairman of the Law Commission has recently pointed out, in this field we have the ordinance of 1238, and then we have the statute of 1300. He says:
"These two ordinances—for Parliament had as yet hardly aspired to the production of statute law—were the fore-runners of a long and confused strand of statute law regulating the standards to be observed in the manufacture of gold and silver. So confused had the law become that in 1855 a Select Committee was appointed 'to inquire into the offices for assaying silver and gold wares in the United Kingdom'. This Committee reported in 1856 that the law was in a most confused and unsatisfactory state, and strongly recommended that its anomalies and confusion should be ended by consolidating into one statute all the provisions requisite for the establishment and regulation of Assay Offices throughout the United Kingdom. Parliament did nothing. In 1878 another Select Committee looked into the matter and reported the existence of considerable uncertainty in the application of the law in consequence of the number of statutes in which it is found, and expressed the opinion that consolidation and amendment should be carried out without further delay. Parliament did nothing. In Westwood Ron v. Cann Lord Justice Denning said:
'I would observe that in 1856 and 1879 Select Committees said that the law as to hall-marking was uncertain owing to the number of statutes in which it was to be found; and they expressed the opinion that the consolidation and amendment of the law should be carried out without further delay. Now, 73 years later, in 1952, I may perhaps be permitted to express the same opinion.'

721
Nothing has since been done …. In 1959 a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Leonard Stone took another look at hall-marking and reached the by now hardly original conclusion:
'that the numerous statutes that touch upon hall-marking and the protection of the public against the flood of adulteration in its purchases of wrought gold and wrought silver are so confused and obsolete as to be incapable of being patched up by amendment so as to form a workable and enforceable code.'
They went on to recommend the substitution of a consolidating Statute in place of the existing confusion."
My Lords, for 114 years various Committees have gone on saying this, but nothing happens. The last time that I looked at the Civil Service List there appeared to be more lawyers in the Board of Trade than in the Lord Chancellor's office. What they do I am not sure, but I believe that something is now stirring, and for this reason. Lately, our EFTA partners have said, "Would it not be sensible if we all had the same hall-marking laws? These are ours. What are yours?" My Lords, ours are so awful that the Board of Trade dare not tell them. I believe that they have now got into a corner hurriedly to try to do something. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor: What is afoot?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, may I remind the noble and learned Lord, before he leaves that part of his speech, that at least ten years ago, when a Bill was before the House to suppress the assay office in Chester, I raised this point on the Stone Committee and I was assured then. I think by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, that the matter was to be dealt with immediately. As I say, that was ten years ago.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the right reverend Prelate. The fourth example is the one about which I feel most strongly, because of the great hardship which it has caused to so many individuals, all of whom are deserted wives. The point is very simple. In 1920, Parliament, with general approval, passed the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act. All that Act did was to enable our Government, if they thought fit, to make with other Commonwealth countries reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance orders. As the 1920s went
722
on, it was generally thought by everyone (because there is nothing Party political about this) that that Act was defective in two respects. First of all, it ought to have included affiliation orders, for somewhat similar reasons. Secondly, neighbouring European countries were beginning to ask whether we would not make with them a reciprocal agreement for the enforcement of maintenance orders, and we had to say that we were sorry but the British Government had no power to do so without legislation. It became even graver when Eire left the Commonwealth, because that meant that women in England who were deserted by husbands who had gone back to Eire could obtain no maintenance at all. I know that in recent years the Government of Eire themselves have been pressing us strongly to enter into a reciprocal agreement with them.
This being generally recognised in the 1920s, I believe that in 1931 a Bill was drafted and prepared to be introduced, but in the end it was squeezed out from that Session's programme. On a matter which is in no way Party political and on which, so far as I know, there is no controversy at all, it appears to me, if I may respectfully say so, that there is something wrong with a Parliamentary system under which 39 years later the Bill has still not been introduced. The only reason for this, so far as I know, is—and this again is not a Party issue; it does not matter which Party is in power—that each year the Home Secretary of the day has always had other Bills that he wanted to deal with. I was aware of this during the lifetime of the last Government. I think I can say that had that Government been returned to power at the Election, that Bill would have been included in this Session's programme. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether I am right in so thinking. If so, it must be observed that there must be a Bill ready, and I should like to ask when it is going to be introduced. My Lords, I apologise for having taken up the time of the House on this review of other black patches of our Statute Book. Nothing I have said detracts in any way from my already stated admiration, both for the Law Commission for having prepared this Report, and for the Government for having introduced the Bill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend a question before he sits down? While he rightly said that the omission to introduce legislation making maintenance orders reciprocal has involved hundreds of thousands of women and children and caused them great hardship, would he not agree with me that this year, when the new Divorce Act comes into operation and when it is possible for a woman, completely innocent of any matrimonial offence, to be divorced against her will, it is even more necessary to introduce this legislation? Then the man or woman responsible cannot entirely divest himself or herself of all responsibilities by getting on a hovercraft to France or an aeroplane to Ireland. I ask the House to bear in mind what my noble and learned friend has said, and, when the time comes, to give their support to any legislation which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be introducing.
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I return to the Bill which we are supposedly discussing this afternoon. We have heard a very interesting dissertation on cemeteries, guarantees, hall-marking, Bishops, and deserted wives. I must confess, my Lords, that it tempts me, as the main point about which I wish to speak this afternoon is whales, to go off at a slight tangent, which I had not otherwise intended to do, and remind your Lordships that the Royal prerogative in whales was due to the shortages of oil and meat in early centuries, when the Crown insisted on having these oily creatures to render down when they were washed ashore.
The earliest record that we have of the use of whale oil and meat for human consumption is, curiously enough, associated with one of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was mentioning. We find in Xenophon's account of the return of the Greeks from the Persian Expedition the first record that I know of, not only of the use of whale oil and meat but also of the permissive society, of which the noble Baroness disapproves so much. As the Greeks came to the country of the Abominable Mossinoiki they found that the Mossinoiki were in the habit of doing publicly things which the Greeks thought
724
ought to be done only in the privacy of the bedroom. They decided that of all the barbarian tribes they encountered, they were the most barbarous—a lesson which some people might learn to-day and adopt in this country.
Going further into the land of the Mossinoiki, as they looted the country they found large jars filled with whale oil and, what is more, filled with cooked whale meat preserved in hot oil, which had been allowed to become cool. It is interesting that not only did the Mossinoiki, in advance, see the sort of thing which is going on in many countries to-day as far as sexual mores are concerned, but they also anticipated Leibig, Pasteur and Lister, by a couple of millennia in finding out that you could keep things which had been boiled in oil in good condition for a long time.
Having been able to divert myself a little from the right way, may I return to the Bill? I suggest that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was rather by-passing some of the more important parts of the Royal prerogative so far as whales are concerned. I speak as an interested party. I am a trustee of the Natural History Museum, which for some sixty years has had an arrangement with the Board of Trade, as representing the Crown, under which, as the noble and learned Lord said, the appearance of any of these cetaceans on the coast of England is reported. The museum is allowed to take the first pick, either of the whole specimen or a part of it, and, as a result, has been able to build up a collection of material which is probably unrivalled by any comparable institution in the world. The museum is consulted by scientists from all over the world, and a great deal of extraordinarily interesting and important scientific research has peen carried out.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and his noble and learned predecessor, were congratulating themselves that some six pages (I believe that is the number) of obsolete Statutes are being removed from the Statute Book by this Bill. Only one of those refers to the Royal prerogative and the Royal prerogative over Royal fish, which is far more important than the noble and learned Lord has led us to believe. The fundamental point about the prerogative

725
is that the coastguard who finds the whale or dolphin is enabled, by reason of the fact that it belongs to the Crown, to prevent the casual tripper from taking odd pieces of it, thereby destroying the specimen and its usefulness for science. It is of fundamental importance that somebody should continue to have the rights to these things in order that the scientific material necessary to the museum may continue to go to it, not by the permission of the local authority, who would in future have the responsibility of disposing of the carcase, but as a right delegated to it by the Crown.
I can certainly well understand that that large number of Statutes which we see in the Schedule relating to the forests, completely, as the Report of the Law Commission says. "obsolete and unnecessary" enactments, should go. They are obsolete because the Crown no longer exercises a prerogative which it can under those Statutes; they are unnecessary because there would be no national advantage if they did. But that is not the case so far as Royal fish are concerned; they are not obsolete. The Crown has never ceased to exercise its prerogative. They are not unnecessary because they are still needed in order that the material may be available for the museum.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one other point made by the Commission in their Report. There is a statement therein that it is necessary to revoke the Royal prerogative because the carcase of a whale may become a public health menace and considerable delay may be involved in seeking the permission of the Crown to dispose of it. That simply is not a fact. I have made every inquiry that I can. I can find no case where there has been any unnecessary delay which made it unfortunate that any reference had to be made to the Crown or elsewhere. What in fact happens is that the coastguard discovers the body; he immediately sends a telegram to the Museum, asking whether or not the material is required. A telegram is immediately sent back, either asking for it or saying, "Destroy it immediately". The only delay is that involved in sending the telegram.
726
There has possibly been one occasion when some slight delay occurred, when a telegram was received to the effect that the "Countess of Wales was floating in a rocky pool and unapproachable". I believe that some delay was caused by the Museum looking through the Peerage to try to find the name of the noble Earl whose Countess was so unapproachable. Very soon the confirmatory telegram arrived, and it was the carcase of a whale that was rotting and unapproachable. That was an apocryphal story, but that is possibly the maximum amount of delay which has occurred.
The other point I would make is that here we have a Bill which vitally affects one of our more important scientific institutions, and which to a lesser extent affects the public health authorities, who are now going to have to take upon themselves a duty which was previously carried out by a Government Department. I have made inquiries of the associations of local authorities, who were not consulted in any way. Most certainly we at the Natural History Museum were not consulted in any way. I cannot think that any deliberate discourtesy was intended to either body, but I am bound to feel that the Commission did not have before them all the facts which they ought to have had before them when they reached the conclusion that this one Statute out of the long list in the Schedule should be repealed. It is neither obsolete nor unnecessary. It is in fact almost exactly on a par with the Crown's right to treasure trove. So far as treasure trove is concerned, as your Lordships will be aware if there is any inquest and some discovery is found to be treasure trove—a good example are the half dozen gold torques recently discovered near Ipswich—the antiquity goes to the British Museum and the finder is rewarded. This is exactly the same, mutatis mutandis, as treasure trove. If the whale is required for scientific purposes, or the porpoise is required for scientific purposes, it goes to the museum, and not the finder. But the local authority who would otherwise be responsible does not have to incur the expense of disposing of it.
My Lords, I hope that between now and the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord will give this matter serious

727
consideration. Real damage will be done to science if whales are not combined with swans in being excluded, even if to collect the whale does not appeal to the same pageantry as swan-upping does.
3.47 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since my home is in the centre of a small one-time Royal forest long since alienated, and since I took my Title from its name, perhaps I have an excuse for being a little more romantic than some of the speakers in this debate. I, as are other noble Lords, am all for simplifying the law where it can be done, but I am not convinced here that the Government and the Law Commission have not gone too far, and not least since in line 4 of page 2 they have to fall back on claiming that certain subsections to be repealed are no longer of practical utility, which I feel could cover almost anything that might enter into a bureaucrat's mind.
The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, who unfortunately is not here to-day because he has not been well, has drawn my attention to one point which I think is of interest to nearly all noble Lords in the Chamber at this moment. It is in Chapter XI of the Charter of the Forest, which is the first item in the Schedule of Enactments repealed, on page 3. Chapter XI reads as follows:
"What deer noblemen may take.—Whatsoever archbishop, bishop, earl or baron",
but not, let it be noted, Duke, Marquess or Viscount,
"coming to us at our commandment. [passing by] our forest, it shall be lawful for him to take and kill one or two of our deer, by view of our forester, if he be present; or else he shall cause one to blow an horn for him, that he seem not to steal our deer. And likewise they shall do returning from us, as it is aforesaid."
I would assume that "passing through our forest at our commandment" would include answering a summons to attend Parliament and to attend your Lordships' House, and that this Chapter XI of the Charter of the Forest could still have some practical significance. It could indeed be of advantage to noble Lords who live some distance from London. I am not sure how many Royal Forests there still are, but the tedious journey to London that many of us have to make weekly from different parts of the country
728
could be made of greater interest if on occasions we were entitled to have a day's recreation en route.
The deer population of this country has not decreased recently. Since the war it has increased, and since there is likely to be a rise in the price of meat if we join the European Economic Community, I do not think we should be over-hasty in letting this small privilege be taken from us by the Government, aided and abetted by lawyers.
3.51 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I had not intended originally to take part in this interesting debate; and had it not been for the brilliant explanation given to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I should not have done so. There are three relevant details that I would wish to comment on. First of all, may I thank the noble Earl opposite for his contribution; I am fully aware of the great contribution his ancestors gave to forestry in this little island of ours centuries ago.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was talking about the Forest of Dean. One section of my family were famous hammer throwers, and my great grandfather learned the art of hammer throwing because he had the right in the Forest of Dean of going there with a mandrel or pick, which we colliers knew about in those old days. As far as he could swing a pick he would draw a string, and the entire area round his feet was his to work privately to get coal. In fact, now that the Government in power are so much for the apotheosis of private enterprise I would suggest that they abolish the National Coal Board and go back to this old-fashioned method, which was full of virility and competition. Has that right been abrogated?
Looking at the Schedule to the Bill, "Enactments Repealed", I see at page 8 a reference to Section 25 of 24 & 25 Vict.:
"An Act to make further provision for the management of Her Majesty's forest of Dean, and of the mines and quarries therein and in the hundred of St. Briavel's in the county of Gloucester."
Has that right been abrogated? If my ghostly forefathers could come back, would they still have the right to work those areas for coal?

