Sitting of 8 July 1971

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

  SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Lanarkshire County Council.
  To be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

  LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Mr. Gordon Campbell presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Lerwick Harbour.
  To be considered upon Wednesday next and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    University Development
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she will make a further announcement of Government policy towards university development in the 1970s.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I hope to announce the provisional recurrent grant for the academic year 1972–73 by the end of this year, and the recurrent grants for the whole of the 1972–77 quinquennium during the autumn of next year.
    Mr. Lane: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear, but could she bear in mind, too, that it will be of great help to the universities, particularly over their capital development plans, if they can be given the earliest possible long-term indication not only of the pattern of expansion during the rest of the decade but of the Government's probable time scale as to decision-making and implementation over the next few years?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I will certainly bear that in mind. My room for manoeuvre is limited because I cannot take decisions before I receive the advice of the U.G.C., and the U.G.C. is still collecting information on which to tender its advice.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Would the right hon. Lady inform us whether in these calculations medical education at university level in general and at all such schools as the medical school in Durham University will be included?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Medical schools at universities come within the U.G.C. grants.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Could the right hon. Lady take this opportunity to make it clear that the present alarming reports of graduate unemployment are not, as some of the educational flat-earthers would have us believe, evidence that too many graduates are being produced,

    1493
    because we produce fewer than our competitors, but that it is just one more cruel symptom of the Chancellor's economic ineptitude? Secondly, will she take this chance, in view of the insidious article in May's "Economic Trends", to make it clear whether that article, written by two of her officials, is the start of a great Conservative retreat from the Robbins criteria?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The decisions will be taken in accordance with my original reply.

    School Meals
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she is now in a position to state the reduction in the numbers of school dinners being taken consequent on the recent introduction of increased prices.
    Mr. Carterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she now has available the numbers of children eating school meals since the increased charges.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has now any information on the number of schoolchildren taking school meals in the county of Derbyshire, both immediately before and after the cost of the school meal was last increased.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage decline in the number of school meals consumed in the West Riding of Yorkshire and the Rother Valley Division Executive Area since the increase in the price of school meals.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the number and proportion of schoolchildren in the Inner and Outer London areas, respectively, who have ceased to take school meals following the price increase therefor.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her estimate of the reduction in the number of children taking school meals following recent price increases.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what are the latest figures for the take-up of school meals on a national, regional and local basis; and how these compare with corresponding figures for March this year.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total of school meals taken in all schools of the Derby Borough Education Authority in the week beginning Monday, 14th June, 1971, as compared to the week beginning 11th January, 1971.
    Mr. Concannonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the percentage drop in bought school meals for Nottinghamshire over the past year.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I would refer hon. Members to my reply of 5th July to the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). This gave full details of the take-up of school dinners in September, 1970, and May, 1971, by reference both to the overall position in England and Wales and to the areas of the individual local education authorities. The Department has not collected information for other dates in 1970 or 1971, for parts of the areas of local education authorities, or for individual schools.—[Vol. 820. c. 299–310.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that I consider that Question and Answer to have been inspired—those given last Monday, I think it was? Does she recognise that the White Paper on New Policies in Public Spending which was issued by the Government said that there would be a net saving on school dinners of £20 million this year and £38 million in 1974–75, and that that £38 million is the exact amount of the tax concession given to people with incomes of more than £4,005? Can she say how many primary schools she intends to build with the savings she is going to make because of this disgusting exercise? Or is she engaged in another intellectually dishonest exercise such as she admitted in Eastbourne last week?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As to the first point, the school meals subsidy will in fact increase. As to the second point, most people were delighted with the new primary school building programme of £132 million over three years.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the catastrophic fall which has occurred in Derbyshire, with the resultant sacking of scores of people engaged in the preparation and supervision of school meals, exemplifies accurately the class bias of her Department? To ensure that she is not left with support only from within the narrow confines of her own party, will she affirm to the House that there will be no further increase in the price of school meals during the life of this Parliament?
    Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, he will see that the latter part of his supplementary question is not correct.
    Mr. Lane: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on each of the two occasions when the last Labour Government increased the price of school meals the numbers taking school meals first fell away and then rose again, and is not this likely to repeat itself on this occasion?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We expect the numbers taking school meals to rise again in the autumn, in common with the usual pattern after there has been an increase in price. There will also be a further increase in the numbers eligible for free school meals when the supplementary benefit scale rises again.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. Lady not aware that because of the increase in the price of school meals many thousands of school children eat sandwich lunches in draughty corridors and damp cloakrooms? What will she do about this?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We recently put out a circular to local education authorities about arrangements for those who took sandwiches to school, setting out the Department's views on the arrangements that should be made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, increases in the price of school meals have been made before and there was nothing unusual about their being made under his Government.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not the fact that the price of school meals after adjustment in relation to the average earnings of parents is now more favourable to parents than it was before the price was raised,
    1496
    and is it not desirable as a general principle that, as earnings rise, the price of school meals should rise?
    Mrs. Thatcher: From my information, and taking a very modest estimate of this year's average earnings, the price of school meals in relation to average earnings this year is approximately the same as it was 16 years ago.
    Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Lady confirm or deny the revelation this week in her reply to Mr. Tudor David when he questioned her about the hypothecation of revenue and when she is alleged to have said, with a shimmering smile, that this is merely an intellectual exercise indulged in when one has nothing else to say.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Indeed, my comment was about my questioner's comments.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will increase the income limit for entitlement to free school meals, particularly in respect of larger families.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I increased the net income limits in April, and I shall be doing so again in September. These increases have the effect of bringing more families of all sizes into initial entitlement for some or all of their children, and in the case of larger families with existing entitlement for some of their children, of extending that entitlement to cover others.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been some disappointment over the refusal of applications, in some degree, perhaps, stimulated by her Department's own very attractive advertisements? Will she, when both wages and prices are rising, take a generous view of these limits?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The limits will be increased again when the supplementary limits go up in September, and we expect quite a lot more children to become eligible for free school meals when that occurs.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. Lady agree to disregard the cost of travel for school children in determining the income limits now that the transport charges are so terribly high?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The local education authority has discretion about paying fares for travelling to school within the statutory limits.
    Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Lady consider the situation in Liverpool, where a report from the school meals organiser shows that one million fewer school meals this year will be issued to school children because of the higher price and also because of the growing unemployment in Liverpool, which has seriously affected the situation?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I will, of course, look at any situation. My impression was that in Liverpool there was an especially good school meals service.
    Mr. Simon Mahonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what communication she has received from the Association of Municipal Corporations' Education Committee relating to the provision of free milk in schools for all children up to 12 years of age; and what reply she has sent.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: The Association wrote to the Department early in June suggesting that authorities should be given discretionary powers in the Education (Milk) Bill to continue to provide free milk for primary school pupils up to 12. This matter has been thoroughly debated in Committee.
    Mr. Mahon: That is a most unsatisfactory reply. Is the right hon. Lady aware that most of us are asking how the Government can possibly justify this arrogant policy in the face of universal condemnation from the A.M.C. and other social works organisations? Is it not a sign of greatness in a nation to cherish its children? Is this not a miserable policy, and are the Government not ashamed of themselves?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the Standing Committee which has been going into this in great detail has now reported. He will find it helpful to read the arguments both ways. I would only say, in all modesty, that I do not remember serving on a Committee on which the Government's arguments have so thoroughly prevailed.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend apply himself to the question of milk
    1498
    supply? Is there any evidence available that a diminution of milk demand has actually occurred in the schools as a result of these measures? Is it not a fact that demand for milk is now the same as, if not larger than, it was before the changes?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I think that the changes so far have been quite minimal. In any case, as my hon. Friend knows so well, one of the provisions of the Bill allows milk to be provided at secondary school level on payment, a right which was not previously available and which might well result in increased take-up.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is aware that, although school meals are supplied at the reduced rate of 25p in special schools, mainly because the children cannot get home for dinner, there are three units in Salford for handicapped children in a similar difficulty, but who have to pay the full amount of 60p per week and that this anomaly also exists in other towns; and if she will take steps to reduce charges for these children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities have discretion under the regulations to decide the level of the charge made for the school dinner for pupils in special schools. Special units, unlike special schools, receive no formal individual approval or recognition by the Department and the discretion does not, therefore, extend to them. Ordinary arrangements for remission of charges apply and authorities also have powers to provide benefits such as breakfast and mid-morning refreshments free or at a nominal charge for any pupil who has a long journey to school.
    Mr. Allaun: Does the Minister admit that this is an anomaly which is quite meaningless to the parents of handicapped children? Why did she take four months to reply to my letter? Why did she fail to give me the answer then that she has given now? She did not then indicate that there was a local responsibility. Indeed, she accepted the State's responsibility in this matter.
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is an anomaly. If the hon. Gentleman had to wait that length of time for an answer, I can only

    1499
    apologise to him. It seems that he now has the right answer.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters she has received on the subject of increases in school meal charges and the proposed cessation of free school milk to primary schoolchildren of the age of seven years.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have to date received about 400 letters, including 13 petitions, concerning the changes in the school meals and milk arrangements.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Lady aware that that is absolutely nothing compared with what she will get as the autumn and winter progress and when the full nutritional harm of these measures comes to be felt as a result of one million fewer children taking school meals? If she finds the present trend continuing by, say, the end of the winter term, will she revise the prices downwards?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have no medical evidence of nutritional harm; nor, I believe, has anyone else.
    Mr. Longden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this blanket pauperisation of all parents is most extraordinary—this assumption on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite that there are no parents in England who can afford to give meals and milk to their children?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I can only repeat what I said, that I have no medical evidence of nutritional harm, and none has been sent to me.
    Mr. Spearing: Among the letters which the right hon. Lady has received, is there one from the Association of Education Committees asking her to review the Measure so as to give L.E.A.s optional power to provide free milk in primary schools for the seven to 11 age group? If so, will she say what reply she has sent?
    Mrs. Thatcher: There is another Question on that precise point.

    Sex Guidance and Education
    5. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will call for reports from all local education authorities about the method, content and availability of sex guidance
    1500
    and education being given in their schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. Her Majesty's Inspectorate look at the provision of sex education in schools as part of their regular work and through their review of health education.
    Mrs. Short: Does the right hon. Lady recall the sad case of the Bradford child whose difficulties were resolved thanks to the generosity of the Calthorpe clinic in Birmingham? Does she recall that one of the most distressing features of that case was that the child had received no information either from her parents or from school? Will she look again at the implications of this and satisfy herself that all local education authorities are carrying out their duties towards their teenage boys and girls?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not recollect that case. I do not have it in front of me, and it is not referred to in the Question. Curriculum matters are for local education authorities and, as the answer to the Question specifies, Her Majesty's Inspectorate keep these matters under review as part of their ordinary work.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Ignoring the crude and irrelevant propaganda of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short), may I return to the Question and ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that programmes of sex education, which I think are a good thing, are planned in co-operation with parents?
    Sir G. Nabarro: Speak for yourself!
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is both the wish of the Department and the practice of local education authorities that the co-operation of parents is secured before the programmes are shown to children.

    Ardwick (Official Visit)
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will pay an official visit to the Ardwick division of Manchester
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Kaufman: Why does not the right hon. Lady have the courage to come to my constituency, where more than 1,000 children have stopped taking school meals

    1501
    since she put up the price, and explain to the parents of Ardwick why she has literally taken the food out of the mouths of their children.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have been to Manchester on many occasions, fortunately not in the company of the hon. Gentleman. As I explained in my answer to a previous Question, the price of the school meal now bears approximately the same relationship to average earnings as it did 16 years ago.

    Western Primary School, Winchester
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are her plans for the rebuilding of the Western Primary School, Winchester.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My right hon. Friend is considering the Hampshire Local Education Authority's proposal to replace this school in the programme of work to start in 1973–74. She hopes to announce details of the programme shortly.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the Minister agree that Winchester has a not inconsiderable name in educational circles and that the conditions in this primary school call for urgent action?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Yes, Sir, I gladly accept that. The very fact that the project is under close consideration for 1973–74 gives the answer to my hon. and gallant Friend.

    Secondary Education (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local education authorities in England and Wales have not submitted schemes for the reorganisation of secondary education.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Eight authorities have never submitted a scheme of reorganisation and nine whose plans were rejected before June, 1970, have not submitted revised plans.
    Mr. Dormand: As there are 163 local education authorities, do not those figures demonstrate beyond all doubt that the vast majority of people concerned with education agree that comprehensive edu-
    1502
    cation is the most effective form of secondary education? Will the Secretary of State tell the House that the withdrawal of the Labour circular on comprehensive education a year ago, with such a fanfare of trumpets, has resulted in only two withdrawals in 12 months, and does not this demonstrate beyond all doubt that the Government's policy is an absolute sham and completely doctrinaire?
    Mrs. Thatcher: As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, the important factor is not the plan but the point at which the local education authority submits proposals for a change in the character of a school, when whoever is Secretary of State has to consider those proposals.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many parents are dissatisfied that reorganisation does not provide for single-sex education at secondary level?
    Mrs. Thatcher: That is one of the factors I take into account when considering the proposals under Section 13. I am very much aware how strongly some parents feel on that point.
    Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Lady say what use it is for a local authority to submit a scheme under her Government when she messes them about in the disgraceful way she has followed with the Borough of Barnet in her own constituency, or by her almost certainly unlawful action under Section 68 in the case of the Rydens School in Surrey? What is the use of submitting a scheme now? Why does not the local authority simply submit a Section 13 notice straight away?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I think the right hon. Gentleman must be mistaken. Barnet has submitted Section 13 notices. Decisions have been given on the Barnet Section 13 proposals, although I believe there is one outstanding. A number have been approved and a few have been disapproved, in the exercise of my statutory duty.

    School Children (Clothing)
    Mr. H. Boardmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether, in view of disputes concerning suitability of apparel for school wear

    1503
    being subject to the opinions of individual school heads, she will request local education authorities to lay down guide lines to apply to all local authority schools within their jurisdiction.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I believe this is best left to the discretion of local education authorities.
    Mr. Boardman: Is the Minister aware that disputes of this nature are becoming more frequent, and that they cause embarrassment and annoyance to the head teachers concerned and very often humiliation to the parents? If the local education authorities have these powers why does not she insist that they use them?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Local education authorities are as well able as the Government, if not more able, to judge the suitability of school uniforms or school wear.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is this not a matter on which sensible heads will consult the pupils, and are there not instances in which that has been done with the most admirable results?
    Mrs. Thatcher: In the vast majority of cases any difficulties are dealt with sensibly by headmasters and by school managers and governors.

    Out-of-School Activities (Insurance)
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice she gives to local education authorities concerning insurance cover for schoolchildren on official out-of-school activities.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No general advice has been given. Authorities were advised in 1967 to consider the need for insurance cover in respect of the special risks incurred by pupils visiting industry. The Department's Education Pamphlet No. 53 draws attention to the insurance question in connection with activities afloat and in the air.
    Mr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Lady for that reply. In the light of the continuing and welcome trend for schoolchildren to participate in out-of-school activities, would she now consider once again circularising local authorities to try to ensure that adequate insurance cover is provided by all authorities?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have already pointed out that this matter is dealt with in Education Pamphlet No. 53. We will see whether there is need to up-date the advice.

    Polytechnics (Expenditure on Books)
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much is spent on books annually for each student in polytechnics; and what is the comparable figure for universities.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: In 1968–69 current expenditure by the universities averaged £10·65 per student on the purchase of books. I have no comparable figure for polytechnics or other Further Education colleges.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it not disturbing that the Secretary of State has no figures for spending on books in one of the two main branches of higher education in this country? If such figures were available, would they not clearly show that the amount spent on books in polytechnics is very much less than the amount spent on books in universities? Would the right hon. Lady not agree that this is no way of providing the further number of students which is needed in higher education, and that we should provide appropriate facilities regardless of whether students are at polytechnics or at universities?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am not trying to evade the question, but my difficulty is that in the year of which I can speak there were only four polytechnics. This is such a new development that statistics are in an early stage.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Would it not be an easy operation for the Department to approach the 30 polytechnics to establish the current position or the situation which applied last year? If the polytechnics are not to become the secondary moderns of the educational system, these matters should not be masked by the working of the binary system.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Since this is a local authority system, it has not been the practice of successive Governments to send for full statistics of this kind. I have no doubt that as the system proceeds we shall be able to compare like with like; increased emphasis is being given to the capital works programme in

    1505
    polytechnic libraries, which I accept is a very important matter.

    Smoking in Schools and Colleges
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will introduce legislation to regulate smoking by pupils and students in educational establishments and prohibit the siting of vending machines for tobacco products therein.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that legislation is the right way to regulate smoking in schools and colleges. The report of the Royal College of Physicians, which included a recommendation in favour of restrictions on the siting of vending machines, is being studied.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would my right hon. Friend pay some regard to the fact that, if it had not been for the cantankerous behaviour of her colleague the Secretary of State for Social Services, a very desirable Clause inserted during the Standing Committee proceedings into the Tobacco (Health Hazards) Bill prohibiting vending machines in the precincts of all educational institutions, colleges and schools would have, been implemented? Would she have regard to that important provision in that Bill, or, if she cannot accept that legislation, will she introduce substitution legislation?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have never found my right hon. Friend cantankerous with me, but I confess that he has never been provoked. The Report of the Royal College of Physicians is still being studied, which I feel is the best way to go about the matter.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Patrick Wall—Question No. 22.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have Question No. 21.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's Question has already been answered.

    Student Unions
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will seek powers to institute a registrar for student unions.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I am considering this possibility.
    Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend agree that many hon. Members would like to see students have greater control of the administration of their universities, but that such action is impossible unless there is a registrar who can control such behaviour as the imposition of the closed shop, grants to revolutionary organisations, and so on, which is taking place today?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The problem is quite complex. It is not only a question of setting up a registrar of student unions, but a question of deciding his precise responsibilities. I would point out that the university authorities have a general responsibility for supervising the constitution of the unions.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the provision of a registrar of student unions was a recommendation by the Select Committee on Education which reported in 1969? Is it not time that something was done, not only about that recommendation but about the other recommendations which were put forward by that Select Committee?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have been asked about this particular matter, and I have given the reply that the matter is being considered.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: I appreciate that this is a difficult matter, but would the Secretary of State take urgent action to look at the problem in many universities where students on political grounds are being stopped from fully participating in the activities of student unions? If we cannot have a registrar, can we not have something else?
    Mrs. Thatcher: There are a number of Questions later which raise that matter.
    Mr. Alan Williams: If the right hon. Lady is considering action, what consultation is she having in the process of that consideration?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We have not yet reached the stage of consultation. I feel it better that we should get further along the road before deciding whether to recommend the introduction of a registrar. No decision has yet been taken.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science

    1507
    whether she has included in her consideration of the future of student unions the decision of the University of York Student Union to withhold funds from the University of York Monday Club while granting them not only to societies connected with the political parties but to the Anarchists, International Socialists, Spartacists, Socialist Society, Women's Liberation, etc.; and what action she will take.
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will now make a statement on the use of public funds by students unions at universities.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Some changes in the arrangements governing the payment of union fees are under consideration.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are not these odious tactics reminiscent of those of Nazi students under the Weimar Republic and a disgrace to institutions which pride themselves on academic freedom? By setting up a registrar or by making membership of students' unions voluntary, or in some other way, will she do her best as early as possible to see that natural justice is secured?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Most of us would not like any restrictions on freedom of speech of the kind that we appear to have seen, or restrictions on academic freedom. We have made extensive inquiries with the vice-chancellors and with the polytechnics about the payment and the amount of union fees and about the expenditure and arrangements for scrutinising the accounts. We have had a good deal of information in and we are now seeing how best to decide what to do.
    Mr. Hastings: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her answer will be very welcome to a number of hon. Members, probably on both sides of the House? If evidence is produced of gross discrimination in a particular university, will she be prepared to make representations to the vice-chancellor about it?
    Mrs. Thatcher: One would be very reluctant to interfere with the freedom of the authorities of the universities. One has to be careful that one does not lose more than one gains. It is, of course, open to individual Members to make representations.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who are the Spartacists?
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate she has made in the course of her inquiry of the number of students who seek to resign from the National Union of Students and find it legally impossible to do so; and whether, in the light of these breaches of civil rights, she will hasten to amend the laws and regulations which have created this situation.
    Mrs. Thatcher: I have made no estimate, but I am aware of the anxiety of some students who are members of the N.U.S. through the corporate affiliation of their college or university union. I understand that the N.U.S. Executive is now looking into this. Meanwhile students who are individual members of the N.U.S. can resign at any time.
    Mr. King: Can there have been a comparable situation, in which union subscriptions are paid on behalf of members, whether or not they desire them to be paid, and from which they cannot retract, particularly when the funds of that union are poured out in various curious ways of which those members do not approve? Is this not in anyone's political book a monstrous invasion of civil liberty and a degree of paternalism which is insupportable?
    Mrs. Thatcher: We are, as I explained in answer to an earlier Question, looking at the method of payment of fees to student unions by local education authorities. A number of factors are involved and our conclusions will be announced when they are ready.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not the problem not that of individual membership of the National Union of Students but that of the automatic membership of those who are corporate members of local unions? It is they who not able to resign. Is my right hon. Friend aware that seven students at Bradford University have made three unsuccessful attempts to resign and that an Oxford graduate, Mr. Antony Russell, has also made an attempt but has failed?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I know of four cases, not the seven to which my hon. Friend referred. The N.U.S. are looking into this matter.
    Mr. Douglas: Would the right hon. Lady agree that there is no individual

    1509
    hardship incurred by students in these cases and that it is administratively convenient to collect fees in this manner?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is possibly more than a question of administrative convenience. This is one reason why we are inquiring into it.

    Naval Architecture
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish figures of the number of graduates in the past five years who have qualified in naval architecture.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Information about students obtaining first degrees in naval architecture is not separately identified in the Department statistics.
    Mr. Douglas: The Minister has given a disappointing reply. However, will he concede that, no matter how few naval architects have qualified, there is a danger in view of the problems of the shipbuilding industry that a supply will be created which will exceed demand?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: This essentially is a matter for individual universities, as the hon. Gentleman knows since I understand that he read a course of naval architecture. I am certain that they will take a long view of the situation rather than be influenced by the ups and downs of the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. John Wells: In view of the length of these courses, could my hon. Friend undertake to examine the supply of both naval architects and marine engineers in future? Since he has said that figures are not available, could he look at the situation and try to make inquiries, and then give some encouragement?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: If my hon. Friend reads the reply, he will see that I said that this particular discipline is not separately identified in the statistics; but I will certainly examine any information my hon. Friend wishes to give me. However, this is essentially a matter for the universities.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Fred Evansasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what studies her Department has made of the effect on the British educational system of
    1510
    entry into the Common Market; and whether she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No changes in the British educational system will be required as a condition of entry into the Common Market. The Treaty of Rome refers only to
    "mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications"
    in the context of freedom to practice a profession or calling in another country. The implications of the proposals to implement this part of the Treaty are being studied.
    Mr. Evans: Will the right hon. Lady not agree that, apart from these specific references in the Treaty of Rome, British educational institutions are bound to be influenced in all kinds of ways? Would it not be wise for her Department to set up a general study group to assess the possible impact over the next five years?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Needless to say, we are looking very carefully at the possible impact of entry, but I do not think the Treaty of Rome, or even entry itself, will require any major changes in some of our traditional rôles of education in this country, particularly with regard to the control of curricula.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Is the right hon. Lady aware, when she talks of mutual recognition of qualifications, that there is still not mutual recognition of school certificates between Scotland and England? Should not this matter be put in order before we look at Europe?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that we could wait quite so long as that to look at Europe.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position over the E.E.C., and assure us that there will be absolutely no change in the control of education in this country should we go in, and that things will remain exactly as they are, under her control—as she will be the Secretary of State in the years to come?
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Treaty of Rome itself requires no changes. There probably would be changes brought about by greater contact between nations and possibly by the wish to bring them about in this country.
    Mr. Alan Williams: But the right hon. Lady must realise that mutual recognition implies that there will be some agreement on course contents in certain professions, perhaps in the legal profession? Could she therefore put in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the benefit of hon. Members a list of those changes which have already taken place in the Six and any indications which she may have of the changes which would be required in this country, even if she considers them to be minor?
    Mrs. Thatcher: If the hon. Gentleman puts down a specific Question, I will of course give him as much information as we have.

    Primary Schools (Expenditure)
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how she proposes to implement her policy of spending the money saved on school milk on other projects for primary schools.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Last October the Government announced that the starts programme of primary school building improvements for 1972–73 would be increased from £11 million to £35·5 million in England. I notified individual local education authorities of their shares of that programme at the end of last year.
    Dr. Marshall: In view of that reply, can the right hon. Lady tell us exactly how the money spent on school milk is to be used?
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is inevitable that, if one is switching priorities, one reduces expenditure on one matter in order to spend more on another. Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman of Aneurin Bevan's quotation:
    'The language of Socialism is the language of priorities."
    Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the growing indignation on this issue, the growing opposition to the imposition of these charges, and the pressure which she is coming under in the Cabinet? What will the Government do about removing these charges?
    Mrs. Thatcher: I did not know that it was even the hon. Member's policy to remove all charges for school meals and milk, which would cost £275 million a
    1512
    year. I am well aware that on this side of the House and in many primary schools, parents, teachers and pupils are delighted that they have some prospect of having their education in buildings far better than hon. Members opposite could provide.

    Live Animal Experiments
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will appoint a commission to study and publicise methods of research which obviate the need for the use of living animals in experiments, with a view to bringing about a substantial early reduction in the number of live animal experiments.
    Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir.
    Mr. Booth: Is the right hon. Lady aware that there is considerable evidence to show that cell and culture tissue tests can be more effective, more reliable and cheaper than tests done on live animals? Will she appoint a commission to study this, instead of continuing the present practice of testing on live animals when this is believed to be unnecessary?
    Mrs. Thatcher: Where there is a suitable alternative available, most scientists are very anxious to use it. However, there are a number of cases in which, I believe rightly, new drugs are properly screened on animals before being tested on human beings. We debated this matter quite fully in an Adjournment debate on 31st March.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of the phrase "live animals" in connection with experiments conjures up so many emotive views that it might be better for her to appoint the sort of commission the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) suggested? It would, among other things, be able to point out that many so-called experiments on live animals are concerned with nutritional and other matters which cause the animals no discomfort whatever, and that might clear a great deal of air.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Littlewood Report had certain things to say about experiments on live animals and I quoted some of them in the Adjournment debate to which I referred.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on 13th June, 1971 on the economy, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Barnett: In that broadcast the Chancellor of the Exchequer was charged with cynical deception on prices and in a remarkable reply he said that he had been successful in reducing the rate of price increases. As the rate of increase to May, 1970, was 6·1 per cent. and this year it is 9·8 per cent., may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say which system of arithmetic his right hon. Friend is using?
  The Prime Minister: The interviewer did not charge my right hon. Friend with any such thing because it is not the job of B.B.C. interviewers to charge Ministers with such matters. In dealing with prices, my right hon. Friend pointed out, I think rightly, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) will agree, that it takes time for wage inflation to work through into cost inflation.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Answer the question.
  The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition may chuckle at this, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) has already revealed that he, the then Prime Minister, chose the date of the General Election to avoid the point at which wage increases were working through to price increases—and he is constantly bemoaning his failure.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: While we do not doubt that the 13th June statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer then represented Government policy, however inadequately, we should be interested to know whether it will represent Government policy on 13th July and 13th August. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we shall have reflationary measures before the House rises for the
  1514
  Summer Recess or whether yesterday's report of the meeting of the National Economic Development Council was misleading?
  The Prime Minister: The reports I have seen of the N.E.D.C. meeting yesterday stated that there was a general discussion of questions affecting inflation and that the Secretary-General had been asked to work with members of the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. and the Government to see what proposals could be put forward at the next N.E.D.C. meeting in August. There was no firm statement about reflation or anything connected with it. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept what my right hon. Friend said, which is that he is considering this matter and that if he decides at any time that more measures are necessary, he will indicate them to the House.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. William Priceasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to people writing to him asking for a referendum on the Common Market.
  Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 22nd June making representations against his refusal to hold a referendum before taking Great Britain into the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: Precise figures are not available but a number of the letters I receive on the Common Market refer to the possibility of a referendum. The replies have explained that it is Parliament's responsibility to decide this issue and that a referendum would be contrary to our constitutional practice.
  Mr. Price: Is it not clear that those in this House who argue for a referendum are not concerned about principles at all but are engaged on a third-rate gimmick based on a belief that they would win? Is it not also clear that the moment public opinion changes, we shall hear no more about the need for a referendum from these self-appointed defenders of the constitution?
  The Prime Minister: It is not for me to examine or comment on what may be the motives of hon. Members and others.

  1515
  However, I feel that what the hon. Gentleman said coincides with the view expressed on many occasions both by the Leader of the Opposition and myself.
  Mr. Tuck: The Prime Minister said yesterday and today that Parliament must decide. Will he now answer the question he so deftly ducked two weeks ago? In view of the fact that he stated quite clearly before the General Election that it would be unthinkable for Britain to enter the Common Market unless a majority of the British people—not the British Parliament, but the British people—were in favour of entry and as neither the present Government nor the present Parliament has a mandate from the British people either to enter or to oppose entry, will he now honour that commitment of his by testing the opinion of the electorate either in a referendum or a General Election—we prefer a General Election—before taking this irrevocable and most tremendous step in British history, or is he afraid to do so? Let him answer "Yes" or "No", and not wriggle.
  The Prime Minister: The answer to both questions is "No".
  Sir R. Cary: If a referendum were held, would it not be almost impossible to compile a suitable questionnaire to put before the electors?
  The Prime Minister: Those who have studied referenda, and especially the experience of certain other countries, have always come to the conclusion that one of the greatest disadvantages lies in the method of framing the questions. One has seen other countries in which this has quite obviously led to abuse. This has been one of the strongest arguments against the referendum.
  There is, secondly, the question whether a referendum is purely an advisory matter or whether it binds Parliament. If it binds Parliament, then Parliament gives up all its powers on what most of us consider to be one of the major issues of the day.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The Prime Minister said that I oppose a referendum, and I agree—I have always done so, as he has. The idea of an advisory referendum was not then put forward, but I still agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this question. But since he said, rightly, that the decision must be taken
  1516
  by Members of Parliament, each of them taking responsibility for his decision in the matter, will he look again at the White Paper which he published yesterday, since it did not give Members of Parliament the information required on a number of questions, of which I am prepared to supply him with a list—questions which I and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides have put at successive Question Times on some of the key issues on the terms? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in the very important "take note" debate which we are to have later this month, Ministers will be instructed to be as accommodating as possible in drawing aside the veil which still remains in the White Paper and giving answers to the questions which the House has a right to put?
  The Prime Minister: The White Paper has set out as clearly as we can all the arrangements which have been reached in the negotiations. I think that the comments of practically the whole of the British Press today have shown that it believes that the matter is set out fully and clearly—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues have any particular question to ask in the debate, that is the purpose of the debate, which I described in my announcement, quite deliberately, as an exploratory debate. My colleagues and I will do our utmost to answer all the questions which are asked in the debate.
  Mr. Harold Wilson—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question deals with a referendum.