729
I was glad to see a reference on page 4 to:
"An Act for the better cultivation of navy timber in the forest of Alice Holt in the county of Southampton."
I wish we had kept that in, because I deprecate the nature of the reafforestation right throughout Britain, and especially on our hills in Wales and in the Peak District, where the deciduous trees and the grand old English oak are no longer planted. I would have kept that Act and said that we need it still to plant the oak, because the silhouette of the mountains in the Highlands, in Scotland and in Wales is being changed. I hope that in repealing these forest laws that are supposed not to fit in with the times in which we live we shall still keep up our forests and see that a little more deciduous wood is planted for the generations that come after us, because this is our duty to our descendants.
3.55 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome the Bill, and to raise one point which affects my particular area in the New Forest. It is not unnatural that a Bill dealing with wild creatures and forest laws should include a number of New Forest Acts which are considered no longer of practical use. I have been asked by the Rural District Council of New Forest to raise one matter. I am not a member of the Council, but as a ratepayer I have an interest to see that their functions are carried out efficiently and for the general good of the public.
Among the Acts scheduled for repeal is the new Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes) Act 1902, mentioned on page 9, line 37. This Act authorised the sale of forest land to a local authority for public health purposes free of any rights of common, and under it the Council have purchased land for sewage disposal works, cemeteries and so on. Then Section 102 of the Housing Act 1957, which is also up for repeal, provides that the provision of houses shall be deemed to be a local sanitary requirement for the purposes of the 1902 Act, subject to a limit of 30 acres. These provisions apply also to other local district councils, such as Ringwood and Fordingbridge.
When it was pointed out to the Law Commission that it was considered that the procedure under the 1902 Act was
730
advantageous to the councils, they replied that the powers of the Commissioners of Woods under the 1902 Act are now vested in the Forestry Commissioners, who cannot exercise them since the ownership of the New Forest is now vested in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Unfortunately, the Forestry Act 1945, which vested the Forest in the Minister, did not include a provision for transferring to him the powers of the 1902 Act. Whether this was deliberate or an oversight it is difficult to say.
The Law Commission state that it is not possible to include in the Bill a provision transferring the powers to the Minister as such a provision would be quite outside the scope of the Bill. Nor can the transfer of powers be made by Order in Council under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act 1946. It is the view of the Law Commission that a special Bill would have to be introduced for this purpose. However, the Commission are unwilling to remove the 1902 Act from the Repeals Schedule. They state that this would not take the matter any further, as the 1902 Act is quite short, and any Bill to transfer its powers can just as easily be done. There is, unfortunately, so far as I am aware, no other statute which confers a general power to sell to the New Forest Rural District Council land free of commoners' rights, and if the proposed repeal takes place without a concurrent vesting of similar powers in the Minister, it appears that the effect will be that land cannot be sold to the council without such rights of common and the Council will be left to clear off these rights as best it can. It will be appreciated that this will lead to delays while negotiations are taking place with the Verderers and others.
I wonder whether between now and the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord would perhaps look into this matter and see whether it would not be more appropriate if Section 102 of the Housing Act 1957 were removed from the Repeals Schedule and the appropriate steps were taken for the powers of the Commissioners of Woods to be vested in the Minister of Agriculture. If this was in fact an oversight when the 1945 Act was being drafted, then perhaps it is up to the Government to rectify the situation. In the meantime, considerable delay in public works and housing, and

731
so on, in the New Forest, and considerable embarrassment and suffering to local residents, could be caused.
3.59 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have been listening with fascination, as I am sure all of your Lordships have been, to this short debate. I would like to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I am not going to spring any questions on to him to which I desire an immediate answer. There may be other noble Lords who, like me, have been waiting with excitement to hear whether we are to have any authoritative explanation of either the fence month or the winter heyning—phrases which no doubt should be intelligible to me but I must confess are not.
However, my principal reason for rising is to express some disappointment that neither the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, nor my noble relative, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, nor any other noble Lord of Welsh descent has called attention to the proposal to repeal an Act of 1535 described as "An Act for the abuses in the forests of Wales". It may be that the noble Lord felt that as this was an Act for abuses, and not against abuses, it was high time after 436 years that it should be repealed. But I have refreshed my memory as to the terms of this Act; naturally I was fully familiar with it when I was Minister for Welsh affairs, but since then the precise provisions had slipped my memory.
The Act appears to be misnamed, as it really is against abuses in the forests of Wales. Perhaps it does not matter so much; the principal abuse against which it was directed appears to have been a custom employed by Welsh "foresters, rulers, walkers or farmers", to stop anybody they found going through a forest who could not produce the appropriate token, and deprive him forthwith of all the money and gold on his person. I do not think that kind of thing happens in Wales now, and I doubt whether this 1535 Act is still required. But it certainly seemed to me, from my experience as a former Minister, that I should alert noble Lords of Welsh descent to the proposed repeal of this Act, so that between now and the Committee stage of this Bill
732
they can give the question more careful study.
4.1 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in dealing with some of the points that have been raised, may I start first with that of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the "Act for the abuses in the forests of Wales", 1535, 27 Henry VIII, Chapter VII. It is proposed to repeal that Act as being obsolete. The Forestry Commission and the Welsh Office have both been consulted and see no objection. The Act is referred to in the Chronological Table of Statutes as, "Local forests in Wales". It is not in the Statutes Revised. It will, however, be found in the Statutes of the Realm, volume 3, at page 536.
The Act abolished certain longstanding unreasonable customs and exactions whereby the foresters imposed tolls and fines upon persons going through the forest. In default of payment a person straying from the highway was liable to lose a joint of one of his hands. The foresters also seized cattle which they retained unless redeemed by their owners. Hence, perhaps, the phrase, "Take two cows Taffy". The Act declared that all subjects may pass through forests without the exaction of any such tolls or fines, but any cattle straying or fief taken in the forests might be reclaimed by their owners within a year, upon reasonable payment for their keep. My Lords, I think perhaps there is no useful purpose in retaining this particular Statute.
Dealing with the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, it is proposed to repeal the Act of 1902 because it has become inoperative since Crown Land in the New Forest was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Forestry Act 1945 (Chapter 35), now re-enacted in the Forestry Act 1967 (Chapter 10). I could give a rather longer explanation than that, but I hope that this will satisfy his correspondents in the matter. However, I will look at the matter again in the light of what he said, and I will write to him if there is anything to add.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was interested in two factors. First, the hammer-throwing method of obtaining coal in the Forest of Dean. I suspect,

733
without knowing, that that was abolished when the mines were nationalised generally by the Labour Government of 1945–50. Again, should I prove to be wrong I shall have to write to him. His point about navy timber is truly taken, but the plantation of national forest does not now take place under the Act which it is proposed to repeal. The Forestry Commissioners have more up-to-date machinery. I take the noble Lord's point about the desirability of a certain proportion of deciduous timber, if only for its amenity value.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood raised a point about the privilege of Peerage. I happen to know something about this, for a rather peculiar reason, which I will now confide in the House. When I was much younger I did not want to become a Peer at all. My father took quite a different view and was quite determined that when the time came I should become a Peer. I, however, discovered by reading in the old books what I thought would be a way of making the Peerage ridiculous: because I too, like my noble friend, read of this practice of taking a deer on your way to Parliament after sounding your horn. I said to my father, "If ever I succeed to your Peerage of Hailsham of Hailsham I shall shoot a deer in Richmond Park, blowing a motor horn first". My father went into the matter and told me the privilege was wholly obsolete and that, so far as he could ascertain, it had never been exercised. So I hope this repeal, too, may not be considered a serious encroachment upon the rights of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook raised a point about whales and accused me of bypassing the point. I do not think I did. I had thought that the assurance which I gave him in the course of my opening speech more than covered the point he was raising, because I assured him that the present procedure would be followed as regards notification to the Museum, until one which they found acceptable was substituted for it. At least, that is what I thought to be the effect of the assurance I gave. If, on reflection, and reading what I said, he considers it to be in some way inadequate, I certainly would seek to improve upon it, if possible. But I think it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut to insist
734
that every porpoise which is landed on the coast of Norfolk is the property of the Crown, and can be removed only by the Receiver of Wrecks, if all that is wanted is for the National History Museum to be sure they have another porpoise for the purposes of science. I think perhaps my assurance will cover that case. But, as I say, if it is not good enough I hope the noble Earl will let me know, and I will then look at it again, before the Bill becomes law—and preferably before the Committee stage if he can let me know in time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me about four matters which are neither in the Bill nor in the Long Title to the Bill. I never know quite how far one can go in this House, but I think I could not give a disquisition on the whole of the law relating to hall-marking, burial grounds, exemption clauses and reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. But if the House will bear with me I think I can give some kind of answer to the noble and learned Lord, although I seem to have lost most of my notes.
First, as regards the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders I think that the Home Office will have a Bill ready before long. It will probably be the first of the four subjects to be ready for legislation. I cannot confirm or otherwise what the noble and learned Lord told us about the state of what would have been the Labour Government's programme, because he probably knows that there is a constitutional convention whereby civil servants are completely prohibited from telling successor Governments what was in the minds of their political predecessors. So I cannot confirm that, but I have no doubt that what the noble and learned Lord has said is correct. It would never cross my mind to doubt his account of the matter.
As regards burial laws, I think I can confirm that the law is in a state which demands action; indeed, the noble and learned Lord gave reasons for making it difficult to do 'anything else. I can tell the House that discussions between the Department of the Environment, which is the Department with the right of initiative in this matter, and the Law Commission have been taking place to see whether the matter can be considered by the Commission. Certainly

735
I shall be happy if this turns out to be the case.
I know something about the hall-marking law because by a curious coincidence for the first time in my professional life I was asked to advise about it last year. I again confirm what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am told that work on the reform began in 1969 and has now reached the stage where it should shortly be possible to put proposals before the interested bodies for comment and discussion, which is the necessary stage in our modern technique of law reform. Obviously, we need to repeal all the old legislation and replace it by a modern Statute, but I could not give a date for the Bill at the present time.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the Sale of Goods Act is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a matter not quite so easy as it sounds, because the English and the Scottish Law Commissions arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions on certain points; but the situation is, I hope, that advances and progress will be made. Again, I cannot give much better news to the noble and learned Lord than that the subject is under more or less active consideration by my right honourable friend. I am afraid that it would be imposing on the House to deal more than summarily with the four points put forward by the noble and learned Lord. I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with them and have covered all the points raised in the debate. I hope that the House will now be prepared to give a Second Reading to this imperious little Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General exceptions from Sunday closing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ROYLE: I feel that we should not part with Clause 1 without some discussion. I notice that no Amendments are put down to this clause. I notice, too, that it is the paving clause for the rest of the Bill. Therefore, it becomes almost the basis of the principles of the Bill. It substitutes for Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950 a new Schedule of shops which are to be permitted to be open on Sunday. On the evening of the Second Reading debate on this Bill the House sat very late. The Second Reading debate was not started until quite late and, if I remember rightly, the attendance in your Lordships' House at that time was not large. I was unable to stay on that night. I therefore apologise for the fact that in a few words I am going to say what I would have said on Second Reading had I had the opportunity. I feel that with a better attendance it is wise that we should, on the Committee stage, give some real consideration to the clauses of the Bill.
There are two reasons which would justify change in social legislation of this character: first, any public demand or public need for such legislation; secondly, an agreement or a demand on the part of those responsible for carrying out the legislation after it had reached the Statute Book. Obviously those would be the retail traders. I submit that neither of those reasons has been proved in introducing this Bill. I read the Second Reading debate closely, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that in 1964 approaches had been made to the Home Office about the anomalies which existed. That is not sufficient for me. I do not believe that what he indicated meets the condition of public demand and public need that I am trying to lay down. Where has the public demand been expressed? Is there any indication anywhere in our mass media that the public have been demanding that food should now be included in the items which can be sold on Sunday? Has application been made to the Home Office? Has there been agitation from any source to the

737
Home Office demanding that these things should be done?
My second point concerns the trade. I know that the National Chamber of Trade, the Co-operative societies, U.S.D.A.W. (the main trade union for the distributive workers), some multiples, the National Federation of Meat Traders and the Grocers' Federation have all indicated their opposition to the principles of this Bill. They do not regard it as something that should go on to the Statute Book. I am speaking to Clause 1 because that is the basis of the Bill. The noble Lord opposite knows of my past interest in the matter. In the case of the meat trade, I submit that the Bill puts the clock back not for twenty-one years, but, in the view of the trade, for thirty-five years. This is an interference with the lives of shop assistants. It is asking that distributive workers in food shops and stores should work for seven working days. We are living in a time when so far as productive workers are concerned there is talk of a working week of five, four or four and a half days, yet at the same time we are introducing legislation which would have the effect, so far as distributive workers are concerned, of imposing on them a seven-day week.
It is all very well to say that nobody need adopt this provision. But as against the larger multiple firms, the small trader has a great problem. If the larger people are going to open their shops on Sundays for food sales, the small traders will be forced to adopt the same line in defence of their own business, and will have to trade on Sundays. I listened closely one day last week to a debate in your Lordships' House on civil aviation. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said, I think, that no more actual business would be done if such-and-such a change took place. Only a certain amount of food is sold in this country, and it can be sold just as easily in five or six days as in seven days, without interfering with the family lives of those concerned, as this Bill would do if it became law. In these days wages are paid not later than Thursday evening. The shops are open until late on Friday, and 5 p.m. seems to be the recognised closing time for food shops on Saturday. Surely that is sufficient time for anybody to stock up their food needs for the weekend without imposing this added burden
738
on small traders and on people who are employed by the larger firms.
Is it a service to the public to increase these hours of work? I do not believe it is. Is it the will of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and some of his friends, that small traders should disappear from our trading life? This Bill is a real threat to them. I should have thought that anybody who called himself a "Conservative" would be one who wanted to see that the small traders' interests were maintained. That is all I want to say about the matter. I feel very strongly about it, and to such an extent that if I have any support for going into the Lobby on Clause 1 I will certainly do so.
4.21 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I rise in answer to my noble friend's plea? I will certainly support him, and if we were the only two there I think we should go in. I was unable to be here at the Second Reading of the Bill, but I regard it as a most important social measure. What astonishes me is that in the years I have been in this House I have observed that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has, on occasion, adopted a welcome feminist attitude to many Bills which affected women and which called for deep thought, and which too many men would dismiss lightly with a laugh. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has risen and, to my amazement, shown me that he had given great thought to them and had recognised that the usual male flippant approach on certain matters affecting women should not be adopted.
I find it very difficult to believe that he is piloting this Bill through. It is a measure which I believe to be absolutely anti-social and which one could expect to find in some primitive country but not in Great Britain, where we pride ourselves on our social services and our laws concerning the social conditions of the people. If there is one Bill which is being piloted through this House and which will be detrimental to the lives of women, it is this. Does the noble Lord realise that in this Schedule all the activities except one which will be able to take place on Sundays but which cannot do so at the moment are activities which concern women? The only one that does not is No. 10,
"The transaction of the business of a funeral undertaker."

739
I have never yet found a woman funeral undertaker. I am thinking of adding a codicil to my will and asking my executor to look for a female undertaker. Apart from item No. 10, does the noble Lord realise that every one of these things—the selling of sweets, alcoholic drink, medicines in chemists, flowers, tobacco, stationery, greeting cards, photographs and photographic films and plates, domestic fuels, and food for animals—will be sold by women on a Sunday?
LORD DERWENT: May I interrupt the noble Baroness? First may I say that she also is making a Second Reading speech. Secondly, nine-tenths of these things are now sold on Sunday.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am a Londoner and in the part of the world where I live, which is the Highgate world, you can get a few of these things; but I can think of shop after shop—and I have lived in the area for nearly forty years—which is closed for these things. I welcome the noble Lord's intervention as it means that he is listening to me. He has not thought, "We are going back over the Second Reading" and gone to sleep. I think he will come to regret this. In his old age, when he will look back on this, he will say, "One of the things I regret in life is this Bill".
I ask the Committee to consider the lot of the ordinary working woman. I believe that half of our labour force are women, and that a third of them are married. They are women who work during the day and in the home. I am not going over the old arguments, but may I just remind the Committee that, whatever job a woman does, if she is married she also keeps an eye on her home. I know precisely what my husband is going to have for dinner tonight, and I shall know every day what he is eating. We do not regret the fact; we enjoy that we are made in that way. Our ductless glands are such that we care, and we like looking after the male. What a confession from me! But it is a fact. Our maternal instinct is so strong that we take within our embrace not only our children but our husbands. All during the week these women—and we are calling for them to do a job in industry—work outside the home and come back to their homes and prepare a meal every
740
night. Often on Monday night they do the washing, and skip around and do the housework, making up the beds. During the weekend they say, "What I have not been able to do during the week, I will do now."
The great joke is that when the man goes out and watches football on a Saturday afternoon, his wife is cleaning the home. She does not complain; she wants to be there. But the noble Lord now comes along and proposes to put Sunday work on to her shoulders. It is cruel; it is thoughtless; it is brutal; and I find it difficult to understand how the noble Lord can do this. I am thinking of the wife in a small shop (though it will apply also to the big shops, because they will follow suit) and who says, "Thank God, to-morrow is Sunday and I can put my feet up". Think of the husband, who is perhaps old, and the wife who, in her usual way, says, "I can look after the shop. You rest to-day."
We who are privileged, and who belong to an income group which does not have to do anything like this, must not sit in this place and pass legislation that will bring hardship to every woman who works in a shop during the week by imposing on her now work on Sundays. It is brutal. I ask the Committee to consider Clause 1 again and to reverse this decision. If the noble Lord wishes to call a Division, I shall be only too pleased to support him.
4.28 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: Although it is not strictly relevant to Clause 1, may I start this afternoon by saying that I am a Yorkshireman and not a Scotsman or Irishman? I bring that to the attention of your Lordships only because I see 'from the Minutes of Proceedings, that when this Committee was announced I was referred to as "The Derwent". I will not say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and even more the noble Baroness, are stretching our easy methods of debate too far. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, did tie his speech to the Question. That Clause 1 stand part; the noble Baroness just remembered in time. But I really feel that they should not expect me to make a Second Reading speech all over again in reply to them; and I am not going to do so, because I believe that it would be abusing the procedure of the House.

741
It is quite clear from the speech of the noble Baroness, and partially clear from the speech of the noble. Lord, Lord Royle, that they did not read the Second Reading debate very carefully. I think the noble Lord has not looked at some of the Amendments which are down from noble Lords opposite and which I am going to accept. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked as if food shops were not at present open on a Sunday, when in fact they have been open on a Sunday for years. They both asked what the demand was. But, of course, if there was not the demand, the shops would not open. The noble Baroness said that in her area there is very little demand, and except for the odd shop which thinks there is a demand they do not open. Well and good; why should they? This Bill does not compel them to open.
The object of this Bill, and I repeat it again, is that the courts, quite rightly, have said that the present Act on Sunday trading is in many respects a nonsense—particularly as regards what is a meal and what is not a meal. The courts have had to rule on the extraordinary legislation under which we live. They have ruled that anything that is edible in the shop without further process is a meal; and you can buy meals on a Sunday. But some foods, such as tea and flour, you cannot buy because they need a further process. However, that is not quite so, because the courts have also ruled that if you buy some bread and some butter you can buy a bag of tea, because it is then part of a meal. That is the sort of nonsense which the present law brings about.
With the possible exception of meat and fish and chips, the only alteration that will be made by the Bill is that this nonsense will be stopped, because when a shop opens for the sale of food it will be able to sell all food. There will be no question of whether something is part of a meal and so on. This is something for which the courts have been asking for a long time. I am not going to make a Second Reading speech, but that is the case for this Bill. The House approved the Bill on Second Reading, and I am quite prepared to rely on the House again.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): This has been a rather unusual opening to a Committee stage. Perhaps it is due to two factors: first, that the Division on Second Reading was called very late; and, secondly, that it was not possible to gauge the extent of the support for the noble Lord's Bill and the opposition to it because of a misunderstanding, in that the Opposition did not appoint Tellers in time. Otherwise, there would have been a Division and we might have had some guide as to the support for and the opposition to the Bill. The noble Lord asked whether there had been representations on this subject. I am informed that the Home Office has had representations from individual traders, from representatives of certain trade associations, from some members of the general public and from the Consumer Council. I should not want to put that too high, but the information may be helpful to the noble Lord.
As the debate on Second Reading took place very late, I ought to repeat very briefly the Government's position on the Bill. We are in favour of having a clearer and more rational system of law. There are anomalies in this field and it is certainly desirable to try to clear them up. It will not surprise any of your Lordships to hear that, as a Conservative Government, we are in favour of the widest possible range of consumer choice. But at the same time we are not convinced that that consideration should outweigh all others. This Bill raises a number of important issues many of which are in conflict, but the Government welcome it as an opportunity to gauge opinion and to hear from people inside and outside this House, who will be concerned with the working of the legislation, before deciding whether or not it is desirable to move in this direction. Therefore, the position of the Government now, as it was on Second Reading, is one of strict neutrality.
LORD PLATT: I do not propose to say very much in this Committee stage and I shall probably not speak to any of the Amendments, but I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I began by being completely neutral about this Bill, but at the end of the Second Reading debate I was far more convinced by the arguments against the Bill than by those in favour of it. The arguments

743
which particularly impressed me were that the Bill was to the detriment of the small shopkeeper, that it was to the detriment of family life and that, if it had any effect at all, it would increase the cost of living, one of the greatest evils that we have to avoid at the present time. The only argument I heard in favour of the Bill was that the present position is nonsense.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Registration of food shops]: 4.44 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("which") to ("ingredients") in line 15 and insert ("food is sold, or").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is not to change in any way the operation of the Bill. Its aims are brevity, which I consider to be an objective in itself, and clarity, which I suggest is not perfect in the clause as it stands at present. Clause 2 introduces
*See col. 761.
But there are other ways of putting nonsense right than by introducing a bad Bill which, in my view, this is. I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Royle.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 37.*

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Gray, L.

Molson, L.

Avebury, L.

Greenway, L.

Monson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butler of Saffron Walden, L.

Hanworth, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Byers, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Caccia, L.

Hereford, V.

Reigate, L.

Clwyd, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Roberthall, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Shannon, E.

Effingham, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Thomson of Fleet, L.

Falkland, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lovat, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Meston, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Royle, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L,

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Beswick, L.

Ingleby, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Slater, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Platt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Rhodes, L.

White, Bs.

Fulton, L.

a new concept which does not exist in the 1950 Act, that is, the registration of food shops which will be allowed to be open on Sunday. It describes these shops as:
"… shops in which is carried on the sale for human consumption of food (other than sweets, chocolate and other sugar confectionery; ice cream and edible wafers or containers) and drink (other than alcoholic drink) …".
When I first read this clause I misunderstood it—and I suggest that it can be quite easily misunderstood—because I somewhat naturally, I think, supposed that the shops to be registered were those in which food was sold but not those particular commodities which are set out

745
in parentheses—sweets, chocolate, other sugar confectionery and so on. But in this I was mistaken. The commodities in question are among those set out in Schedule 1(3) and they are therefore allowed to be sold in any shop on a Sunday, and it is for this reason that, in this clause, they are excluded. What is meant by the draftsman of the Bill, I understand, is that shops do not have to be registered if they do not sell any food other than sweets, chocolate, other sugar confectionery, et cetera. Therefore, it seems to me that putting in this long phrase is completely unnecessary, because such shops (confectioners, and so on, or shops that sell drink) will never bother to apply for registration. Shops will be put on the register only if they apply to their local authority to be put there, and, of course, a confectioner—somebody who is selling ice cream, or something of that sort—will not bother to apply to be put on the register; and a shop that is on the register is enabled to sell these commodities because they are among those listed in Schedule 1. Therefore, I am proposing that the shops on this register should be described simply as, "shops in which food is sold, or ingredients for the preparation of food or drink". I beg to move.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, if this Amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 cannot be moved.
LORD DERWENT: I am very much on the side of the noble Lord in wanting to simplify matters, but I would ask him to withdraw this Amendment for two reasons. First, I am told that the wording of this clause should be as near as possible to that of the 1950 Act, because if you omit from this Bill words which appear more or less exactly in the 1950 Act, then when people come to compare the Bill with the Act—that is, people who have not studied the Bill as carefully as has the noble Lord himself—they will think that this is something quite different, and they will get muddled. That is one reason. The other reason why I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment is because I believe that Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 are more important than this one. If this Amendment is agreed to, we cannot have Amendments
746
Nos. 2 to 6, and there are one or two important Amendments among those Amendments. I sympathise with the fact that the noble Lord wants to simplify things, but purely on those grounds I would ask him, at any rate at this stage, at the Committee stage, not to press this Amendment, particularly, if I may use a cryptic phrase, because of something that I am going to say on the Motion, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think that it would be right for the Government to intervene more than is necessary during the Committee stage. However, there may be times when, on points of drafting or interpretation, I can assist. One of them may be on this Amendment. I am advised that by omitting drink from this clause difficulties would arise when drinks were neither alcoholic nor soft drinks. There are a number of drinks in that category, the most obvious being milk. The Amendment would have the effect of simplifying the wording of the Bill; but, on the whole, I am advised that the original wording of the clause as tabled by Lord Derwent, complicated though it may seem, would be more effective in practice.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I cannot wait to hear the "cryptic" remarks that the noble Lord has promised us on the Motion, That Clause 2 stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was speaking mainly about the difficulties of removing any reference to drinks. In this connection I must admit that milk for consumption off the premises is something that had not occurred to me as being necessary to itemise as being covered by neither "intoxicating" nor "non intoxicating" liquor. I do not think that milk could be called a non-intoxicating liquor, although "liquor" is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as, "drink (usually fermented or distilled)". Possibly, therefore, milk might come under that definition. If not, some further amendment is going to be necessary in Schedule 1, because I think it is clear that it is the intention that all drinks required for consumption off the premises (whether soft drinks or non-alcoholic drinks or whatever the phrasing is) should be permitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that it was desirable, where possible, to

747
keep very close to the wording of the 1950 Act. I myself feel that we should try to devise a better Act. If in doing so we must depart from the language of the previous Act, that has to be accepted. The noble Lord referred to the desirability of considering Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 which, if this Amendment were carried would fall by the wayside. I believe that all the points contained in those Amendments could be raised on subsequent clauses in the Bill. None the less, in view of the sympathetic way in which the noble Lord has considered what I have to say, I do not intend to press this Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("for human consumption").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 together. They are among those to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said we might give sympathetic consideration. My Amendments are purely on a matter of semantics. When I read Clause 1 I was put out by the repetition of the word "consumption" in lines 12 and 14. I think the awkwardness of that phraseology can be seen if we read those lines without the words in parentheses. It talks about
"… the sale for human consumption of food … and drink … for consumption off the premises from which they are sold or of ingredients for the preparation of food or drink."
It seems to me to be very much simpler and clearer to say, "in which is carried on the sale of food and drink for human consumption off the premises". That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: I am not a Parliamentary draftsman and I am not quite sure whether the word "human" is necessary. I do not imagine that my noble friend on the Front Bench has considered this either; but the Amendment seems to me to be harmless and I am prepared to accept it unless any noble Lord thinks that it alters the meaning. It is purely a question of semantics.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, after ("containers") insert ("; and fried fish and chips").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. Perhaps it may be convenient if I were also to speak to Amendments Nos. 25 and 30 which cover the same point; namely, that of maintaining the existing prohibition on the sale of fried fish and chips from a fried fish and chip shop, which has been the state of the law since 1936. What do the fish fryers themselves say? I should like to read from a statement by the National Federation of Fish Friers, Ltd. I should explain that I have no connection with this Federation although I must say that there is a certain fish shop which my family find it difficult to pass by without calling in. I should like to read the Federation's statement which has been signed by Mr. Peter Worthington, their General Secretary.
"… in considering this legislation we hope that Parliament will keep in mind that the interests of traders are also important and that it is a poor bargain if convenience to certain sections of the public is obtained only at the expense of hardship to other sections.
"Generally speaking, fried fish shops are family businesses, usually run by man and wife, sometimes with part-time help at busy periods. Sunday is the one day of the week when the family has leisure. (This is underlined over and over again in our own Federation when social events have to be arranged on Sundays as being the only day on which friers are able to take part).
"The fish frier works long hours, and he is employed in his shop at times when other people are enjoying their leisure. He has, if anything, a greater need of Sunday off than any other trader.
"He gets this Sunday break at the moment only because of the operation of the Shops Act 1950 which prohibits the sale of fried fish and chips on a Sunday at a fried fish and chip shop.
"It has been argued that the new Bill will give the trader free choice as to whether he opens on Sunday or not. This is a fallacy. There are some friers who would undoubtedly choose to open on Sundays and because of the keen competition in the trade and the close proximity of shops this opening by a minority of friers would very quickly result in large numbers of other friers having to open in self-defence. It is not merely that friers will be forced to open in order to share the Sunday trade—there would be the fear that customers would take trade on weekdays also to the shops obliging enough to open on Sundays'….

749
"The National Federation of Fish Friers has 6,000 members, all proprietors of fried fish and chip businesses. We have discussed the question of Sunday opening at recent National Conferences, including our 1970 Conference, and there has been an overwhelming majority on each occasion in favour of retaining the prohibition on Sunday opening of fried fish and chip shops. The fish frying trade does not want Sunday opening; Sunday trading would create a great deal of hardship for friers; the advantage to the general public would be more imaginary than real; and this advantage would be secured only by injuring the fish friers themselves and increasing the costs of fried fish and chips to the public at large."
I think that it is clear from that statement that the fish fryers themselves—an overwhelming majority we are told—do not want Sunday opening. They feel that if Sunday opening is allowed a small number will open and the rest will be forced to open in self-defence. I submit that their feelings are important and that we ought to think very carefully before passing legislation which, they fear, will force them to open on Sunday against their wishes and will deprive them of a leisure day to spend with their families. I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD ROYLE: I want to say one or two words in support of this Amendment. I have an Amendment down to Schedule 3 which deals with the meat trade in the way in which this Amendment deals with fish and chip establishments. As I said during the discussion on Clause 1, I think that the basis of the question is: does that trade want it? It is pretty evident from what what the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has told the Committee, that the fish and chip trade does not want it; and I repeat: if there is no public demand for it, and the trade does not want it, it ought not to be in the Bill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I would only say that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has expressed, on behalf of the fish fryers, what no doubt many other trades would desire to say if they were so well organised. It just happens—I cannot understand why—that the fish fryers are very well organised. They have said what I sought to say in my speech on the first Amendment: that they want Sunday with their families, and they do not want legislation introduced which
750
will make them work seven days a week. What goes for the fish fryers should go for all other trades. Unfortunately, there are other trades which are not well organised, and I want once more to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to the fact that when it comes to a well-organised trade expressing its views in this matter, it says, "Please save us from this and give us a rest". I still hope that the noble Lord will have second thoughts when he comes to give us those final words.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This is a matter which has caused a lot of concern among fish fryers. The Government are already aware of the views expressed by the National Federation of Fish Friers. The fish fryers have a number of legitimate worries; we have heard them explained fully by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. By and large fish and chip shops are family businesses and do not enjoy the same protection under the law as other shop assistants. Moreover, fish fryers have to work long hours and we can therefore appreciate their concern that they may be forced to open against their will in order to combat competition. At the same time, it is fair to say that the Bill would not require them to open by law. If they decided to do so it would be because of the competitive position in which they found themselves. It may be that these fears are exaggerated. Fish and chip shops are not unique in being small family businesses, and it is a matter for discussion whether shop legislation is really intended to protect shopkeepers from competition and to safeguard a shop owner's leisure time.
It may be argued that the case for treating fish and chip shops exceptionally has to be proved. Having said that, I appreciate that the noble Viscount's Amendment, taken together with the subsequent Amendments that he mentioned, is designed simply to preserve the status quo. As a result of it, the position would not be changed but would be left as it is under Schedule 5 to the 1950 Shops Act. So the noble Viscount is not trying to establish a restriction which does not apply at present under the existing law, and it will be for the Committee to decide whether or not this change should be made and whether fish and chip shops should be treated as a special case.
5.6 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: May I declare an interest—though not as a fish fryer? As I have told your Lordships before, I am the President of the Institute of Shop Acts Inspectors. They are the poor devils who have to try to carry out the present law, and what they say in private is something worse than the courts have said in public. I mention this now because I will give certain facts, not invented by me, but produced for me by people who have to try to enforce the law. The way the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has talked about fish fryers, and so on, sounds very nice, but it is difficult to know what proportion of the proprietors of fish and chip shops actually belong to the Federation of Fish Friers. What we do know is that there are an increasing number of fish and chip shops that have been opened in recent years the owners of which are not members of the Federation. Therefore I do not know what proportion the Federation speaks for. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that by this Bill we are trying to do away with anomalies. The present law says that anyone who sells food can sell fish and chips (that is virtually what it says)—except, of course, fish and chip shops. That does not seem very sensible to me. Restaurants and cafés can sell fish and chips; even grocers can sell fried fish and chips. Your Lordships may have seen cooked fish fillets which are put into refrigerators. When you want to buy some of that fish very often you ask for it from a grocer; and you can buy chips at the same time. That, strange to say, is a meal. One would think it was impossible to eat the fish, although it is cooked, without its being further cooked: the fillets are meant to be bought and heated. But in fact people do eat them cold with sauce—and chips. It is perfectly legal for grocers, if they are open on Sundays, to sell fish fillets, and that is the sort of nonsense that we are trying to do away with by this Bill.
There is a further point—and here I wonder whether the noble Viscount really knows quite fully what he is talking about. Fish and chips has always been rather a favourite food in the Midlands. It is one of the English foods that a great many immigrants like; and in fact a great many immigrants have opened fish and chip shops. What happens?
752
They cannot of course do anything so evil as to sell fish and chips on a Sunday. But what they do has created considerable difficulties for some of the inspectors. They can legally open on a Sunday and sell sausages and chips; they fry chicken and sell it with chips; some sell fried fish without chips, and some have gone so far as to sell fried fish and fried potatoes which are not chip potatoes. They fry whole potatoes and cut them up; but they are not chips. So far the advice given is that they are within the law. That is the sort of nonsense one is trying to stop.
In a small area—I am talking about an area of three or four streets where there is a fish and chip shop—I do not think that if the proprietor does not work on a Sunday someone will open another fish and chip shop in the area and outsell him. I do not believe that, because in any given area there is a limited market for fish and chips. I believe it is necessary to get away from what I consider to be a complete nonsense, because it is not operated right throughout the country. As things stand a man can keep his fish and chip shop open and sell fried fish and roast potatoes or mashed potatoes. So all this talk about these being mostly family businesses, as indeed they are is I think arguing a bit too far.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: It seems to me that some attention should be paid to the person who wants to buy fish and chips; and so far he has not been mentioned. I have a rapidly disintegrating relationship with the consumer movement, although I am in no sense briefed to say anything. However, I feel strongly that if somebody (and I should have thought that under the present Government this would be official policy) wants to work a little harder, earn a little more money and give the public what they want, we should not stop him—and least of all a closed shop of organised traders. I do not want to enter deeply into this subject, but in principle I believe that, subject to the employment of paid labour, people should be allowed to buy and sell as often and as freely as they can, and I think we should all benefit if fewer obstacles were put in their way.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend, while regretting having to