  PRIME MINISTER (CORRESPONDENCE)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on subjects for which he is responsible since 18th June, 1971.
  The Prime Minister: About 3,500, Sir.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that that figure is slightly less than

  1517
  the number of people who at this moment are exercising their responsibility in Greenwich? Does he realise that if he goes on television tonight, with the usual collusion of the B.B.C. before the poll closes, and pours out another load of Common Market rubbish, the electors of Greenwich will be voting to the tune of more than 70 per cent. in favour of the anti-Common Market Labour candidate?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that that supplementary question has any relevance to the Question on the Order Paper.

  SOUTHEND
  Mr. Pentlandasked the Prime Minister when he last made an official visit to Southend.
  Mr. Urwinasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Southend.
  The Prime Minister: I have not made an official visit to Southend since becoming Prime Minister, and have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Pentland: I wish the Prime Minister would do so, because he must be aware of the deep anger prevailing in the development areas about the Government's disgraceful decision to locate the V.A.T. headquarters at Southend. Is he aware that in the Northern Region we have the highest unemployment rate for over 30 years; that we shall have 24,000 youngsters coming along in a few weeks time looking for jobs; and that the prospects there are grim indeed? Therefore, will he not reverse his decision? If he does not, he will be condemned as having complete indifference to the terrible situation which at present prevails in the development areas.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Member is absolutely wrong. I believe that there has been great misunderstanding about this case which, like all matters of dispersal, is very difficult to settle. As I think my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made clear on Tuesday, nearly three-quarters of the staff operating V.A.T. will be in local offices spread over the country. The increase
  1518
  at Southend will be an increase in headquarters staff, and that is because the headquarters is already based on Southend. We cannot at the moment say exactly what the numbers will be, but certainly three-quarters will be in regional offices, some of whom will quite obviously be in the development areas. As to indifference, it was under Conservative Governments that both the main initiatives for dispersal of Government personnel from London were taken. They were taken in 1963 by a Conservative Government, and by myself in this Conservative Government.
  Mr. Urwin: The Prime Minister must surely now be aware that this decision is regarded by all shades of political opinion in the development areas as an utter negation of the strong regional policies he promised at the last General Election. This decision on the V.A.T. centre means that there has been a complete betrayal of the needs and requirements of the development areas. Does the right hon. Gntleman realise that there are at present 4,765 young people unemployed in the Northern Region alone? Will he not now, at least temporarily, abandon sacred cows and, if he will not visit Southend, will he at least come to the development areas and explain the justice behind his decision?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does his cause no good by the sort of remarks he has just made. If there is criticism of this decision in the development areas, it is because certain hon. Members opposite have been saying that 10,000 people are being put into Southend instead of being put into Clyde-side or Tyneside. This is certainly not the case. It is not yet possible, for obvious reasons, to say how many staff there will be, but of that staff, three-quarters will be in regional offices spread over the country. It is not possible to put all of them in a development area. What is happening at Southend is an expansion of the headquarters staff, which has to deal with the whole question of V.A.T.
  Dame Irene Ward: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will give me the great pleasure of letting me say that I would much rather he came to the North of England than went to Southend, because

  1519
  it is essential that he should explain to unbiased people in the North of England what the policy is. It is rather disconcerting to the North of England when the policy which he has advocated this afternoon just has not got through. Will he come to the North of England, and especially to Tynemouth?
  The Prime Minister: I should be perfectly happy to go to the North-East. Having implemented, or having been responsible for implementing, the original Hailsham Plan, I doubt whether there are many Ministers in either Government who know more about what has been done in the North-East than I. It is not possible to disperse all central Government work from London, but a major operation is taking place in Government to disperse from London to the development areas.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is it not clear from the right hon. Gentleman's own argument that the regional staff on which he appears to lay weight must be scattered over the country? What is within the Government's control is where the headquarters staff is located. On that matter he has decided deliberately, not in favour of centralisation in London, but in favour of a non-development area as against a development area.
  The Prime Minister: I have explained to the right hon. Gentleman, as I thought he knew from his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, when this matter was investigated, that as the Customs—[Interruption.]—I am very surprised to hear that comment. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer says that it was not investigated but the Leader of the Opposition says that they turned it down. That difference of view may explain a great deal.
  To return to this very serious point, what is happening is that there will be an expansion of the Customs headquarters at Southend to deal with the headquarters part of V.A.T.
  Sir S. McAdden: While welcoming the overwhelming interest which hon. Members seem to take in my constituency, may I say one word for myself and ask a question? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision to site the Customs and Excise headquarters in Southend was taken, not by him, but by the previous Government and that what is now pro-
  1520
  posed is merely a limited extension of the facilities in Southend, whereas the regional facilities, as my right hon. Friend said, will be spread throughout the country?
  Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, although there seems to be a unanimous desire on the part of hon. Members to send unpleasant things to Southend, such as the third London Airport, they seem to be very unhappy when my right hon. Friend sends somehing pleasant to Southend?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a valid point.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: In view of the difficulties that the Prime Minister has got himself into, would not the ideal solution be for him to scrap the whole idea of V.A.T.? If he is not prepared to do that, has he thought of siting the headquarters in Accrington, which would have the approval of all hon. Members?
  The Prime Minister: I remember that the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister said that, as the Community had adopted V.A.T., this was one of the tax measures he was prepared to accept if we were to go into the Community. [Interruption.] I think that I report the Leader of the Opposition perfectly accurately. I hope that that is still his view.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Speaker, having been foreclosed earlier at your discretion, on Questions affecting the Common Market, may I say to the Prime Minister that I said many times from that side of the House and from this that, if the terms were right for going into the Common Market, there would be certain very unpalatable burdens which Britain must bear in return for the advantages accruing from joining? One was V.A.T. The other was the common agricultural policy. I made it clear from that bench, as I have from this, that the idea of supporting V.A.T. on its own and not as part of the Common Market would be intolerable to all of us in this party.
  The Prime Minister: On that we disagree, because there is a great body of opinion in Britain which believes that V.A.T. can be an asset to this country, particularly as it involves the abolition of purchase tax and selective employment tax and encourages exports. There is a

  1521
  perfectly legitimate difference of opinion about this. What I hope to be able to do is to persuade the right hon. Gentleman, who when he opened negotiations accepted the common agricultural policy, as he will agree, that the arrangements which we have negotiated are satisfactory and that this will allow him to support our entry into Europe.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he remembers the name of the very testy Leader of the Opposition who during the election, when questioned about this point on television, said, "V.A.T. is no part of our policy"?
  The Prime Minister: We set out in the election manifesto—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—that we were not committed to V.A.T., and I said so on television. That was our position, and it was absolutely clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the right hon. Gentleman, if he would listen. This is precisely what I said on television, and it was precisely what was in the election manifesto. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the election manifesto he will see that we were not committed to V.A.T. When we came into Government we discussed with the Treasury the work which we had done and which N.E.D.C. had done on it, and then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget speech announced that he accepted V.A.T.
  Mr. Harold Wilson—
  Sir T. Brinton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we please be informed what an argument about the merits of V.A.T. has to do with the Question?
  Mr. Harold Wilson: First, does the Prime Minister deny using the words I have just attributed to him? Second, does he deny that the Conservative Central Office sacked one of its staff for saying in Hampstead at the beginning of the election that the reason that V.A.T. was out of the election manifesto was that it was unpopular?
  The Prime Minister: The gentleman concerned was not sacked at all. [Interruption.] I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman works himself into such a state. We said in the election manifesto that we were examining the whole of indirect taxation, that this in-
  1522
  cluded V.A.T., and that, if it were instituted, it would mean the abolition of S.E.T. and purchase tax. That is the position. Now we have examined it. We have published a Green Paper on it and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted it. It is now to be embodied in our tax reforms. What the right hon. Gentleman should address his mind to is the fact that, if we go into Europe, as we are proposing to Parliament, it will involve the V.A.T. and he must therefore give his decision on whether we should go into Europe on that basis.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Harold Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Sir C. Taylor: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to raise a point of order?
Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order about some earlier questions. You in your discretion decided to foreclose—nobody complains about that—the questions about a referendum, but the Prime Minister had just extended his answer on the referendum on the basic question, which he and I had already agreed, by saying that, as the Press had approved his White Paper yesterday, my questions clearly fell. As the Prime Minister raised the question about the Press, I should have thought that it might have been in order for some of us to put a question or two about his answer, because his answer did not refer to a referendum.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is in a difficulty in these matters. The attempt to get on and to get as many Questions asked as possible occasionally leads the Chair into trouble. If an answer has gone rather beyond the question it is very difficult to stop it. I think however that Southend restored the balance of the referendum. We had 11 minutes on Southend.
Sir C. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, we did not have 11 minutes on the question of Southend. That was questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition on V.A.T. and it, had nothing at all to do with Southend. It

1523
seems extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition should raise questions on V.A.T. and then complain that his other questions are not answered, all on the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) about Southend. I am afraid that I have forgotten, and I think that many hon. Members will now have forgotten, whether the Prime Minister is to make an official visit to Southend.
Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we leave it there.
Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that last week I drew your attention to the rather ridiculous situation in which the Prime Minister is invited to make visits to all sorts of odd and sundry places. This afternoon we have had a very good illustration of what that device produced. It produced the Leader of the Opposition on his feet again when there was no real case for him.
Sir S. McAdden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Southend is not an "odd and sundry" place.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was content to leave the question of the siting of the office to my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). It was the Prime Minister who drew me into the question by his references to the V.A.T. and the Common Market.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 12TH JULY—Until seven o'clock, Private Members' Motions.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill and of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords.]
Remaining stages of the Land Registration and Land Charges Bill [Lords] and
1524
of the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Bill [Lords].
Orders on Anti-Dumping Duty, Electricity and Medicines.
TUESDAY, 13TH JULY—Supply (26th Allotted day): Debate on an Opposition Motion on the Economic Situation in Scotland.
Regulations on Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland).
WEDNESDAY, 14TH JULY—Supply (27th Allotted day): Remaining stages of the Education (Milk) Bill.
Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock.
THURSDAY, 15TH JULY—Supply (28th Allotted day): Until seven o'clock, debate on an Opposition Motion on the London Homeless. Afterwards, on an Opposition Motion on Sport and Youth Services
Remaining stages of the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill and of the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Cinematograph Films Regulations.
FRIDAY, 16TH JULY—The House will be invited to approve the Anguilla Bill.
Afterwards, a debate on Privilege.
MONDAY, 19TH JULY—Supply (29th Allotted day): Debate on a subject to be announced.
Remaining stages of the Mineral Workings Bill [Lords].
The debate to take note of the While Paper on the The United Kingdom and the European Communities, referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, is expected to be on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 21st–23rd July, and Monday, 26th July.
I intend to propose that the House should adjourn on Friday, 6th August. If, however—
Hon. Members: Oh !
Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I may finish the announcement, which may help the House. If, however, the progress of business permits, it may be possible to recommend that the House should rise earlier.
Mr. Harold Wilson: First, may I express the thanks of, I think, the whole

1525
House to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement about the Government's intentions regarding time for debating the Common Market issue. I indicated to the Prime Minister yesterday that I understood that there were generous proposals both for now and for the autumn, and I think that this will be for the convenience of the whole House. I am sure that the Chief Whip will agree that we ourselves have contributed time so that quite lengthy and, I hope, adequate time will be available.
The right hon. Gentleman has intimated his intentions for the adjournment of the House for the recess, about which I asked him some weeks ago, for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members. Is he aware that, if the House sits into August, it will be entirely because of the Government's obsession with getting the Industrial Relations Bill on to the Statute Book? Although at each stage of the Bill there has been totally inadequate time for debate and, when it was hoped—
Sir G. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman can sit on the 12th if he likes.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may speak for himself. At each stage of the debate, including the Report stage—we are coming now to consideration of Lords Amendments, which, I presume, is what the Leader of the House has in mind—there have been so many Government Amendments that it has not been possible for the House even to begin to catch up with matters not discussed at earlier stages. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this has been a quite monstrous treatment of the House, despite his assurances when he announced the guillotine Motion, and that he must take full responsibility if the House sits into a week which will be as unpopular with hon. Members opposite as it will be with his right hon. Friend?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Common Market debate. I acknowledge at once that the Opposition have provided one of their days, through the usual arrangements, towards this procedure, and I am grateful to them for so doing. I hope also that, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the time for debate in October will be equally gener-
1526
ous and considered to be so by the House.
As for continuing into the first week of August, while leaving aside some of his other strictures, perhaps I may remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was in 1966, I think, that his Government sat longer into August for a Prices and Incomes Bill which they produced very late in the Session. They went on much longer into August. If he has his strictures against me, I am, I think, entitled to retort not with a stricture but with a reminder for him. I think that that is perfectly fair.
As for taking responsibility for what I do, I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman and the House would admit that this is something which I have never been afraid to do, nor ever will be.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: With reference to the adjournment for the Summer Recess, will my hon. Friend take it that, however personally disagreeable it may be to many of us to sit into August, most of us will be happy to do so if in that way we can make sure that this most necessary Bill is carried into law before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I must point out that there are other matters of business before us as well as that before the Summer Recess—in particular, generous time for the Common Market debate. One has to pay a certain price for that as well.
Mr. C. Pannell: I am obliged to the Leader of the House now that, after three years, we are coming round to consideration of the Report of the Select Committee of Privileges. But is he aware that this is a rather esoteric subject? Will he issue a note of explanation—I am not asking for a White Paper—to tell the House, and new Members in particular, what it really means?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this matter I very much respect. Motions are on the Order Paper. I am always available to seek to explain, to the best of my ability, this somewhat complicated subject. If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Friday, I shall make a speech on the subject. Whether, after I have made it, anyone will understand more about it

1527
than he did at the start is not for me to say
Mr. Gardner: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the enormous demand for the White Paper on the Common Market demonstrates, as one would suppose, the immense interest in the subject in the country at large? In view of the historic importance of the debates which are to take place on the Common Market, will my right hon. Friend consider a live broadcast from the Chamber of those debates so that everyone outside the House may understand what is going on inside?
Mr. Whitelaw: I answered the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) last week by saying that the Services Committee would look into the question of a sound broadcast of the debate in October but that I did not think there would be time to consider it for the "take note" debate in July. The Services Committee considered the question this week. It came to the conclusion that the time would be too short for July. It has not taken a final decision on what to propose to the House for October. It will take such a decision next week and will then submit a proposal to the House one way or another as to what might be done about a sound broadcast in the autumn. It will then be entirely for the House to decide whether it wishes to accept or decline whatever advice the Services Committee puts forward.
Mr. Orme: Is the Leader of the House aware that, despite the timetable, going into August, that he has talked about in regard to discussing the Industrial Relations Bill, the Government this morning put down another 12 Amendments in the Lords, there are now over 300 Amendments debated and added, and 10 new Clauses added to this monstrous Bill? A matter of four or five days will be totally inadequate to discuss it. Will he understand that hon. Members on this side will insist on fighting for their democratic rights to discuss this Measure, if it takes us till September?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. These are all matters that can be discussed when the Bill comes back from another place.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Since the great debate on the Common Market has begun with such sweetness and light, with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition agreeing that there should not be a referendum on the matter, will my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Leader of the House, see that there are talks now between the main political parties so that the decision shall be a real decision of the people through Parliament acting on a free vote?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on the subject.
Mrs. Castle: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), is the Leader of the House aware that because of the indecent haste with which the Government forced the Industrial Relations Bill through the House and the totally inadequate time allowed here to discuss it, it is being practically rewritten in another place, and that even in the Report stage in the House of Lords the Government keep adding important new chunks of policy? Therefore, we would strongly resist any attempt to repeat in the Commons the closure of debates through the guillotine that we suffered at an earlier stage. It would clearly be advisable to postpone the discussion until after the recess, when adequate time can be given. It is only because of a matter of petty prestige by the Government that they are forcing us to sit into August.
Mr. Whitelaw: I will consider what the right hon. Lady says, together with all the other points put to me, before putting down the Motion that I am entitled to put down under the original Motion, when the Bill is received back from another place. When I do so I shall take fully into account the number of Amendments to her own Transport Bill, and the amount of time allotted by the previous Government for Lords Amendments on that Bill, and the number of Amendments that came back from the Lords. The right hon. Lady, and the right hon. Gentleman who is enjoying it—[Interruption]—perhaps I should say that if the right hon. Gentleman is not enjoying it he had a funny way of showing that he was not doing so. The right hon. Lady and the right hon. Gentleman might like to look up the amount of time given to that.

1529
I shall judge what I shall do, and then perhaps the House will compare my judgment with what was done then.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would throw some light on the arrangements for the second and more important of the Common Market debates. Can my right hon. Friend say when that debate is likely to be, and how long it will last?
Mr. Whitelaw: It will certainly be in the autumn. I expect that it will be in the second half of October, but I cannot be more precise.
Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Committee stage of the Education (Milk) Bill was completed only at five minutes past one today? The OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings of the Committee will not be available to hon. Members until tomorrow. Does he think that to have the Report stage on Wednesday gives sufficient time for those hon. Members who were not on the Committee who I am sure will wish to table a host of Amendments? There seems to be totally inadequate time between the Committee and Report stages.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it is reasonable to note what the hon. Gentleman says.
Sir G. Nabarro: Whilst I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his proposals to frame a timetable under his original arrangements to ensure the passage of the Industrial Relations Bill, may I ask him to bear in mind the utter futility of tramping through the Lobbies all night to deal with hundreds of Amendments? Will he therefore frame his Motion this time to make it perfectly certain that Members may vote and go off home at midnight?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly take into account all the points that have been put to me when framing the Motion.
Mr. William Hamilton: With regard to the debate on the Privileges Motion on Friday of next week, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on whether the Order No. 28 on the Order Paper today refers to all Select Committees, and that it will be immediately operative
1530
as soon as the House approves it next Friday?
[That, except as otherwise ordered by this House,

(1) a Select Committee shall have power to admit strangers during the examination of Witnesses unless they otherwise order; and

(2) a Sub-Committee appointed by such a Select Committee shall have a like power except as that Committee otherwise order.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to proceed with general agreement in the House in that debate. There will be no question of my wishing to push any Motion through. If on Friday there was found to be opposition to any of those Motions, I would be ready to withdraw them and put them forward again. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about that Motion, I should like to see first what happens in our debates and whether it is approved next Friday.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more helpful about the debate in the autumn on the Common Market? There are Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegations and Select Committees, and it would be helpful if, just as he gave the date when he hoped the House might adjourn, my right hon. Friend could give the date when he hopes that we might resume. I am not pressing for him to tell us today, but perhaps he can tell us next week when he expects the great debate to take place.
Mr. Whitelaw: I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that it will probably be in the second half of October. I will look into my hon. Friend's point, in consultation through the usual channels and with all the bodies connected with such delegations. I think that it would be in the general interests of the House that we should try to make sure that they do not have them at around that time.
Mr. Dalyell: In view of the exasperation, indeed anger, felt by many of the Government's own employees in scientific research establishments, can the Leader of the House promise a statement about the position of people who feel that they

1531
will be given something approaching a zero pay award?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman, who is more expert in these matters than I, will agree that the question is going to arbitration. However, I will call what he has said to the attention of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department, and if there is any information he can give the House he will make a statement.
Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ignore the advice given him on the Industrial Relations Bill by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who appears to want to establish a Reichstag rather than a British House of Commons? Will he take the much better advice given him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)? If he is not prepared to accept the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and postpone the final debates on the Bill until after the recess, does he agree that we should continue right through the recess and discuss the whole matter in a proper, democratic way? Will he allow us to discuss the Bill properly and not constantly impose the guillotine? The Bill has not been discussed fully in the House, as it should have been.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I should make it clear, as I think I did in answer to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that the original Motion enabled me to put down another Motion subject to a two-hour debate and the decision of the House. As I put that down originally, of course I shall implement it when the Bill comes back from another place. In framing the Motion, I shall take into account all the considerations put to me today. Nothing I shall do then will be without precedents in the House. I shall see that I conform to what has been done in the past on many similar occasions.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House some information on another White Paper, not the one issued yesterday but one involving the little matter of rents for 7 million families? Is he aware that in local government
1532
circles there is an understanding that the White Paper is to be issued on 15th July? Is that so? Whenever the announcement is made, may we have something more than a few questions and answers that we usually get on such a White Paper? Will there be a full debate on it, since such serious matters are involved?
Mr. Whitelaw: No decision on those matters has been taken, so I cannot confirm or deny what the hon. Gentleman has put to me. I can only say that I will certainly be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to see what can be done about the method when the announcements are made.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When my right hon. Friend is considering with the Prime Minister the question of a vote on the Common Market debate in the autumn, would he take into account that, as we have three months to consult our constituents on this matter, it would make sense in that consultation if we had a free vote, and that we would probably have a bigger vote in support of the Common Market if we could obtain agreement on that with the opposite side of the House than we would if there was no agreement?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have already said that I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said, but I note what my hon. Friend says on the subject.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a little further thought to the point put by his hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) about the timing of the autumn debate on the Common Market? Since last week, when the House had been given no information at all about the generous time available for the four-day debate, we have read all about it at the weekend. As the right hon. Gentleman has a clear date in his mind, would he consider making a business statement tomorrow? It would be of great value to the House to know when the October debate will take place. We should all understand if he has to change it for any reason, but would it not be for the convenience of the House if Members of Parliament could be told first?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, certainly, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The only reason I was not announcing dates was the very point that he put to me, that some of the actual days might have to be changed—not the number of days but the day when the debate started. However, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I undertake, in the first instance, to see whether it is possible to give dates, which I hope we can keep to, next week.—[Interruption.] If it will help the House, I will give some very rough dates now, although I have to say that I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take them with a certain amount of reserve, which he himself put on the original question. I would hope that the days for such a debate would come between 21st October and 28th October.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I cannot do it.
Mr. Whitelaw: Those are the sort of dates which I would expect.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. We shall all understand if it slips a day or two either way. I have just sent for my diary, too, which is bigger than the right hon. Gentleman's. Would the right hon. Gentleman not now put himself in a position to take the credit to which he is entitled by saying not merely what is the range in which the debate will take place, but how many days he is allocating. He has been very generous, and people should know that and not have to learn about it by reading it in the Press.
Mr. Whitelaw: The proposal was six days, which I thought reasonable. On the question of diaries, I have never believed that size was a very important matter.
Mrs. Renée Short: In view of the obvious bias in the "take note" White Paper and the obvious omission of any real discussion of the disadvantages that attach to acceptance of the terms contained therein, would the Leader of the House consider very carefully giving the House a longer opportunity to discuss the White Paper? Would he consider giving at least one extra day for the "take note" debate, so that we shall not be hurried, by Members on either side of the House, to get on as quickly as we can and to make five-minute speeches, because this will not be possible on such an important issue?
Mr. Whitelaw: I would not wish to follow the hon. Lady's comments about the White Paper. Her right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has very fairly said that the times allotted for the "take note" debate and for the debate in the autumn were generous timetables for the House. I think that they are. I am afraid that I could not offer more time for the "take note" debate. As for the number of Members who will be able to speak, I can only give the time honoured answer that that will depend on for how long those who are called decide to speak.
Mr. Lawson: Regarding the Mineral Workings Bill, which the Leader of the House proposes to bring on on Monday week after 10 o'clock, quite apart from the fact that the Government were not able to sustain the most important part of the Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister in charge gave to the Committee the very definite undertaking that, as he could not explain some of the important provisions of the Bill, he would do his utmost with the Leader of the House to ensure that the Bill came on sufficiently early in the day to permit a proper discussion of what could not be properly discussed in Committee? Would the right hon. Gentleman look again at the question of bringing the Bill on after 10 o'clock on a Monday night?
Mr. Whitelaw: I would have hoped that it was reasonable, but in view of what the hon. Gentleman says, I will certainly look at the question again.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that it was on 16th June, 1970–not 1971–that the Prime Minister said that a Conservative Government would at a stroke reduce the rise in prices? It is only a year since he made that promise. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen my Motion No. 615, which gives about 50 or 60 of the basic staple food prices that have risen by as much 36 per cent.? As it would be the Government's wish to publicise those figures, may we have a debate on that Motion?
[That this House notes that on Tuesday, 29th June, 1971 the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a written Parliamentary reply, columns 71 and 72, OFFICIAL REPORT, disclosed that between 16th June, 1970 and 18th May, 1971 the

1535
following average percentage rises in food prices have taken place:

Item

Lamb: Home Killed

Loin (with bone)

9·1

Breast

15·2

Best end of neck

8·6

Shoulder (with bone)

8·7

Leg (with bone)

7·6

Lamb: Imported

Loin (with bone)

8·9

Breast

15·9

Best end of neck

8·6

Shoulder (with bone)

9·2

Leg (with bone)

7·5

Beef: Home Killed

Chuck

15·7

Sirloin (without bone)

16·1

Silverside (without bone)

16·3

Back ribs (with bone)

18·0

Fore ribs (with bone)

17·1

Brisket (with bone)

22·5

Rump steak

15·9

Beef: Imported Chilled

Chuck

20·8

Silverside (without bone)

19·2

Rump steak

14·1

Bread

White, 1¾ lb. wrapped and sliced loaf

5·6

White, 7¾ lb. unwrapped loaf

5·7

White, 14 oz. loaf

7·7

Brown, 14 oz. loaf

6·7

Butter

New Zealand

36·3

Danish

30·0

Eggs, per dozen

Large

17·6

Standard

22·3

Medium

29·6

Milk

Ordinary, per pint

8·7;

observes that these figures are at complete variance with the statement issued by the Prime Minister on 16th June, 1970 that a Conservative Government would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices; and, in the knowledge that the poor, disabled and sick, retirement pensioners, and those on welfare benefits spend most of their very limited incomes on food, demands an immediate increase
1536
in all welfare benefits of at least 20 per cent. to offset the average rise of 10·4 per cent. in food prices to date and the prospective annual rise of more than 10 per cent. per annum.]
Mr. Whitelaw: Without wishing to follow the hon. Gentleman in his various points, I have noted his Motion. I had to look it up as I received so many questions on the Motions following it that I had to recollect which one it was. I have looked at this one and have noted it, but I cannot offer time for a debate.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that, in a Written Answer last week, his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry announced a new policy of withdrawal of Government finance from films. Is he aware that to announce in a Written Answer a momentous change such as this, which could cripple the industry, is a gross breach of the procedures of this House? In view of this, may we have an urgent debate on the film industry and on this momentous change in the withdrawal of Government finance for British film production?
Mr. Whitelaw: I was not aware of the existence of the answer made by my hon. Friend, and of what the hon. Gentleman describes. I should like to look into it before accepting entirely what the hon. Gentleman ascribes to it. I cannot find time for a debate but I will look into the matter and I shall seek to question his hon. Friend and my hon. Friend in the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. English: Regarding the debate on privileges, all the right hon. Gentleman's Motions on the Order Paper are specific and probably unexceptionable. But would he, therefore, put down a general Motion, such as a "take note" Motion on the original Report, as a peg on which we can hang other things than those specific in his Resolution?
Mr. Whitelaw: Such a debate took place in the last Parliament. I thought it right to give the House a chance to come to a decision on specific matters. I give all hon. Gentlemen the positive assurance that if, on Friday, I find specific objections to any of these, rather than pressing them to a vote and trying to win them on that basis, I would consider withdrawing them and seeing if we could

1537
make progress. I hope, nevertheless, that some of the matters will command general acceptance in the House, and those I should like to get on to the Standing Orders of the House, as I believe the whole House would.
Mr. Douglas: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government are clearly committed to a statement on shipbuilding industry credits before the Summer Recess. Because of the importance of these credits to this very important industry, would he indicate when that statement will be made?
Mr. Whitelaw: I accept the importance of what has been said. If the hon. Gentleman says that the Government are committed to such a statement, clearly they are. I will look into the matter and, having checked it, I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about it.
Mr. Golding: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we can expect the Prime Minister to be present during the first week of August in order to answer Questions?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been fairly tolerant with questions, but they must be serious questions.
Mr. Fred Evans: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) was given a rather cavalier answer by the Leader of the House when he raised the matter of the interval between the conclusion of the Committee stage on the Education (Milk) Bill just after one o'clock today and the Report stage which is to be taken next Wednesday. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the need for some protection of back-bench Members. We do not have the facilities afforded to Ministers and shadow Ministers of all kinds. We have to do our own research work. We have to frame our own Amendments. Very often, that can be quite a technical exercise. The OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee's last sitting will not be available until tomorrow. That imposes on back-bench Members on both sides an extremely difficult task. If this becomes the practice, we shall be in danger of removing some of the qualities that back-bench Members add to the House. The Leader of the House is extremely generous in his regard
1538
for back-bench Members. I ask him to look at this position closely.
Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) felt that my original answer was in any way cavalier, I am very sorry. I did not mean to do that. Incidentally, perhaps I might welcome the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen back to the House.
I had some discussions about the timetable for this Bill. It was felt that on this occasion such an interval might be reasonable. I think that it is reasonable on this one occasion, but I assure hon. Members that it will not be regarded as a precedent for other occasions.
Mr. Lipton Mr. Lipton rose—
Mr. Burden Mr. Burden rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am a little embarrassed. If allowing business questions to continue adds to the appetite of hon. Members, and hon. Members who did not rise originally seek to catch my eye, the situation becomes rather difficult. I shall call the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and then the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), but no more.
Mr. Lipton: When the House has the "take note" debate on the White Paper on 21st July and succeeding days, will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of extending the rule by one hour or soon each day so as to allow more hon. Members to take part?
Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I am prepared to discuss that matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Burden: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for coming in so late. I had hoped that another hon. Member would raise the point. I understand that agricultural codes of practice are to be presented to the House on Wednesday of next week. If that is so, may I ask my right hon. Friend what time will be allowed to debate them?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that it is 1½ hours. I will check that and make sure. If I am wrong, I shall inform my hon. Friend.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have not had an opportunity to give you notice of