753
disagree with other noble friends. It seems to me quite extraordinary that the proposal, for no particular reason that I can think of, is that, of all the food and drink that we should be able to buy on Sundays, in future there should be a single exception, that of fish and chips. So far as the fish fryers are concerned, if they do not want to open on Sundays, they do not have to; and if there is not a demand from the consumers, they will not want to open on Sundays. As one who personally finds it very convenient when in this country, and rather hungry in Hammersmith on a Sunday evening, to go to the fish and chip shop round the corner and come back with my fish and chips in the News of the World (and it is well known that it is far better in the News of the World than in any other newspaper), I must say that I oppose the noble Viscount's Amendment.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: I admit, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that there are loopholes in the existing law. I think they concern a fairly small proportion of the trade, in that they are mostly concerned with the "on" trade—that is to say, fish and chips consumed on the premises—whereas the great majority of the fish and chip trade relates to what people take away. So I think that the extent of these loopholes can be exaggerated. I am concerned only that we shall not jump out of the frying pan into the fire. The frying pan, I think, is a fairly small one, and we may jump into the fire and find that we have done away with Sunday for all these good fish fryers. That is why I moved the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 4 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.14 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("alcoholic drink") and insert ("intoxicating liquors").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Windlesham has pointed out to me that in the Shops Act what I call "alcoholic
754
drink" is referred to as "intoxicating liquors" and it would be better to have the same wording in this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: The noble Lord may possibly get into slight difficulty with this Amendment, because in this clause the words in parentheses are commodities which are permitted to be sold under Schedule 1, paragraph 3. The noble Lord has an Amendment down at a later stage to change "alcoholic drink" in paragraph 3(ii) to "intoxicating liquors". Therefore if he is intent upon including these words in parentheses in Clause 2 (1), this particular sentence should read:
"and drink other than intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquors",
because intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquors are both going to be permitted under Schedule 1 if his subsequent Amendment is carried. I suggest, therefore, that the noble Lord should look at this point again and ask himself whether it makes sense to refer here to drink other than intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor.
LORD DERWENT: I do not think the noble Lord is quite right, and perhaps we can look at the Schedule for a moment. What we are referring to in this subsections in the registration, and what we refer to in the Schedule is what can be sold. Alcoholic drink, intoxicating liquors, is not for the registry, because shops are not to be registered for the sale of those commodities. They come under the licensing justices. So the wording, subject to my Amendment, is correct.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Surely that is the whole point. It is here being laid down what is to be sold in registered food shops. What a shop has to sell in order to have to apply for registration is food other than articles permitted in general under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. If the noble Lord is going to amend paragraph 3(ii) of Schedule 1 to read "intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquors", then shops selling intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquors do not have to be registered. Those drinks can be sold without the shop being registered. Therefore it is drink other than those two forms of drink that must be sold in shops that are registered.
LORD DERWENT: I will certainly look at this point again, although I think the noble Lord is wrong. If you do not put in "other than the 'hard stuff'" it will be assumed that you have to register with the local authority if you are selling only the "hard stuff", and that is not so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Amendment No. 6 is consequential upon my Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("for") insert ("human")—(Lord Kilbracken.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 20, leave out from first ("to") to ("or") in line 21 and insert ("carry on such business").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment again might be considered to be purely a question of semantics. The point I am concerned about is that in line 20 the Bill speaks about the shop continuing to sell "articles referred to in the foregoing subsection". If we look at the "foregoing subsection" we see that the articles referred to are:
"Food … and drink … or ingredients for the preparation of food or drink".
I do not see that food and drink can be correctly described as "articles". I am, therefore, proposing to delete those words, and simply to say:
"whilst the shop continues to carry on such business".
My next Amendment, Amendment No. 8, is entirely concerned with the same matter and therefore I shall mention it briefly at this stage. Again, in line 26, there is reference to selling on Sunday articles other than articles mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The articles in question are food and drink. I do not think these can be called "articles". My Amendment would make the Bill refer to:
"transacting business on Sunday other than business "—
that is the business mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: I cannot think that this Amendment is quite satisfactory from a drafting point of view. The words
756
"such business" pose the question, "what business?" If you search the clause for any reference to a business, I do not think you will find it. So, from a drafting point of view, I should have thought that this Amendment was not satisfactory.
LORD DERWENT: That is the advice which I have been given. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, but I too was told that one cannot refer to "such business" when the business has not been mentioned. "Such business" in this context does not refer to anything in the Bill. That is the best advice that I have been able to obtain, so perhaps the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I do not intend to press the Amendment, but it seems a rather strange reply, because in subsection (1) there is a reference to shops in which is carried on the sale for human consumption of food or drink, or ingredients for the preparation of food or drink. It seems to me that is quite clearly a business. When I say "such business" this is the business to which I am referring. If those with far greater legal knowledge than I have (which it would not be difficult to possess) think otherwise, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.23 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 4 and insert—
("the Court may order the local authority to remove the shop from the register and the shop shall be so removed from the register upon a subsequent conviction, in either case for such period as the Court shall determine.")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, with the permission of the Committee I will also speak to Amendment No. 10, since I believe that this will be for the convenience of noble Lords. These two Amendments, taken together, are based upon the proposition that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The Amendments attempt to improve the Bill in three ways. First, the Bill provides that if a shopkeeper is convicted by a magistrates' court, he may be suspended from the register by the local authority. The local authority is normally the prosecutor

757
in the case of alleged offences under the Shops Act. The Bill, in effect, as it now stands, is providing that the court shall convict, but the prosecutor shall determine the sentence. One of the purposes of my Amendment is that the court, in addition to deciding whether or not to convict, shall also decide the sentence and, if it thinks fit, order the local authority to delete the name of the shopkeeper from the register for such period as the court thinks fit.
The second improvement in the Bill that the Amendments seek to make is that the Bill, as it now stands, provides that on a second conviction there shall be removal from the register. It does not say what will happen on a third or subsequent conviction. The Amendments say that on any subsequent conviction there shall be suspension from the register. The third way in which these two Amendments attempt to improve the Bill is that the Bill, as it stands at present, allows either the local authority, or the shopkeeper, to appeal against a decision of the magistrates' court to the quarter sessions, but the appeal, as the Bill stands, can only be in reference to an order made by the court; that is to say, there can be an appeal only on the sentence. Of course, the shopkeeper has a right to appeal against conviction, and the local authority has a right to appeal against non-conviction. The Amendment, therefore, provides that either the shopkeeper, or the local authority, can appeal to the quarter sessions against any of the decisions taken by the magistrates' court. I understand that these Amendments are acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Dement, and I hope that they will be acceptable to the Committee.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, argued this case on Second Reading, as he has done again to-day. I have given it very careful thought, and I have come to the conclusion that he is entirely right. I am very happy to accept the Amendment, and I will also accept the next one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 2 line 5, leave out from ("shop") to end of line 11 and insert:
("or the local authority if aggrieved by any decisions so made by the Magistrates' Court,
758
may appeal to Quarter Sessions and this Court may vary the decisions so made by the Magistrates' Court.").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DERWENT: I should like to say something about this clause. The machinery of registration is somewhat cumbersome. I have reason to know that since the Bill was drafted it has not been very much welcomed by certain local authorities because they think it will give a great deal of extra work to their staff, and some of them are short staffed. This clause was put in in order to put some teeth into the Bill. Under the present Act the penalties are absolutely absurd: £5 for the first offence of breaking the regulations, and £20 for the second offence. What is that to a shop? So Clause 2 was put into the Bill to give it teeth.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has a later Amendment, Amendment No. 20, where he seeks to increase the existing penalties ten times. Frankly, I hope that your Lordships will accept that new clause. My difficulty is that at the moment I cannot take any notice of Amendment No. 20 because it is not part of the Bill; we cannot really discuss it on Clause 2. If that new clause is agreed to, I suggest that we should seriously think whether registration will be necessary at all. I hope that we may have consultations between now and the Report stage, and I particularly hope that I may have discussions with noble Lords opposite, who have taken an interest in this Bill. It will have to be seriously considered whether the new penalties, if they are agreed to, will be a sufficient deterrent to people wilfully breaking the regulations. It may be the right figure, it may not; I do not know. It sounds all right to me: £50 for the first offence and £250 for the subsequent offences. I ask your Lordships to agree Clause 2 now, as amended, and see what happens on Amendment No. 20; and between now and the next stage of the Bill see, in discussions perhaps, whether we think the penalties will be adequate. If on my discussions with various people—not only in your Lordships' House—I decide that Clause 2 is not necessary, I shall put down an appropriate Amendment on Report. If noble Lords disagree

759
with what I propose, then of course it is up to them to disagree. But I should like, if possible, to get rid of this rather cumbersome procedure.
LORD ROYLE: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, a question? In the event of this clause being passed and going into the Bill, which department of local authorities does he envisage will take charge of the job—health, weights and measures, markets or police? All of them are overburdened.
LORD DERWENT: It will affect the shop inspectors, who in some cases are the same individuals as those who deal with weights and measures, although in some local authorities the two departments are quite distinct. Those concerned will be the Shops Acts inspectors.
LORD JACQUES: I should like to support the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Parliament increasingly throws work upon local authorities. It has done so over the years, more particularly in recent years. Some of that work is essential, but other parts of it are not essential. I suggest that the registration of food shops that are going to open on Sunday is certainly not essential and should not be thrown upon local authorities when so many of them have other burdens which are essential. I hope that the noble Lord will eventually make up his mind that the penalties as proposed in Amendment No. 20 are better than inflicting this additional work upon local authorities.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to authorise Sunday opening of shops for sale of certain articles]:
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 11 is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("Sunday") and insert ("Sundays").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("Provided that no order shall be made unless the occupiers of not less than two-
760
thirds in number of the shops or classes of shops to be affected by the order approve the order".)
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12 on behalf of the National Chamber of Trade. It would maintain a safeguard that was included in the 1950 Act but has been left out of this present Bill. The safeguard is that two-thirds in number of the shops or classes of shops affected by an order should approve of it. This would protect the majority of shop owners against pressure from a minority for Sunday opening. As I said, this provision is supported by the National Chamber of Trade; they consider that the existing provision is useful and effective. I beg to move.
LORD JACQUES: I support this Amendment. As I see this Bill, it makes two principal changes in regard to the powers of local authorities to make orders for Sunday trading. First of all, it gets away from the idea of authorities in holiday resorts, and says that any local authority may make an order. Secondly, it gets away from the hole in the 1950 Act. I believe it is essential that traders should be consulted before local authorities make orders, and that the best way of consulting the traders is to take a poll. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the noble Lord.
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I do not like this proposal at all. I never have liked the idea. In fact, it would put at risk the business of certain traders—the reasons may have nothing to do with trade—who want to open when others do not. If the ones who do not want to open are the more powerful people in the locality they may y in such a way that the other traders are not allowed to open when they think it would be profitable. There is a safeguard. The next subsection of this clause provides that the local authority must take notice of any objections. Then, there is a further matter. Mathematically, of course, the proposal is nonsense. Nowadays in semi-country areas—and I mean "semi-country"—where many visitors for one reason or another go (it may be a beautiful view) there may be only two food shops in a large village. If one wants to

761
open and the other does not, the one that wants to do so will not be allowed to. This question cannot be dealt with mathematically. Provided that it is laid down in the Bill that the local authority must take notice of objections—and, obviously, if there were a large opposition to an order the local authority would take notice of it—then these matters are best left in the hands of the local authority;
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH): I am informed that the Division Lists on the first Division show that the Contents were 54 and not, as announced, 52.*
Clause 4 [Sunday Employment in Shops]:
5.47 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we may discuss Amendments 14 and 15 with this Amendment as the three Amendments
* See col. 744.
and competitors who have the right of objection should have no final say in the decision. I do not like this Amendment at all.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ingleby, V.

Sainsbury, L. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Moyle, L.

Slater, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fiske, L.

Platt, L.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hatherton, L.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hereford, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Just, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strang, L.

Effingham, E.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Loudoun, C.