1539
it. With respect, you may care to rule upon it at a later date, when you have had an opportunity to consider it.
When there are important debates, Mr. Speaker is put in a very difficult position. We know that he always tries to be fair. When we come to debate the Common Market, Mr. Speaker will be in an even greater difficulty than usual. In the special circumstances, perhaps you will be willing to consider one or two suggestions.
The first is that the usual channels might consult you with a view to seeing whether they can assist you.
Secondly, I suggest that hon. Members on both sides who may wish to catch your eye during the debate might be allowed to write to you in advance suggesting whether they are in favour of, against or sitting on the fence about the White Paper. In that event, you might be able to consider working out a geographical, an industrial and a political, democratic debate which otherwise, without foreknowledge of hon. Members' views, would be impossible.
Perhaps, in the next week or so, you will consider the position.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The points that he raises have not been altogether absent from my mind. I have already been giving them some thought. I shall discuss these matters between now and the beginning of the debate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
    New Clause 1

      OPERATION OF SECTION 3(1) OF NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1966
      Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act 1966, as amended by section 1(1) of the National Insurance, &c. Act 1969, so far as the said section 3(1) operates for the purpose of any provision of the National Insurance Act 1965 relating to unemployment benefit or to a day or period of interruption of employment, no date shall be appointed for the coming into force of the said section 3(1) and any date already appointed shall cease to have effect.—[Mr. O'Malley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Brian O'Malley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The House has been in a humorous and good-tempered mood in the last quarter of an hour. We shall soon change all that.
      It is not for me to inquire into the social arrangements entered in the diary of the Leader of the House. No doubt they are a sight more attractive than the proposals in this Bill. The Government seem to be hell-bent on emptying the pockets of the average working family. Even worse, they are concentrating their attack on the families of men who are sick and unemployed.
      In Committee on 17th June the Secretary of State explained the strategy and the broad policy thinking behind the Bill. If I may loosely paraphrase what the right hon. Gentleman said in defence of the Bill, it was to the effect that he had to rob the sick to help the poor. Notwithstanding that, what the right hon. Gentleman is doing in the Bill and in the Statutory Instrument that we are trying to overturn by this Clause is to take from both the sick and the poor in order to help the wealthier people in the community who the Tories believe support them at General Elections with their votes and their money.
      The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I challenge his paraphrase of what I said.
      Mr. O'Malley: That surprises me, since I believe that any impartial observer reading what the right hon. Gentleman said on 17th June would come to the conclusion that, as usual, I was being completely fair to the right hon. Gentleman and the points of view expressed by his hon. Friends.
      On 24th June last a Statutory Instrument was laid before the House the effect of which was to deprive a man or woman on short-time working of unemployment benefit from 1st January, 1972. Speaking for the Opposition, I made it clear that we were not opposed to this change of practice provided that certain conditions were satisfied. It has now become clear that these conditions are not satisfied and will not be. It is for that reason that we put forward this Clause.
      Section 20 of the National Insurance Act, 1965, sets out the broad definition of days which can be counted for payment of unemployment benefit. Paragraph (c) of the first subsection explains:
      "the expression 'day of interruption of employment' means a day which is a day of unemployment or of incapacity for work"
      Paragraph (d) says:
      "Any two days of interruption of employment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a period of interruption of employment, and any two such periods not separated by a period of more than thirteen weeks shall be treated as one period of interruption of employment".
      As a result of that legislation, unemployment benefit has been available, after a period of three waiting days, to short-time workers who satisfy the conditions laid down in that Section.
      The National Insurance Act, 1966, provided that as from three years from the passing of the Act—from March, 1969–
      "where an employed contributor's employment has not been terminated but …suspended by the employer, a day shall not be treated …as a day of unemployment unless it is the seventh or a later day in a continuous period of … suspension",
      excluding Sundays, holidays, or other prescribed days. The position generally became that a short-time worker after three waiting days could no longer get unemployment benefit in most circum-
      1542
      stances. Where he was working a short working week it was merely a matter not of waiting six instead of three days before obtaining unemployment benefit, but of unemployment benefit no longer being available. These proposals were put forward by the Labour Government and postponed in the National Insurance Act, 1969, which replaced the provision for this section to come in three years after the date of the passing of the Bill by an appointed day.
      It is necessary to explain briefly why the Labour Government acted as they did in 1969. Margaret Herbison, the then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, made it clear in the House on 16th February, 1966, at col. 1417, that the then Government were moving these proposals only under the view that payment for short-time working of this kind was properly the responsibility of the employer.
      The reason for providing for three years and an appointed day in 1969 was to give time to secure schemes whereby employers would provide benefits for people on short-time working. No such agreements have been reached.
      We had hoped from everything that the present Government said when in Opposition that, if they were to move a Statutory Instrument of the kind that they did move, they would take positive action to secure that responsibility for payments of this kind should be clearly laid upon the employer. It became clear, however, from the debate in Committee on 17th June that, although the Secretary of State declared himself "passionately" interested in fringe benefits, he was not prepared to accept an Amendment which had the effect of putting responsibility for alternative schemes on the employer. That is the first reason for coming back to this aspect of the National Insurance and Social Security system. It was on 17th June, after the passing of the Statutory Instrument on 24th May, that we realised there was no prospect of persuading the Government to do anything. They had ratted on what they said they would do when in Opposition; namely, to provide an alternative scheme, or schemes, whereby the responsibility rested with the employer rather than with the State.
      Secondly, we have moved the new Clause because the T.U.C. objects

      1543
      strongly. Certainly the T.U.C. was informed, but it was not consulted in any meaningful use of the word "consulted". The Government seem to have the idea that consultation equals telling somebody that they will do something after they have decided to do it, rather than asking the opinion of outside bodies first. We had an example of that only last week with the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the steel industry. Therefore, the T.U.C. and the trade unions involved object strongly. Apparently the C.B.I. does not care.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House have received a printed pamphlet or broadsheet from a number of trade unions in the North of England which take the understandable view that the proposal to withdraw unemployment benefit for workers on short time without the provision of decent alternative schemes is a matter which must be opposed.
      Another important reason for bringing forward the new Clause is that, according to the latest figures which I have been able to obtain of 17th April, 1971, short-time working in manufacturing industry alone had reached the alarming level of 89,900. There are further limitations on those figures, because they are collected only from establishments which employ 11 or more workers.
      A typical headline appeared in the Sheffield Star of Wednesday, 7th July, telling a story which is being told in local and regional newspapers all over the country as a result of the Government's policies. The newspaper stated:
      "Mexborough area faces jobs crisis. The G.E.C. plant at Swinton, the Mexborough area's biggest factory, today banned overtime and the management warned their 3,000 workers of possible short-time working…. Councillor Bob Haigh, chairman of the local employment committee, today warned that the situation had reached such serious proportions that the whole economy of the Mexborough area was in danger of collapsing."
      It is against that kind of background that we bring forward the new Clause.
      It is now clear that there is no possibility of alternatives in the short term between July, 1971, and January, 1972, when the Government propose to stop
      1544
      unemployment benefit for men on short-time working. The Government refuse to attempt to do it by legislation. They certainly will not get comprehensive cover without legislation.
      A number of trade unionists take the view that where they have achieved guaranteed working weeks in some industries, the value of such agreements is very much reduced by the fact that some employers sack people whom they certainly would not otherwise have sacked. It is an open question whether the Government's proposals to withdraw unemployment benefit for short-time workers would save any or very much money. The coming into operation of these proposals on 1st January, 1972, could result in many people losing jobs which otherwise they would not have lost.
      We suggest that the Statutory Instrument which went through this House on 24th May should be annulled and that the proposals to withdraw unemployment benefit for men on short-time working who satisfy the conditions of the National Insurance Act, 1965, should be annulled because there is not the cover that there ought to be and life is difficult for many people at a time of high unemployment, raging inflation and a high degree of short-time working. If we allow this situation and these proposals to come into operation on 1st January, 1972, many ordinary working men and women will be affected. The Government are refusing to carry out the concomitant policies which are essential for any such proposals.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The House should first take note of the fact that on a most important issue there are only two hon. Members opposite, including the Minister. The benches on this side of the House have a greater much greater proportion of Members. That clearly indicates, as was shown equally in Committee, the difference in attitude to social security and benefits for working people. In Committee hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches were totally indifferent to all the arguments that were put forward. They made it clear that they were there for only one purpose, and that was to vote down the Amendments put forward by my hon. Friends.
      Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is making a tactical error in drawing attention to numbers. He will remember that during the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill his benches were empty, except for a representative of the Front Bench.
      Mr. Heffer: That may well have been true for a certain stage, and those who were not in the House were severely criticised. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will equally criticise all those of his hon. Friends who are absent from this important debate.
      I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), because late at night on 24th May an Order went through the House which gave the date of commencement of Section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1966, as 1st January, 1972, and what we are trying to do by the Clause is to reverse that decision and say that it will not come into effect on that date.
      During the 1939–45 War quite often submarines got through and caused a great deal of damage. I regard the Order as being similar to one of those submarines. If it goes through, it will cause a great deal of damage and harm to ordinary working people, particularly those who have short-time working as a normal part of their working process. There is still time to turn that submarine back, and it can be done by the Clause being accepted.
      The Order will affect thousands of workers. The number of workers who have short-time working as part of their normal industrial experience fluctuates all the time. According to figures issued by the Department of Employment, in mid-December, 1970, the number on short time was 63,000. In mid-January, 1971–this is very interesting—the figure went down to 39,000, but today we have heard from my hon. Friend that it is up to 89,000. What must be remembered is that those figures are incomplete, because they do not include the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries, nor do they includes firms with fewer than 11 employees.
      The industries most affected by short-time working are the furniture, clothing, textile—particularly in my part of the world, the North-West—motor car and
      1546
      ship-repairing industries. I have personal experience of working short time on many occasions in the ship-repairing industry, and the problem still has not been solved. It is true, too, that from time to time certain sections of the engineering industry are affected by short-time working.
      Mr. Dan Jones: And shoe-making.
      Mr. Heffer: I do not have the details relating to boot and shoe operatives, but I understand that that is true. I am giving the main industries affected by short-time working.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, the 1966 Act, which was brought in by the Labour Government, excluded the payment of wage-related benefits to those who were on short-time working, but the date for the commencement of the non-application of flat-rate benefit was held up for three years. After discussions with the T.U.C. and other interested bodies it was agreed that the operative date should be postponed, and the House may be interested to know that the T.U.C. is deeply concerned and extremely angry that this proposal is going through.
      The Labour Government thought that a period of three years would enable them to get from employers, in consultation with the trade unions, an agreement that there would be full payment, or a guaranteed payment, to workers while they were on short-time working. We know that about 10 million workers are covered by such guaranteed arrangements, but that is fewer than half the working population. It is interesting to note that in the motor car industry arrangements are being made to cover some of the higher-paid sections of workers, but the lower-paid sections have not yet been protected, and it is the lower-paid workers who will be hit hardest by the Order.
      It is very important that low-paid workers should, as part of their normal working life, be able to receive not only their two or three days' employment, but also their two days' unemployment benefit. It is no crime of theirs if they find themselves on short time. They do not ask to be out of work for two or three days a week every two or three weeks. They do not say that they are delighted

      1547
      with the situation. They would much prefer to be in full-time employment but, because of the nature of their jobs, that cannot be so. They will find themselves in a situation in which, through no fault of their own, their benefits are cut off. It is an absolute scadal.
      I understand that the Government will save £3 million. I give them a bit of advice. They should take £3 million off the surtax payers. They should take it off some of their friends, who would be able to make up for it, and pay workers the benefits which, up to now, they have received as of right.
      The T.U.C.'s view on the matter is very clear. In its 1966 report it said:
      "Following this announcement"—
      that was the announcement by my Government—
      "the General Council met both the Minister of National Insurance and the Prime Minister and strongly opposed the proposal. They argued that if unemployment benefit were abolished for short periods of suspension and it was left to voluntary negotiations, many workers suspended through no fault of their own would receive neither benefits nor wages. Such a change was contrary to the fundamental principles of the unemployment scheme and would be completely unacceptable."
      That was the T.U.C.'s view in 1966, and that is its view in 1971. It has not altered its view. It told my Government that it was not happy about what was being done, and there is this difference between the situation then and what we face now. My Government, after consultation, and having recognised that employers were not prepared to enter into agreements in every sector of industry to provide a guaranteed week, said that they would put down a date but would leave it to the Secretary of State to decide when the provision should come into force.
      But what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He does not find out—if he has done, then his action is all the more to his discredit—whether such agreement can be reached throughout every sector. He does not say, "We now have agreement through every sector for a guaranteed week and I can therefore apply this provision." One of the first things he did on taking office was to apply this recommendation under the Act, and I regard it as a scandal. I hope that the House will repudiate him by accepting
      1548
      the new Clause. Indeed, I hope that the Government will accept it. If they do, we can stop this discussion at once. But I am afraid that they are unlikely to accept it in view of the flinty-hearted attitude they have so far adopted on other aspects of the Bill. In the interests of common decency and of all the workers involved, the Government should accept the new Clause.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: New Clause 1 takes us into the world of industrial relations and activity about which many people do not appear to have great knowledge. It deals with the question of unemployment pay and the problems faced by workers who, through no fault of their own, are laid off temporarily by their employer. In a period of full employment, such as that which we had in 1966, this matter may not seem so important because people might then say, "This is an old-fashioned system. We should tidy it up." All sorts of proposals are made to change the system in times of full employment. We are, indeed, often told in times of full employment that the problems that many of us worry about, such as uncertainty, short-time working and unemployment, have vanished and that we are moving into a different industrial society. But those of us who have spent our lives in industry know that conditions tend to ebb and flow. Yet the Government are introducing this provision to save £3 million at a time of rising unemployment and of short-time working. They are not saving this money off people who can afford it. They are not taking it away from people who are well paid or to whom it does not really matter. They are saving it off people faced with unemployment and short-time working.
      I remember a situation like this in industry in the 1950s—again under a Tory Government—when there was severe unemployment in the North-West and in other parts of the country. The factory where I worked had to go on short-time working. The trade unions tried to maintain work for all the workers involved. The employer himself did not want to lose his valuable work force, particularly his skilled workers. We therefore went on to three days working plus the two days which we could draw in benefit. We were thus able to get a weekly wage. This was not equivalent to the average

      1549
      weekly wage, because piece-work earnings were down and there was no overtime. Our earnings were greatly reduced. But at least we were not unemployed. At least we were able to take home a living wage.
      That is the sort of situation which many people in industry face. The motor car industry often faces it. Certainly the cotton workers do—and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) will want to say something in more detail about the cotton trade and the problems it faces. Many workers undergo a situation of temporary reductions in the working week, sometimes lasting for months or even years. They try to maintain their employment by reduced hours. In these circumstances, they face the need to claim benefit.
      4.45 p.m.
      One of the points we have tried to press home on the Government is that we believe that the benefits are a right for workers who fall on difficult times. They are not a charity. They are a benefit which the workers themselves have contributed to. There are, of course, agreements in parts of industry on a guaranteed week. The engineering industry has a guaranteed week, but it is only 30 hours so it does not cover the full working week. The motor car industry also has a 30-hour guaranteed week. Therefore, the State benefits supplement the low pay which workers get in these circumstances and it does allow the trade unions and the employers to maintain employment.
      The circular sent out by the Northern Counties Textile Trades Federation and other organisations points out that the Government's proposal will bring poverty and great problems to workers in some towns in North-East Lancashire. Unhappily, it will spread even beyond the towns of North-East Lancashire and Merseyside. It is now coming to the area I represent. Unemployment in the greater Manchester area in the last 10 months has doubled from 2·4 per cent. to just under 5 per cent. In the small factories in my constituency and in the greater Manchester area generally, there is now a situation of redundancy, short-time working and reduction of overtime. The Order went through the House, as Vic Feather would say, on its stockinged
      1550
      feet. My hon. Friends are trying to redress the balance with new Clause 1.
      It would, indeed, be a revelation if new Clause 1 were accepted by the Government. Practically every Clause in the Bill takes something away from the benefits of working people and new Clause 1 would redress the balance. At the moment, the system allows workers to maintain at least reduced employment and both employers and trade unions struggle to keep it going. But the Government's proposal means that more workers may be sacked. That means they will need unemployment benefit for the whole week, whereas at present the system tends to encourage firms to keep the men on and try to get through the bad time in the hope that things will improve. So the Minister will be adding to the unemployment which exists at the moment and will thereby increase the Government's expenditure. Over all, he will not save money by this proposal because more Government expenditure will be needed in unemployment benefit. In fact, he is creating more hardship. We have a case that the Minister has to answer. This is a central issue affecting thousands of industrial workers, and we urge the Government to accept the Clause.
      Mr. Dan Jones: I, too, appeal to the Minister to look at the Clause with some sympathy. I want to speak about two industries which will be vitally affected if the Clause is not accepted—the textile and the boot and shoe industries, both of which undergo a great deal of short-time working.
      The Secretary of State should have some respect for the consistent efforts of trade union officials to negotiate a guaranteed working week. If it had been possible to do so, the position now would not be nearly so acute. For about 10 years the workers in these industries have appealed in vain for a guaranteed working week. From time to time, the Secretary of State has shown compassion.
      Mr. Russell Kerr Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham): When?
      Mr. Jones: For disabled people recently, and it is idle to pretend otherwise. I hope that he will regard these workers as suffering from a form of disability while not been physically disabled. Time after time they have petitioned

      1551
      their union leaders to negotiate a guaranteed working week in line with the facility which millions enjoy, but in vain.
      I know from personal experience that over a period of years people in the textile and boot and shoe industries have been told that much of what is wrong with the industries is the fact that we have to import from developing countries. There is more than a grain of truth in that, although I have yet to understand how Portugal could be described as a developing country; I suppose that it is embraced by the E.F.T.A. agreement.
      At the same time, the point must be clearly made that we are asking our friends in those industries to adopt a broad and considerate attitude about those imports and yet we are to add an imposition upon them when they experience lean times. It is no exaggeration to say that they will have to go through a period on a line as near poverty as makes little difference. In these industries now—and I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State is paying rapt attention—without a full working week and with the rising cost of living, it is already hard to make do.
      In difficult periods, these people will have to work a part of a week without unemployment benefit to subsidise them, and their condition will be such that my words, to me at any rate and I hope to the Secretary of State, will contain a disturbing grain of truth—as near the poverty line as matters very little. It may well be that, instead of hanging on to his labour force, as he normally would, an employer will say that they will have to be dismissed, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, the unemployment figures will rise.
      It seems hard from a Minister who has shown a measure of compassion for disabled people, and in passing I congratulate him on that. The difference in attitude is so great that I completely fail to understand it. However, I may be wrong and at the end of this short debate the right hon. Gentleman may say that he will accept the new Clause. I hope so.
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: It is not surprising that the greatest opposi-
      1552
      tion to the implementation of the six-day suspension rule has come from the textile unions, particularly the textile unions of Lancashire, because there is no doubt that the workers concerned will be hard hit if the Government go through with this proposal. Anyone who lives or works in Lancashire has only to open any local paper to read the same dismal, depressing story—more and more redundancies, more and more short-time working, more and more closures.
      In the textile industry, and particularly in the footwear industry, consisting of many small firms trying to make ends meet, short-time working has become not just a regrettable rarity, but the natural way of life. It is monstrous that people who work in an industry for low wages—and no one will claim that those working in the Lancashire textile industry are exactly over-paid; they never have been and certainly are not now—and who are now working a short-time week, week in and week out, through no fault of their own, should be faced with this proposal. It is almost unbelievable that, without proper consultation and without assuring themselves that alternative arrangements were made by employers to compensate workers for any loss of earnings when working a short-time week, the Government should be willy-nilly pressing on with the implementation of the six-day suspension rule. That is what the Opposition object to.
      It is no good the Secretary of State saying, as he may, that authority was given by the 1966 Act to enable a Secretary of State in a subsequent year to operate the six-day suspension rule by Statutory Instrument.
      Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend will be aware that Margaret Herbison, then Minister of Pensions, made it absolutely clear at the time that if such proposals were to be implemented, they should be implemented only if the employer took over fully the obligations previously undertaken by the National Insurance Fund.
      Mr. Davidson: That was the point I was about to make and I am glad that my hon. Friend, the shadow Minister, has made it. It was not a Labour Government which introduced this provision, but the present Government, and they cannot lean back on the Labour Government

      1553
      for some sort of protection from the criticism which they are now rightly getting.
      My hon. Friend said that the total saving, and I presume this is the Government figure, is something like £3 million. That is a paltry sum. That we should bandy about a figure like that as a justification for inflicting hardship on people who are grossly underpaid and who work very hard is disgraceful. This is at a time when the Government are proudly announcing some sort of massive saving on S.E.T. This saving has certainly not benefited any of my constituents. I do not know who has benefited, but it is certainly not the people in North-East Lancashire.
      5.0 p.m.
      I feel, therefore, that the Government have a case to answer and that they must justify the introduction of the six-day suspension rule at this time. There is rising unemployment, the worst unemployment figures ever in North-East Lancashire. It is monstrous. The Minister, it is true, has shown himself on many occasions to be a warm and humane person. I do not mean that in a patronising sense, but I find it incredible that he should press ahead with this proposal.
      The Clause does not try to do something that is administratively impossible. All that it seeks to do is to prevent the operation of the six-day suspension rule. I should have thought that our case had been overwhelmingly made out and I hope that the Minister will find himself able to accept this very well-drafted Clause.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: If the right hon. Gentleman seeks to argue the proposition on the basis that there will be a saving of £3 million he will be on very marshy ground indeed. This is certainly the wrong time to make this proposal. There has been discussion about unemployment in Lancashire and other areas in England. I represent a part of the country where unemployment is something with which we have had to live for some considerable time. If I were to stop being parochial for a moment I could point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is almost as certain as night follows day that this winter there will be 1 million unemployed.
      1554
      In Scotland at present there are over 120,000 unemployed. That is an absolute disgrace. It may be that if the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to listen to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends we will not only have to deal with unemployment but also underemployment.
      What are the arguments in favour of this proposition? Is it because the Government want to try to do something to the trade union movement? Is it being pressed here as an argument against the whole proposition of work sharing? Is it said that it is better and cleaner that men and women should be made unemployed because it will be administratively expedient?
      Mr. Heffer: I am sorry to stop my hon. Friend in full flight. He is always very good in full flight. Is he aware that in the so-called Code of Industrial Practice which has just been issued by the Government it is suggested that short-time working is a good thing? One half does not know what the other half is doing.
      Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend tempts me. The whole of the country looks on the Industrial Relations Bill as a joke. It was thought when it was introduced by the Secretary of State for Employment that there would be a great deal of political mileage in it. Nobody speaks about political mileage now. It has sunk without trace. The Government will be trying to press it through before we go into recess, not because it will have any impact—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. No doubt we will spend a lot of time in pressing it through before long, but we must not try now.
      Mr. Eadie: This is analagous to my proposition. I was talking about work sharing. The Government are discouraging the trade union movement from taking part in work-sharing schemes. The unions want to stop people being unemployed, because unemployment means a loss of dignity. It is relevant to mention the Industrial Relations Bill here, because that is an attempt to discipline the trade union movement.
      The Government have made a fateful error. There is no political mileage in that. They will try to drive it through

      1555
      to save their faces. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be persisting in making people unemployed. He must answer that charge. Does he think it more dignified for a person to be underemployed rather than unemployed? He talks of a saving of £3 million, but he would inflict great financial hardship on people. My hon. Friends and I are entitled to expose the attitude of this Government by voting against them.
      Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that hon. Gentlemen who have disposed of a paltry £3 million would not be less vociferous if it were a larger saving. They are surely not asking for a larger sum of money to be saved in this way if they feel so strongly about the damage that the £3 million savings might inflict.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Of course we would not change our minds if the amount of money was a great deal more because it would represent more people out of work and more people on short time. At present there are 800,000 people out of work, with 89,000 on short-time working.
      Sir K. Joseph: Precisely. Despite the strong feelings that hon. Members have sincerely shown, it is a fact that six weeks ago when the commencement Order was introduced by affirmative Resolution the Opposition did not vote.
      Mr. Heffer: We know.
      Sir K. Joseph: It needs to be repeated. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) said that if at a later stage it was plain that the Government were not introducing parallel changes, by which he meant an obligation on industry to provide a guaranteed week, the Opposition might return to the subject and would want to vote. On that occasion there was no indication from the Government benches that any obligation would be placed on industry but the Opposition decided not to vote. I make no more than that of it. It is not an argument of substance. It should, however, be borne in mind.
      Mr. Dan Jones: I take it that what the Minister is saying is that he wants us to behave similarly on this occasion. That, in my opinion, would be trying to make two wrongs equal one right.
      Sir K. Joseph: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that, in view of the strong feeling shown today, it was very odd that the Opposition did not take the opportunity—
      Mr. Heffer: We missed it; that is the truth of the matter.
      Sir K. Joseph: The submarine got through the Opposition's defences.
      We are dealing with an unknown number of people who are affected by the proposed change. As hon. Members for Lancashire constituencies are saying, there is a relatively small, although absolutely important, number of people who fairly regularly receive unemployment benefit for short-term suspensions and a much larger number of people, often in reasonably well-paid work, who receive it infrequently. Part of the engineering in-industry is not yet covered by guaranteed weeks. Part of other industries in which people are not notably ill paid are not covered by guaranteed weeks.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Most of them in Lancashire.
      Sir K. Joseph: We should not deceive ourselves by thinking that the 10 million people who are covered by guaranteed weeks are under half, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, of the working population. In fact, nearly all the people affected by suspension are men. Most of the 10 million covered by the guaranteed week are men. Therefore, substantially more than half the men in manufacturing industry are already covered by guaranteed weeks.
      That does not diminish the fact that quite a large number of men in manufacturing industry are not covered by guaranteed weeks.
      Mr. Heffer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of the agreements are only for a partial guaranteed week in the sense that they may guarantee only a 30-hour week? This makes a very important difference. The Code of Industrial Practice provides:
      "As far as is consistent with operational efficiency and the success of the undertaking, management should seek to avoid redundancies by such means as"—
      and then it lists various means among which is
      "(d) short-time working to cover temporary fluctuations in manpower needs ".

      1557
      Does not that mean that this is an absolute piece of hypocrisy on the part of the Government because, on the one hand, they say that, and, on the other hand, they undermine the whole basis of it?
      Sir K. Joseph: What my right hon. Friend must have had in mind is the firm which comes occasionally upon a situation where short-time working can allow a normally continuous operation to survive a short period of difficulty. What cannot be for the health of the country on anything but the shortest view is to have sectors of industry which survive permanently by way of help from the taxpayers through this mechanism.
      Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is being very unfair. He wants his cake and to eat it. Does he really think—and here I am arguing for the employer—that any employer wants short-time working? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that with short-time working the employer still has full-time overheads to pay?
      Sir K. Joseph: I do not imagine that any employer or employee wants to take part in consistent short-time working. I am not an economics Minister, but there are implications for the method of management of a firm which finds itself relying regularly upon the National Insurance Fund contributor to subsidise his workers. My job on behalf of the public is to find money from the taxpayer and from the contributor for the highest social priorities. I have made no secret—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite will allow me to have my say. I have given way a great deal.
      Mr. Dan Jones: We are very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.
      5.15 p.m.
      Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Walton was generous to me in one respect in Committee where we had many bouts of disagreement. He said that at least I stated my reasons honestly. I state my reason honestly again: I am constantly preoccupied with high priorities of social need which have not been met, and it is my job to obtain money—either by getting fresh money or by switching money—to satisfy the greatest
      1558
      needs. The hon. Member for Rotherham thoroughly misrepresented what I said in Committee. He sought to paraphrase my remarks by saying that I was robbing the sick to help the poor. That is not what I said. I said that I was searching for areas where what was a high priority had ceased to be as high a priority as some needs which are not being met. I stand by that.
      It is open to hon. Members to quarrel with my selection—
      Mr. Dan Jones: We do.
      Sir K. Joseph: —as to what are lower priority areas. But I repeat that here is a sector of what was regarded as normal support by the National Insurance contributor—short-time working. Ten million workers—mostly male and mostly manufacturing workers—are covered by guaranteed weeks of more or less quality. The movement should continue. This is an area above all in which trade unions and employers should negotiate.
      It seems to me proper that this money, which is going largely to people who are on suspension for short periods, often from reasonably well paid work, has a lower priority for public spending than the many areas covered by the National Insurance fund such as those to which the Government have diverted money this year, particularly the chronic sick and the very old.
      Mr. Dan Jones: I apologise for intervening so frequently, but may I ask the Minister whether, prior to introducing this legislation, the Government made an appeal to employers who did not have guaranteed working weeks to introduce guaranteed weeks?
      Sir K. Joseph: No. But I told the T.U.C. after the Government's decision had been announced, and I have expressed my willingness to declare publicly that the Government would welcome negotiations between workers and employers in those sectors where there is not a guaranteed week. I have said that I am not prepared to make it obligatory because I believe that the economics of each individual industry and firm and the pressure in each industry and firm provide a far better climate for it rather than that there should be a mandate from the Government.
      Mr. Heffer: Obviously the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to introduce mandatory principles, but would he not agree that until such time as agreements operate throughout industry, and as he has the power under the 1969 Act to fix the date, he should say, "I will not go ahead on 1st January, 1972, but will wait until agreements have been reached by employers and trade unions on the question of the guaranteed week"?
      Sir K. Joseph: I am not prepared to adopt that attitude. The House must recognise that unless it wishes National Insurance contributions to increase by another £3 million, which would be a perfectly logical alternative, within the National Insurance Fund—[Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman muttering about surtax. We are dealing with the National Insurance Fund. We can increase the National Insurance contribution, use the £3 million as it is being used now, or let it go, as the Government have provided for, into the pool for the chronic sick and the very old. Those are alternatives. It is for that reason, because we regard the priority for the chronic sick and the very old as a higher priority, that the Government do not accept this new Clause.
      Mr. Alec Jones: But surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the money to provide the additional benefit being made available for the chronic sick and other categories could have come by increasing Exchequer contribution to the National Insurance Fund?
      Sir K. Joseph: Yes, certainly, and that means increasing taxation.
      Mr. James Sillars: Surtaxation.
      Sir K. Joseph: I think I ought to explain again, as I explained to the Committee, that the Government fought the General Election on the thesis of tax relief, that marginal cuts in taxation on earned income and at all levels of income—all levels of income—would be healthy for the future prosperity of this country. It is part of the spectrum of benefits which range from benefit for the very old, the very poor, the sick, the chronic sick, the disabled, right through to the taxpayer, including the surtax payer, as part of the programme on which we went
      1560
      to the electors, as being healthy to the whole people of this country.
      Now I come to a last point which hon. Gentlemen ought to take into account. The Labour Government brought in the commencement Order with the intention at the time of carrying it through. They changed their mind. They were entitled to change their mind. The result of the Government's changing their mind was to give industry the impression that the commencement Order, or, rather, the ending of the suspension arrangements about unemployment, would never be brought into effect, and as a result of the indecision of the last Government, delayed the introduction of a guaranteed payment, in a number of firms and industries, which we, but for their indecision, guaranteed payments on a better or worse scale would have been introduced. I believe that by carrying out our intention to make this commencement Order effective on 1st January next year we shall help to accelerate the spread of guaranteed agreements. It is because of that, and for all the other reasons—
      Mr. Orme: I think the right hon. Gentleman is missing the central point there. We are all in favour of guaranteed weeks so that if firms run into difficult times and can pay, so much the better, but there are many firms which are not in a position, or not over a long period in a position, to pay this money, and in the short-time working of three days or two days, the supplement of the benefit helps both the employees and the employers to keep afloat in the period of difficulty, particularly in the cotton industry. What the Secretary of State is doing will mean creating more unemployed, not fewer, and the savings will get very little indeed.
      Sir K. Joseph: It may well be that there are firms which are not, at the moment, as the hon. Gentleman says, in a position to support a guaranteed week. That does not mean that those firms, if they have suspension arrangements, alter them to dismiss men. It may well mean that they will have to look to their methods of management, and if it does, it may thoroughly improve the lot of those people who work for them. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to reject this Clause.
      Mr. Sillars: We cannot allow the Secretary of State to get away with that

      1561
      argument. He has argued this afternoon that we are faced with a choice of priorities within the total extent of the National Insurance Fund as it is defined at present. That is not strictly the case because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) pointed out, there is a degree of Government subvention to the fund, and there is nothing in principle or practice to prevent the Government from putting further contributions into the fund above what they do at present.
      Then the right hon. Gentleman attempts to extract himself from that difficulty by claiming that the electorate gave the Government a mandate for cutting income tax, and saying that that means that he cannot increase the contributions from the Exchequer to the National Insurance Fund. I feel bound to point out to him that while the Conservative Party certainly had in its election manifesto that it would decrease taxation it did not spell that out in detail by saying that there would be a differential decrease, one decrease for ordinary workers and an entirely different one for surtax payers. It was a blanket undertaking that somehow taxation would be cut.
      Mr. John Nott: But surely the Exchequer contribution is exactly the same now as during the time the Labour Party was in Government? It has not been changed.
      Mr. Sillars: That is right. Our argument is that if the Government want to save £3 million it should be changed now.
      Mr. Nott: That was not the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
      Mr. Heffer: He has gone.
      Mr. O'Malley: Perhaps the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) is not as aware as he ought to be, and as my hon. Friend is, that the Exchequer contribution in percentage terms has varied considerably over a number of years—during the 'fifties and 'sixties. It is not always been 1 per cent.
      Mr. Sillars: I want to bring the Secretary of State's attention to the Conservative Party manifesto dealing with unemployment and sickness and injury
      1562
      benefit. The Government claim a mandate to cut taxation, so I think that we are in duty bound to point out to them that on page 22 the manifesto says:
      "Retirement pensions, sickness, unemployment, widowhood and industrial injuries benefits will continue to be paid as of right, and without means tests, in return for National Insurance contributions."
      They have a sort of mandate for that, too. This Measure does not accord with that so-called mandate which the Conservatives sought by what they said on page 22. There is no indication there to the general public that this Bill would be included in any social security measures which would be implemented by the Conservative Government.
      I refer now to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), when he said my hon. Friend suggested we should give industry time to adjust to the necessity for a guaranteed week, and the Secretary of State said, no, that abolishing it for the moment would do more for workers who might face unemployment. The Conservative Party supported the Labour Government's formula on equal pay, and the workers, it was said, had to have time to adjust to a massive change on the wages front; they had to be forewarned. If the Conservative Party and the Secretary of State are genuine in saying that they want people to have the guaranteed week and to have it as soon as possible. I suggest that, instead of this legislation, the formula proposed to come in 1975 would have been one which the ordinary workers would have welcomed, and which would have been welcomed on both sides of industry, because trade unions and managements would have been forwarned and the Secretary of State would have had additional ammunition for his argument. The fact is that if this Bill goes through unamended it is the working people of this country who will suffer, and not managements.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. O'Malley: I am sorry that the Secretary of State thought I was misrepresenting his policy when I said it was one of robbing the sick to help the poor. I thought that that was reasonably accurate judging from what he said in an earlier debate. I would only say that I would not want to misrepresent him.

      1563
      My hon. Friends described in some detail the industries in their areas which were badly affected by the proposals which which we seek to annul. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) described graphically the situation in Scotland, and several of my hon. Friends representing Lancashire constituencies described the plight of the textile industry and the boot and shoe industry.
      The Secretary of State said that the introduction of this new practice would result in pressure for a guaranteed week in industries which did not have one, but my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) pointed out that in the textile and boot and shoe industries the unions have been trying to negotiate a guaranteed working week for many years. All that the right hon. Gentleman could say to this was that it was not the job of his Department or the Government to subsidise workers. He is not subsidising anybody. The workers are paying for these benefits by contributing to the National Insurance Scheme.
      Sir K. Joseph: If I did say "workers" I was wrong. I thought I said, and I should have said, "firms". Firms who are not accepting the case for a guaranteed week are perhaps doing so because their workers can get subsidies. The answer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) is that these workers are not unemployed, they are not looking for a job; they are in employment, they have an employer but they are temporarily suspended.
      Mr. O'Malley: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. They are unemployed within the terms of the National Insurance legislation, they have paid the contributions and they are entitled to the benefits as the scheme stands.
      Mr. Dan Jones: The Minister has made the point that they are employed part-time and are not looking for work. That is totally wrong. If they had a chance of a full-time job they would leave their part-time work and go to it.
      Mr. O'Malley: The National Insurance Scheme is not subsidising workers. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that his Department should not be "subsidising"
      1564
      employers and if, as my hon. Friends have said, some of the textile industry employers would be in real difficulty if they had to do this, what is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting? Is it the laissez faire policy of the Government that those firms should close down and their employees be thrown out of work? The right hon. Gentleman referred to better management, and I agree that there is a general problem of the standard of management in this country. But the problems of the textile industry are not confined to management. The Lancashire textile industry has been facing serious problems in the last half-century as a result of world pressure.
      The right hon. Gentleman argued that over half the men in manufacturing industries were covered by a guaranteed working week. So half of them are not covered by a guaranteed working week, on the right hon. Gentleman's own admission. Even where there are guaranteed working weeks, those schemes have certain limitations. Some are restricted to a 30-hour week.
      The position is absolutely unchanged, as it was throughout the whole Committee stage. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing quite blatantly that his job is to switch resources so as to help the higher paid and if, in doing so, he has to take something away from someone who is poorer, he is quite prepared to do it openly. He is also saying that he is not prepared to make an appeal to employers to introduce a guaranteed working week. He says that is nothing to do with him and that the employers and trade unions had better sort this out for themselves. The Government have made no attempt to make guaranteed working week schemes in industry obligatory, and that is why we have to come back to this subject.
      We welcome the handful of hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House. They have said nothing about this, and no back-bench Members of the Committee showed the slightest interest—
      Mr. David Mitchell: Shame.
      Mr. O'Malley: It is a bit late in the day to come along and chunter. The hon. Gentleman could write his contributions

      1565
      to the Committee on half of one side of a comic postcard. In view of the refusal of the Government to concede anything, or to follow the line which they said they would follow when they were in Opposition, I advise my hon. Friends, and hon. Gentlemen opposite if they have any
      feelings of decency, to oppose the Government.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 256.

      Division No. 415.

      AYES

      [5.37 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Foot, Michael

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Albu, Austen

      Ford, Ben

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Forrester, John

      Marquand, David

      Allen, Scholefield

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marsden, F.

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Ashley, Jack

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Meacher, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Atkinson, Norman

      Golding, John

      Mendelson, John

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Barnes, Michael

      Gourlay, Harry

      Millan, Bruce

      Barnett, Joel

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Beaney, Alan

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Molloy, William

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hamling, William

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Booth, Albert

      Hardy, Peter

      Moyle, Roland

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Bradley, Tom

      Healey, Rt. Hn, Denis

      O'Malley, Brian

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Oram, Bert

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Orme, Stanley

      Buchan, Norman

      Horam, John

      Oswald, Thomas

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

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Padley, Walter

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Paget, R. T.

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hunter, Adam

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Clarke, David (Colne Valley)

      Janner, Greville

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Cohen, Stanley

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

      Pendry, Tom

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pentland, Norman

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      John, Brynmor

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Prescott, John

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rankin, John

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

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

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Kelley, Richard

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

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roper, John

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lambie, David

      Rose, Paul B.

      Delargy, H. J.

      Latham, Arthur

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lawson, George

      Sandelson, Neville

      Dempsey, James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Doig, Peter

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Driberg, Tom

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sillars, James

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Small, William

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Mc Bride, Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ellis, Tom

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      English, Michael

      McGuire, Michael

      Stallard, A. W.

      Evans, Fred

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Mackie, John

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Foley, Maurice

      McNamara, J. Kevin

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

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wallace, George

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

      Watkins, David

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Tinn, James

      Weitzman, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Tomney, Frank

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Woof, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Tuck, Raphael

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Urwin, T. W.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Varley, Eric G.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

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

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Foster, Sir John

      McLaren, Martin

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Fowler, Norman

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

      McMaster, Stanley

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Astor, John

      Gardner, Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maddan, Martin

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Marten, Neil

      Balniel, Lord

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mather, Carol

      Batsford, Brian

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maude, Angus

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Gower, Raymond

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gray, Hamish

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Green, Alan

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

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Body, Richard

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Moate, Roger

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Molyneaux, James

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Monro, Hector

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Braine, Bernard

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      More, Jasper

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Bray, Ronald

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Brewis, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Havers, Michael

      Mudd, David

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hawkins, Paul

      Murton, Oscar

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Bryan, Paul

      Heseltine, Michael

      Neave, Airey

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

      Hicks, Robert

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Normanton, Tom

      Burden, F. A.

      Hilt, James (Southampton, Test)

      Nott, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Holland, Philip

      Onslow, Cranley

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

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hordern, Peter

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Channon, Paul

      Hornby, Richard

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Peel, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Percival, Ian

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Hunt, John

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Cockeram, Eric

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Cooke, Robert

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Coombs, Derek

      James, David

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Cordle, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Raison, Timothy

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jopling, Michael

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Critchley, Jullan

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Redmond, Robert

      Crouch, David

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kilfedder, James

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Dean, Paul

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dixon, Piers

      Kirk, Peter

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kitson, Timothy

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Rost, Peter

      Drayson, G. B.

      Knox, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Lane, David

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Dykes, Hugh

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sharples, Richard

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

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

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Simeons, Charles

      Farr, John

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

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fell, Anthony

      Longden, Gilbert

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Loveridge, John

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

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Luce, R. N.

      Soref, Harold

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Speed, Keith

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      MacArthur, Ian

      Spence, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sproat, Iain

      1568

      1569

      Stainton, Keith

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Warren, Kenneth

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Tilney, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Steel, David

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Tnew, Peter

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Stokes, John

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Wilkinson, John

      Sutcliffe, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Worsley, Marcus

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Waddington, David

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Tebbit, Norman

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Temple, John M.

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Wall, Patrick

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Walters, Dennis

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF PROVISIONS FOR DETERMINING AMOUNT OF SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 32, at end insert:
      (4) Any deduction specified in subsection (1) above shall not be made where the Supplementary Benefits Commission are satisfied that such deduction would result in undue hardship to the claimant's dependants or where there are other exceptional circumstances which satisfy the Supplementary Benefits Commission that any such deduction should not be made.
      The Clause as it stands proposes a 40 per cent. reduction of supplementary benefit for industrial misconduct. We are discussing this Amendment against a background of high unemployment. As the level of unemployment fluctuates upwards and downwards, so roughly, does the number of cases where the National Insurance officer takes a decision that a person applying for unemployment benefit has been guilty of industrial misconduct. The present level of unemployment benefit is intolerable and is a direct result of the present Government's policies.
      There is widespread feeling on the shop floor and in industry generally that the whole of the system of governing industrial misconduct and consequent reductions in supplementary benefit needs to be looked at afresh and in detail. A reduction of this kind involving a move from 75p to 40p, subject to the maximum of 40 per cent. of the single householder rate, involves dramatic cuts in the incomes of families affected. We feel it necessary for provision to be written into the Bill to avoid the real hardship and damage which could be perpetrated as a result of this very high figure of 40 per
      1570
      cent., which for a married couple represents an increase, on the new supplementary benefit rates which come into operation in the autumn, from 75p to £2·32. We regard this as a disgracefully high figure.
      A married couple will be entitled in the autumn to a scale figure of £9·45, and will suffer a deduction of £2·32, instead of 75p. This will mean that the scale rate for a married couple in the autumn, at a time of rampant inflation caused directly by Government policies, will be £7·13. That is what a family would be expected to live on. A single non-householder over 21 on the new scale rate would be entitled to £4·60. He would suffer a deduction not of 75p but of £1·84 and for the week he would be required to live on £2·76. We take the view in any case that the figure of 40 per cent. is far too high and in Committee we sought to reduce it substantially, but in any case we felt that whatever figure was set by the House should be a maximum figure.
      We certainly do not condone in any way what hon. Gentlemen opposite desscribe as "scrounging". But we are anxious that innocent people should not get hurt as a result of the Government's savage proposals. We do not want to see a 40 per cent. reduction in all cases.
      My information is that the officers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission seldom, if ever, modify the 75 per cent. qualification, and therefore, presumably, unless there is some changed instruction from this House, in virtually every case there will be a reduction—amounting to £2·32, for example, for a married couple. We think that this is too high, but also that this reduction should not be taken into account or made in all circumstances because of the difficulties which individual claimants and their families could have and because

      1571
      of the nature of the complaint which has been made against them, which has led to the National Insurance officer making a decision that they have disqualified themselves from receiving unemployment benefit.
      In Committee, we made it clear that the Commission should not automatically accept the same criteria in deciding whether there should be a disqualification, and how much, as the National Insurance officer. The Secretary of State said in Committee that he would consider writing into the Bill explicit powers for the Commission to meet exceptional need. However, he said that the Commission already had those powers under the 1966 Act.
      The difficulty is that, so far as can be ascertained, the 75 per cent. deduction has rarely if ever been reduced as a result of the Commission using its discretion in this way. That is the first reason why one leg of this Amendment has been put down—because we want the Commission's officers to be in no doubt that there will be circumstances in which the full reduction should not be made.
      I mentioned a number of specific problems in Committee and the Secretary of State promised to discuss them with the Commission. I mentioned the special needs of people who may be affected by industrial misconduct decisions of the National Insurance officer, as regards diet and the health of the claimant or of his wife and children. I wanted to know what would happen, for example, if the wife was in a late stage of pregnancy. The Secretary of State said that something could be done in those circumstances. At present, I am advised, nothing is done to cut the amount which is settled on for supplementary benefit as a result of a decision that there is industrial misconduct.
      We argued that the criteria adopted by the National Insurance officer should not necessarily, in all circumstances, be the criteria adopted by the. Supplementary Benefits Commission, simply because, to give one example, of the mental and physical characteristics of some of the individuals who are disbarred from unemployment benefit because of charges of industrial misconduct.
      When we argue that there should be different criteria, we are not asking for a new principle to be introduced which has never been followed in this country. I am advised that, in the late 1930s, the Unemployment Assistance Board made a 2s. reduction in payments where there was industrial misconduct, but only where it seemed justified. The Board took the decision itself and did so only where this would not cause serious hardship. In September, 1937, of 3,538 people who qualified for this reduction, 43 per cent. received full benefit—that is, the Board was not necessarily accepting the same criteria which led to the decision that there had been industrial misconduct. Nor should this be the case today.
      We also tried in Committee to introduce the concept of "culpable" misconduct. The Secretary of State was quite right to discuss the real difficulties which could arise for the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the administration of the system if that concept were accepted. We put it forward to be debated. We did not suggest that it was the best solution, but we thought that the whole concept needed discussion and that that was the opportunity for that discussion.
      But, for example, with single parent families, where a woman is trying to keep her children by going out to work rather than receive supplementary benefit, very real strains and difficulties can arise which the National Insurance officer is not allowed to take into account. Similarly, many workers who are disqualified for industrial misconduct and whom Members of Parliament see in their advice bureaux are people who are not very clever, who run foul of the system, who feel that they have done nothing wrong and feel aggrieved about the decisions taken against them. One feels that the Commission's officers should be able to take that kind of circumstance into account.
      We should have liked other substantial Amendments to this Clause, but all have been turned down. This Amendment is modest enough, but it would in some circumstances mitigate the monstrous level of industrial disqualification which the Government now propose. Before any such proposals were put forward, they should have been referred to the Committee investigating abuse. There

      1573
      should have been consultation. It is clear that there was no consultation or meaningful discussion with the Commission itself.
      We want the Commission's officers to see whether there are exceptional circumstances, and we hope that they will interpret this subsection broadly and with the sympathy which one generally gets from the Commission. One hopes that the officers would satisfy themselves before making a disqualification of this magnitude that it would not involve the wives and the innocent children in hardship.
      Unless these modest proposals are accepted, this is precisely what the Government will be doing. I am bound to say that, judging from the reception which we have had from the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State today and previously, there seems little possibility that appeals to their compassion in this respect will meet anything but a blank refusal to accept anything broader than their own proposals. I hope that the Government will look at this one, if they are looking at nothing else.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Skinner: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley), except for his reference to people who fall foul of the system and are dismissed for alleged industrial misconduct being what he described as "by and large not very clever".
      I agree that they may not be particularly brilliant intellectually, but they certainly have blood rather than water running through their veins. Many of these people fall foul of the system because they are prepared to stand up to the foremen or managers who operate tin-pot scab factories in which a system of organised trade unionism is neither known nor wanted.
      This sort of thing does not happen in reputable industries. In the 21 years during which I was a trade union official in the mining industry I did not have to defend one person who had been sacked for industrial misconduct. The unions in this and similar industries ensure that this sort of thing does not arise and, in any event, the management would not take such action.
      We are, therefore, talking about something that occurs by and large in scab factories. There is one of these near to
      1574
      where I live, though not in my constituency. I do not exaggerate when I say that the average take-home pay there is £8 a week. There are long dole queues at the Claycross labour exchange and the area has a 14 per cent. male unemployment rate. The labour exchange regularly shunts people to this and similar factories where, despite the lack of organised trade unions, the men complain about the bad wages and conditions and refuse to work overtime on plain-time rates.
      As a result, a paltry excuse is found to get rid of them, and alleged industrial misconduct is often such an excuse. The people who run these factories are not worried about losing their employees. There seem always to be long queues at the Claycross labour exchange, and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides could tell of similar stories.
      This part of the Bill shows Conservative bias against ordinary working-class people. More important, it shows the bias of the Government against industrial and manual workers. I have great pleasure in opposing this part and the rest of the Measure.
      In Committee the Secretary of State quoted figures relating to people disqualified by insurance officers as a result of alleged industrial misconduct. I insist on using the word "alleged" in this context. He said that of the total of 600,000, only 12,000 had appealed, of whom only 2,400 were successful before the local appeals tribunal. A further 140 appealed to the Commissioners, the second line of appeal possible under the system, resulting in a total of 2,500 successful appeals. This means that employers are backed 99 times out of 100 in these cases, and this obviously adds to the difficulties of ordinary workers and particularly manual workers.
      A considerable discussion took place in Committee about the refusal of unemployment pay to these people prior to their appeals being heard. Unfortunately, most of the discussion involved my hon. Friends because hon. Gentlemen opposite failed to speak during the 12 sittings of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that we would be creating a precedent if money were paid prior to appeals going before the Supplementary Benefits Commission.

      1575
      There are, of course, many instances where money is paid prior to a final decision being taken, and this occurs both inside and outside the social security ambit. If a man sustains an injury and applies for disablement benefit he is first examined by two doctors of the local medical board. If he is not satisfied with the assessment he is given, be it a partial, provisional or final assessment, he can seek leave to be examined by a specialist at a medical appeals tribunal. While he is waiting for that to occur he receives the money.
      He may have a 10 per cent. assessment spread over, say, six months. The hearing before the tribunal may not take place for three months following his appearance before the medical board, but nevertheless, he receives his money. The Minister cannot, therefore, sustain his argument that we would be setting a precedent by paying the money in this instance.
      I shall have great pleasure in opposing this part of a squalid, class-conscious Bill which is designed to hit the working class. I trust that unless a really satisfactory reply is received from the Minister, my hon. Friends will take this matter to a Division.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I regret that I was neither a member of the Standing Committee which examined the Bill nor present on Second Reading. For the record, I was assisting in the Labour victory at the Glasgow municipal elections. Having read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings, I have no difficulty in supporting the Amendment, which is eminently reasonable.
      I am never convinced when Government spokesmen argue that the Labour Government tried to do something along similar lines to those which we are urging the Government to follow. I do not necessarily accept responsibility for everything done or attempted to be done in my name. On this occasion I do not believe that the Government have produced convincing arguments to show that they are abiding by the wishes of the Supplementary Benefits Commission or that there was even adequate consultation with the Commission.
      1576
      Although 40 per cent. is a savage reduction, I am fair-minded enough to consider any evidence that is put to me. If a section of the community is frequently and deliberately trying to get round the regulations, let us have the evidence and consider the matter before passing legislation on the subject. In this instance the Government appear to be over-riding the discretion of the Commission. It is most unfortunate.
      I can remember that the previous handbook of the Supplementary Benefits Commission received plaudits from hon. Members on both sides. It states in page 1:
      "An exclusively legal approach to a non-contributory benefit scheme can only lead to a narrower not a broader concept of the 'rights' of claimants…."
      It goes on:
      "The distinctive feature of the Supplementary Benefits Scheme is its discretionary element, those powers vested in the Commission which enable it to consider claims of individual circumstances."
      There is obviously a wide discretion left to the Commission.
      The Clause deals with someone who leaves his job voluntarily; but who in these days, particularly in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, would leave his job voluntarily, other than someone who might be described as being not too bright? I do not share the belief that everything done in the industrial field is a piece of vicious class warfare; there is also the individual element to be taken into account. But is it not the case that the individual about whom we are likely to be concerned is in some way a bit inadequate? Is he not the kind of person we are talking about?
      Mr. Heffer: No, we are not talking about him at all.
      Mr. Orme: There are not 600,000 idiots.
      Mr. O'Malley: I think that some of my hon. Friends have misunderstood both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). We say that amongst those deemed by the National Insurance officer to be guilty of industrial misconduct, there is a cross-section—inevitably, because we are dealing with a cross-section of the community—of people who fall foul of the system because they are

      1577
      not very clever. We ask that the Supplementary Benefits Commission should take that kind of circumstance into account.
      Mr. Brown: I am not sure what some of my hon. Friends are objecting to or seeking to correct me about. I am not arguing about the inability of some people to manipulate the regulations—
      Mr. Heffer: They are not doing that, either.
      Mr. Brown: Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech. I am arguing against the blanket statutory provision which the Government are introducing. I say that the greatest injustice will be done to those genuinely inadequate people who for some reason or other leave their jobs. If that type of individual is not caught by this Clause as it stands, I shall be very surprised.
      We are slightly more advanced in Scotland than is the rest of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] In terms of social work, we are. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may not know that the social work departments have the power to make cash payments, and I suspect that more and more such payments will be made by them to the kind of inadequate person of whom I am thinking.
      I do not condemn anyone. I do not want to get involved in more fundamental issues. I object to the fact that the Government are removing a discretion from the Commission, once someone has been deemed by the National Insurance officer to have left his job voluntarily or to have been guilty of industrial misconduct. To that extent, this is a most retrograde Clause. I have not been told whom the Government are trying to catch, but they will certainly catch some innocent victims in the general process.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Alec Jones: I want, first, to try to restore peace between my hon. Friends, though it seems to me that we are not so much quarrelling as emphasising different aspects of the same problem. As has been said, amongst those alleged to be guilty of industrial misconduct are some of the inadequates, but there are also those, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, who are forced into an unfortu-
      1578
      nate position by the stupid and aggressive acts of employers. Therefore, we have two distinct groups suffering equally from this type of accusation.
      The Standing Committee on the Bill was one that I was sorry to miss. People do not often volunteer for Committees, but I should very much have liked to be a member of this one. I notice that in Committee the Government supporters were noticeable by their almost complete silence or by their absence. The Secretary of State told the Committee:
      "What we are all interested in is ensuring that this deduction, which is not dramatic but which is enough to inconvenience a household …"
      and that is a considerable understatement, because the amount of inconvenience will depend on the family's income:
      "… is not imposed before a proper investigation as to the absence of fault."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 11th May, 1971; c. 46.]
      The right hon. Gentleman was talking about the rather laborious appeal machinery, and I suppose that most of us would agree with his choice of language; namely, the desirability of ensuring that there was no absence of fault.
      The Amendment seeks to say that if we are interested in ensuring that the appeals system should be able to carry out proper investigation into absence of fault, we should be equally interested in ensuring that a deduction is not imposed before a similar investigation has been made into the extent of the hardship involved. The hardship which the proposal involves is as important as the question of fault itself. We have ideal machinery for dealing with this matter, which is why I consider the Amendment to be so desirable. We have the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which, because of the experience and expertise it has amassed over the years, is well able to ascertain the factor of hardship.
      There is bound to be some hardship involved in these measures, otherwise there would be no point in introducing them. The Secretary of State used not the word "hardship" but the word "inconvenience", but one man's meat is another man's poison and Tory inconvenience is certainly a Labour hardship in my part of the country.

      1579
      The right hon. Gentleman described the present deduction of 75 p as derisory. Members of my own Government have used similar language, but, as some of us keep on saying, we are not always responsible for the actions even of our brethren. If the Secretary of State describes 75p as derisory, what word would he use to describe his proposal of £2.05? This is an increase in reduction of 173⅓ per cent. It will undoubtedly cause hardship to the lower-paid and to families.
      The Amendment seeks to mitigate the hardship. It is nonsense to suggest that benefits can be paid to a wife and children and that somehow they can be reduced only for the husband and father and that his family will not suffer. My experience in my locality and elsewhere teaches me that if a father's income is reduced the income of the whole family is effectively reduced and hardship is inevitably caused.
      The Supplementary Benefits Commission was set up specifically to alleviate hardship. The Government would be wise to accept the Amendment and give the Commission the right to maintain the level of present benefits where the proposed reduction would cause undoubted hardship.
      Mr. Heffer: On Second Reading the Secretary of State said:
      "Clause 1(2) deals with a person disqualified for up to six weeks from unemployment benefit because he has committed industrial misconduct, left his job voluntarily, or refused suitable work without good cause."—OFFICIAL REPORT 26th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 50.]
      The right hon. Gentleman later suggested that the proposal was that the deduction, which is at present 75p, should be increased to 40 per cent. of the single householder adult rate.
      There are three points to be examined. First, there is the question of industrial misconduct. There has never been a clear definition of industrial misconduct. It is a matter of the employer's judgment whether a worker has committed industrial misconduct. There can be and always will be an argument about the real nature of industrial misconduct. Examples have already been given of conduct which an employer might well consider to be industrial misconduct but which would
      1580
      not be so considered by the workers concerned.
      A worker in an unorganised factory, say, who constantly asked for better conditions, who argued that the canteen arrangements, if any, were not good enough and that the toilet conditions were not good enough, and who contended that the factory was not sufficiently clean, was too dangerous or was not safe could well be considered by his employer to be a nuisance; an excuse could be found and he could be sacked for industrial misconduct. Anyone who thinks that such a thing could not happen does not know much about industry.
      Second, on the question of a worker leaving his job voluntarily, we perhaps reacted too harshly to the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was making. I take the point that people with inadequate attitudes would come into this category: they could voluntarily leave their employment because of inadequacy.
      However, many workers who are not inadequate, who are in control of all their senses, and who understand exactly what they are doing have to put up with bad management or a very bad foreman. A bad foreman can so harass a workman that the workman can stand it no longer and will reach the stage at which he says, "I know I shall lose my unemployment benefit, but I cannot stand this." He therefore leaves his job. He is then immediately faced with suspension of benefit for six weeks and, now, a reduction in benefits of up to 40 per cent. of the single householder rate. The point which we on this side stress is that the reduction bites not only on the worker but on his wife and children.
      The third category is refusing suitable work without good cause. I have refused what could be considered to be suitable employment. When I worked in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry, one yard in Liverpool that we did our best to stay away from was Cammell Laird. This was because at that establishment at 7.30 a.m. the doors banged and a worker who was not inside the gates at that time lost not a quarter-hour's pay, not a half-hour's pay, but a full morning's pay.
      For those workers who got through before the gates clanged at 7.30 a.m.