Swansea, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Thurso, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Gray, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

deal with the same point. In the discussion on Second Reading it was made clear from various parts of the Committee, including by the right reverend Prelate, that the Committee did not want the time off for Sunday working to be altered from what it is at present. Although I think the point of view is somewhat old-fashioned, I am quite prepared to agree to it. The point is that I believe my Amendment is the right one and that the two Amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite do not really make sense. As a result of their Amendments subsection (1) would read:
"Section 21(3)(b) of the Shops Act … shall be amended as follows".
Then their Amendments would take out paragraphs (a) and (b) and so the phrasing would then be left in mid-air, whereas my Amendment takes out the whole of

763
subsection (1). Therefore I hope noble Lords opposite will agree to my Amendment and will not move theirs. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment also deals with time off for Sunday, and passing this Amendment would leave the law as it is at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and I both had the same idea about this. Obviously I agree with my own Amendment, and I agree with his part of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment, hoping that it will be accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and expecting that it will be—for this reason. He has already proposed an Amendment which maintains the status quo for assistants. This Amendment deals with pharmacists. The present position is that if a pharmacist works only two hours on a Sunday, and is given time off on some other day, he does not get the protection given to assistants. If he works more than two hours on a Sunday, he does get that protection; that is to say, he will be expected to work only two Sundays a month. Since the noble Lord thinks that the shop assistant should continue to have protection, I assume he would agree that the pharmacist should also continue to have the same protection as he has now. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: Pharmacists are not, in fact, for various reasons, quite in the same category as ordinary shop assistants. In practical terms, since the 1950 Act was passed the position raises no real problem one way or the other. If a pharmacist wants to work extra hours, there is such great demand that he will get paid what he wants. So I am quite happy to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: The Amendment about the protection of shop assistants on Sundays went through so quickly that I did not get the opportunity
764
to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for meeting the point which was so strongly put by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as well as by myself. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, and my excuse is to lend formal support to the Amendment now before us.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Mobile shops
" . This Act shall apply to a mobile shop or a vehicle from which sales are made in the same way as it applies to shop premises except that for the purposes of section 2 above the mobile shop or vehicle shall be regarded as part of the premises from which the goods for sale are normally kept for loading on to the mobile shop or vehicle as required."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple. It is that any restrictions which apply to shops should apply also to mobile shops. The application of the principle may be a little difficult. In the Amendment it is proposed that for the purposes of registration the vehicle shall be regarded as part of the premises from which the goods for sale are normally kept for loading on to the mobile shop. It may be contended that there are few mobile shops that do not have a depot, a place where reserve stock is kept. If we do not have registration, this problem will not arise. In any case, if this problem does arise and it is argued that this Amendment is not practicable because some shops do not have a depot, I will withdraw it now, but at the Report stage I will submit an exactly similar Amendment suggesting that the premises for registration should be the place where the vehicle is kept overnight, on the assumption that the vehicle has got to be kept somewhere, and if it is kept somewhere that can be the place for the purpose of registration. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Amendment raises some important issues. It has been held by the courts that in England and Wales a mobile shop which stops to make a retail sale is not a place where any retail trade or business is carried on; nor is the piece of ground on which the vehicle stops. This new clause would

765
create a situation in which mobile traders were subject to the shops law on Sundays but not on weekdays. Therefore, on the face of it, and subject to anything further that is said in this debate, to accept a new clause on these lines would introduce an anomaly into the law. The noble Lord may feel that the right way to deal with the wider issue of whether or not mobile shops should be subject to control is through amendment of the Shops Act 1950, so that "shops" would include specifically mobile shops. I will, of course, listen very carefully to what is said in this debate, but I wanted to draw these considerations to the attention of your Lordships at the onset.
LORD DERWENT: For the reasons that my noble friend Lord Windlesham has given, and for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, himself gave—the difficulty about the place where the vehicle is overnight—I suggest to the noble Lord that he should, at any rate at the moment, withdraw this Amendment. I am entirely on his side in wanting to bring mobile shops under the Shops Acts, but I do not think it can be done by altering the Sunday trading provisions. It can be done, I think, either by the Home Office eventually having a completely new Shops Act—(and I do not suppose that will happen for the moment), or as my noble friend suggested, by having a Private Member's one-clause Bill bringing mobile shops under the Shops Act. I do not think that anything satisfactory in this direction can be done under the Sunday Trading Act, because they would not then be covered during the week. That is my own view, although I am in sympathy with what the noble Lord wants.
LORD KILBRACKEN: In view of the definition of "shop" brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it may be relevant to point out that some of the sales permitted under Schedule 1 do not seem prima facie to be transactions which normally take place at shops. I do not expect an immediate answer to this, but I wonder if the Committee would like to consider it. If we look at paragraph 5, do fishermen who sell freshly caught fish at the point where it is landed do so in a shop? If you sell produce at a farm, does there have to be a shop on that farm? Can it be said that a funeral undertaker conducts business
766
in a shop? Surely the heading, "Transactions for which shops may be open on Sunday", ought to be changed. In many of these instances the transactions do not take place in what can commonly be understood as shops.
LORD JACQUES: What I should like to see is that mobile shops are made subject to the same laws as ordinary shops. I can see the anomaly that might be created if they were to be regarded as a shop for the purposes of Sunday trade but not for other purposes. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment now, but I hope that at some date this matter will be given consideration in the wider context.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Extension of exemption under Shops (Airports) Act 1962]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the certain old Acts which I now find have already been abolished under the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969. Therefore this paragraph does not apply. This is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 59 of Shops Act 1950
" . In section 59 of the Shops Act 1950 (offences connected with Sunday Trading for the word 'five' in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the word 'twenty-five' and for the word 'twenty' in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the words 'two hundred and fifty'."
The noble Lord said: At the present time the maximum penalty for offences after the first offence is one of £20. There are places in the country where traders persist in doing things which they ought not to do, and when they receive a summons consequent upon a subsequent offence they simply send back the summons with a cheque for £20 and do not appear in court. Under this Bill the court will have power to suspend a trader

767
from the register. We do not want traders to be in the position of merely ignoring the decisions of the court. Surely, if we are to have a decision by a court suspending a trader from the register then we must reinforce the present law in regard to penalties; thus, a trader who is suspended from the register will know that he ignores the court at his peril. The maximum fines proposed in the Amendment are in keeping with recent legislation and are not excessive, and I have pleasure in moving the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has just explained, the effect of the Amendment would be to increase the maximum penalty for offences connected with Sunday trading from the present level of £5 for the first offence and £20 for subsequent offences, to £25 for the first offence and £250 for subsequent offences. When the noble Lord spoke on the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Derwent indicated that he was disposed to accept an Amendment on these lines, and said that if the level of tines was increased he intended to reconsider whether or not food shops needed to be registered. He indicated that he might put down an Amendment on Report to deal with that aspect.
The only points to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention at this stage are these. The new penalties in this Amendment do not conform to the recognised scale which over the past few years it has been the normal practice to include in Government Bills and to encourage private Members to include in Private Members' Bills in the interests of simplifying the law. The recognised scale is in the stages, £10, £20, £50, £100, £200 and £400. In particular, the differential between the maximum fines for a first offence and the level for second and subsequent offences is not normally more than one stage in the scale that I have just described. However, the argument for having a much greater increase in this particular instance, and bearing in mind the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is inclined to accept the underlying approach, means that the Committee ought to decide whether or not they want such a large increase between the
768
first offence and the second and subsequent offences. I should point out that this would be unusual, and also that the figure of £250 is not in the recognised scale at all. There is nothing between £200 and £400.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry that the gap between the penalty for a first offence and those for subsequent offences is wider than normal, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will not give way on this matter. I believe it to be most important. A shopkeeper may commit a first offence of a fairly serious kind for which perhaps a fine of £20 is sufficient, though it does not mean very much to him. But if the shopkeeper continues committing offences later, the gap between the first penalty and the maximum for the further penalties ought to be very wide. My noble friend does not like £250. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, might consider making it £300, or £200. Possibly he would rather the figure be £200; I do not know—that is a matter for the noble Lord opposite. But really anything less than this fairly large fine and this big gap will not stop a dishonest trader; the consequences will not matter to him. So I hope that the noble Lord will keep his penalties wide as between the first and subsequent offences, and will keep a high scale of fine between the second and subsequent offences.
LORD JACQUES: May I suggest that the Committee accept this Amendment, and that if the two noble Lords opposite get their heads together between now and Report stage and arrive at somethilng upon which they agree, the matter could then be reconsidered?
LORD WINDLESHAM: So far as the Government are concerned, that is a perfectly acceptable suggestion. As I said, I should not want to express a view on the merit of the proposal; but since it has commanded general agreement between the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it may be that we could advise the noble Lord on what scale of penalties is most in line with the recognised scale and is contained in other legislation. On behalf of the Government I should certainly be willing to accept the suggestion just made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
6.9 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY LORD SAINSBURY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered Amendment No. 21 with Amendment No. 28, the former being consequential on the latter. These two Amendments offer the Committee a compromise between those who are in favour of the Bill and those who are its opponents, because the effect of the Amendments will be to permit food shops registered with the local authority to sell a full range of food on Sundays up to 12 noon only, as opposed to all day as in the Bill. I consider it a very reasonable compromise. This will enable those, however few in number, who cannot do their shopping on other days to buy a full range of foods on Sunday morning. It will also meet the needs of the housewife who wants to make some last minute purchases. Thus, it will eliminate the very real anomalies of the present law, in the periods which are likely to be most convenient to the public.
At the same time, these two Amendments go a long way towards protecting those who work in foodshops. It is likely that small shops would take advantage of it and open to 12 o'clock on a Sunday in areas where there is sufficient demand. However, the fact that the Amendments restrict full-scale trading in food to Sunday morning would probably make it uneconomic for the large stores to open. Thus it would lessen the risk of Sunday becoming just another shopping day so far as food is concerned. As a result, the Amendments would have the effect of safeguarding the Sunday of a large number of shop employees and of guaranteeing at least half a Sunday for the small shopkeeper. The Amendments are also in the interests of the shopping public, as I believe they would prevent the large stores from opening and eliminate the risk of Sunday becoming just another shopping day. They would also prevent the rise in costs and prices that full Sunday opening would inevitably bring. The Bill, as was stated at Second Reading, is not a Party matter, and I believe that this Amendment should appeal to all those who, while being concerned
770
with the reasonable interests of the shopping public, are also concerned with the welfare of those who work in shops. Therefore, I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
6.13 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that this is an extremely important Amendment, together with the others that hang with it. It is one that is central to the purpose of the Bill. What the noble Lord and his friends seem to be saying to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent (perhaps in view of the vote on Clause 1 somewhat reluctantly), is, "In the light of the result of that division we will let you have your reform, in this House at any rate; but in the interests of employees the hours should be restricted until 12 noon on Sundays only".
We have heard the noble Lord say, with his considerable personal experience in this field, that he believes that a change up to 12 o'clock only would not have the effect that he described so vividly on Second Reading, that supermarket owners, the owners of the large stores, would also find it necessary to open their stores, with the result that staff costs would be higher and prices might go up, and, as he has just said, Sunday would become just another shopping day.
I think the statement he has just made is one to which we should pay close attention, because it represents a move away from the opinion he expressed on Second Reading, when he was considering Sunday as a whole day rather than as a half-day. Here we reach the crux of this Bill, which is to try to strike a balance between the interests of employees and traders and the convenience of the shopping public. In line with the Government's declared policy, which I mentioned again at the beginning of to-day's debate, I shall not express any opinion on the merits of the argument, but I will certainly undertake to listen very carefully to the arguments that take place on this Amendment, and to study what noble Lords who take part have to say.
6.16 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Although I have to confess that I am

771
not in the mood to compromise, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, recognises that this Amendment which he is asked to accept embodies a most important compromise. It seems that this House contains, on the one hand, noble Lords who feel strongly about protecting the employee and, on the other, those who feel that the freedom of the consumer is being ignored by rejecting this Bill. Here, everybody's conscience can feel relieved, because the noble Lord is being asked to allow shops to remain open until 12 o'clock, so that any customer can buy what he wants up to that time.
Surely he is not going to argue that if a housewife, or anybody else, is short of some food, or other commodity, on Sunday that she should not be expected to buy it before noon. If she wants her fish and chips, all right; let her have her fish and chips. But at least if the shop closes at noon then the individuals who have to stay there, and who have been there, perhaps, every other day of the week, will be able to enjoy their midday meal at home and relax during the afternoon with their family. Surely here we have a compromise which the noble Lord cannot reject, and which should be accepted by the whole Committee.
6.18 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but there are reasons why I do not like this Amendment. I do not feel very rigid about it, and I agree that most shops that open on Sunday, food shops particularly, do in fact shut about 12 or one o'clock. I have one near me (actually it is not in the town; it is just outside) that does not open until half-past ten on Sundays, and it shuts at one. That is the time he finds his customers want to come to him on Sunday. At the present time, foodshops can open all day Sunday, but they do not. On the other hand, when we come to certain areas, particularly in the summer, when people move about a lot, opening in the morning in some areas is not worth while because the visitors do not arrive until midday.
What I dislike about the Amendment, first, is that it seems to me somewhat retrograde, after many years, and when
772
it has done no harm, suddenly to forbid shops to open when they have been able to open—although, I agree, not to sell everything. Secondly, I do not like the rigid 12 o'clock. I do not know whether the noble Lord would consider saying opening for so many hours, or something of that kind. It seems to me that it would bear very hardly on certain shops which open now if they had rigidly to shut at 12 o'clock. Other shops, of course, would not want to stay open later than 12. I do not know if the noble Lord would like to comment on that thought.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: While the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is considering that matter, perhaps I may say a word. When the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was speaking, I felt that this was the kind of subject which a Bishop ought to support at once. In fact, he made the same kind of speech as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and I made repeatedly when we were discussing Sunday entertainment, only it was the other way round. Then we were saying that there should be no sport until after lunch, while here it is said that there should be no trading after lunch. We should look at this matter rather carefully before we do anything. We must remember that in accepting an Amendment about the protection of workers on some Sundays, in the light of their working on other Sundays, we have already gone a long way towards protecting employees from an undue imposition upon their Sunday lives.
But what I was really thinking was that a large number of purchases would be of the sort one wants to buy on outings and trips. It is not for me to think up objections and be a kind of devil's advocate. But would it be possible to bring home, say, some Devonshire cream? I do not think you could get it after 12 o'clock, under the noble Lord's proposal. There are all kinds of local specialities which people want to bring home after a trip and they would be caught by this Amendment.
LORD JACQUES: May I point out that this Amendment does not apply to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1? It is not concerned with sweets, chocolate, alcoholic drink, medicines, toilet requisites and so on. It is concerned only with paragraph

773
2, which deals mainly with groceries. I should like to make a final plea to the Committee before it divides on this issue. Surely this is an issue on which Parliament should hear what the parties concerned have to say. It should weigh up the evidence and see whether there can be some reconciliation. In this case there are four parties: the employer, the worker, the customer and the poor chap who has to enforce the law. Let us look at each of those and see whether there is a possibility of reconciling their points of view.
So far as the employer is concerned, most of the evidence is given in the Crathorne Report. We know from that Report that the Federation of Grocers are against any extension of Sunday trading; that the meat traders are against it; that the fish fryers are against it, and that the Co-operative Societies are against it. Also, I received an entirely unsolicited communication from the National Chamber of Trade telling me that they were opposed to this Bill but that, as a compromise, they hoped that my Amendment would be carried. Therefore, the employers favour this restriction. I have been in retailing all my life and I know the principal retail trade associations, but I do not know of one association that is in favour of this Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, knows of one I shall be very glad to hear of it. We know how the workers stand, since they made their representations to their trade union. At paragraph 138 of the Crathorne Report, the union told the Crathorne Committee that Sunday is the only time when shop assistants have the opportunity of social intercourse with their friends and relatives, because that is the only day on which both shop assistants and other trades are away from work. They pleaded strongly that there should not be any extension of Sunday trading. So much for the employees.
Let us now look at what the consumers and the shop inspectors of local authorities
want. The Federation of Consumer Groups passed a questionnaire to each group, in order to get their opinion. The Institute of Shops Acts Administration did exactly the same with the local authority inspectors, and sent them a questionnaire. Both of those bodies condensed the questionnaires and presented them to the Crathorne Committee. In the words of the Crathorne Committee, at paragraph 134 of their Report:
"Both surveys indicated that the chief demand was for the sale of groceries during part of Sunday."
This Amendment meets the demands of the Federation of Consumer Groups and the local authority inspectors. They want groceries to be on sale for part of Sunday. The Amendment goes a little further and states that all food may be sold up to, but not later than, 12 noon. It is an Amendment which reconciles all four points of view, and I suggest that Parliament should take notice of it. It does not apply to catering; it is concerned merely with groceries, meat and so on, for consumption off the premises. I hope that your Lordships will regard this Amendment as a fair reconciliation of the points of view of the parties concerned, and that you will accept it.
LORD DERWENT: I still think that I am speaking for the consumer. Habits have altered since the Crathorne Report was published: people move about much more, and they may well need food. There may be some other way of limiting the period when a shop may be open, but I still think that it should be left to the retailer to decide when he will open. He knows what the consumer wants, and that is why he opens at certain hours. I am not prepared to accept this Amendment as it stands.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Falkland, V.