      1581
      there was no official coffee or tea break. Someone stood at the entrance to the toilet to decide how long a man should stay in the toilet. Many of us who lived 10 miles away on the other side of the river did not want to take a job where we could get no expenses for travelling there. We tried to avoid going there as long as we could.
      It could be argued that that was "suitable employment". Of course it was suitable employment, but I did not think it was suitable employment if there was an alternative. However, if on being directed to it we refused it our benefit was suspended for six weeks.
      An examination of the three grounds on which the philosophy is based shows that there is no basis for this in industrial life. The case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) is reinforced by what was said in Commttee by the Secretary of State:
      "What I would like to do is to undertake that we shall consider writing in a reference to the Supplementary Benefits Commission's undoubted powers to meet exceptional need. I will undertake to give consideration to that."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 11th May, 1971; c. 79.]
      Here we are on Report and nothing is being written in. My hon. Friend now seeks to write in a safeguard. If the Government wish to keep their word, all they have to do is to accept this proposal. I do not know whether the Secretary of State will do it. If he acts as he has acted on the Bill up to now, he will not accept this reasonable proposal.
      Unfortunately, our Amendments were not accepted. We did not want this provision to go through. Our Amendment seeking to reduce the figure to 20 per cent. has not been called. We hope that the proposal contained in this very reasonable Amendment will be accepted by the House.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: I support the case presented by my hon. Friends. While my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) was speaking, one or two of us interjected comments with reference to so-called inadequate people who visit Members of Parliament, but the case which he and others have deployed is that we are not dealing here with identical groups of people. We are
      1582
      dealing with individuals. Under the Governments proposals, however, all will suffer by the refusal of unemployment benefit and subsequent reduction of supplementary benefit.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Provan rightly pointed out, a man does not lightly leave a job in Scotland, particularly in the Glasgow area, because of the great shortage of work there. But this is not a situation which he or any of us want. Until recently in the area which I represent people had a choice of where they worked, and rightly so. If a man wanted to change his job, he had a chance to look for other work. Now, unfortunately, we are moving towards the situation in Scotland, and there is a substantial increase of unemployment.
      We are discussing this question in the context of the industrial jungle, a situation in which manual workers and, perhaps, some white-collar workers will be caught because of allegations of industrial misconduct. In some instances, there may be genuine industrial misconduct, but in the vast majority of cases that judgment could be contested. Nevertheless, it will automatically operate when a man goes for his unemployment pay and he finds himself disqualified for six weeks. When he then goes to the social security department, the present 75p stop on benefit will be increased to £2.5, at a stroke. The worker is to be penalised financially at a time when he is without work, and, probably, he has a great feeling of grievance.
      As we explained in Committee, a skilled worker may refuse a job to which he is sent because it is not work in his trade. In that event, he is immediately disqualified from benefit. During periods of full employment we often heard about the difference between a buyers market and a seller's market. My goodness, the Government are really tilting the balance in favour of the employer now with these proposals.
      Our modest Amendment would do no more than give some discretion and bring an element of democracy into this business. It would give the unemployed person, already perhaps under a sense of injustice, the feeling that there was some justice to be found somewhere.

      1583
      The flow to the employment exchange and the supplementary benefit offices is becoming almost a flood now because of the economic policies pursued by the present Government. More and more people are being pushed into this bewildering situation. I gave an example in Committee when I spoke of one man who had come to my bureau for help and advice. He had worked for over 20 years at his job and had never known unemployment throughout all his working life. Then, being unemployed, he was sent to a job but refused it. He was refused benefit. The Minister said that he had his redundancy payment and would not be badly off. No one is arguing about that. We are concerned about the principle involved.
      That man who came to my bureau was absolutely astounded at what had been done to him. "I am not one of the scroungers", he said, but I had to tell him that he was now classed as such by people who glibly talk about scroungers without knowing the facts.
      When I have explained to people in that sort of situation that the proposal now is to increase the disqualification to £2·5, they have been absolutely astonished. Yet this is what the Government are doing, in a period of unemployment and industrial stagnation which is their fault and not the fault of the people concerned. By positive Government policy they are creating unemployment, and at the same time they are tightening the screw on benefits and disqulifications.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, the Minister gave a pledge in Committee that he would re-examine the matter, but he has not fulfilled that pledge on Report. If he does not meet us on this modest Amendment, we shall have no alternative but to vote for it in a Division.
      Mr. J. T. Price: I have not intervened previously on this matter, neither did I have the privilege of serving on the Committee, but I have listened with interest to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends, particularly on the question of industrial misconduct. I approach this matter not from a theoretical point of view but with a lifetime's knowledge of situations in which so-called industrial misconduct is committed. These are often questions of subjective
      1584
      judgment by people who are not without a vested interest in applying such labels to a man's conduct at work.
      I should be the last to defend the kind of gross misconduct constituted by a serious breach of contract of service by any man, whether a union man or a non-union man. I still have some respect for the sanctity of contract. For example, a man who involves himself in a violent physical fight on the floor of a factory where there is dangerous machinery is a menace not only to his employer but to his workmates. The pages of the law books are full of cases in which claims for damages have been brought by injured workmen as a result of fighting in factories where machinery exposes men to hazard. I do not make much comment about a man getting his cards for that kind of conduct.
      The same goes for a gross breach of some reasonable order given to a man by his employer or foreman. I should not object, either, if a man wilfully and defiantly refused to carry out a reasonable request falling within the sphere of his employment.
      Let me take the case of a 100 per cent.-organised trade union workshop, where the union is powerful and has competent stewards and officials who will handle the men's interests if there is a challenge. In such a workshop it might be dangerous for the employers to give a man his cards on a paltry excuse, such as wearing a tie the colour of which was not to their liking. So where there is an employee who may be a bit of a thorn in the flesh of his employer, and it is known that the shop would react quickly to an arbitrary dismissal, very often a process of niggling sets in. The man is constantly frustrated. He is asked to do things which may infringe his dignity, such as a menial task that he should not be expected to do, or to carry out an unreasonable order. Those are not flights of fancy but matters of which people in workshops have had experience. Such a man is marked down not to be dismissed but to be so chivvied and harassed in the conduct of his daily employment that if he has any dignity he will walk out one day. He would rightly complain if in that situation he found himself deprived of his benefits for six weeks. He would feel that he had been victimised by the system and that

      1585
      the National Insurance Act had been operated in favour of the employer and not in his own interests.
      A very dangerous atmosphere is creeping into all debates on this matter. We have just had a debate on another aspect, the six waiting days for short-time working, which is linked with this matter in some ways. I was amazed when I heard the Secretary of State, whose reputation for humanity is considerable and who is looked upon as a humane person, talking about using the taxpayer's money to subsidise such people. I do not wish to be unfair to him, but I hope that that kind of language will stop. We are talking about an insurance scheme, a contract of insurance between the contributor, the employer and the State under which benefits are offered in respect of certain contributions. It is wrong to regard a man who is unemployed as qualifying for a benefit at the will and pleasure of the State.
      Sir K. Joseph: But the people of whom we were speaking are not unemployed; they are in employment but temporarily suspended.
      Mr. Price: I am dealing at present not with the suspension Clause but with industrial misconduct. Perhaps I have frustrated my own argument by trying to put the parallel argument as logically as I can. Whether a man is temporarily suspended from employment because of the economic state of the industry or is sacked for industrial misconduct, he loses a benefit to which he is entitled, other things being equal, under the contract that he became a party to when he joined the scheme and became a contributor. I refuse to believe that there should be any difference in principle between the kind of contract a man would enter into with a commercial insurance company and an insurance contract between himself, as a contributor, and the State, which holds the kitty.
      Is the Secretary of State aware that if a man leaves his job of his own accord, perhaps because of pressure upon him by the employer who wants to see the back of him, he suffers not only the penalty of six weeks' loss of benefit but another penalty which may be more serious in the long run? Not only does
      1586
      he pass on that loss of benefit to his family, by the withdrawal of a portion of the benefit under the National Insurance Scheme and the complete loss of his own benefit, but he loses the credit for the stamps on his card for six weeks. Later on when he claims pension benefit he may not qualify with sufficient stamps because he has not paid the arrears of contributions.
      These are not trivial matters. I put them forward as calmly and objectively as I can in the hope that even at this stage we can prevail upon the Minister and his advisers. Our opposition springs from our experience. We know far more of the working class from whom we spring than do some Conservative hon. Members who have obtained their knowledge from another sphere.
      6.45 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): There is no dispute that some cut in supplementary benefit is necessary where a man is disqualified because of industrial misconduct and so on. That must be common ground, because we all know that the 75p deduction now made, which has been accepted by successive Governments, is regarded in the nature of the case as acceptable and reasonable in principle. At present it is made under discretionary powers which the Supplementary Benefits Commission exercises. However it may be made, it has been accepted for some time, which obviously leads the House to conclude that in principle some reduction must be made if the purposes of the National Insurance legislation and the associated Ministry of Social Security legislation is not to be rendered entirely nugatory. The dispute is not really about the principle of whether there should be a reduction in the circumstances we are considering, but about the extent of that deduction.
      Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Gentleman develops that argument on the wrong premise, may I repeat the gravamen of our charge, which is that in dealing with industrial misconduct what counts is the definition of industrial misconduct? The debate has been directing the attention of the Government to the great doubt which exists whether many such alleged cases are genuine industrial misconduct.
      Mr. Alison: That does not alter the principle that I am trying to establish as common ground, that under the National Insurance legislation there is provision, through three stages of scrutiny and appeal, to consider whether the bite of the relevant Section of the National Insurance Act, Section 22, should apply. There is machinery for determining all the very undesirable, aggravating and anxious circumstances to which hon. Members on both sides have referred, such as difficult employers and the special circumstances of the individual. There is provision under the governing Section, which uses the phrase "without just cause" in defining the circumstances. There is provision in principle for determining whether a disqualification should apply. I do not think that hon. Members opposite, certainly on the Front Bench, would dispute that it has been and remains common ground that in principle a deduction, whatever the figure may have to be, is accepted. The whole argument turns on whether or not a certain figure or certain percentage is the right one to take.
      Mr. O'Malley: This is not what the Amendment is about.
      Mr. Alison: I hope the hon. Gentleman will be patient. I may be verbose and perhaps unclear, but I always give him a chance by cross-examination to make his point.
      The issue here is not the principle but the degree of deduction which should be made. I would remind the House of some of the options which have been suggested. First, there is the prevailing discretionary figure which the Supplementary Benefits Commission exercises and which in contemporary terms amounts to 75p. Most of us here remember Mr. David Ennals. As Minister of State, he thought that 75p was a derisory figure. He had this to say when speaking of the disqualified person:
      "If he were to receive the same amount as has been denied to him because he has been disqualified, the whole process of disqualification would be absolute nonsense, and disqualifying a man only to the extent of 15s. a week is, frankly, not very far from being nonsense."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F. 7th May, 1970; c. 1284.1
      The sum of 75p is one of the figures which have been considered. It was dismissed by Mr. Ennals as derisory or
      1588
      nonsensical. Some people have suggested a figure of 20 per cent. In practice, 20 per cent. of the single householder's rate would raise Mr. Ennals' figure by 7p, so that we would move up from 75p to 82p. That is roughly what the 20 per cent. figure would involve. I think that that was the figure which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) thought was right as a reasonable percentage.
      Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman must not be selective like this. We have heard these comments of his before and have knocked them down in Committee. It would not go from 75p to 82p at 20 per cent. of the maximum single householder's rate. It would be £1·16 as opposed to the £2·32 proposed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman has tried this before.
      Mr. Alison: I would reply to that rather acid comment that some of us had heard before a number of the arguments put by the hon. Gentleman today. I do not complain, however. Good arguments should always be repeated. There is no harm in that. But we have another option on what is the right figure to take. The hon. Member for Walton was in favour of 20 per cent. He put down an Amendment to that effect similar to one which he put down in Committee. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) stuck his neck out further. He was in favour of putting it up further. In Committee he said:
      "I should have been inclined to a figure of 25 per cent.…".—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committe F, 11th May, 1971; c. 83.]
      Some people thought that 20 per cent. was the right figure. He thought that a 25 per cent. reduction should be chosen.
      Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman is brilliant at dragging what might be described as "blue herrings" across a trial. What has this to do with the Amendment, which simply suggests that the Commission should in certain conditions have discretion in order to avoid undue hardship?
      Mr. Alison: I shall work towards my conclusion. I shall not allow myself to be deprived of the opportunity to deploy the full range of options, because discretionary powers should be based on some sort of valuation of the consensus. If a discretionary power is to be exercised,

      1589
      it should be against the background of some agreed common view of what the rights of that discretion are. If we were to give discretionary power to the Commission against a whole range of possible options of what we feel reasonable, we would leave the Commission in an impossible situation. The options suggested have included 20 per cent., the 75p which Mr. Ennals dismissed as derisory, the 25 per cent. of the hon. Member for Rotherham and the Labour Government's view that it should be 33⅓ per cent. of the single householder rate. Many options have been canvassed as to the right percentage but the general agreement exists that there should be some percentage cut.
      I come now to the problem which would be presented to the Commission in deciding a case against the background of discretion offered by Parliament on where a fair and true mean should lie. Our proposition is that the figure of 40 per cent. should be written into the Bill, and that figure is not far different from the sort of figure which the Labour Government were considering. We feel it right not only to select the figure of 40 per cent. as fair and reasonable in contemporary conditions but to write it into the Bill because we think that this should be a decision by Parliament. We believe that the guiding principle should be determined here. We believe that the invidious business of assessing the extent of the deduction against the background of all these various suggestions as to what the ideal figure should be should not be given to the Commission but should clearly be borne by Parliament.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has got something slightly wrong when he suggests that there is general approval that there should be a reduction. Some hon. Members on this side have long argued that a man should not be presumed guilty before he is actually found guilty. But this is precisely what has happened over a long period. Many of us argued that it should be the other way round. It is true that proposals were put forward by the last Government but they ran into considerable trouble with hon. Members on this side because they were not prepared to agree to the sort of figures which were being bandied about. I want it put on record that the argument he is putting forward is not generally accepted.
      Mr. Alison: That is an important commercial on behalf of the tail which wags the Labour Party dog. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the conclusion that has emerged from the legislative practice of the Labour Government is as I have described it—that it is fair and reasonable to make a deduction. The whole argument has been about the scale of the deduction. We believe that instead of being roughly 33 per cent., which the Labour Government were considering, it should be 40 per cent. But the main point is that we think it right that Parliament should decide in the Bill the main guidelines which should govern the Commission.
      There is anxiety on both sides that this disqualification and the penalties associated with it should not impinge unduly upon those with hardship and family problems. But the safeguard against hardship is preserved by the Bill and by the governing Act to which it relates. There need be no doubt in anyone's mind. By the crucial parts of Schedule 2,4(1)(a) of the Ministry of Social Security Act, the Commission has power, where there are exceptional circumstances, to increase an award made to people who might otherwise have money withdrawn from them That power stands. It is perfectly possible to protect against hardship, as it was always intended to protect against it.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. O'Malley: Labour Members are aware of the provisions of paragraph 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Schedule to the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966. But that part of the Schedule is not being applied in industrial misconduct disqualification cases. What are the Government going to do about that?
      Mr. Alison: I am glad at this stage to have confirmation from the hon. Gentleman that everybody realises that this part of that Act applies, and will continue to apply, in principle to be available to mitigate circumstances of hardship. The fact that the Commission has rarely used this discretion—this is the point the hon. Gentleman is making—is explained by the extremely small amount, 75p, which has been at stake in the issue. There is no reason to think that the Commission will not use its discretion more widely when the deduction is up to as much as 40 per cent.

      1591
      I here state categorically on behalf of my right hon. Friend, and it will be on the record, that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be asked to review its rules to meet the new situation arising out of the Bill in which the level of penalty is to rise to this explicit 40 per cent.
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my hon. Friend make it absolutely plain that we do not want any of this nonsense in the Opposition Amendment? There is one thing which would be absolutely wrong. In their Amendment, the Opposition have made plain their view—my hon. Friend has not yet referred to the one thing that matters—that where there are other incidental circumstances which satisfy the Commission, no deduction should be made. It is not a task—I hope that my hon. Friend will make this plain—of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to consider whether there has been industrial misconduct. The mischief in the Oppositon's Amendment is making the wretched Commission become in some way involved in considering whether there has been industrial misconduct. That is not the Commission's task. I have been here just to see that we do not give in to that suggestion. I hope that we shall not widen the scope of the Commission's discretion in that way.
      Mr. Alison: I can reassure my hon. Friend in this context. The determination within which the rules will apply is made under another Statute and is in the discretion of the insurance officers, the National Insurance Appeals Tribunals and, ultimately, the Commissioners. There need be no fears about that. However, there might be some genuinely difficult problems of a delicate and extremely unsatisfactory kind for the Commission to consider if the Amendment were accepted.
      Against the background of the range of uncertainty which there has been about
      the correct percentage for the deduction, the Government believe that we should spell it out in the Bill, and we believe that the percentage is fair and reasonable. It should be recognised that hardship may still be mitigated by the escape Clause, if I may put it like that, in the original Ministry of Social Security Act. We will specifically ask the Commission to review its rules and to exercise its discretion under that provision of the 1966 Act in the light of the new figure which will be written into the Bill.
      On the basis of that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Rother-ham will agree that the Amendment need not be pressed.
      Mr. O'Malley: The Minister has made that speech before, and I have no doubt that he will make it again. If he makes it again, hon. Members who give live performances in the House will want to negotiate a needle time agreement.
      The points that the hon. Gentleman made fell into two categories: first, those not relevant to the Amendment anyway; secondly, those knocked down in Committee anyway. He has given the House an assurance that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be asked to review its rules, and we are grateful for that, grateful to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary. I like to spread my kindness, of which I do not have much for hon. Members opposite on this Bill, evenly and fairly.
      Nevertheless, we feel that this subject is of such importance that it should be written into the Bill. In view of the history of the matter, we feel that there can be no guarantee that the system will be operated as we should want to operate it, and I therefore advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes, 248.

      Division No. 416.]

      AYES

      [7.6 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Ashton, Joe

      Bishop, E. S.

      Albu, Austen

      Atkinson, Norman

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Barnes, Michael

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Barnett, Joel

      Booth, Albert

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Beaney, Alan

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Ashley, Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Bradley, Tom

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

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Paget, R. T.

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hunter, Adam

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Janner, Greville

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cant, R. B.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pendry, Tom

      Carmichael, Neil

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

      Pentland, Norman

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      John, Brynmor

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Prescott, John

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

      Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Coleman, Donald

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Probert, Arthur

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Richard, Ivor

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Kelley, Richard

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

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roper, John

      Davis, T. A. G. (Bromsgrove)

      Lambie, David

      Rose, Paul B.

      Deakins, Eric

      Latham, Arthur

      Ross, Rt. Hon. William (Kilmarnock)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lawson, George

      Sandelson, Neville

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Dempsey, James

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Doig, Peter

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

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

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Loughlin, Charles

      Sillars, James

      Driberg, Tom

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Silverman, Julius

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Small, William

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Eadle, Alex

      McBride, Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      Edelman, Maurice

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McGuire, Michael

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ellis, Tom

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      English, Michael

      Mackie, John

      Stewart, Rt. Hon. Michael (Fulham)

      Evans, Fred

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Strang, Gavin

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

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn George (Cardiff, W)

      Foley, Maurice

      Marquand, David

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Foot, Michael

      Marsden, F.

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

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Tinn, James

      Forrester, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Tomney, Frank

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mendelson, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mikardo, Ian

      Varley, Eric G.

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Millan, Bruce

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

      Golding, John

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Wallace, George

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Watkins, David

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Weitzman, David

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Molloy, William

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Whitlock, William

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hamilton, William, (Fife, W.)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Hardy, Peter

      Moyle, Roland

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Murray, Ronald King

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Ogden, Eric

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Hilton, W. S.

      O'Malley, Brian

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Oram, Bert

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Horam, John

      Orme, Stanley

      Mr. William Hamling and

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oswald, Thomas

      Mr James A. Dunn.

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Bryan, Paul

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

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

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Body, Richard

      Buck, Antony

      Astor, John

      Boscawen, Robert

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Bowden, Andrew

      Burden, F. A.

      Awdry, Daniel

      Braine, Bernard

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

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Bray, Ronald

      Carlisle, Mark

      Balniel, Lord

      Brewis, John

      Channon, Paul

      Batsford, Brian

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Chapman, Sydney

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      1594

      1595

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      James, David

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Raison, Timothy

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jessel, Toby

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Cockeram, Eric

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Redmond, Robert

      Cooke, Robert

      Jopling, Michael

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Costain, A. P.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Critchley, Julian

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Crouch, David

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Curran, Charles

      Kirk, Peter

      Rost, Peter

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Royle, Anthony

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Maj. -Gen. James

      Knox, David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Dean, Paul

      Lane, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Dixon, Piers

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Sharples, Richard

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Le Marchant, Spencer

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

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shelton, Wiliam (Clapham)

      Drayson, G. B.

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

      Simeons, Charles

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Longden, Gilbert

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dykes, Hugh

      Loveridge, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Eden, Sir John

      Luce, R. N.

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

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

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Soref, Harold

      Eyre, Reginald

      MacArthur, Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Farr, John

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Spence, John

      Fell, Anthony

      McLaren, Martin

      Sproat, Iain

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stainton, Keith

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Fowler, Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

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

      Maddan, Martin

      Sutcliffe, John

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Gardner, Edward

      Maginnis, John E.

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

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maude, Angus

      Tebbit, Norman

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Gorst, John

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

      Tilney, John

      Gower, Raymond

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Green, Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Trew, Peter

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Molyneaux, James

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gurden, Harold

      Montos, Mrs. Connie

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Waddington, David

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mudd, David

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Havers, Michael

      Murton, Oscar

      Wall, Patrick

      Hawkins, Paul

      Neave, Airev

      Walters, Dennis

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Hicks, Robert

      Normanton, Tom

      Warren, Kenneth

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Nott, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Holland, Philip

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Wilkinson, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hornby, Richard

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Peel, John

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Percival, Ian

      Younger, Hn. George

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Hunt, John

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pounder, Rafton

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Mr Tim Fortescue.

      Mr. Reg Prentice: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 3, after 'earnings', insert 'exceeding £1.00'.
      By this Amendment we are attempting to modify subsection (3), which says, in effect, that the families of strikers, and,
      1596
      indeed, the families of many non-strikers, who have been out of work because of a trade dispute at their place of employment shall not receive supplementary benefit as a matter of right when they return to work before the workers receive their first wage packet.

      1597
      This matter is connected with Clause 2 in that although these families will have established a need and will be living below supplementary benefit levels, and alone will be singled out among other people who qualify for supplementary benefit as not being entitled in this period, which may be up to two weeks and often is two weeks, to supplementary benefit as a matter of right, they will be encouraged—this is the Government's intention—to seek an advance or sub from their employers, which, in our view, is equivalent to telling people who qualify for supplementary benefit that they should live on borrowed money or go to the moneylender or pawnbroker.
      Subsection (3) provides that if workers receive subs from their employers, these will be taken into account in reckoning their supplementary benefits. We are attempting to modify this by a very modest Amendment which proposes that the first £1 of any such advance should be disregarded. That is in line with the practices carried on under the Supplementary Benefits Scheme. I wish to give two examples.
      First, in the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966, which still provides most of the rules for the scheme, paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 deals with circumstances in which someone may be receiving earnings, and provides that
      "The weekly earnings of any person shall be taken to be his net weekly earnings reduced …"
      by £1 in some circumstances and by £2 in others. We are taking the more moderate alternative in order to apply a parallel with this situation.
      The other point is that subsection (4) of the Bill deals with a disregard of £1. That is the subsection that deals with people who are out of work because of a trade dispute, who are disqualified from the main benefit, and who are receiving either strike pay or P.A.Y.E. refunds. It alters the old situation by which there was a disregard of £4·35p and brings in, instead, a disregard of £1. On the Government's own criteria we are suggesting that having taken a disregard of £1 in another part of the Clause, and having regard to the fact that that disregard is part of the normal rule of applying for supplementary benefits, it should apply to advances on earnings made by the employer during this period.
      1598
      We see no reason why it should not be applied to this subsection. We hope that the Secretary of State will consider the point before the Bill goes to another place, in which case we will gladly ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. But we see no reason why the Government should not accede to this principle.
      Sir K. Joseph: I must repeat an argument that will be familiar to hon. Members who were in Committee. Until a few years ago—I note the expression on the face of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who knows what I am going to say—when a strike took place the men and women involved, after returning to work, looked to the employer for income during the first week or two until the normal pay machinery gave them their weekly earnings. Only in the last few years have increasing numbers of workers discovered that there was an alternative way of securing an income during the first two weeks after returning to work.
      They came to prefer to draw supplementary benefit—which was untaxed and did not have to be repaid—rather than continue to claim subs which had to be repaid to the employer and came out of taxed income.
      The strategy of the Government is to make supplementary benefit broadly unavailable except in conditions of hardship so as to restore the original practice—the normal habit until recently—of leaving employees to look to their employers for an advance of earnings during those first two weeks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] I know that hon. Members are not denying that that is the strategy of the Government—because it is. To accept the Amendment would make it marginally more advantageous still to look to the Supplementary Benefits Commission—that is, the taxpayer—for some help in the post-dispute period. That is why I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. If he does, I hope that the House will reject it.
      Mr. Orme: I know that we are going through the arguments, in a much reduced form, that we had in Standing Committee. We have listened to the Minister, and must again put on record the fact that we do not accept his argument that it is natural for workers returning from an industrial dispute to try to resolve

      1599
      their financial difficulties by going to their employers for subs.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) knows that historically—over the past 20 years—persons who have been on strike and then have gone back have had to borrow money somehow and somewhere, until they have been paid out the following week. What is the hon. Member's argument?
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Member may know a lot about some things, especially the law, but he knows nothing about this. We explained this in detail in Committee. It is not the normal thing in industry. It has been introduced in the building industry, but it has been vigorously opposed by the trade unions. It is not a practice that any of us has endorsed. It is a form of cap-in-hand help.
      Mr. Rees-Davies Mr. Rees-Davies indicated dissent.
      Mr. Orme: Yes, it is. The money has to be paid back. Apparently the employee has to go to his employer and say, "I have been on strike. I am in great difficulties. Will you now assist me, because I cannot make ends meet."
      Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member is misrepresenting what would happen on the ground. The representatives of the workers—normally the trade unions-would discuss with the employers the arrangements for helping to supplement workers' incomes until their first pay day. It is not done on an individual basis; it is done on a representative basis. There is no cap-in-hand aspect to it.
      Mr. Orme: I am in complete disagreement with the Minister. An issue of pride is involved. As a representative in industry, I have resisted the move for subs, because we believe that it is wrong, and involves indignity. The Minister's removal of this supplementary benefit payment is penalising the families of the strikers and also workers who may have been thrown out of work because of an industrial dispute although they were not themselves involved. We have dealt with this point elsewhere in the Bill. The Minister knows that it is an injustice, but for political reasons he is not prepared to recommend an alteration at the
      1600
      moment. I am not misrepresenting him in that regard.
      Mr. S. O. Davies: It is no use the Minister's pretending that all employers are prepared to make advances to those who have been on strike, or not at work. Comparatively recently cases have come to my notice in which employers employing many men will not give any help until pay day arrives.
      Mr. Orme: My argument is a little different from that of my hon. Friend; I am not in favour of employers doing this. I feel that if the worker is entitled to supplementary benefit he should be able to get it. We have argued that point in detail in Committee, and we want to put it on record in the House. We want it to be known that we are opposed to subbing. We feel that it is an indignity to the workers. We feel that the benefits—supplementary benefits or unemployment benefits—should be paid to workers who qualify. These are State benefits, to which everybody contributes. The Minister is removing some of our basic rights.
      Mr. Prentice: The Secretary of State said that we have heard his argument before. We have indeed. We have been unanimously unimpressed by it. We are talking here of people who may have been without income for six weeks. The breadwinner is paid two weeks late. In the first two weeks of an industrial dispute, during which he is receiving earnings, he is not qualified for benefit, but when he returns to work he does not receive any earnings for two weeks. What the Government are saying is that families—not merely strikers, and not merely non-strikers—who are brought into the ambit of this Bill and who qualify by all the normal rules for supplementary benefit for six weeks will receive it, as a right, for only four weeks. That is what we consider to be the injustice.
      7.30 p.m.
      The fact that until the recent past it was not the custom of many people in this situation to apply for supplementary benefit as of right is no argument at all. The Government, quite rightly, and the previous Government, have encouraged them in other circumstances to apply, when they are entitled to it, for benefit.

      1601
      They have said, "Come along and apply for it; it is yours as of right." There is no logical reason at all for applying different standards in this case.
      The Secretary of State's speech a moment ago was really a justification of the Clause and was not at all a reply to the substantial point of the Amendment that there should be here a disregard equivalent to the disregard given in other parts of the scheme in respect
      of earnings. In the absence of any such reply or any promise by the Secretary of State to consider the matter I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide the House.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 218. Noes 240.

      Division No. 417.]