Lindgren, L.

Ardwick, L.

Fiske, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Jacques, L. [Teller.

Platt, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Popplewell, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Royle, L.

Rusholme, L.

Shackleton, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Sainsbury, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Slater, L.

Woolley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenway, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Norwich, V.

Birdwood, L.

Hacking, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rea, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Reigate, L.

Effingham, E.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Vivian, L.

Gray, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 29, after ("resident") insert ("or employed").
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(2) is concerned with those hospitals, nursing homes or other establishments of the like kind, or hotels or clubs, in which there is carried on the business of a hairdresser or barber. I have no personal interest in this Amendment. As the Bill is at present drafted, such a business may be open on a Sunday
"for the sole purpose of enabling persons resident in that establishment, hotel or club to be served in the course of that business."
I am proposing that such a business should be open for persons who are resident "or employed" in that establishment. This would not mean that any commis-waiter or "washer-upper" in the Savoy would automatically be entitled to patronise the barber's shop in that hotel: that would be a question, for the hotel to decide. I am thinking of hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, where there are such establishments, and where these establishments are used by nurses and doctors.
As the Bill is at present drafted, nurses (and it is of them that I am thinking in particular) would not be allowed to use the hospital hairdressing facilities unless they were actually resident in the hospital. I have been in touch with some of the nursing associations and organisations, and I learn that these establishments are used at any rate in many cases by nurses, and I do not think that they should be debarred from doing so simply because they happen not to be resident in the hospital. Your Lordships will notice that members of a club will not be allowed to
776
use the club's hairdresser or barber on a Sunday simply because they are members of that club; they will have to be resident there. But I am not particularly concerned with clubland: I am concerned with nurses. I think that the enterprises in question should be allowed to be open for anyone who is employed there, whether or not they are resident. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: This seems to me a sensible Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment. The other provisions have already been repealed. This Amendment is merely putting them in order.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The provisions of the Shops Act 1950 described in Schedule 3 to this Act are hereby repealed.")—(Lord Derwent.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transactions for which shops may be open on Sunday]:
6.41 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 4, leave out from ("food") to ("for") in line 6 and insert ("or drink").
The noble Lord said: The aim of this Amendment is brevity. I suggest that the words I am proposing to delete are unnecessary. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the sales of food and drink that are permitted for consumption on the premises at which they are sold. It starts by saying:
"The sale of food for human consumption…"

777
I have tried to think of places where food is sold for animal consumption on the premises, and I have been able to think only of zoos, where one can buy monkey nuts or other commodities for consumption by animals on the premises. But the sale of food for animals is already permitted by paragraph 3(xi) specifically. Therefore the words "for human consumption", I submit, are unnecessary.
In the same paragraph appear the words:
"The sale of food … (including sweets, chocolate and other sugar confectionery) and ice cream …"
I do not see why it is necessary to state the particular commodities that are included in the word "food". You may as well say that "food" includes "cockles and mussels" or any other food that comes into your mind. If "food" is authorised for sale then it must include those foods particularised. I am therefore suggesting that Paragraph I should read simply:
"The sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises at which they are sold."
I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am advised that there is a reason for the inclusion of these words which may not be obvious at first sight. It may be helpful if I mention it to the Committee. The concern which would arise if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted relates to the sale of alcoholic drinks on the premises. It may be thought that the inclusion of alcoholic drinks together with certain other items in Paragraph 3 covers that situation; but this is what is known in draftsmen's jargon as a "belt and braces" provision. It is in both Paragraph 1 of the Schedule and Paragraph 3 because it is by no means certain that the courts would interpret Paragraph 3 as covering the sale of alcoholic drinks or beverages on the premises. Paragraph 2 deals with the situation of off-licences and consumption off the premises; and Paragraph 1 specifically refers to the sale for consumption on the premises. Paragraph 3 does not refer either to "on" or "off". If the result of this Bill's passing into law would be to place magistrates in some uncertainty as to whether or not they could permit the consumption of alcoholic drinks on the premises in a public house
778
on a Sunday, we should not be thanked by the public.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I do not intend to press this point; but I do not very much like the concept of "belt and braces" which, in English grammar, is, I believe, known as either a pleonasm or as tautology. I should have thought that if one said, without any qualification, that the sale of drink was permitted, then it must be assumed that that means both "belt" and "braces", both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. But if it raises doubts in that mystical object, the legal mind, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 26 is really drafting. The principle has already been agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("alcoholic drink") and insert ("intoxicating liquors").—(Lord Derwent.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 27, I must point out that if this Amendment is accepted I cannot call Amendments Nos. 28 to 31. I note that the noble Lord is not moving Amendment No. 27.
LORD SAINSBURY: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 28. It is the counterpart of No. 21, which has been carried.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at beginning insert ("Up to but not later than twelve o'clock noon").—(Lard Sainsbury.)
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 31 which is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("alcoholic drink") and insert ("intoxicating liquors").—(Lord Dement.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before calling Amendment No. 31A, I must point out that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
6.48 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 5, line 14, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert—

("(i) intoxicating liquors;

(ii) soft drinks, chocolate, chocolate and sugar confectionery; ice cream and ice lollies (including wafers and edible containers);")

The noble Lord said: Here in paragraph 3 are set out the goods that may be sold on Sunday for consumption off the premises and at shops that are not registered with the local authority. I have not felt happy about the language used in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and I have several suggestions which I should like to mention. The paragraph starts off by permitting the sale of:
"sweets, chocolate and other sugar confectionery …"
I have been in touch with a number of enterprises and also with the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance who inform me that this is not quite the right phrase to use. What we, the general public, normally think of as "sweets", is, apparently, divided into three great categories: chocolate, chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery. "Chocolate" means plain chocolate or milk chocolate. "Chocolate confectionery" means any other kind of sweets made out of chocolate. "Sugar confectionery" means all other kinds of sweets. So, again, it is repetitious to start off by saying "sweets" and then to say, "chocolate and other sugar confecionery". In any case, one cannot say "other sugar confectionery" when chocolate is not sugar confectionery; because you have chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery and you cannot have, "other sugar confectionery".
The next point concerns the phrase, "ice cream". Here I have been in touch not only with the manufacturers but also with the Ice Cream Alliance, and they tell me that the phrase, "ice cream" by no means embraces all of what we, the general public, think of as ice cream. I have always thought that ice cream ought to contain cream, but, of course, that would be too much to hope for. It does not include ice lollies, which is what we would—or I personally would—refer to as "water ices". And the phrase used in the Purchase Act is "ice cream, ice lollies and similar frozen products".
Next we come to the phrase, "edible wafers or containers". Here I would only comment that the adjective "edible" should be qualifying the noun, "containers," and not the noun "wafers", because all wafers are edible. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned that it was good, where possible, to keep to the language of the 1950 Act, and I would point out to him that in the 1950 Act the phrase used is the same as I have used, without "iced lollies". It is, "ice cream (including wafers and edible containers)."
In sub-paragraph (ii) there is this reference to alcoholic drink and I had pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that, obviously by mistake I think, nonalcoholic drinks, or soft drinks—whatever we wish to call them—have been omitted from sub-paragraph (iii). I think he will agree that it was as a result of my mentioning this to him that he is now proposing to amend paragraph (ii) to read, "intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquors". I have no quarrel with the phrase "intoxicating liquors" which is the one used, in the 1950 Act, but I do not think that "non-intoxicating liquors" is the right phrase to apply to what we normally refer to as "soft drinks". Here, not surprisingly, I have the support of the National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers which is what the appropriate trade organisation is called.
In the 1950 Act we find the words "table waters". I am told that that is now archaic, and that "soft drinks" is the phrase used throughout the trade, and in existing, legislation, to describe what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is proposing to call "non-alcoholic liquors". I do not think that when we buy a bottle of fizzy lemonade we think of it as being "liquor". I am therefore proposing that the first two sub-paragraphs should be replaced and that the first subparagraph (here I am exactly following the 1950 Act, which should recommend it to the noble Lord) should put "intoxicating liquors" in a class by itself, which is what the 1950 Act does. Then, in paragraph (ii) we should lump together:
"soft drinks, chocolate, chocolate and sugar confectionery; ice cream and ice lollies"—
I am leaving out, "similar frozen products" because the manufacturers inform me that they constitute only a very small and technical difference and then in brackets:
"including wafers and edible containers."

781
I think this is an improvement on the existing language and I hope that it may commend itself to the Committee.
LORD DERWENT: I do not know what my noble friend Lord Windlesham has to offer about this proposed drafting, but it seems to me that if we accept this Amendment, and we cannot move the later ones, we get to the question about soft drinks. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is right about the chocolate question, but I am advised that, apart from milk, Coca-Cola and ginger ale, "soft drinks" is still understood in the trade to mean lemonade, orangeade and so on. But it is doubtful in particular whether Coca-Cola and ginger ale are soft drinks within the accepted meaning of the term in the trade. They are covered by the term "non-alcoholic". I will have another look at it, but I rather doubt whether the noble Lord's Amendment will do. I hope that my noble friend on the Government Front Bench, who has available more advice from the drafting people than I, will have something to say to the Committee.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, obviously has done a great deal of extremely careful research. He has talked to several trade associations. My noble friend Lord Derwent also has his own close contacts with the trade. Far be it from me to try to stand between the two of them. All I would suggest is that there are some reservations—my noble friend Lord Derwent has mentioned one or two—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, might wish to withdraw these Amendments and meet with Lord Derwent to see whether between them they can hammer cut the best form of wording to cover the articles referred to in the Schedule. If my Department can be of any help, I hope that the noble Lords will get in touch with me, but I think that it is a matter between the noble Lord responsible for the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, who is seeking to amend it on the basis of his very considerable knowledge.
LORD DERWENT: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that this Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List only late on Friday night. I have received advice, but because it was put down so late, I have not been able to
782
take the further more skilled advice that I should like. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. We can have discussions and I shall get more advice, but I was not really given time to get all the advice I wanted.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should think that a court would find the intention of Parliament fairly clear. I take the point about soft drinks. My old grandmother used to make herb beer and nettle beer. It was a very fine drink, which seems now virtually to have disappeared; although there are country shops in parts of Wales and in some other parts of Britain where nettle beer and herb beer is sold. I should think that all it would mean would be the addition of, "herb non-intoxicating liquors". I think there is a case for looking at this, so that it is absolutely clear what was intended when we were discussing it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for having put down this Amendment at a late date. I was not assisted by the postal strike. I put it over by telephone, and I apologise for putting it down at the last minute. I cannot speak about nettle beer, unforunately, and I do not know whether it is intoxicating or non-intoxicating.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Non-intoxicating.
LORD KILBRACKEN: If It is not intoxicating I should have thought that it would come under the heading of a soft drink. I was informed by the National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers that the term "soft drink" covered all forms of drink other than intoxicating liquors. We have since had the question of milk raised. I do not think much milk is sold for consumption on the premises, except where it is obtained from a registered food shop where it would not present any difficulty. So I do not think that point arises.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, also objected to my Amendment because it would mean that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 could not be moved. But I suggest that if my Amendment were accepted those Amendments would not be needed, because the points they raise are already embraced by my Amendment. I am in the hands of the Committee to a great extent. I feel that my drafting, although it is not perfect, may be closer

783
to the final language than that in the Bill, and possibly the Committee may agree that the Amendment should be approved, because then there would be less amending to do later to reach agreement on its eventual form. If that were the feeling of the Committee, then I should wish to divide; but if not, I will withdraw it for consultation with the noble Lord.
LORD DERWENT: I can say that the drafting will have to be altered in any case. If the noble Lord gets his drafting, it will have to be altered, and if I have mine, that also will almost certainly have to be altered. If the noble Lord wants this Amendment to go through at this stage, I am quite happy about it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should prefer to have my words there.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 24, after ("accessories to,") insert ("tents,")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with accessories and parts for things like caravans, and so on, so that if something goes wrong one can buy a spare part. I have been asked to include also accessories for tents, because somebody might want some new guy ropes, or something. I beg to move.
7.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("and gardening requisites")
The noble Earl said: We move away from chocolates, soft drinks and iced lollies, and I want to direct the attention of the Committee to gardening requisites. May I say, in moving this Amendment, that although I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, I fully support the main purpose of my noble friend's Bill and I congratulate him on his perseverance and stamina. This Amendment is drafted to include the words "and gardening requisites" in Schedule 5 line 25. Sub-paragraph (vi) would thus read:
"Flowers (other than artificial flowers) plants and shrubs and garden requisites".
I believe this to be an important Amendment, because it would put right in the
784
Bill, and indeed in the law, one of the many present nonsenses that exist under the 1950 Act.
The Amendment is designed to improve the position in which garden centres find themselves to-day. I am sure that few would disagree not only that garden centres to-day are rapidly expanding—I am told that 250 have opened in the last three years in Southern England—but also that they fill a social need. They grant to many an outlet from the age of bustle, noise and pollution. What today is the busiest time for garden centres? It is hardly surprising to find that it is at week-ends. Sunday is the family day, when the husband and wife, the children and the dog all go off in the car and arrive at a garden centre. They can look round, enjoy, choose and eventually purchase at their leisure all the various shrubs, trees and beautiful plants. But that enjoyment is somewhat curtailed for the family when, having chosen their special shrubs for their garden and purchased them, they realise that they need the peat and stakes to go with them, all of which they are told they cannot have on Sunday but they can certainly have if they come back the next day, Monday. It is easy to appreciate that most people find it difficult to get there on a Monday, and they would then have to wait possibly until the following Saturday to acquire these essential extras.
The current situation, I suggest, is a nonsense. What happens in practice, as your Lordships are aware, is that garden centres are controlled, first, by the weights and measures officer, and secondly, by the public health inspector. One has knowledge that the interpretation of these two officers throughout the country differs widely. It depends very much how sympathetic they are to gardeners. I have racked my brain as to who would want to resist the purpose of this splendid Amendment, and cannot think of anyone. It would, I suggest, be those who do not appreciate the real pleasure given, and do not appreciate that the trade is mainly done at week-ends, on Sundays. The old proverb, I suggest, still stands:
"The rule for gardening ne'er forget,
To sow dry and set wet."
I submit that this proverb is being frustrated by a nonsense, and I ask the