      AYES

      [7.33 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Foot, Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Albu, Austen

      Ford, Ben

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Forrester, John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marquand, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marsden, F.

      Ashley, Jack

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Ashton, Joe

      Golding, John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Atkinson, Norman

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Meacher, Michael

      Barnett, Joel

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mendelson, John

      Beaney, Alan

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Millan, Bruce

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hamling, William

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hardy, Peter

      Molloy, William

      Booth, Albert

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hilton, W. S.

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

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

      Horam, John

      Moyle, Roland

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Murray, Ronald King

      Buchan, Norman

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Oram, Bert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Orme, Stanley

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hunter, Adam

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Janner, Greville

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Coleman, Donald

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

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      John, Brynmor

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Pentland, Norman

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Prescott, John

      Davidson, Arthur

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

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Judd, Frank

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kelley, Richard

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Delargy, H. J.

      Kerr, Russell

      Richard, Ivor

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Kinnock, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dempsey, James

      Lambie, David

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Doig, Peter

      Latham, Arthur

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lawson, George

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

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roper, John

      Driberg, Tom

      Leonard, Dick

      Rose, Paul B.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sandelson, Neville

      Eadie, Alex

      Loughlin, Charles

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

      Ellis, Tom

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      English, Michael

      McBride, Neil

      Sillars, James

      Evans, Fred

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silverman, Julius

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn, E.

      McGuire, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

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

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Small, William

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mackie, John

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Tinn, James

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Tomney, Frank

      Whitlock, William

      Stallard, A. W.

      Torney, Tom

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

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

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wallace, George

      Strauss, Rt. Hn, G. R.

      Watkins, David

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

      Weitzman, David

      Mr. James Hamilton and

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

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Goodhart, Philip

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

      Astor, John

      Gorst, John

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Gower, Raymond

      Moate, Roger

      Awdry, Daniel

      Green, Alan

      Molyneaux, James

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gurden, Harold

      Monro, Hector

      Balniel, Lord

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Batsford, Brian

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      More, Jasper

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mudd, David

      Body, Richard

      Hastings, Stephen

      Murton, Oscar

      Boscawen, Robert

      Havers, Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hicks, Robert

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Braine, Bernard

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Normanton, Tom

      Bray, Ronald

      Holland, Philip

      Nott, John

      Brewis, John

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Onslow, Cranley

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hordern, Peter

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Bryan, Paul

      Hornby, Richard

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Buck, Antony

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Peel, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Percival, Ian

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

      Hunt, John

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      James, David

      Pounder, Rafton

      Channon, Paul

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Chapman, Sydney

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Pries, David (Eastleigh)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Jessel, Toby

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jopling, Michael

      Raison, Timothy

      Clarke, William (Surrey, E.)

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Redmond, Robert

      Clegg, Walter

      Kilfedder, James

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Cooke, Robert

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cooper, A. E.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kirk, Peter

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Costain, A. P.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Lane, David

      Royle, Anthony

      Crouch, David

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Curran, Charles

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Scott, Nicholas

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Dean, Paul

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sharples, Richard

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

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

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

      Dixon, Piers

      Longden, Gilbert

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Loveridge, John

      Simeons, Charles

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Luce, R. N.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacArthur, Ian

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

      Eden, Sir John

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sonef, Harold

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

      McLaren, Martin

      Speed, Keith

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Spence, John

      Farr, John

      McMaster, Stanley

      Sproat, Iain

      Fell, Anthony

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stainton, Keith

      Fernner, Mrs. Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Maddan, Martin

      Stokes, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Madel, David

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Fowler, Norman

      Maginnis, John E.

      Sutcliffe, John

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

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Mather, Carol

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

      Gardner, Edward

      Maude, Angus

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tebbit, Norman

      1604

      1605

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Waddington, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Woodhouse, Hn Christopher

      Tilney, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Worsley, Marcus

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Wall, Patrick

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Trew, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Younger, Hn. George

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Warren, Kenneth

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Mr. Tim Fortescue and

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mr. Hugh Rossi

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Mr. O'Malley: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 3, line 26, leave out from 'Schedule' to end of line 3 on page 4 and insert:

      '(a) any amount which he receives by way of repayment of income tax by reason of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment; and

      (b) any payment which he receives from a trade union by reason of his being without employment during a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute at his place of employment

      shall be taken into account only in so far as such payment exceeds the personal requirements of the claimant as established by the Supplementary Benefits Commission'.
      As the Clause stands it reduces the disregard for the families of strikers applying for supplementary benefit from £4·35 currently to £1. This we regard as a response to the hysteria on the benches opposite, particularly of some of the wilder men of the Tory Party who, from 1969 onwards, have believed that the best way to deal with strikes was to attempt to starve the wives and children of the strikers. This was in spite of the fact that the current disregard was a long-standing practice of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and before that of the National Assistance Board. It was fully in line with the policy of the previous Administration that these disregards should be maintained at this level, and the Amendment seeks to maintain this situation.
      I explained our attitude fully in Committee, complaining that the wives and families of men on strike treated in the way the Clause proposes would be hard hit. I said that innocent people, for example, people affected by a lock-out, would be badly affected by the proposals, and that considerable injustice would be done to people who had no connection with the strike but happened to suffer from being within the grade and class provision which the Donovan Commission regarded as a considerable injustice which should be dealt with by legislation.
      1606
      The previous Government were proposing to deal with it by legislation, but the present Government have refused to do so.
      The arguments which we put forward, including the figures which we quoted illustrating how badly families would be hit, were rejected by the Secretary of State on a majority vote in Committee, as a result of a speech made by the Secretary of State which was not overburdened with facts or notable for its accuracy or its relevancy to the subject under discussion. I will reply briefly to the Secretary of State's comments. He recognised that I had a valid argument when I commented on the injustice done to people who were adversely affected by the grade or class provision as the result of a strike. Nevertheless, he said that this was:
      "… one slender barrier, perhaps, to irresponsible strikes."—OFFICIAL REPORT., Standing Committee F, 13th May, 1971; c. 128.]
      That was not a statement which he had thought about. The right hon. Gentleman was on his way to a Cabinet meeting and intervened because he thought that he should say something as he would be missing later on. But this is not a slender barrier to anything.
      The Secretary of State agreed with me that these proposals were unjust to people affected by the grade or class provisions. He accepted my comment about men affected by a lock-out, so half the argument he gave me straight away. When the Secretary of State conceded my point, he was moving away from the posture of traditional neutrality in industrial disputes which Governments of different political complexions have taken over many years. The blame is on the strikers, and it is they who suffer as a result of this legislation.
      The right hon. Gentleman also said that we were proposing to treat single people differently from married people because single people do not get supplementary benefit. Of course single people

      1607
      require different treatment, because they have no dependents who are innocent in any industrial dispute.
      In dealing with a partial disregard of strike pay, the Secretary of State held the view that a low disregard would discourage strikes. That suggestion shows an abysmal ignorance of what happens in industry and on the shop floor. This ignorance shone like a beacon throughout the whole Committee stage and in the earlier proceedings on the Bill. The only argument which the Secretary of State could adduce for refusing to maintain the present disregard of strike pay was that only a minority of people get strike pay. That is not relevant to the argument about what the disregard should be.
      The Secretary of State put forward a pretty poor case. His arguments fell when we listened to and answered them, and when one reads them one can see how weak they are. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State must be getting poor briefing, or perhaps they are not reading their briefs or thinking about the subject.
      The most interesting argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was that lower paid workers did not pay tax and their position would not be affected. This was misleading. If I were feeling mischievous, I would say that it was a mischievous comment. It is certainly untrue. One finds from the income tax tables that a married couple, with one child not over 11, with an income of £18 a week would be paying £41·85 tax in the tax year 1971–72. A person on strike for four weeks, not drawing anything for the first two weeks, would get back about one-third of the tax for this period. Clearly, they would be affected. So it is not only the higher paid who would benefit from maintaining the disregard at the present level but the people who are earning £18 a week and even less than that. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary persistently declare their sympathy with the lower-paid workers, yet they put forward arguments like this which are blatantly untrue.
      This is an entirely reasonable Amendment. We ask the Government to reexamine their souls, or, if they do not have souls, their minds, on this subject. Playing the game proposed in this part of the Bill certainly will not cut the num-
      1608
      ber of strikes. It will hurt innocent people, the wives and children of men who are involved in industrial disputes. No previous Government, whether Conservative or Labour, have taken up this posture and it is not a posture which the Government should be taking up in 1971 in this advanced community. The Government may have thought further about this subject since the Committee stage, but I have not much hope of getting acceptance of the Amendment, or even an answer.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Normally in debates on social security one finds hon. Members putting forward competing claims on all-too-limited resources to deal with particular needs. This is often done on an all-party basis, such as occurred in the campaign for the chronic sick and disabled, persons who, incidentally, received a more generous response from the present Government than they had ever experienced previously.
      On previous Amendments the Opposition have been urging competing claims for resources and have resisted every cut-back in benefits given out in the social security system because they think that high priorities are being eliminated by the Bill, although they have not been able to present very much in the way of argument.
      Mr. Alec Jones: The hon. Gentleman has not been here for half the time.
      Mr. Clarke: I have not perhaps been in the Chamber for as long as the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), but I have listened to as much as I can stand from the Opposition benches, with convenient intervals, during the afternoon.
      It cannot be claimed on this Amendment that a high social priority is being defended by the Opposition. This Amendment seems to give the game away as to why such pressure is being maintained by the Opposition. This Amendment makes it clear that so far as the Labour Party is concerned nothing is to be allowed to compete with the demands of organised labour, particularly when it is involved in industrial action. Hon. Members opposite often speak passionately about social policies and express a genuine concern about the aged, the sick and the disabled in terms of social security, but on this Amendment they

      1609
      are urging the case that the battalions of organised labour, who are now in a privileged position when on strike, should be treated in a special way in relation to supplementary benefit.
      In the present situation of social policy supplementary benefit is the main weapon in a somewhat inadequate armoury, until rather larger-scale measures are taken to deal with poverty. It is a means-tested benefit which goes to those in the worst position in society, and the Supplementary Benefits Commission often steps in literally to save from starvation some of the most inadequately paid and inadequately maintained people in society.
      The Amendment seeks to preserve a situation in which the Supplementary Benefits Commission, acting in a manner that was never intended by Parliament, seeks to benefit the better-off striker—I use that term comparatively—by giving him generous treatment in the form of supplementary benefit by allowing a disregard, which is now to be stopped. The Amendment seeks to continue a unique situation which involves the presumption that the more one earns and the less one needs assistance, the more one is entitled to draw from the Government. Those are not my words, but the words of the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who, of course, was the previous Labour Front Bench spokesman on this subject, but who lately has been most effectively attacking what hon. Members opposite are seeking to defend in this Amendment.
      It is no good the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) glossing over the fact that a limited category of better-off and organised strikers will alone benefit from the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a figure of £18, and because of the change at the lower end of the tax scale, for which the previous Government were responsible, tax now starts to be paid by some people at a very low level indeed. However, it will be the majority of better-off strikers who will benefit from this Amendment, if those strikers are well off enough to qualify for P.A.Y.E. refunds. They are either well off enough to be in a privileged position for P.A.Y.E. refunds to be disregarded up to £4.35, or they are in receipt of strike pay which
      1610
      is disregarded to the same level. The people who will be affected by the Amendment will tend to be those people involved in organised trade unions who when on strike will have the backing of a powerful union which can give them strike pay.
      The other category of people the Amendment will seek to protect is those who take part in long strikes. Supplementary benefit cannot be claimed until a strike has continued for 11 days. What is being defended by this Amendment is the position of those people who either qualify for P.A.Y.E. refunds or who are getting strike pay and also take part in a strike which has lasted for at least a fortnight. For that reason the Opposition are not urging any social priority. They are backing the big battalions of people who indulge in long strikes, with an organised trade union behind them, and they want to preserve the position in which supplementary benefit is paid on a more generous scale than Parliament ever intended in relation to those people. The Amendment fits somewhat ill into the generality of the Opposition's thinking in social security matters.
      I had the doubtful privilege of serving on the Standing Committee on this Bill. It has been interesting today to see the slight difference in the case urged by the hon. Member for Rotherham, speaking officially for his party, and the case put forward in Committee by hon. Members, who are not present at the moment, urging their interpretation of what the Labour Party would like to happen. Although the hon. Member for Rotherham simply wants to preserve the position whereby the striker is not entitled to benefit on his own account but that only his family is so entitled, with disregards being allowed on certain matters, that was not the demand being made by his hon. Friends in Committee. They did not at any stage accept the basic principle, which was accepted by both Front Benches, that a man on strike is not entitled to supplementary benefit. They saw this anomaly as a useful step on the way to getting supplementary benefit for the assistance of those on strike.
      I do not want to attack any particular Member in his absence. I would only refer to the fact that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and

      1611
      Salford, West (Mr. Orme) at no time conceded that supplementary benefit should be denied to strikers. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Salford, West was examined on his view, he said that if an amendment were wanted to enable strikers to get the full supplementary benefit, he would be only too glad to oblige. That is why hon. Members opposite defend this anomaly. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who see the use of supplementary benefit as a valuable support for militant industrial policy such as we have seen.
      Mr. Skinner Mr. Skinner indicated assent.
      Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) nods agreement.
      Mr. Skinner: There are two sides to every strike.
      Mr. Clarke: But this is using public money in support of a militant industrial policy which hon. Gentlemen opposite are anxious to defend. It is no good the hon. Member for Rotherham saying that this makes no difference to the length or number of strikes. It would be preposterous to pretend that the Amendment provides any barrier to industrial action. Hon. Members opposite seek to defend such action and they want to keep the position that way. This may be only a marginal contribution to the strength of a strike and its unity but anything which makes a financial contribution to a strike and makes the position of a striker that much better during the strike, is a contributory factor in the situation.
      A union would not pay strike pay if that financial support did not assist its members The supplementary benefit paid in this unintended way by a long-standing practice which it is difficult to justify plays some part in using public money to maintain industrial actions for longer than would otherwise have been the case.
      Mr. Skinner: This speech should be circulated in Nottingham.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Clarke: I should be glad of the hon. Member's assistance in publicising my views to my constituents.
      But if this small amount of public money is used to support industrial action by the big organised unions in a long strike, it is our opinion—not the opinion
      1612
      of the wild men, I might say—that it is the less socially desirable strikes which will benefit. There is no field in which there is less justification for using public money than long strikes by big unions with organised bargaining power.
      Some hon. Members opposite with more extreme views have been backing up every inflationary, pure wage demand strike since Christmas, and public money is being used to support the very sort of strike which does most harm to the disabled, the low wage earner, the person on supplementray benefit and other beneficiaries for whom the Commission should be working. So, despite the way in which the hon. Member for Rotherham concluded, I hope that the Government will not weaken but will acknowledge that this part of the Bill has to be defended and that we think that a most valuable change is being made and a long-standing abuse ended,
      Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) moved the Amendment with great brevity, and I shall speak in like manner—particularly after the bold and sound speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke). I am sure it will do him nothing but good if hon. Members opposite give his speech wide publicity in his constituency.
      Fair-minded people, on whichever side of the political frontier, will agree that the present arrangement, which is in defiance of Parliament's expressed will in Section 10 of the Ministry of Social Security Act—namely, replacing strikers' personal requirements, which the Act disallowed—is very unpopular with every part of the population.
      The hon. Member for Rotherham accused us of responding to hysteria and quoted the Secretary of State. So I shall have no hesitation in quoting his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). We are, in fact, responding to his considered and balanced views in the New Statesman of 4th September, 1970:
      "Since I believe Sir Keith is a man of principle … let him turn … to the present extraordinary rules for income tax refunds for strikers. For many years, the law has been interpreted as requiring the Commission to disregard these refunds in assessing the needs of the striker's family. This mainly benefits

      1613
      the higher paid worker … Quite apart from its economic effect in encouraging strikes and its outrageous social implications, the gravest doubts were voiced in the highest legal circles a few months ago about the legality of this interpretation of the law."
      All we are doing is ensuring that the legality of the law is accepted and promulgated and is firmly upheld, that the outrageous social implications of the present arrangements are swept away, and that we do not concentrate benefits on the higher-paid workers.
      The hon. Member for Rotherham took a rather dangerous line, against the background of poverty being alleged to be relative, in saying that the tax guillotine now comes down so low for the average working man that tax refunds occur at low levels of income. Let him be reassured. We believe that the tax threshold, as a result of six years of Socialism, is intolerably low, and we are prepared to recognise the relativity of poverty by deliberately and systematically raising this threshold so that, increasingly, more and more people will not have to pay tax. Therefore, increasingly, the benefits of the present arrangements will be concentrated—unless we accept the Bill as it stands—upon a diminishing range—
      Mr. Charles Loughlin Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West) rose—
      Mr. Alison: I see the hon. Member cooking up a serious Opposition argument here, but poverty is relative, and if the present arrangement exists, tax refunds will be made available to sustain a group of people who will be held increasingly to be the most prosperous.
      The law as promulgated by successive Governments must stand, and we can think of no argument which can be put against it by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) in two minutes which can deflect us from our firm assurance that the Bill is both equitable, fair and bipartisan. We hope that the House will unhesitatingly accept the Bill as it stands.
      Mr. Loughlin: If I spoke on this subject for 102 minutes, I would make not the slightest impression on the Under-Secretary. I am always amused when he quotes statements made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—
      Mr. Skinner: Tricky Dicky.
      Mr. Loughlin: I could not care two hoots—
      Mr. Skinner: Nor could I.
      Mr. Loughlin:—about the speeches and statements of my right hon. Friend.
      I was not preparing an intellectual argument. I am far too modest. I wanted to deal only with two points. One was the lion. Gentleman's criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) about the tax threshold. My hon. Friend was, in fact, rebutting an argument used in Committee and by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) today—that the Amendment would merely assist the higher paid on strike. My lion. Friend said that: a man with a family, with a child over 11, would be caught under the tax threshold if he were earning over £18 a week.
      The Under-Secretary said that that was an indictment of the Labour Government and that at a subsequent date the Conservatives would raise the threshold. That is all very well, but he did not deal with the fact that until it is raised the lower-paid will be caught. In other words, until the threshold is raised, the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham is completely valid.
      The hon. Member for Rushcliffe stated his case with clarity and lucidity but, as with the speeches of his hon. Friends, one gets the impression that he and his colleagues believe in the guilt of the striker—that whenever a strike takes place, the strikers are always at fault. If the hon. Gentleman had had any experience of industry, as he is likely to have in the coming years, he would know that there is never a strike in which either the workers or management are totally to blame.
      Mr. Skinner: That is not right. You will have to modify that, Charlie.
      Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend's friendly intervention shows that we have different experiences in the trade union sphere. I have been active in trade union affairs since I was 18 and I will remain active in them until I die. I was a full-time trade union official for a number of years. My experience is that even when the workpeople are ostensibly to blame for a strike, the guilt is never always on

      1615
      one side and that even in those circumstances management must accept part of the responsibility.
      The logic of the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Rushcliffe is that, although there may be guilt and innocence among those who will be affected by this legislation, the Government are right to apply a rule of thumb law and say "Whether you be innocent or guilty, the same sanction will apply to you." That is a denial of any kind of equity, and if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to circulate his speech among his constituents and debate the matter, I will be prepared to discuss it with him in his constituency whenever he likes. If the Government are accepting the principle that, innocent or guilty, the sanction shall apply, heaven help us in our approach to social security matters.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. O'Malley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) on having made his first speech on this subject, at any rate since the beginning of the Committee stage. I agree with the Under-Secretary that he made a bold speech, but it was the sort of boldness that loses marginal seats. In my view, the hon. Gentleman started on the wrong premise and, therefore, inevitably came to the wrong conclusions.
      The Under-Secretary adduced only two arguments. The first was about the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and in that the hon. Gentleman merely demonstrated that once my right hon. Friend had left office, sight was lost of the fact that not only the higher-paid would benefit from our proposals.
      I have deliberately obtained copies of the tax tables to examine this exercise. It is clear that many families on very
      modest incomes indeed would, after a lengthy strike, benefit from the Amendment.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the tax tables he will discover that the lower paid also get a big advantage. Because of the way the P.A.Y.E. system works, there is a build-up and the amount of tax that goes back at an early stage, after April, is not high for the lower paid, whereas for the higher-paid it rises very steeply, and within a few weeks there can be a greater build-up. It is clear, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was arguing a strong point.
      Mr. O'Malley: That is not so. It is at about the half-yearly point, between October and April, that a person in that situation is most advantaged. In other words, the lower-paid worker would at that half-yearly point benefit from our proposals.
      The Under-Secretary made a new point when he talked of the intention to raise the tax threshold. That is precisely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) did in his last Budget when he took 2 million people out of taxation. Even if the Government were to raise the threshold—even at a time of rapid inflation, which they are apparently unable either to cure or to control—that would be of little help simply because every year fewer people would benefit.
      It is clear that there is no meeting of minds between the two sides of the House on this issue, and I therefore, without further ado, urge my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 246.

      Division No. 418.]

      AYES

      [8.18 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Albu, Austen

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cant, R. B.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

      Allen, Scholefield

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Booth, Albert

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Ashley, Jack

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Ashton, Joe

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Bradley, Tom

      Cohen, Stanley

      Barnes, Michael

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

      Coleman, Donald

      Barnett, Joel

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Beaney, Alan

      Buchan, Norman

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Cronin, John

      John, Brynmor

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Davidson, Arthur

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

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      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.

      Judd, Frank

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dempsey, James

      Kelley, Richard

      Probert, Arthur

      Doig, Peter

      Kerr, Russell

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lambie, David

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Latham, Arthur

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lawson, George

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Dunn, James A.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Leonard, Dick

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Roper, John

      Ellis, Tom

      Lipton, Marcus

      Rose, Paul B.

      English, Michael

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Evans, Fred

      Loughlin, Charles

      Sandelson, Neville

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

      Foot, Michael

      McBride, Neil

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Ford, Ben

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sillars, James

      Forrester, John

      McGuire, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackie, John

      Small, William

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Maclennan, Robert

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ginsburg, David

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Golding, John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Gourlay, Harry

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

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marquand, David

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Marsden, F.

      Strang, Gavin

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mayhew, Christopher

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

      Hamling, William

      Mcacher, Michael

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

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mendelson, John

      Tinn, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Millan, Bruce

      Torney, Tom

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Tuck, Raphael

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

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

      Hilton, W. S.

      Molloy, William

      Wallace, George

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Watkins, David

      Horam, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Weitzman, David

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Moyle, Roland

      Whitlock, William

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ogden, Eric

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Oram, Bert

      Janner, Greville

      Orme, Stanley

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Oswald, Thomas

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

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

      Paget, R. T.

      Mr. James Hamilton

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Palmer, Arthur

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bowden, Andrew

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Brains, Bernard

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bray, Ronald

      Churchill, W. S.

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Brewis, John

      Clark William (Surrey, E.)

      Astor, John

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Clegg, Walter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bryan, Paul

      Cooke, Robert

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

      Cooper, A. E.

      Balniel, Lord

      Buck, Antony

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Batsford, Brian

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Cormack, Patrick

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Burden, F. A.

      Costain, A. P.

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

      Critchley, Julian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Crouch, David

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Curran, Charles

      Boscawen, Robert

      Channon, Paul

      Dean, Paul

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Chapman, Sydney

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      1618

      1619

      Dixon, Piers

      Knox, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Lane, David

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      du Cann, Rt. Hn, Edward

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

      Eden, Sir John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Rost, Peter

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

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Royle, Anthony

      Eyre, Reginald

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

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Farr, John

      Longden, Gilbert

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fell, Anthony

      Loveridge, John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Luce, R. N.

      Sharples, Richard

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Mac Arthur, Ian

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Simeons, Charles

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McLaren, Martin

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Fowler, Norman

      McMaster, Stanley

      Skeet, T. H. H.

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

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

      Gardner, Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Soref, Harold

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Maddan, Martin

      Speed, Keith

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Madel, David

      Spence, John

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Sproat, Iain

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Marten, Neil

      Stainton, Keith

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gorst, John

      Maude, Angus

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Gower, Raymond

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Stokes, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Green, Alan

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Gurden, Harold

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

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Moate, Roger

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Molyneaux, James

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Temple, John M.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Haselhurst, Alan

      More, Jasper

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Havers, Michael

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Tilney, John

      Hicks, Robert

      Mudd, David

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Murton, Oscar

      Trew, Peter

      Holland, Philip

      Neave, Airey

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Hornby, Richard

      Normanton, Tom

      van Straubenzee, W, R,

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Nott, John

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Waddington, David

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hunt, John

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Wall, Patrick

      James, David

      Peel, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Percival, Ian

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Jessel, Toby

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Jopling, Michael

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wilkinson, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Kilfedder, James

      Raison, Timothy

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Worsley, Marcus

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Redmond, Robert

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton. E.)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Kinsey, J. R,

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Kirk, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Kitson, Timothy

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Mr. Hector Monro and

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Mr. Tim Fortescue

      Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 3, line 29, leave out:
      '(whether paid to him or not) to which, while'
      and insert 'which, while he is'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It will be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discuss Amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 32.
      Mr. Alison: I am sure that that will be convenient, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The two Amendments fulfil an undertaking which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), which can be found in columns 161 and 162 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Standing Committee proceedings. Their effect is to ensure that persons whose tax refunds have to be

      1621
      taken into account in assessing supplementary benefit shall have them taken into account only where they are available. This was an area of uncertainty about which we were anxious to reassure the right hon. Gentleman, and to safeguard.
      We still have as the final safety net, as it were, in this contingency, the benefit of the discretionary powers of paragraph 4, Schedule 2, of the Ministry of Social Security Act, but in response to what the right hon. Gentleman said we have tried to make assurance double sure by these Amendments. I hope that the House will find the Amendments acceptable, and agree that they will, as we feel, secure the cast-iron reassurance which the right hon. Gentleman sought.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Prentice: I thank the Under-Secretary for meeting the point. We are grateful for small mercies. We shall be much more grateful if we get some more substantial mercies and if some of the larger points we raised can be met by the Government.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 7, in page 3, line 32, leave out:
      'he becomes entitled (or would become entitled' and insert 'become available to him (or would become available to him'.—[Mr. Alison.]
      Mr. Prentice: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 4, line 10, at end add:
      (6) Subsections (3) and (4) above shall not have effect if the person concerned was not participating in nor directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if with this Amendment we discussed Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 14, at end add:
      (11) This section shall not have effect if the person concerned was not participating in nor directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work.
      Mr. Prentice: One of the difficulties that we face in discussing the Bill in public is the relative success of the smokescreen that has surrounded its real provisions. In a very effective debating speech on the last Amendment, the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth
      1622
      Clarke) spoke against the use of public funds, as he put it, to back up strikes.
      Many people throughout the country imagine that that is the sole effect of Clauses 1 and 2, that in some way they withdraw an unreasonable subsidy from strikers. I will not go into the merit of the use of these provisions regarding strikers. Many people have failed to recognise, however, that we are talking here about strikers' families and are in effect reducing the standard of living of people who are below the supplementary benefit threshold by £3·35 a week and also—this is the subject of the Amendment—we are similarly penalising the families of considerable categories of non-strikers.
      The Amendment attempts to alter that position. The position as the Bill stands is the same position as that followed in the main legislation affecting unemployment and supplementary benefits. There are six categories of people who are disqualified from receiving the main benefits in the event of a trade dispute at their place of employment—those who are participating in the dispute, which may be a lock-out and not a strike; those who are directly interested in the dispute; those who are financing the dispute; and anyone in a grade or class of workers any of whom are participating in or directly interested in or financing the dispute.
      This rule in terms of the main legislation is no longer seriously defended by anyone. I am sure that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that his own Department, then the Ministry of Social Security, gave evidence to the Donovan Commission in favour of a change in the law so as to remove four of those six categories. That would have confined the disqualification to those who are participating in the dispute or those who are directly intereted in it. The Labour Government proposed to implement that recommendation.
      Sir K. Joseph: I must be being very dense this evening. The right hon. Gentleman said that there were six categories and then mentioned only three.
      Mr. Prentice: I am sorry to have to go through them again—those participating in the dispute, those directly interested in the dispute, those financing the dispute, and those in any grade or class of workers any of whom are doing any of

      1623
      those three things. It is three multiplied by two which equals six. The Donovan recommendation was to remove the disqualification on all those except persons participating in or directly interested in the outcome. As I said, it was a recommendation which arose from a lot of advice which the Donovan Commission had had, including advice from the Ministry of Social Security. The Labour Government had legislation in hand to implement that change.
      The right hon. Gentleman went some way, I think, to meet the arguments on this question in an interesting intervention in Committee. He told the Committee about conversations which he had had with representatives of the T.U.C. on the previous day, and he said that he had given an undertaking to them to this effect:
      "I would … talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment later in the year, after some months, when we see what the strike climate is, in order to reconsider again the Government's view on the Donovan recommendations."
      So, apart from the argument between us tonight, the House would, I think, welcome further news of any progress which may have been made in the Government's thinking on the question.
      Our case on the Amendment is simple. We are against the existing provision in the main legislation. We consider that it ought to be reformed according to the Donovan proposals. But, in view of the merits of the case, it is outrageous to extend further disqualifications to the families of people who are not participating in or directly interested in the trade dispute.
      The best that the Secretary of State could do in Committee was to say:
      "We believe that treating the grade and class group in the same way as those primarily involved in trade disputes is a minute—perhaps very slender—additional safeguard against irresponsible trade disputes, and we must adhere to that opinion for the moment."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 25th May, 1971; c. 259–60.]
      In what way is it an additional safeguard? The only meaning that can be attached to that argument is that the Government are saying that they want to hit at strikers not only through their own families but through the hardships of the families of their workmates who are not
      1624
      participating in the strike. This is a mean, petty and completely unjustifiable position to take. It is bad enough to try to put on pressure through the families of those participating in the dispute itself, but to put on the indirect pressure which arises from taking away up to £3·35 a week from the families of non-strikers, families who have already qualified for supplementary benefit by proving their need and proving that their family resources fall below the threshold, is particularly mean and petty, and it is an indication of the Government's abject failure in the whole field of industrial relations.
      Mr. Jeffrey Archer: First, I apologise to the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) for being a few minutes late. I was elsewhere on the other side of the building and could not get here soon enough.
      I speak on this Amendment because it concerns the provision of benefits for those who, while not participating in a strike, are laid off because of it and who cannot draw unemployment benefit because of a weird series of exclusions, some of which have no place in the social security law of the 1970s. Because the Amendment recognises the inequalities of some of these exclusions and the Bill itself does not, I have to say that I shall not be able to support my right hon. Friend in his desire to have the Amendment rejected, and if the Opposition divide the House I shall abstain.
      As it stands, so far as it penalises men who have gone out on strike of their own volition the Clause is fair. But it catches men whose connection with the strike is, to say the least, tenuous. It catches men like a constituent of mine, a Mr. Wales. Mr. Wales is 63 years of age. He has been a member of his union, and he has served his union and his three employers, for 47½ years. He has been on strike only once in that entire period, in the 1930s. He is a blacksmith, whose union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, is not on strike, but the branch of the Boilermakers Union in his factory is, and because its members are in what are called like trades he has been temporarily laid off.
      He is a man of 63 who has given 47 years' service, with just one strike. He came to see me and told me that his