785
Committee to put it right by accepting the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: This is a very potent case, but it really must not be allowed to go on. The most important thing about a Bill of this kind is that it must not lead to unfair trading. I know that garden centres want to sell on Sundays what they sell on weekdays. Apart from plants and flowers, they want to sell mowing machines, spades, forks and so on. Because they have gardens they can open on a Sunday. But there are hundreds of shops all over the country which sell all these garden implements, and they cannot open on Sunday. It would be grossly unfair to let these things be sold at garden centres and not to allow shops to sell them. We do not want that sort of trading on Sunday.
LORD JACQUES: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on this point. Strong objections are corning through the National Chamber of Trade that gardening centres are already selling lawnmowers, spades, forks and so on on Sunday, while the ordinary trader who sells them for six days a week is not allowed to sell them on Sunday. The term "gardening requisites" is far too wide, and I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: I wonder whether some compromise could not be made here. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, but I also appreciate the point of the noble Earl. I wonder whether some wording could not be found which would say "flowers, (other than artificial flowers) plants and shrubs and necessities to plant the same", or something of that kind. That would prevent the selling of lawnmowers and so on, on a large scale. I wonder whether this could be looked at, as it were, privately and brought up at the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that suggestion. I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment and confer with my noble friends. I will reserve my right to put down another Amendment at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No, 36:
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("of philatelic value") and insert ("sold for philatelic purposes").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The wording in the Bill apparently created some doubt as to whether it differentiated sufficiently between postage stamps purchased for postal purposes, where there is a post, and collectors' stamps. It has been suggested to me by the Home Office that the wording I now seek to put down is the more satisfactory form. I beg to move.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: With the permission of the Chairman, I should like to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 inclusive:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("or")
after ("gallery") insert ("or historic house or historic place open to the public")
line 34, leave out first ("or")
after ("gallery") insert (", house or historic place")
line 35, leave out ("or")
after ("gallery") insert (", house or historic place")
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I raised the question of the sale in historic houses and historic places of all the items contained in subsection (4) which are at the moment suggested as being sold in museums and art galleries. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that there are nearly 800 historic houses and places open to the public, attracting over 20 million visitors a year, and many visitors go to them on a Sunday. I feel that historic houses and similar places should be treated in the same way as museums and art galleries, which could be almost next door, or up the street. You will notice that I have specified that they should be open to the public, and I hope that these Amendments will meet with the Committee's approval.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The effect of accepting these Amendments, which fall together, as the noble Lord explained, would be to extend to historic houses and historic places open to the public the provision in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill which permit outright the sale

787
at museums and art galleries of reproductions of works of art on display, or souvenirs associated with the premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said, he raised this subject on Second Reading and he then forecast that he would be introducing Amendments on these lines. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that he would be pleased to look at any such Amendments. I intervene at this stage for one reason only, and that is that it may be thought preferable to use the description, "place of historic interest", which is that used in Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950, rather than the more cumbersome phrase "historic house or historic place open to the public" used in the Amendment. However, for the sake of seeing this principle approved, if it is the wish of noble Lords to approve it, there would seem to be no objection to accepting these Amendments and then discussing this point with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, before Report stage.
LORD DERWENT: I promised to look at this point. I have looked at it; I like it.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 43.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("Corporation").— (Lori Derwent.)
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to underline something said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken: that the inclusion of the word "shops" in the heading to this Schedule seems rather misleading, because you will find, for instance, that in paragraph 6 the Schedule covers sales at a farm, and so on. Paragraph 5 covers the sale by fishermen of fish landed on piers. If you were looking for the law as to that, and came to a Schedule in an Act headed, "Transactions for which Shops may be Open on a Sunday" you would not be likely to look at that Schedule and would miss the reference to fishermen on piers. So perhaps, before the next stage of the Bill, we might consider whether we could not eliminate
788
the word "shops" from the heading to the Schedule.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Articles which may be sold on Sunday pursuant to Orders of Local Authorities]:
7.18 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 11, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for pointing out that there are about 12 instances in Schedule 1 where Amendments identical to this could equally well have been moved. I decided not to I pepper the Marshalled List with a large number of identical Amendments, thinking that perhaps we might use this one as a test case; and if it is found to be right we can make the other Amendments at the next stage of the Bill.
The word "or" in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 does not seem quite right. It seems to convey the idea that a shopkeeper has to decide whether he is going to sell on Sunday either works of art or reproductions of works of art, but not both. That cannot be what is intended. I should have thought that the test was, where you have, as in the Schedules, things which can be put into a straight list without any conjunction, either "and" or "or", then if they are to be strung together by a conjunction, the conjunction should be "and" and not "or". I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: You can argue this the other way: that if you put in "and" such as in "fish and chips" you have to sell both or none at all. I do not think there is anything in the argument either way, and as at least on one occasion the noble Lord has supported me, unless the official draftsmen do not like his Amendment, I am happy to accept it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: There is no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. We doubt whether in practice the inference that the noble Lord has mentioned would be drawn, but it is conceivable. However, there seems to be no reason why the wording should not be accepted.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 45. These enactments have already been repealed. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 15 to 21.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD JACQUES: This Amendment, Amendment No. 46, is consequential on Amendments on employment which have already been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out from ("day";") to end of line 28.—(Lord Jacques.
LORD JACQUES: Amendment No. 47, again, is consequential on Amendments Nos. 20 and 28, to which the Committee have already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 30 and 31.—(Lord Jacques.)
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 48. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, after ("58") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 49 is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, after ("fifty-two") insert ("and").—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 50 is drafting. These provisions have already been repealed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 37 to 39.—(Lord Derwent.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 51, I think I should point out to the Committee that
790
if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 52.
7.21 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 6, leave out line 40.
The noble Lord said: I will be as brief as I possibly can be, but I want to say just a few words with regard to this Amendment. As compared with the first intervention I made this afternoon, I am now moving from the general to the particular and this Amendment deals only with the question of the sale of meat in butchers' shops. The arguments are roughly those I used in the course of my first intervention, but there are one or two extra points which need to be made. This Amendment would take the sale of meat on Sundays out of the Schedule, and therefore out of the Bill.
By way of explanation, may I say that the 1950 Act contains the Meat Trade Act 1936; by consolidation it was brought into the 1950 Act. The 1936 Act was introduced on behalf of the meat trade—if that is the right expression in Parliamentary terms. It was as a result of the meat trade's agitation, and at their special request, that an honourable Member in another place, and a noble Lord in this place, carried the Bill forward and it ultimately became the law of the land. This was done because of the feeling that there was creeping into the meat trade something which was very undesirable. So far, as I say, we have discussed Sunday trading in only a very general sense.
At that time, in 1936, the mass of the meat trade did not want to open their shops on Sunday, and they tell me that they do not want to open their shops on Sunday now. It is the old, old story. If some opened, competition would force many others to open and business would be lost by small people. I have argued this point previously in the course of our discussions to-day. But I want to add one other point which is very important indeed and concerns the question of inspection. There is no trade in the country which is more concerned with inspection as a result of legislation than is the meat trade. With many other trades, it is involved so far as weights and measures legislation is concerned; but, in addition to that, there is the question of hygiene inspection and regulations.
In regard to weights and measures legislation, meat sale is highly specialised. It is not comparable with taking cans down from a shelf. Meat has to be cut up; a carcase has to be turned into chops or steak, and the situation is very different indeed. The Trade Descriptions Act covers shrinking and draining, which affects weight. A butcher might easily weigh a joint of meat—beef particularly—and put a ticket on it to show its weight and therefore what its price is; but, because of shrinkage, by the time he sells it to a customer it must be put on the scale again; it has to be reweighed and repriced. This is what the weights and measures inspectors are concerned with. I want to know whether it is going to be possible for the weights and measures inspectors to work on Sunday in regard to meat to ensure that the Act is carried out in butchers' shops in the way that all of us, including the meat trade, want it to be carried out.
Hygiene inspection is even more important. Are health inspectors going to work on Sunday and examine butchers' shops with regard to the level of hygiene? Because, obviously, the best people in the trade want proper hygiene and want their standards to be maintained. Therefore, they welcome inspection from the health inspectors. I want to know whether the health inspector is going to work on Sunday to ensure that Acts of Parliament are carried out in the shops. It is quite impossible at the moment, I understand, to get these inspectors working in slaughterhouses on Sunday. In point of fact, the Meat Inspection (Amendment) Regulations 1966 were specifically introduced to enable local authorities to restrict slaughtering in private slaughterhouses to five days, for inspection purposes. It seems to me to be contradictory that we can think in terms of employing meat inspectors, veterinary officers, and so forth, on only five days a week in slaughterhouses, and yet ask the same people, apparently, to go into butchers' shops on Sundays for inspection in the retail trade. This is a contrast which needs to be taken into consideration. In view of the passing of the Amendment which would limit the opening of shops until 12 noon, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, does not think I am being rather mean in pressing for the whole hog, as it were, in
792
this way so far as the meat trade is concerned. It is something different. It involves factors which do not apply to other trades, and those in the meat trade themselves are very anxious indeed that their shops should not be open on Sunday. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to take up the time of your Lordships for a moment or two in order to have some points clarified. Schedule 3 broadly says that the extent of the repeal is Section 60 to Section 65 of the Act of 1950—the Act I have in my hand. These are genuine inquiries; they may be inquiries resulting from ignorance and therefore I am not going to delay the Committee. But reading that, and being a layman in this sphere, I would say that therefore the whole of the retail meat dealers' shops in England and Wales could now, if they wished, open on Sunday. I am not at all clear what happens. I am not of the Jewish faith myself, but in Section 62 of the Shops Act 1950, there is entire exemption in respect of the Jewish retail shops. But on Saturdays there are limitations. Does that still stand as it is in consequence of this repeal?
Furthermore, on the question of repealing, Section 65 of that Act says:
"Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent the sale, dispatch or delivery of butchers' meat required by any person for a ship or aircraft on her arrival at, or immediately before her departure from, a port or aerodrome."
Does the repeal of that provision mean that items can no longer be delivered to ports and aerodromes? These are the questions I would ask. It is obvious to those who are familiar with this legislation that I am quite a layman, but I think it is right for the situation to be made clear at this juncture.
LORD DERWENT: May I clear that point up before the noble Lord goes further? If you are allowed to sell any food you like on Sunday, these parts of the original Act are not necessary. You may sell them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: What about the repeal of Section 65 concerning delivery to aerodromes and ports?
LORD DERWENT: I do not want to be difficult about this meat question, but

793
anomalies about meat are one of our present difficulties. I fully understand the view of the butchers—which term I use in the old-fashioned sense; I refer to traders who really are butchers. I understand that they do not want to open on Sundays. What is more, I am certain that if they did they would lose money, because they would need to employ skilled cutters and so on. And in the ordinary way, shoppers do not buy meat on a Sunday. They do not want to. Shoppers go to butchers rather differently from the way they go to grocers, particularly in the big town. One goes to a butcher either because one likes his prices or because one likes the quality of his meat or the way it is cut. One goes to a butcher for a variety of reasons. One sticks to one's butcher until a better one opens. I do not think there is the slightest chance of any butcher's shop, in the old-fashioned sense, opening on a Sunday, because if he did he would lose money.
One might almost ask, what is a butcher? There are other shops which sell meat nowadays. In 1936, the butchers' legislation really got going, and in 1950 it was not common for shops to sell different produce if they specialised in a particular kind. Nowadays, butchers sell all kinds of tinned food, and very often they sell eggs. Fishmongers sometimes sell meat and grocers nearly always have in their refrigerator nowadays the odd chop or cutlet. Incidentally, those are the things for which there is a demand on a Sunday. You come back from a journey, or somebody arrives at your house unexpectedly and you go and buy a couple of cutlets. The fact that a grocer who happens to be open is going to sell a couple of cutlets will not have the slightest effect on the butchers' trade. It will not be any form of competition and it will not make any butcher's shop open. We are not talking about great competition for the butchers.
Already by the Amendment which has been accepted the Committee has made it impossible for anyone to go to bed except hungry if he arrives in, say, London after a particular hour. We have closed all the delicatessen shops after 12 o'clock. It is a most extraordinary decision. But if we are going to do that and a shop is open for the sale of food,
794
surely the shopkeeper can take a couple of cutlets out of the refrigerator. If the noble Lord, Lord Royle, thinks that that would lead to the weights and measures inspectors having to be out on a Sunday, then his idea is completely out of date. We are trying to do away with anomalies. There may be some other wording which we could introduce to stop proper butchering on a Sunday. But if we are going to do away with anomalies, let us do so in this case.
LORD ROYLE: I am not at all convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said. The couple of cutlets in a little corner grocer's shop is not the answer. Great stores will be opening their departments. Large quantities of meat could be sold in large stores, and, as we argued earlier this afternoon, this would almost compel the real butcher—as the noble Lord puts it—to open his shop. He would lose trade constantly, not against the little grocer's shop selling the couple of cutlets but against the greater amount of trade that would be done in the large stores. I am not at all happy at what has been said and I must press the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I will just say this about the large stores: shops can open to sell food now, but not butchers' meat. That does not seem to have induced the big stores to open on Sundays, and whether they would open their butcher's department is even more doubtful. Big stores do not open if they are not going to make money. That is the beginning and the end of the matter, and we have not seen the opening of big stores.
LORD ROYLE: I can only say that the noble Lord is guessing.
LORD AIREDALE: I do not understand this argument about the big stores opening on Sundays. I thought the strongest limb of the argument which persuaded the Committee to pass the Amendment limiting Sunday sales to Sunday mornings was the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, as I understood it, that it would be satisfactory because it would lead to the small shops opening on Sunday mornings for the convenience of the public but that the big stores were not going to open on a Sunday.
LORD ROYLE: I have listened closely to my noble friend's argument about the stores, and frankly I am not convinced. I am quite sure it applies to Sainsbury's but I am not at all sure that it applies to others I could mention. I am not at all satisfied.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I want to press the point, because your Lordships have not made it clear to me and I am hoping one of the lawyers will spring into the lists. This will be my last Parthian shot. If I understand English—being a Welshman, I do not know—I am told here that Sections 60 to 65 are to be repealed. Section 65 says:
"Nothing in this part of the Act shall prevent the sale, despatch or delivery of butchers' meat required by any person for a ship or aircraft on their arrival at or immediately before their departure from a port or aerodrome."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There have voted, Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 8. As it appears that fewer than thirty Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52; I declare the Question not decided and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS) BILL
7.47 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill; it contains only three clauses, and I shall therefore describe it as briefly as possible. The Bill has a simple purpose: to widen the qualifications enabling people to stand for election to local councils. I should say at the outset that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with voting.
If we are now told that we have repealed that, can I now deliver meat to an aerodrome or a ship that is departing? According to my Welsh English, one cannot do so.
LORD ROYLE: I question whether my noble friend is talking about the Act of Parliament which exists, or this Bill as it is now drafted, or whether it would be this Bill with my Amendment in it. All I can say about it is that if there was any doubt at all and my Amendment were carried, we could appease my noble friend by putting the matter right at the Report stage.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Fiske, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenway, L.

Milner of Leads, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Platt, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ingleby, V.

Royle, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

St. Just, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Albemarle, E.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

The present position is that since February 16, 1970, only those who live in the area of a local authority have been eligible to stand for election to membership of its council. But for more than fifty years, until the Representation of the People Act 1969, anyone who owned freehold or leasehold property in the area of a local authority, or who was the occupier of premises of a rateable value of £10 or more, was also qualified. Section 15 of the 1969 Act removed this eligibility, although councillors living outside the area covered by their council who had previously been elected because they owned property or occupied premises inside the area were enabled to stay on until their current term of office expired.
Section 15 was strongly opposed by the then Opposition in both houses. We have been quite consistent in our belief that it is wrong to narrow the range of people who can stand for election to local councils, and that many local authorities

797
would be greatly strengthened if those who either occupied premises or had their place of work inside its boundaries, but their home outside, were enabled to stand for membership. In this we have been supported by the majority of local government associations and by the 1967 Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. This was the first Inquiry he undertook, not to be confused with the later Inquiry of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England.
In the Report on Management of Local Government, paragraph 424, the Committee concluded that:

"(a) the present legislation makes it difficult for certain people to stand for election, and may be the cause of their resorting to arrangements to enable them to satisfy the requirements of the law;

"(b) mobility of people increases; many have just as much interest in the area in which they work as in the area in which they live and this should be recognised;

"(c) the effect of the law is to exclude some people who might be valuable candidates for election to local authorities, particularly in urban areas."