      1625
      income would fall from £25·50 to £9·15 because other men were going on strike. The local section of his union had made an agreement at the beginning of the year, immediately and efficiently, and therefore he naturally wanted to return to work. I have heard arguments from some of my hon. Friends that in a situation like that it is good to penalise such a man because that makes the others go back to work quickly. I find that argument totally unconvincing, first, because to a man of 63 the thought that he may eventually be able to return to work is no compensation.
      In many ways more important, the man cannot apply for unemployment benefit. That is the crux of the situation. He is not unemployed of his own choice. He would be working if he could, but because other men have gone on strike he does not have the choice.
      The basis for exclusion from unemployment benefit is that a strike takes place in the same works or department as the man who is laid off, and that he is a member of the same trade as the strikers and therefore may be said to have financial gain. The man about whom I am speaking will have no financial gain at all. He has made his agreement weeks before and is waiting to go back to work.
      Mr. Keith Stainton: I have had an identical case in my constituency. Is not the present position that unemployment benefit is completely disallowed, even under the legislation of the previous Government?
      Mr. Archer: That is right. But it would be unfair not to mention that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme) fought very hard over that point with the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), when he was Secretary of State, but failed. It does not make it any less of a case because when we have come into government we have not done what the Opposition failed to do. I have no praise for the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Coventry, East also failed to understand the case, and did not help my hon. Friend's constituent. Equally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not helping my constituent. I oppose him tonight in the same way as the hon. Members for
      1626
      Walton and Salford, West opposed their right hon. Friend. There is no difference. It is just that your problem has become our problem—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I have no such problems at this moment, fortunately for me.
      Mr. Archer: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always known that you have absolutely no problems. It is my Minister who has problems, and one of them will be me. The present law is based on an assumption that there is a special relationship or community of interest between a group of workers identified by a grade or class.
      8.45 p.m.
      I want to say here that the leader of the union I have dealt with, Mr. Hurst, has been totally honourable and first class in dealing with the men who have been out of work. At this time in the history of the Conservative Party and of the reaction created by the Industrial Relations Bill, I want to say what a pleasure it has been to work with him and what a credit he is to the trade union movement. Whichever side we are on, I believe that we should all be much better off with better union relations with the people who do the job.
      Mr. Dan Jones: I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Believe me, most trade unionists are like that if they can be encouraged.
      Mr. Archer: I accept that entirely. My experience in this case has been wonderful. Mr. Hurst has put himself out to tell me what are the arguments that will be put against me and what are the weak grounds of the case I am putting. He has done all in his power to avoid my standing here unqualified to put the case.
      Let me put a case which comes nearer home. We are all Members of Parliament. As back benchers, we are all on a salary of £3,250 a year. What if that mob over there decided to strike for more pay? I could not blame them. But supposing we on this side then discovered that, because of the strike by hon. Members opposite, we were classed with them. We would be brought down to £1 000 or £750 a year because of the inadequacy

      1627
      of the Labour Party. Were that to happen, I suggest that my right hon. Friend would have this Amendment through so quickly that we would not know what was happening. I regret that he has not recognised the hardships caused to working men by the operation of this rule.
      I believe that we must realise that the Industrial Relations Bill does not go far enough. In it we are removing many of the gross anomalies which exist in the social security and industrial safety regulations, but we are only doing half the job. We shall never get the support of the worthy men on our side if we do not show that a claim as good as that of my constituent is treated with compassion.
      Compassion is the crux of the situation. I have been full of admiration for the way in which the Government have desperately attempted to do something about the finances of the country. But we spent considerable time at the last election saying that, coupled with this, we would show compassion. This Amendment shows compassion. It is the sort of thing that we should do as a party keen to show that we are with the workers and the trade unions when they are in trouble.
      My right hon. Friend has a reputation as a fair and compassionate man. I therefore find it hard to understand why he opposes the Amendment. It would, I admit, be only an interim measure until the whole question of the availability of unemployment benefit is fully considered, but it would be an interim measure that would show good will. If we are not willing to show good will to men such as Mr. Wales, I shall have to abstain tonight.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: It is always encouraging to hear any hon. Member defy his own Front Bench, although I must admit that I did not like the disrespectful way in which the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) referred to Opposition Members as "that mob over there". I do not mind when I use that' "expression about that lot over there, but I object when it is used about me: I have more justification.
      Seriously, I hope that when he urges the House to reject the Amendment, as
      1628
      I presume he will, the Secretary of State will go a little further than the assurance which he gave in Committee. I draw his attention to the specific case of Burroughs, a large employer in the new town of Cumbernauld. I am not a trade union sponsored Member and some of my hon. Friends have much more detailed knowledge than I of the sometimes mysterious working of large unions, such as the A.E.F., when there is a long dispute.
      There is a serious dispute in Cumbernauld, serious in its effect on Burroughs and on the new town, but it involves only the manual workers and an A.E.F. agreement. In the course of the dispute, members of the Clerical and Administrative Workers' Union were suspended, as were members of DATA. The test case for unemployment benefit for the former has been satisfactorily dealt with in their favour, because theirs is a separate agreement and they are clerical workers, but the DATA, case has not yet been settled, although it has been under consideration for some eight weeks. I do not wish to go into the details of the arguments and I give this example merely to indicate that this is a problem which arises because of the increasing size of the trade unions.
      The Transport and General Workers' Union is even worse in this respect than the A.E.F. There is very little common interest between various sections of some unions now because of the size of the unions. In this instance, a group of people, draughtsmen, are covered by a separate agreement. They cannot remotely stand to benefit from any settlement made with the manual workers, other than in the sense that anyone who gets a wage increase must affect someone else who at some time looks for a wage increase. The fact that in this instance they are in the same factory only makes it more difficult to sort out.
      No one underestimates the difficulty of solving this sort of problem, but I hope that the Secretary of State will go slightly further than he did in Committee and will assure us that this difficult problem will be closely examined.
      Mr. Orme: We all appreciated the courageous speech of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) and the forthright manner in which he put his

      1629
      case, even if we did not agree with every sentence. He categorised the problems as they now exist in industry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I and others constantly raised this issue with the Labour Government. The T.U.C. submitted evidence on the subject to the Donovan Commission, which accepted the T.U.C.'s view and said in its report that the grade and class disqualification from benefit should be abolished—a strong independent opinion in favour of a change.
      Nobody can justify a worker not receiving benefit because of a grade or class disqualification simply because colleagues are involved in what may not be a strike but a lock-out. It is not the size of unions and their complexities which causes the problem, but the complexity of industry itself, with its overlapping and the fact that one grade of workers, perhaps far from the point of the strike, may rely on others to provide materials, and there may be many such links.
      The Minister was honest enough to concede that the argument we are putting is right. He said that he could not accept it at this time because he felt that it was not the right time to introduce the change. His fear was that it might have political repercussions for his party and affect the attitude which many in his party take towards trade unions. That is the only reason we can attribute for the Minister's statement. I am convinced that a Labour Government would have introduced it if they had been returned. The Government have an opportunity to remove the anomalies. They have not done so, although the case is overwhelming. It has been made from both sides of the House and I hope that, if the Minister will not accept this, my hon. Friends will divide and that we will continue to press until this anomaly is removed. It is an absolute injustice to industrial workers. Workers who come up against this feel that it is a tremendous injustice and that it ought to be removed. We ought to make a start in the House this evening.
      Sir K. Joseph: The disqualifications which are the subject of this debate were introduced by the Labour Government in 1948 in the National Insurance Act. They have remained, through a series of Conservative Governments
      1630
      and through the last two Labour Administrations. The new factor is that the Donovan Commission—and I do not think hon. Members will expect me to be expert on every detail of it—broadly accepted the argument that these disqualifications were no longer as relevant as they had been.. As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, I told the Committee that the Government were not altogether happy with the changes we were making to the rights of strikers and their dependants in Clauses 1 and 2. These are extended by the disqualification arrangements to those not directly involved in the trade dispute.
      This is not primarily in my domain. Therefore, I am not the minister who will have to make the main decision. I know enough to recognise that the problem is complicated by the factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown), that in large trade unions there are larger numbers of different crafts and classes of workers than in smaller trade unions. I recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) said, that there may be individuals, or large numbers of individuals, who want nothing more than to get back to work, who have no part in the institution of a trade dispute and who must regard the present arrangements as unjust. There is even in theory—and I emphasise it is theory—the position of the lockout.
      After accepting these different points of view as having some validity, I must emphasise that the reason why the Government do not feel able to accept the Donovan recommendation—and I am only speaking on this case because a by-product of that decision influences this particular legislation—is not as the hon. Member for Salford, West said, politically motivated. I have the greatest respect for the members of my party in the country, but I do not think that they are aware of the minutiae with which we are dealing, important though they are. This is not a political issue; it is an economic issue. I explained in Committee that the presence of numbers, large or small, of people suffering from a trade dispute without having played a part in initiating it may or may not be a factor in bringing the trade dispute to a close

      1631
      earlier or perhaps in avoiding it altogether.
      9.0 p.m.
      I am not telling my hon. Friend the Member for Louth that that is a perfect example of human justice. Very few human arrangements provide perfect examples of human justice. But the Government have to balance the slight possibility that here is, on the one hand, a restraint against trade disputes which damage the country and huge numbers of people, in many cases seriously, and an undoubted example of deeply felt injustice, on the other. It is this balancing which the last Government did and which the present Government are doing.
      On balance, and in the national interest, and for economic, not political, reasons, we have decided that the time is not ripe to bring in this change.
      Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is not being done for political reasons. But would he not agree that if he were to do this it would be seen in the country that people who had been laid off because of a strike would be getting benefit and it would be one of the arguments against strikers which members and supporters of his party are making such a fuss about.
      Sir K. Joseph: That was not why they took the decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on that because I was involved in the decision.
      Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Whether or not the Opposition accept it, I accept that the decision was not politically motivated. That thought had never crossed my mind. But to say that because the Labour Party did it when it was in power we should not do anything about it is not much of an argument for good law. We may as well keep the same Government the entire time.
      Sir K. Joseph: I shall learn one day not to give way so often. The argument to meet my hon. Friend's point is next in my notes.
      We felt unable, at a time when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was introducing his Industrial Relations Bill, to accept the
      1632
      Donovan recommendation because there happened to be at that time a great surge of trade disputes which was injuring the interests of the people, and it would have been a very rash Government which removed a restraint, even a small restraint, possibly even a notional restraint, on the surge of trade disputes. I am not using emotional words, but there was a surge of trade disputes which very adversely affected large numbers of people and from the influence of which the country is still seriously suffering.
      That is why we did not introduce this change and why the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has every reason for pointing out that the changes we are introducing for those involved directly in a trade dispute will affect some people who are not directly involved in it. But the reason remains valid.
      I undertook in Committee that later, when we can see the climate of industrial relations, I should discuss with my right hon. Friend whether it was time, subject to legislative opportunities, to move. This is no more than a commitment to consult my right hon. Friend whose prime responsibility this is. I repeat that commitment. I have not hidden from the House any ingredient of the decision-making process involved.
      Mr. Hugh D. Brown: There is the additional point about supplementary benefit, which is entirely a matter for the right hon. Gentleman. Even though he may wish to keep the existing law as it is, there is no reason to prevent his making a difference in the treatment given by way of supplementary benefit.
      Sir K. Joseph: But that would be to accept that the Donovan recommendations are right, valid and relevant at the moment, and that is a step that the Government are not yet ready to take. Moreover, it would marginally reduce a restraint which may have some relevance to the national interest. That is why I still harbour the hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendments. If he does, I hope that my hon. Friends will resist them.
      Mr. Prentice: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) supported the

      1633
      Amendment in the most powerful way possible, by quoting an individual case. That is always better than generalisations. I would point out to him that although the situation of his constituent may be unjust at the moment, if he and his family would otherwise qualify for supplementary benefit in this period the Bill will make his situation worse. It is a question not of maintaining an unjust situation but of extending it in a new direction. I hope that that fact may lead other hon. Members opposite to abstain from voting.
      The Secretary of State seemed in a very uncomfortable frame of mind. His fluency, which is usually quite remarkable, was absent. He even took refuge in saying that this was not primarily his responsibility. With great respect, it is his responsibility. This is a question of supplementary benefit and unemployment benefit, the rules for which are his responsibility.
      In the Bill the right hon. Gentleman is seen to be serving the purposes of the Government's policy on industrial relations. Many of my hon. Friends have pointed out that the Bill should be known as the Industrial Relations (No. 2) Bill. The Secretary of State has offered no defence of the existing situation, still less an argument for making the situation worse in regard to the categories which are the subject of the Amendment. He said that it was seldom possible to achieve perfect justice. We are not asking for that; we are proposing a modest Amendment to avoid extending an existing field of injustice. I am sure that my hon. Friends will want to vote against the Government, and we hope to have some support from the benches opposite.
      Mr. Anthony Fell: It is of little use for one of my hon. Friends to say, under his breath, "Oh, God!". I do not know who it was, and I do not care. I want to press my right hon. Friend to explain something a little more fully. Unfortunately, I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I do not know what went on in it. I did not read the Report. But one could not have sat here and listened to what has gone on for the past 20 minutes without becoming worried.
      1634
      My right hon. Friend says that he entered into certain commitments in Committee, about which he said something this evening. As I understand it, he said that he had given some sort of commitment to reconsider the question whether the surge of strikes that were going on at the stage when this proposal was turned down still pertained. May we be told a little more precisely what he means when he refers to a commitment? From what he said, it was a very frail commitment, and not easily explained. Does it have any weight? Either something will be done or it will not.
      If my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) was speaking the truth—and what he said seems to have been accepted by hon. Members on both sides, so I assume that he was—it would seem lo me that the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) was right to say that my right hon. Friend was not easy when he was speaking a few moments ago. So could my right hon. Friend give a little bit more of an assurance on this to those of us who have been listening so that we may be a little easier ourselves?
      Sir K. Joseph: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. Friend. The commitment is a very limited one. It is to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment at a later stage whether the industrial climate of the time justifies the Government in considering at a suitable legislative opportunity an extension of the Donovan recommendations. That would mean taking the risk of removing with the disqualifications what may be found to have been a small restraint on the number and length of trade disputes. That is the limit of my commitment.
      Mr. Fell: That sounds an extremely important commitment. Could not my right hon. Friend help just slightly more by being a little more specific about what he means by "later stage"? It could be next year or the year after or the year after that. Is it unreasonable to ask about this? I do not want to put my right hon. Friend in too difficult a position, but this puts us in a false position.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 246.

      Division No. 419.]

      AYES

      [9.11 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Albu, Austen

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Moyle, Roland

      Allen, Scholefield

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Ashley, Jack

      Hamling, William

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hardy, Peter

      Oram, Bert

      Barnett, Joel

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orme, Stanley

      Beaney, Alan

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Oswald, Thomas

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Healey, R. Hn. Denis

      Paget, R. T.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hilton, W. S.

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Horam, John

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Booth, Albert

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pendry, Tom

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Pentland, Norman

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Prescott, John

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Price, J T. (Westhoughton)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Price, William (Rugby)

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Probert, Arthur

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Janner, Greville

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Cant, R. B.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Carmichael, Neil

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roper, John

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Judd, Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Cronin, John

      Kelley, Richard

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Kerr, Russell

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

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

      Kinnock, Neil

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

      Dalyell, Tam

      Lambie, David

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Latham, Arthur

      Sillars, James

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Lawson, George

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Small, William

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Leonard, Dick

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Spearing, Nigel

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lipton, Marcus

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stallard, A. W.

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Loughlin, Charles

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Dempsey, James

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Doig, Peter

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Strang, Gavin

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      McBride, Neil

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      McGuire, Michael

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mackenzie, Gregor

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackie, John

      Tinn, James

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Ellis, Tom

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Tuck, Raphael

      English, Michael

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Varley, Eric G.

      Evans, Fred

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hon. E.

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Wallace, George

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

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

      Watkins, David

      Fletcher, Tea (Darlington)

      Marquand, David

      Weitzman, David

      Foot, Michael

      Marsden, F.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Forrester, John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Meacher, Michael

      Whitlock, William

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mendelson, John

      Willey, R. Hn. Fredrick

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Millan, Bruce

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Miller, Dr. M. S,

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Ginsburg, David

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Golding, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Molloy, William

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Mr. James Dunn.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Astor, John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Peel, John

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Havers, Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Awdry, Daniel

      Heseltine, Michael

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Hicks, Robert

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Balniel, Lord

      Holland, Philip

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Batsford, Brian

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Hornby, Richard

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Raison, Timothy

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Redmond, Robert

      Body, Richard

      Hunt, John

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Bowden, Andrew

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Braine, Bernard

      James, David

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Bray, Ronald

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Brewis, John

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Jessel, Toby

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Jopling, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rost, Peter

      Bryan, Paul

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Russell, Sir Ronald

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

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Scott, Nicholas

      Buck, Antony

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Kilfedder, James

      Sharples, Richard

      Burden, F. A.

      Kimball, Marcus

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

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Simeons, Charles

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Kirk, Peter

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Channon, Paul

      Kitson, Timothy

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Soref, Harold

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Knox, David

      Speed, Keith

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Lane, David

      Spence, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sproat, Iain

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Stainton, Keith

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Clegg, Walter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Cockeram, Eric

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

      Stokes, John

      Cooper. A. E.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Loveridge, John

      Sutcliffe, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Luce, R. N.

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Costain, A. P.

      Critchley, Julian

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

      Crouch, David

      MacArthur, Ian

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Crowder, F. P.

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Dean, Paul

      McLaren, Martin

      Temple, John M.

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Dixon, Piers

      McMaster, Stanley

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Tilney, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maddan, Martin

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Eden, Sir John

      Madel, David

      Trew, Peter

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

      Maginnis, John E.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Farr, John

      Marten, Neil

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Fell, Anthony

      Mather, Carol

      van Straubrnzee, W. R,

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Maude, Angus

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Mever, Sir Anthony

      Waddington, David

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Fortescue, Tim

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

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Fowler, Norman

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Wall, Patrick

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

      Moate, Roger

      Walters, Dermis

      Gardner, Edward

      Molyneaux, James

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      More, Jasper

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Goodhart, Philip

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wilkinson, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Gorst, John

      Mudd, David

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Gower, Raymond

      Murton, Oscar

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Gray, Hamish

      Neave, Airey

      Worsley, Marcus

      Green, Alan

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Normanton, Tom

      Younger, Hn. George

      Gurden, Harold

      Nott, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Onslow, Cranley

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Mr. Reginald Eyre and

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Mr. Hector Monro.

    Clause 2

      SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT PAID AFTER RETURN TO FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT FOLLOWING A TRADE DISPUTE TO BE RECOVERABLE IN CERTAIN CASES
      Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 21, leave out '£2.00' and insert '£3.00'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvey Anderson): I hope that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 21, leave out '£2.00' and insert '£4.00'.
      Mr. Alison: This Government Amendment implements a promise made in Committee about protected earnings, the level below which a person's income may not be reduced by the operation of post-dispute benefit recovery arrangements. It replaces £2 by £3 as the amount by which protected earnings are to exceed a former striker's supplementary benefit requirements
      Mr. O'Malley: During Committee the hon. Gentleman defended the proposals of the Bill as being entirely fair and reasonable and promptly agreed to move the figure from £2 to £3, and we are grateful for that. However, the protected earnings for a man, his wife and three children, one child over 5 and two between the ages of 5 and 10, have moved from £11·70 of £12·70. The figure is still low in view of the fact that some people have to meet mortgage repayments for which they can get no help from supplementary benefit. They therefore have acute problems which continue during the oft-work period. Therefore, although we would have preferred our figure to have been included in the Bill, we welcome this move from £2 to £3.
      Mr. Alison: Having weighed the arguments on both sides, I would point out that the figure originally was £2, the Opposition wanted the figure to be £4, and we have settled for £3. This is probably a fair result; it is a typical bit of British compromise. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that it remains a buoyant figure because it is automatically carried up by the regular upratings of supplementary benefit. Therefore, I trust that the figure of £3 will prove to be acceptable.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      FURTHER PROVISION FOR PREVENTING DUPLICATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY AND OTHER BENEFITS
      Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 6, line 18, leave out from '(1A)' to end of Clause and insert:
      An amount payable under paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1) above may, at the discretion of the authority administering, be abated so as to permit recovery to be made from arreas in replayment of corresponding supplementary benefit paid to the claimant's separated dependants.
      This Amendment relates to a difference of view about the purpose of Clause 3, on which we had a short debate during the Committee stage. This matter was set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill as follows:
      "Clause 3 slightly enlarges the scope of Section 16 of the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966 (which relates to the prevention of duplication of payments), so as to permit recoveries to be made from arrears of certain social security benefits in respect of supplementary benefit paid to the claimant's separated dependants."
      That sounds complicated enough. It is saying that the provision will close a loophole through which people are getting too much supplementary benefit for separated dependants. But the Clause itself contains 30 lines of very complex phraseology. It was these lines to which I took exception in Committee. The Under-Secretary kindly invited some Amendments to make it more simple. These words may not meet the need, but a Statute should be tied up as neatly as possible.
      In this case, the matter will be decided not in court but in a tribunal under the existing Acts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said, the introduction to the social security handbook says:
      "An exclusively legal approach to a non-contributory benefits scheme can only lead to a narrower and not broader concept of the 'rights' of claimants, since those rights are or should be social as well as legal. It will also tend to a more restrictive rather than a more generous or adaptable range of entitlement."
      The Clause as it stands not only cannot be understood on a brief reading or on any reading at all, but probably ties up the matter too tightly. Very little in my

      1641
      Amendment does not already appear in the Explanatory Memorandum, which is not printed in the Bill as amended, or in the Clause.
      The clause passes three tests which I would apply to any legislation of this sort. First, does the Clause clearly express its purpose? As written it does not, but with my Amendment it would. Second, does it show the basis on which its purpose shall be implemented? I suggest that the Clause as written does not, but my Amendment does. Third, does it give any latitude for interpretation in dealing with exceptional cases? The Clause as written ties it up far too tightly.
      We all know the case, either in court or in a tribunal, in which an exceptional situation arises, and it is argued out in court before the chairman or the president, who in the end has to say, "We are very sorry; you have a very good case, but, with the law as it is, you cannot have it". Then, we all say that the law is an ass. So in this sort of case, we need to give a little discretion to the authority administering the law, to provide for that exceptional case which no legislation can ever foresee.
      If the Clause is passed as it is, this is what will happen. It will be far clearer with my Amendment, because it will express the purpose as the Clause at the moment does not. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us why he cannot accept it, if he cannot. Perhaps the wording that I have suggested is not that which he would suggest. Perhaps if he accepts this principle, he will agree that it should be amended in this way in another place.
      Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has fairly responded to an invitation which we extended in Committee—that if he could find a refinement of terminology which would achieve the same object, we would look at it on Report. He has certainly produced a commendably brief version, but I am genuinely sorry to tell him that it falls short of what we have to try to secure in the Clause. I say "genuinely", because I share with other hon. Members the shock and horror of reading some of the legal jargon which has to go into statutory form to give law its precise and indisputable meaning and which invokes all the expertise of lawyers.
      1642
      9.30 p.m.
      In so far as the law must be precise and indisputable and not capable of any shadowy interpretation or meaning, the hon. Gentleman's proposal does not contain the necessary exactness, and it might help if I were to explain precisely what is necessary so that he has a chance to weigh carefully the words I am using when he reads them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and by that means he will see the exact extent to which the Amendment falls short in this respect.
      The Amendment does not, first of all, cover the Commission's power to determine the amount of supplementary benefit that would not have been paid—that is, if the person entitled to the insurance benefit had paid the dependency increase thereof over to the person drawing supplementary benefit. That is the first objection we have.
      Secondly, the provision as drafted in the Bill limits recovery to the extra amount of supplementary benefit payable as a result of the person claiming insurance benefit not having a dependency increase thereof, while under the Amendment it would be open to the insurance authorities to offset the whole amount of supplementary benefit paid to the dependant against the arrears of insurance benefit dependency increase.
      In these circumstances, and despite the commendable attempt on the part of the hon. Gentleman to introduce clarity with simplicity, I regret that he has still not satisfied the full rigours of the legal requirements in this matter. I therefore ask him to withdraw the Amendment because it would be to the disadvantage of all those involved if we do not maintain the necessary precision.
      Mr. Spearing: It would obviously be wrong of me to pursue this point at greater length tonight, though I may do so in another way in another place.
      The Under-Secretary persisted in mentioning the judiciary, despite the fact that it is extremely unlikely that this provision will be a question of dispute in a court of law. The Clause refers to the discretion of the administering authority. I should have thought that the exactitude to which the hon. Gentleman referred was almost self-defeating, but in view of the hour and his pleas, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      AMENDMENT OF QUALIFICATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT, SICKNESS BENEFIT AND INJURY BENEFIT
      Mr. Prentice: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
      Despite all the window dressing that has accompanied the Bill, the hard fact remains that Clause 7 is the main part of the Measure. It affects far larger numbers of people than any other part of the Bill simply because those who are sick, unemployed or industrially injured are a massive number compared with the relatively few people who are involved in industrial disputes.
      Clause 7 saves most of the money that the Bill will save. It will result in a net saving of £19 million of the £21 million that the Bill as a whole will save. This is part of the redistributive policy of the Government, taking away from those in need to give tax concessions to the well-to-do.
      We are, of course, against the whole Clause. We think it is totally wrong to deprive the sick and unemployed of three days of benefit to which they have always been entitled through their contributions. But that part of the Clause which refers to industrial injuries is, in a sense, the worst part of all.
      Part of the background is that industrial accidents have been increasing year after year. The last Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories, relating only to those forms of employment covered by the Factories Acts, gave a total of 322,000 accidents. It was the seventh successive year in which there had been an increase. It was a figure 50 per cent. higher than that six years earlier. Incidentally, the figures show that over the last decade we have lost six times as many days of working time through industrial accidents as we have through industrial disputes.
      We are not talking simply about industrial accidents or diseases in general. We think now particularly of those people who make their living in exceptionally dangerous industries. We think of the workers in the mining industry: it is some years ago since David Lloyd George spoke of "blood on the coal", but there
      1644
      is still some blood on the coal—not as much as there was, but still some. We think of the workers in the construction industry, in fisheries, on the docks, and in those industries where people are particularly liable to industrial accident, industrial disease, or both. Part of the price paid for the rest of the community now enjoying a more affluent standard of living than once it did is the heavy rate of casualties in industry, and in these industries in particular.
      We should also bear in mind that those who earn their living in the heavy manual industries often have no sick pay scheme or, if they have, it is a scheme often less favourable than that enjoyed by those in white-collar employment, who also lead a more sheltered existence.
      I therefore ask the House to consider that this is a particular form of obligation. The community has recognised this in several ways. Ever since the two main Acts came into effect in 1948 the allowance for industrial injuries has always been higher, for the sort of reasons I have mentioned. Also, when a man suffering from an industrial injury or disease has gone back to work, even full-time work, and has a continuing disability, he qualifies for a disability pension or various allowances. The treatment afforded to industrial casualties has been similar to that which we have given to the casualties of war: the rates of benefit and the rules concerning them have been broadly similar.
      The Clause creates for the first time a distinction, in that people suffering from industrial injuries will be deprived of half a week of benefit. I add the further point that when the Industrial Injuries Scheme came into effect in 1948 it took the place of the old workmen's compensation scheme, and there was much discussion at the time in the trade union movement about whether or not this was a good bargain. I believe that in most respects most trade unionists thought that it was a good bargain. There were certain aspects of the new scheme which were very much superior to the provisions of the old workmen's compensation scheme. But there were disadvantages, too; some people in some circumstances got less after 1948 than they would have done under the old workmen's compensation legislation. I like to think of this as a kind of bargain