This Bill, therefore, not only restores the right of people living outside the area of a local authority to stand for membership of the council, if they have a qualifying connection through the occupation of premises, but adds a new qualification on the lines of paragraph 425 of the Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government; namely, that any person who for a period of 12 months before the election had his principal place of work within the area of the authority should also be eligible as a candidate for election to the council. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect to this.
Noble Lords may remember that when the Representation of the People Bill was debated in this House in 1969 the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, moved to insert a new clause on these lines, which would have enabled people to serve whose principal place of work was within the area. That clause was inserted by a majority in this House, but was later deleted in another place.
We believe that it is important that the range of candidates offering themselves
798
for election to local authorities should be as wide as possible, bearing in mind especially the very heavy demands that are made on councillors, particularly experienced councillors who act as chairmen of committees, mayors or leaders of majority or minority parties. We accept that councillors should have, indeed must have, a close connection with the areas they serve; but in these days when boundaries are difficult to delineate we cannot agree that a man whose business or principal place of work is in the area has any less appropriate a connection than somebody whose home is within the area.
Noble Lords know better than I do that in practice it is a very common pattern in local government for a younger councillor to be elected while both his home and his work are in the area covered by the local authority. His family then increases; he finds himself wanting a bit more space, and he moves out into the suburbs. Sometimes these are within the same local authority area; but sometimes they are outside. But the man's connection with the area, and his interest in its affairs, is surely not any less because he works there during the day, often spending two or three evenings a week on the council's business, before travelling home to sleep over the boundary.
Some time ago I served on the council of an urban authority, and I remember very well the tremendous contribution made to the running of the council and the welfare of its citizens by councillors whose connection with the area was through their place of work, rather than through their home. Because all local government electors must now be resident in the area, the effect of the two qualifications added by this Bill will be that, probably for the first time, people will be offering themselves for election who are not on the register of local government electors for that area. The Government recognise that this is a new situation and have included in Clause 2 of the Bill a provision which allows the particulars on which the candidate relies for his qualification to be available for public inspection. We were glad to be able to agree in another place to this provision, which originated in a suggestion made by members of the Party of noble Lords opposite.
My Lords, I do not think that I need say any more in commending this Bill to your Lordships and asking, in the interest of healthy local government, that it should receive a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Windlesham.)
7.55 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the clarity of his exposition of this Bill, particularly after the long and tiring day that he has spent on the Front Bench opposite. We regret that he has had to stay here for the whole of this time. That is not our fault, but is due rather to the arrangement of business.
I can understand the haste of the Government in introducing this Bill, because if it is to become the law relating to the nomination of representatives for local authorities, it is, I think, to everyone's advantage that it should become law before the Elections of 1971. I would give that to the noble Lord, and say that I think it is right that this should happen, if it happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said that the Party of which he is a member has been consistent and persistent in its attitude to this Bill. I think it has been. But I believe that it has been consistent and persistent in error, because I believe that this Bill is a mistake and ought not to go on to the Statute Book. In connection with the purpose of local government, I am sure that Lord Palmerston was right when he told the clergy of Edinburgh, who were asking for a day of prayer and fasting to avert the dreaded disease of cholera, that,
"the best course the people can pursue to stay the course of cholera will be to free their towns from filth and other sources of contagion which, if allowed to remain, will breed pestilence and death, in spite of the prayers and fasting of a united but inactive people."
That was good sense. Expressed in other words, what Lord Palmerston was saying was, "clean up your own doorsteps." I believe that he was absolutely right in that. I believe that local government is about your own doorsteps and what you do about them.
If it appears in this short speech that the personal pronoun "I" is often used, it is because I believe that this House is often best served by those who are able
800
to speak here from personal experience. It is many years since I entered local government, but I remember well that when I accepted nomination I was strongly advised to read up the subject in the classic text book, Clark's The Local Government of the United Kingdom. Almost the very first words in that book are:
"Local government is that part of the government of the nation or State which deals mainly with such matters as concern the inhabitants of a particular district or place, and which it is thought desirable should be administered by local authorities subordinate to the central Government."
I think that the stress in that paragraph must be laid on the word "inhabitants". I have always accepted that to mean, in that context particularly, that the local authority is, or should be, governed by the local inhabitants themselves in the appropriate matters. Certainly it is not, in my opinion, desirable that the local inhabitants should be governed by people who come in from outside the area, and whose interests may conflict substantially with the real needs of the inhabitants in that particular district.
When I was a member of a local authority, my main interests were housing and education, and becoming the chairman of both in turn I pressed with all my energies for the clearance of slum dwellings, the building of new houses for people displaced by slum clearance, and to house the large numbers of people condemned by the housing situation to life in apartments, with all the misery of two women to one kitchen sink. In education I struggled for the best that could be got for the children, and in particular I was desirous of bringing into operation without delay the feeding of children in schools by the institution of a school meals service, for I wanted to end the malnutrition I saw in my every day in that area, then afflicted by massive unemployment.
The charge on the rates for the improvement of both services was a very high one, and I knew full well that it had to be added to an already almost intolerable rate burden. I was engaged in a low paid job and was hard put to it to keep up a very modest style of living, but I never resented paying the near record high level of rate because I lived so close to the very conditions I wanted to end. I was part of them, I was in it,

801
and I could not divorce myself from it by going outside the area at night to sleep, or go anywhere else.
However sympathetically minded people from outside the area might have been, whether occupiers of premises or workers in the various town offices, and so on, it would have been very difficult for them to have had the same approach to the problems as I had. Occupiers of certain types of premises who do not live in the district, whose children are not going to the local schools, whose doorstep is ever free of the applicants for council houses (as mine never was; indeed, the applicants for council houses seemed to be wearing a groove in my doorstep when they were there seeking the opportunity of getting into some decent housing conditions), cannot be expected to have the same readiness to spend money on such services, for rate burdens are always thought to be high, and too high by certain types of people. To some extent the same thing would apply to those who only work in the area, whose thinking might be dominated by what might appear to be best for his employer. For example, the man employed by a road transport undertaking might be prepared to spend a wholly disproportionate amount of the local income on road improvements as against expenditure on education, et cetera.
The aphorism "Taxation without representation is tyranny" has stood the test of time because it is at the very heart of the struggle for, and the continuance of, our type of democracy. I believe that it is equally true that conversely representation without taxation is undesirable, and for that reason I was always opposed to those who sought 100 per cent. grants from the central Government for locally controlled purposes. As I said before, I knew that I had to help pay for the services that I so much desired to see in operation. That was as it should be, for it tempered, to some extent, an idealistic approach by stern practicalities.
I have seen it said that the safeguard here is always that, whether the councillor comes from inside or outside the local government district, he has to be elected by people who live inside. That has always been rather a strong point. It was, I think, a strong point when the original Amendment was moved to the
802
1969 Bill, as it then was, before this House. There is something to be said for that. But if we really believe that that should be our policy on this matter, no such qualifications as exist, or are proposed in this Bill, are necessary. The field should be thrown open to anybody who can secure nomination, no matter from whence he comes. But the simple fact is that this Government, as have other Governments, have sought to protect local government by ensuring that nominees have some qualifications that bear some relevance to the area to be governed. That is true of this Bill, and it is true of all the Acts of Parliament governing these matters in the past.
I do not think that this is a good Bill; I do not think that what they are embarking on is the right thing to do, and I say this for the reasons which I have very briefly given. So far as the terms of the Bill are concerned, I am bound to say that the very vagueness of some of the terms used in Clause 1:
"… occupied as owner or tenant any land or other premises …"
and the
"… principal or only place of work …"
are bound to cause great difficulties of interpretation for those who will have to interpret this Bill, if it becomes an Act. But these are Committee points to which we might return on the Committee stage.
My Lords, I do not advise my noble friends to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. Indeed, I am not going to call a Division hoping that we should not have a quorum on it, which perhaps I might do in the circumstances of the last vote that we went to. But we hold the view that only in very exceptional circumstances should this House vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which has passed through the other House. We believe that they should be paramount in this matter, except in the most exceptional of circumstances. We might ask the House later to divide on an Amendment at the Committee stage, but I fear that even then we shall not have the advantage that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had of a built-in majority when he moved the Amendment that was, in some ways, the precursor of this Bill. We do not like this Bill. I should like to see it prevented from becoming an Act of Parliament, but, as I say, I certainly am not going

803
to ask my noble friends to vote against it at this Second Reading stage.
8.8 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, at this very late hour it is not my wish to keep you for long, especially in view of the ordeal that the noble Lord opposite has had this afternoon in having to stand up to the Committee stage of the Shops Bill. However, there are one or two more comments that need to be made, after the very human plea that has been put forward by my noble friend on this side of the Chamber.
One would have hoped that when the Representation of the People Act 1969 had been passed the course of British constitutional history and electoral law had arrived at the situation in which every man, and every woman, had a vote for local and national elections in the places where they resided, whether it was for a parish or for a rural district, an urban district or a county council. In the case of elections to Parliament, of course, they merely had to have residence anywhere in the United Kingdom. This point of residence in the area in which one sought to have a vote was, to my mind, eminently right. This Bill disturbs—it is intended to disturb—that pattern, so that a rural or suburban element can be brought into the government of our large towns and cities, and that is something which I think is to be regretted. I know that, in theory, the operation could work in reverse, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his opening remarks made the point that he visualised this as bringing other people into the government of a city or a large town: bringing rural or suburban into urban government.
I do not know whether, in framing this Bill, proper consideration has been given to the—I was going to say the sort of people, but that is not quite what I mean—differences that exist between dwelling in a city and dwelling in its outer suburbs, outside its boundary, or in the countryside beyond. I assure your Lordships that the differences are quite profound. The city dweller lives tightly packed on the ground. He looks outside for his life, for his educational facilities, for his recreational facilities, for his sporting facilities—for the lot. He is an extrovert. But the people living further out usually live in larger houses—certainly
804
with gardens, if not with more extensive grounds. They are much more self-contained as family units and they are introverts. Therefore the two do not necessarily blend when it comes to deciding what is best and what is not best for any given urban area.
Perhaps I can illustrate that most easily by referring to the present position in London. London has had its government reformed, and the Greater London Council is under the control of the Party opposite—because, in the end, these matters boil down to political concepts. But the Inner London Education Authority, representing the area of the old London County Council, is under the control of the Party of which I am a member. That is one measurement of the differences of approach between the city dweller and the dweller outside the city boundary. To bring the one in to dominate the other should be done only in the most acute situation, and with the greatest possible care. So why do it, my Lords?
This is a little Bill, as we can see. One might have the suspicion that the Party introducing it find difficulty in producing candidates in city areas to fight local elections. If that is so, then perhaps the noble Lord opposite will admit it. But it certainly would not be necessary to bring in this Bill if we were to have the larger local government areas of the Redcliffe-Maud reform proposals.
What I want, very pointedly, to ask the noble Lord opposite is: does the introduction of this Bill mean that no reform of local government will be taking place in the lifetime of this Parliament? That is a very important point on which we need an answer, because it has been so much in the air for so many years. We thought we had now got down to rather basic concepts—not necessarily the whole chapter and verse of Redcliffe-Maud, but very near to some possible and sensible proposals for one of the most urgent reforms in the country. Are we now to believe that we shall not see these for at least the next four or five years?
8.14 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for the points raised by the two noble Lords opposite who have spoken. The advice which the noble

805
Lord, Lord Champion, gave his supporters is extremely wise. However strong one's feelings, to vote against a Bill—particularly one concerned with electoral representation—which has received a Second Reading in another place is not the normal practice of this House, and I am sure that it is wise not to extend it. I have taken note of what was said by the noble Lord, that he feels it may be necessary to press an Amendment at Committee stage. We shall certainly be ready to provide information, or to do anything else we can to help in advance of that date.
The noble Lord spoke about the inhabitants of the area and the fear that people from outside whose interests conflicted with those inside might come to predominate. But I would reply not only with the answer that he gave to the House, having posed his question, that the electors can decide whether or not they wish to elect somebody whose place of residence is outside; but, perhaps more important in the Party system, that the selectors—the people from the different Parties represented on the council—will be able to decide whether that person is the sort of person whom they wish to have stand as candidate for election to represent the people who live within the area.
Without wishing to be in the least disrespectful to the noble Lord's own experience, I can think of people in his own Party who rendered very great service to local government and who lived outside the area which they represented. A case was given in this House when the Representation of the People Bill was debated, of a former Member of this House, Lord Cohen of Brighton. Nobody would deny his service to Brighton, but I understand that, because of the side of the road on which he lived, his home was in fact in Hove. There was the case of a man who lived outside an area although his business, his local government work and all his very wide range of activities were in Brighton. He would have been disqualified on the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
Another example, if the noble Lord will look at the Report of the Second Reading debate on this measure in the House of Commons, is that of the present Member of Parliament for Stockport,
806
North. Here is a straightforward example of a man who has given many years of service to local government, including serving as Mayor of Stockport, and who lived outside the city boundary. So one has to be pragmatic about this. I do not think there is any real risk of councils being flooded with people who have no interest in the area. The Bill does not originate in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, or in the Amendments put forward in another place in 1969 by members of my own Party, but in the recommendation of the Maud Committee on Management of Local Government, which neither of the noble Lords opposite has mentioned at all. This stated specifically that what matters is the strength of local government. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, what matters is not that a Party cannot find any candidates, but whether it can be sure that it is finding the best; whether the qualities of the candidates are of the highest, particularly those—and he knows better than most of us from his experience in London—in the very big areas where people are acting as chairmen of committees, with enormous influence and power.
I was asked two specific questions. The first was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and was about definitions. He was not happy that the phrase "principal or only place of work" would be easy to interpret, and he also had doubts about the words "occupied as owner or tenant". The Bill does not seek to define the principal or only place of work, because we do not wish to be unnecessarily restrictive. There is no reference to work which is paid or which is unpaid, and there is no exclusion of work which is voluntary. I am advised that we expect this phrase to cause very little difficulty in practice, and that it will be interpreted in a common sense way. In the vast majority of cases, it will be the place where a man spends most of his time and earns his living. There may be some fringe cases which will need to be interpreted, but we have confidence that they will be interpreted in a common sense way, as I said. On the question of occupying as owner or tenant, I must point out to the noble Lord that this phrase is one which has been consistently used since 1832 in Acts dealing with electors, and has not in practice caused any great problems of

807
interpretation. So that phrase is one which is already well recognised in electoral law.
The noble Lord, Lord Fiske, asked me about the implementation of the proposals of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, and asked for an assurance that this Bill would not affect the way in which the Government looked on those proposals. The two are quite separate, my Lords. This is a detailed Bill to deal with a very tightly defined situation, while the implications of the Royal Commission are enormously wide. We accept that, with larger units of local government, particularly those which cover an urban area and its surrounding countryside, the need for these two qualifications may be less in future if the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, or an interpretation based upon them, are implemented. But there will no doubt still be areas, particularly in the case of second tier authorities, where a man has a legitimate interest in one authority area and happens to live in another.
My Lords, let me end by repeating what I said when introducing the Bill. It is concerned with widening the range of people who can stand for local government office. It does not deal with voting; it does not even deal with the ownership of property. That has not been restored. The Bill is concerned with the occupation of premises or the principal or only place of work in a particular area. So we are bringing in here, for the first time, a wide range of people who have their main work in the area. They may perhaps be in factories or offices, and may be doing a wide range of work. The noble Lord, Lord Fiske, hinted that there might be some social overtones in the phrase, "the occupier of property". But this is not so in the "principal place of work" qualification. I think the noble Lord will probably accept that, and certainly it was implicit in the recommendations of the Committee on the Management of Local Government. My Lords, it is for these reasons that we have introduced this Bill, and we feel strongly that it will lead to a healthier and a stronger local government in future.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  DAVENTRY TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
  DAVENTRY TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SERVICE: TRUNK CALLS
  POST OFFICE TELEPHONE SERVICE: TRUNK CALLS
  BRITISH TOURIST AUTHORITY AND HOTELS REPRESENTATION
  BRITISH TOURIST AUTHORITY AND HOTELS REPRESENTATION