      1645
      between the Government of the day—a Labour Government—and the trade union movement representing the casualties of industry; a bargain which has now been breached by this provision.
      What would be the cost of the Amendment? When I asked this in Committee, the Under-Secretary said that the cost of exempting industrial injuries and diseases from this provision would be about £3 million a year. Therefore, out of a total saving of £19 million the Government would, if they accepted our case, be sacrificing £3 million. My point is that at a moment when the Government are said to be seriously considering injecting into the economy large sums of extra spending power in order to try to revive the economy and create new employment opportunities, it would not be a bad idea to start with £3 million for those who have suffered industrial injury or disease. It could easily be afforded in this situation—a situation which is now probably different on that point from that when the Bill was originally drafted.
      We object to the whole Clause. We think it retrograde to deprive the sick and unemployed of the benefits to which they are entitled. But it is particularly mean, and hard to justify, to extend this disqualification to those who are the casualties of industry, to whom the House and the country owe a particular duty.
      Mr. J. D. Concannon: The last time I spoke on this issue was on 2nd April, 1968. In those days we had a more sympathetic Front Bench. My right hon. and hon. Friends who were then Ministers were prepared to tell their civil servants, "Stick this one back into the pigeon hole. We are not having this". Those who were then in Opposition and argued with us against our Front Bench and offered to take the whole Conservative Party into the Lobby with some of us against our Front Bench if it were necessary to carry the matter to a Division should act consistently tonight. However, thankfully, we managed to make our Front Bench see sense, and that provision was withdrawn.
      The first misconception that must be put right is that the Bill does not abolish the three waiting days. I wish it did, because this was the whole tenor of my argument in the last debate. I wanted the three waiting days to be abolished. The Secretary of State is retaining the
      1646
      three waiting days. The Government are taking the money away from those who are, and were, entitled to it.
      I had intended to quote some of the speeches which have been made by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and the hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley). However, I will refrain from doing so, because the speeches are there for people to read, and they make enlightening reading. In one interesting passage the noble Lord was pleading for people who were on a certain rate of pay, and he was telling them how much they would suffer, though at that time much depended on the size of the family.
      I want to put this matter into perspective. Only five years ago I was working in a coalmine and was having to suffer sickness benefit, unemployment benefit, and injury benefit. There are very few hon. Members opposite who have had to work that hard. I have four children. It is not then a case of £5 or £4 a week, which is the sum which the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison)—talked about in Committee. It is a much greater sum than that for many people. For me, three waiting days at present would amount to £7·11. The National Union of Mineworkers accepts that on average a miner is off work sick or injured 28 days a year. We cannot stand by and see breadwinners deprived of this amount by this provision. This is why we are fighting and why we hope to talk some sense into the Government, even at this late stage. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash would reply to the debate.
      Mr. Orme: We had him in Committee.
      Mr. Concannon: I want to have him tonight. He made an amazing speech on Tuesday, 15th June, when he talked about an average of £4 or £5 a week. Then we had a tirade about holiday pay, and so on. What has holiday pay to do with this matter, or is this another such effort as the Bill which is now going through another place? It all ties up with certain things which are being done in the Industrial Relations Bill about sick pay and redundancy pay.
      The Under-Secretary, when he was trying to put over this business about the

      1647
      three waiting days, said this in Committee of the mining and quarrying sector:
      "In this sector … 95 per cent. of full-time manual men workers are now covered by employers' sickness schemes."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F; 15th June, 1971, c. 368.]
      Not a coal miner in this country is covered. The sick pay scheme in coal mining does not start till after the sixth day. So the miners will lose on the three waiting days. In fact, coal miners have lost all ends up under this Government, and this is just another example of what is going on.
      9.45 p.m.
      I thought it brass-necked cheek of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash to make the quotation he did from one of my speeches. Incidentally, I am amazed that he should have done so, because I thought that it was only my mother and I who read them, but that is by the way. This is what he said:
      'the hon. Member for Mansfield said, Second Reading of the Family Allowances and National Insurance (No. 2) Bill…' I am for the abolition of the waiting days because they are no longer desirable. They restrict production and we can ill afford to do that these days '."—OFFICIAL REPORT Standing Committee F, 15th June, 1971; c. 376.]
      I do not mind him quoting that because that is my position, but it was disgraceful to quote it in the sense that I was agreeing with him that it should happen here when the whole tenor of my speech was the other way. I should not have minded so much if he had read the sentence before and the sentence after that passage. I shall read the whole piece to the House, if I can find it. I have so many quotations here that I cannot find it any too easily.
      Here is the whole quotation, so the House can see how the hon. Member took those two sentences out of context:
      "Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), I should like to see this incorporated from the very first day of sickness."
      Now comes the part I have already read—
      "I am for the abolition of the waiting days because they are no longer desirable. They restrict production and we can ill afford to do that these days."
      Now comes the next sentence:
      "But we should put something in the place of the waiting days."—OFFICIAL REPORT 2nd April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 247.]
      1648
      My argument always has been, and always will be, that the correct method of going about this and doing some justice for some of our most hard-working people in the most dangerous industries is to make sure that they are paid from the very first day. I took great offence at the way the hon. Member used quotations from my speeches in defence of the Government's proposal here. That is why I was hoping that he would be here to answer this debate himself.
      That is my position. I hope that the Secretary of State will be wise enough to take account of what I have said. Some of us have had to work in dangerous industries. Some of us have taken accidents and illness as a matter of course in our jobs. In those days I could ill afford to lose £7·11 for my first three days of sickness. I needed it for my family then, and they or people like me are much more in need of it now.
      It is no good complaining about mine workers putting in for high wage increases if the Government keep imposing things like this on them. On my calculations, over last year to this year mine workers would have to put in for £5 a week just to stand still, never mind anything else.
      I leave it at that. I hope that the Secretary of State, like the Minister in his place previously, will take this proposal away and stuff it back in the pigeonhole somewhere in his Department.
      Mr. Heffer: Every hon. Member on this side will agree entirely with everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon).
      I was working once with a fellow joiner on top of a movable scaffold on a building site. After I had got down from the scaffold I heard a cry and saw him clinging on to a rolled steel joist because the scaffolding had moved away. It was lucky that I was round and was able to get him down. Not all workers in the building trade are so lucky. Others could have a scaffold collapse and find themselves on the ground suffering from serious injury. In the building industry and the shipbuilding and ship repair industry the rate of accidents and injuries is very high, not always because workers are careless or employers are not carrying out safety regulations but in many cases because of the very nature of the job.

      1649
      When a man has served his apprenticeship in the industry and is earning his living in it, he knows that that is the risk he takes by working in it. Such workers are not millionaires for the risks they take, and they are the very people who suffer most because of short time, unemployment, sickness and industrial injuries. Yet the Government are taking away some of the rights and benefits they have enjoyed until now at the very moment when they require assistance.
      I said in Committee that the Secretary of State was an honest man. That is true, because he said there that the £19 million was supposedly being saved on the three days' sickness, unemployment and industrial injuries non-repayment after two weeks, and in this case the £3 million that will be saved purely for industrial injuries, because, "We had to keep our pledge to reduce taxation for the mass of the people". But the savings in taxation mean very little to the lowest-paid sections of workers, because they pay out more on school meals and milk, dental charges, prescriptions and so on. The list is as long as my arm, and I cannot give it all. The surtax payers, the friends of the Tory Party, are the ones who are really benefiting. The £3 million being saved goes to help keep the pledge to them. That is what the argument is all about.
      The workers in my industry, the building industry, get the worst end of the stick every time. They are in a sense the economic regulator, because when things are going badly economically they are out of work. They suffered unemployment more than any other section of the population under my Government, and suffer it even more under the present Government. I said in the House then—and I will never mince my words—that we allowed unemployment to rise too high, and my people suffered considerably. They also suffer from industrial injuries, and require assistance at the very time when it is being withdrawn from them.
      We must point out the hypocrisy of Conservative hon. Members. During the debates on the Bill introduced by my party the Opposition spokesman was the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), who said:
      "On Second Reading, I stated our position on behalf of the Opposition absolutely clearly. I said that it was our intention to vote against
      1650
      the Clause and that we would remove it, so far as we were able to, in Committee."—OFFICIAL REPORT 23rd May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 930.]
      But the Opposition did not mean it. They said it only because they were then in opposition. They were trying to buy votes. Now they bring in a Bill which does the opposite of what they said they would do. They are hypocritical in this matter. They will never be forgiven for it. The industrial workers—those in mining, building, engineering, shipbuilding, ship-repairing and other industries—who have to rely on these benefits will never forgive them for what they are doing. They might as well know now that they are stacking up votes against themselves at the next General Election.
      Mr. Eadie: I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who made a witty contribution about the robbery by the Government of the three waiting days. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is anger in the coalfields about this. If the Government fail to concede on this Amendment, the miners in their militancy will get this back in some other way. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred, on a previous Amendment, to people rushing the factory gates of one firm because, if they were a minute after time, they would lose a day. That applies to the miners. He described graphically how, inside that factory, the men were timed when they went to the toilet. The point is that such rushing to some extent causes a higher incidence of accidents. For many years, we have tried to persuade men that they were only punishing themselves by rushing to the pithead to get down the pit, because they became to some extent accident prone.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield, I have had some experience as a miner. It is not so long since I was working at the coal face. I have suffered some serious accidents. I was an invalid for almost two years at one time as the result of an accident. Before coming here, I was a brusher, which is a dangerous job, dealing with stone, taking roofs away, and so on. A brusher is constantly in danger. Yet the Government propose that men engaged in these dangerous and arduous occupations should be penalised if they have a family.

      1651
      This will penalise mine workers in particular. It is mean and petty and shows to some extent the class bias of the Government. They are so concerned about their friends, the surtax payers and their other supporters, that they are prepared to rob manual workers by this kind of proposition.
      I should have liked to give more illustrations of this mean, petty and vindictive action, but, in deference to the wishes of some of my hon. Friends, I will conclude by saying that the miners may be robbed of their three days, but, as their conferences are held and their decisions are made, the miners, if the Government dare to do this—
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Ordered,
      That the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Monro.]
      Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.
      Mr. Eadie:—will certainly take action as a union and through their Members of Parliament to make sure that what is stolen from them is returned to them and to all manual workers.
      Mr. E. Fernyhough: Last November when the Chancellor introduced his mini-Budget I said that that part of the statement which referred to the very problems which we are now discussing was the meanest and the most contemptible statement made at the Government Dispatch Box since 1931. I have no reason to think that that was extravagant language, because in all the social legislation since 1931 there has not been anything as mean or as contemptible as this.
      Besides being responsible for social security, the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for our health services. Let him go to any major hospital in any major industrial centre and visit the accident ward and see some of the burnt men, some of the men with broken backs, some with brain damage, and then let him say that he is proud that he is to withhold from such men and their wives and children the first three days of industrial injury benefit.
      1652
      Those of us who come from mining and industrial stock and have had to face this problem with our relatives year after year know that the accident itself, the recognition that a man has a disease itself, is a blow. But to save a paltry £3 million from those who are injured in creating the wealth of the country, the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to introduce legislation of this kind.
      This, too, is divisive legislation, because there are millions of people who will not be affected. No civil servant who falls off the stool and sprains his ankle or twists his knee will be affected: nobody says that he will take home less pay the week that that happens. Nobody says that it will happen to any local government employee.
      Mr. Skinner: Or Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Fernyhough: I am about to come to Members of Parliament. There is something indecent and immoral about any Member of the House of Commons, who will get his full pay if he has an accident, or is sick, voting that the victim of an industrial accident should not get any benefit for the first three days. If hon. Members have any moral character they ought not to take their parliamentary pay for the first three days when they are away sick. If they are prepared to go into the Lobby and support taking three days' pay from those who have been injured in creating the wealth of this country.
      I cannot think that the right hon. Gentleman can, on reflection, be proud of this. I can only hope that that compassionate society about which he ha/ spoken will be in evidence tonight and that he will have second thoughts on this and do justice to those who have been injured in the service of their country.
      I know that there is no hon. Member opposite who would apply this to the Armed Forces. If it were to be suggested that admirals, generals and so on who had met with an accident in serving their country should not get the first three days of their pay we all know what solidarity there would be in defence of such people! But we are dealing here with ordinary men and women who are entitled to this benefit. They did not go out to work to get injured; they were injured doing a job without which the

      1653
      country would be poorer. In these circumstances I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever other concession he will not make, this one should be made. Not to do so would be both mean and contemptible.
      Mr. Skinner: I am pleased to be able to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Fernyhough—[Laughter.] I have made one or two mistakes in this House but that is about the best. I meant the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough)—the place where the marchers come from. My right hon. Friend has taken away some of the things that I wanted to say, because as he pointed out, some of the people who are not affected by the three waiting days, and who never have been, are Ministers, civil servants and the very insurance officers who decide to disqualify those who are injured. Even the doctor who signs the certificate saying that a man is unfit for work as a result of industrial injury does not have to forgo any pay when he is sick. This provision will affect the vast majority of industrial manual workers. It will particularly affect miners who are suffering from chronic emphysema or from chronic pneumoconiosis. Those people will be affected by the iniquities of this Bill.
      It will also affect the miner who suffers from dermatitis. This disease occurs in an aggravated form every spring and autumn. I have dealt with thousands of these cases and taken them to the medical appeals tribunal. What this Clause says is that a miner could lose up to £9 a week, depending on the number of his dependants. One gets the impression from reading the reports of the Committee proceedings that the Tories believe that there is an element of abuse among people who claim industrial injury benefit. I want to set out the hurdles which every man who is injured, whether in a pit or in a factory, must jump in order to claim industrial injury benefit for the three waiting days. There are 10 of them.
      First, he must report the accident. If he is in the mining industry, that may create difficulty. There may not have been witnesses of the accident, which means that the employer can suggest to the insurance officer that there is an element almost of insecurity about the claim. The man must then go to the
      1654
      general practitioner or, if the case is severe, hospital. The general practitioner, having issued a certificate, is not bound to leave it at that. There is a little box at the bottom of the certificate saying, "Any other remarks". I know of several instances in which the doctor was not totally satisfied that the man suffering from, say, a slipped disc was genuine and so he wrote "R.M.O." In other words, although he is giving a certificate, he is saying to the insurance officer that he wants the man to be referred to the regional medical officer. The result is that the man must be subjected to this independent examination.
      Notwithstanding that, the man can be sent to the regional medical officer for an independent examination anyway. Men are picked out at random. That is another hurdle which the man with perhaps emphysema or dermatitis must face. It does not end there. The insurance officer, despite the overwhelming evidence, may decide, and in many cases does decide, to disqualify the man from receiving industrial injury benefit. The man can appeal. If he is working in a factory where there is no proper trade union organisation, the chances are that he will not appeal because he is frightened to death of the system. Where the workers are organised or there is a local "ombudsman" or trade union official to give advice and help, he may well appeal.
      If he appeals, and if he is to sustain his claim, he needs to provide in almost every case additional medical evidence, and in almost every instance someone must find the money for a consultant's fee to furnish the medical evidence. The local appeals tribunals are supposed to work fairly, but they rely on the decisions of the commissioners, which, in the main, whatever else hon. Members opposite may say, militate against the ordinary industrial worker. Having got to the local appeal tribunal, and by dint of the good efforts of his representative, the man might well succeed. But then the insurance officer can, despite the fact that the man believes he has succeeded in sustaining the injury claim, refer it to the commissioners again.
      Those are the 10 hurdles which a man who wishes to sustain an injury claim may have to jump in order to get the

      1655
      benefit of the three waiting days' provision. My description will, I hope, eliminate for all time the belief that there is any abuse except in a small minority of cases which escape the very severe scrutiny which a man must undergo in order to make his claim stick.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) talked about the miners' sick pay scheme. There is no such scheme that allows a miner to obtain sick pay from the first day. He does not get it until he has been off for a week. In Committee it was suggested time and time again by the Under-Secretary that 90 per cent. of the miners were covered by the scheme, but the only people in the mining industry who are covered are the officials and the upper echelons of management.
      I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer); one thing that is certain about this Bill—and the Tories would do well to remember it—is that every time an industrial manual worker goes home with a shattered leg, chronic emphysema or any one of the countless other injuries that manual workers sustain, every time he receives a certificate from the doctor, sends it to his local insurance officer, and finishes up on half-pay, he will remember and register his vote accordingly, in a much more substantial fashion than he did on the last occasion.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Alec Jones: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It has been a pleasure for all hon. Members on this side of the House to hear him, because he spoke from his own experience of industry. He showed, first, how weak the Government's case is and, secondly, how little they know about this matter. If we were discussing the Bill we should say that it is a mean and miserable Bill— but we are not allowed to talk about it. If we were discussing the Clause we should say that it is one of the meaner and more miserable Clauses—and we would say that subsection (2), which the Amendment seeks to delete, is the meanest and most miserable part of the Bill.
      The provision that we are proposing to delete is likely to save about £3 million
      1656
      for the National Injuries Fund. It is really not saving anything. It is really taking £3 million from the pockets of those who are least able to pay. That sum is being taken by a Government whose actions clearly indicate that they are anxious to give that money to those who are already better off.
      By this subsection the Government propose to take £3 million from men who are injured at work. This does not happen to other people who injure themselves at work. We have all heard of the story of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich to give to the poor. We now have the modern Tory version, whereby the injured are robbed to pay those who are already better off. Part of the Tory purpose—stated in some detail in the Conservative Party manifesto—was a determination to cut public expenditure. No one could deny that that was part of the manifesto on which the Conservatives fought the General Election.
      Even those who still want some reduction in public expenditure hardly believed that the cuts envisaged by the Tory Party would be cuts in industrial injury benefit paid to men who had sustained accidents at work. Those who supported the Conservatives did not realise it—even many hon. Members opposite. We have heard from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke)—who made one intervention and rapidly departed from the Chamber-that the cancellation of payments for the first three waiting days for those on strike has always appealed to Tory minds, but I hope that a reduction in respect of the three waiting days for those who are sick has little appeal even for hon. Members opposite. The reduction of payment for the three waiting days for those who suffer injury at work can have no appeal to anyone who has a mind.
      What does the reduction in respect of the three waiting days do? Does it in any way prevent accidents? If one could make a case that it would prevent people from having accidents by making them more careful one could perhaps argue that there is something to be said for the proposal; but it does nothing of the sort. All it does is extract £3 million not only from those who suffer accidents but from the families of those who suffer accidents. It penalises families.
      Mr. Orme: The children.
      Mr. Jones: Yes, the children. It might be written on their tombstone when we bury the party opposite and the Government along with it.
      The Tory defence, which we have heard several times again today, is that a Labour Government proposed to do this sort of thing. The Tories can keep on saying that as many times as they like. It is true that the Labour Government proposed something of the sort, but the greater Labour movement soon disposed of it. It is a matter of great pride to us that our Government saw the wisdom of being prepared to take advice from outside the House from people who knew more about it than even the Labour Government.
      Mr. Orme: And advice from inside.
      Mr. Jones: Yes, from inside the House too, but I was too modest to refer to the part played by my hon. Friends and I wanted to remind the House that the advice came from outside the House also, from people who wanted that proposal changed. They want this squalid proposal changed, too.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover pointed out, the loss of industrial injury benefit for the first three waiting days will not apply to everyone, because some employers will pay from the very first day of absence due to accident. There is this element of unfairness in this Measure, and this unfairness is part of the disgracve of this Measure and why it should not be allowed to go through.
      Before coming here I was a school teacher for 17 years. I suppose the only accident I might have sustained in those days was tripping on a piece of chalk. The chances are that any injury I might have suffered would have been a minor injury, but if I had sustained an accident at work I would have received my payment from my local authority from the very first day. Now I represent a mining area where I know serious injuries have occurred in the past and still occur today underground and under this proposal by this Government those miners will receive no payment for the first three waiting days.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that there has been some change in circumstances since the three waiting days were
      1658
      introduced. Talking of some mystical savings he used the phrase that there was some "fat" available and that the sick or injured or unemployed could live on the "fat" which, presumably, they are supposed to have accumulated in better times. There may be some people who have a lot of fat, but I shall not make any personal references to physique because I myself am in a dangerous position on that account, but, if we are talking of fat meaning money which people have saved, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the amount of that must of necessity vary considerably from one part of the country to another and that it is unfair to generalise on this issue.
      In a constituency like mine where we have had long periods of high and lasting unemployment, where we have a high accident rate because it is a coal mining area, where we have a high mobility rate because of the geography of the area, and where we have chest and other ailments, the conditions are very different from those which may be conducive to people to save and to develop the kind of fat which the Secretary of State talked about as something on which people who sustain these injuries can live. Personally I would like to throw the Clause and the whole Bill through the window.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that the Secretary of State was a generous man—
      Mr. Heffer: No.
      Mr. Jones: —a kind man—
      Mr. Heffer: No. I just said that he was an honest man.
      Mr. Jones: I suppose that honest men are as few and far between as generous men. I have on previous occasions said that the Secretary of State claims to be a generous man. He has an opportunity tonight to show his generosity by the way in which he proposes to treat those who sustain injuries at work and by accepting the Amendment.
      Mr. Orme: We are indebted to those of my hon. Friends who were not members of the Standing Committee and who represent mining constituencies. They have brought a wealth of information and knowledge to the House. Although the Committee was fairly representative,

      1659
      there was no miners' representative on it. A great deal of industrial injury occurs in the mining industry. In general manufacturing industry and engineering, even with modern methods of accident prevention, accidents are still on the increase. Year after year the factory inspectors report an increase in the number of industrial injuries despite all that has been done by management and men.
      By this provision we are treating a certain section of the community, mainly manual workers, many of whom are highly skilled, differently from other sections of the community. A person who receives sick pay from the first day of sickness and full pay during the whole period will not be concerned with this problem, but the millions of industrial workers who are most liable to industrial injury will be disqualified from benefit for the first three waiting days.
      Reference has been made to the speech my Mr. James Griffiths in the House in 1967, when he said that the Labour movement and the Labour Party in conjunction with the trade union movement had worked for 50 years to put on to the Statute Book benefits of right for industrial workers. He lived to see the day when the Workmen's Compensation Act was replaced by the National Insurance Act, 1946. The Labour Government at about that time temporarily provided that benefit would not be paid for the three waiting days until a person had been away from work for a fortnight, when he would receive the full benefit. It was the intention eventually that benefit should be paid from the first day, but, unfortunately, that intention was not implemented. The proposals of the Labour Government in 1967 were proved to be wrong and were rejected. The Government just do not realise what will be the reaction of industrial workers when these measures are implemented.
      I believe that we must vote against this proposal by the Government and against the Bill as a whole. I hope that the Secretary of State has a much better case tonight than the one he deployed in Committee, because the overwhelming evidence put by this side of the House has revealed in full the meanness of Clause 7.
      10.30 p.m.
      Sir K. Joseph: I recognise that the whole subject of the waiting days has
      1660
      aroused a great deal of feeling among hon. Members opposite, and I congratulate those of them who have spoken on the self-discipline which they have shown in fitting in six speeches in a relatively short time. I hope that they will allow me to develop my reply, which will be a serious answer, without too much interruption, although I shall be talking about things which, inevitably, are at issue between the two sides of the House.
      Although the Amendment deals with retrieving the waiting days for industrial injury, it is inevitably part and parcel of the question of whether the Government's policy on the waiting days is right or wrong. There is a special case about industrial injury, which I shall come to later. There are, broadly, three things which can be done about the waiting days. We can, first, keep them as they are, in which case payment in the first three days of a spell of sickness or unemployment or industrial injury, within its connected period of thirteen weeks, falls to be paid and actually received not during those first three days or even in the first or second weeks but, roughly, in the third week—which means often, therefore, though not always, when the man is already back at work. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), in his vivid speech in Committee in 1968, which has been much read, spoke of an element of distortion that sometimes creeps in if we keep the waiting days as they are.
      The second alternative is to abolish the waiting days altogether, as the hon. Member for Mansfield wants and as Mr. James Griffiths wanted. The problem about this is two-fold. First, it is difficult to do that in the sense of practicable efficiency without enormous cost. To get money into the beneficiary's hands at once involves a huge operation and great cost. Secondly, I think the House agrees that it would not command a high social priority compared with all the other social priorities.
      The third alternative is what is called "making the waiting days absolute"—taking away the right to receive payment for those three waiting days even if the bout of sickness or unemployment or injury continues over the twelfth day.
      The Government have decided on the third alternative. Although the Labour

      1661
      Government changed their minds, nevertheless this choice was one which commended itself to them to the extent that it was introduced and seriously put before the House—although in due course, I agree, it was withdrawn.
      Mr. Heffer: Kicked into touch.
      Sir K. Joseph: I agree. But the problem remains and the problem would remain for a future Labour Government. I suggest that, whatever hon. Members opposite may say tonight, a future Labour Government are unlikely to change the law back if we change it now.
      Mr. Alec Jones: Yes, we will.
      Sir K. Joseph: The reasons I shall give are those which I believe would commend themselves to a Labour Government once we have had the pertinacity to carry through this superficially unpopular change. The situation is summed up in one word, which hon. Members may dislike when they see it applied by this Government, but which is nevertheless a word which they have claimed as their own philosophy. The word is "priorities". It is always all right for hon. Gentlemen opposite to claim that a Labour Government have priorities, but a Tory Government have their priorities too—
      Mr. Alec Jones: The wrong ones: that is what we object to.
      Sir K. Joseph: It is common ground between the parties that a number of improvements are needed in our social services. There are enormous gaps. Everyone would agree that the chronic sick have up to now not been treated properly, that Westminster has just discovered the disabled, and that more needs to be done for the very old.
      Both sides would also agree that all cannot be done at once. We have had the most dramatic illustration during the last five years of the impotence of even a Labour Government to do these things. When they were increasing taxation by thousands of millions a year, despite this huge mountain of extra taxation, none of the things which we now regard as essential was done.
      Mr. Alec Jones: The right hon. Gentleman is being less than fair. He knows that many of the things that his Government
      1662
      brought into being, supported by this side of the House, were actually part of the Bill that went through the House in the last Parliament.
      Sir K. Joseph: The Labour Party has every reason to be ashamed and infuriated that its Ministers failed to introduce this legislation until the sixth year of their successive Governments. Total taxation increased under Labour, yet these commonly accepted improvements were not carried out—[Interruption.] I am making a simple point—
      Mr. Alec Jones: Dishonest.
      Sir K. Joseph: All things cannot be done at once. We believe that these three waiting days no longer have the same priority as they once had, for four reasons.
      First, the general level of pay in terms of the standard of living that it will produce has gone up. Second, Labour themselves introduced an earnings-related supplement, which brings additional benefit based on earnings in precisely that third week when the three waiting days are at the moment paid for scikness, unemployment and industrial injury. Third, for much, but not all, unemployment there is redundancy pay. Fourth, in the case of sickness, there, to a large extent, though not totally, a system of employers' sickness schemes.
      Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that the miners' sickness scheme also has waiting days. A miner is not entitled to any occupational sickness benefit unless he is sick or industrially injured for more than six days. But that is precisely the same situation as the waiting days which we are discussing. The money is available and comes in at a later week, provided that the bout of sickness or industrial injury lasts more than six days. The fact of having waiting days does not remove the benefit to those who are sick or injured for more than six days.
      Mr. Concannon: This week the miners' conference has passed a resolution to go for sickness benefit from the first day. Will the Secretary of State back them up when they come to Hobart House to see the National Coal Board about this?
      Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman would be very upset if Ministers involved themselves on either side in these issues.

      1663
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite jeered when I said that we had our priorities, but they were set out clearly in our Manifesto. We undertook to do a number of things, including cutting the marginal rate of taxation at all levels of income, including for the surtax payer who, in our view, has as much right to have relief at his marginal rate of taxation as anyone else, and perhaps more because he has borne more taxation in the past. We also undertook to start the process—it is bound to take time—of filling the gaps in our social service system. Having undertaken to do both of those things, we have, I submit, made a fair start in carrying out those commitments.
      The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has cut taxation across its whole range and that through the child tax allowances, which are raised this month, more than £200 million a year will be returned to families with children at all levels of income, providing the same benefit to the lowest paid as to those who are receiving the average industrial manual earnings.
      We have also begun the process of filling the gaps this year by, for example, the extra package for the chronic sick, the attendance allowance for the severely disabled, the family income supplement and the age addition for very elderly pensioners. We have begun to carry out these commitments, and to do this we have needed to redeploy the priorities that are no longer as high as they were in the past.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite have laid great emphasis on the unique quality of industrial injuries and have claimed that because the number of industrial injuries has been increasing and because these injuries have such a poignant quality about them, they should be exempted from the making of the three waiting days absolute. But even those afflicted by industrial injuries have shared in the general improvement of conditions.
      Mr. Concannon: Not all of them.
      Sir K. Joseph: Not every individual has done so, but the overwhelming majority have improved their earnings, are benefiting from earnings related supplements and have a share in occupational sickness schemes.
      1664
      Above all, the person who suffers an industrial injury has received, is receiving and will receive a preferential rate of benefit—£2.75 a week more than sickness benefit. For all these reasons we believe that there is no special exemption justified for industrial injuries from this making absolute of the three waiting days.
      We believe that the same reasons that impelled the Labour Government to introduce this proposal will prevent any future Labour Government from reversing what we seek to do tonight, and we believe that the priorities have now changed and that if the Labour Party is so immovable, so unradical and so, in the worse sense, conservative that it will not recognise the changing priorities, then it will never succeed in filling the gaps in the Welfare State which we are trying to fill.
      Mr. Prentice: The debate has featured a number of powerful speeches from my hon. Friends, each of them based on practical experience of industry—of the human effects of sickness, unemployment and, particularly, industrial injuiries. We rest our case on this.
      Hon. Gentleman opposite have been eloquent in their embarrassed silence, which is not entirely due to the lateness of the hour. Had they had anything to say, they would have said it, but they are too embarrassed to say what is obviously on their minds.
      I feel inclined to make a long reply to the points adduced by the Secretary of State, but there is no point in doing that, and it has all been said before. However, I must comment on his use of the word "priorities". We do not accept that the priorities of a civilised Government should include robbing the sick, unemployed and industrially injured of half a week of benefit to which they and their employers have contributed over the years.
      10.45 p.m.
      The Secretary of State spoke about the modest improvements that have been made for the chronic sick and others. With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. The situation is different from that of the Labour Government in the sense that the Labour Government, throughout most of their period of office, fighting as they were

      1665
      the balance of payments, were in a situation in which there had to be a transfer of resources into exports. The objects of the Labour Government, particularly following devaluation, had to include both expenditure reductions and tax increases, and every honest person who is prepared to debate these matters seriously will take that as a matter of fact.
      But in recent months we have been in a position in which the Government have had the overwhelming duty to release purchasing power, stimulate the economy, and try to fight the rise in unemployment. They could have had improvements for the chronic sick and the elderly without taking the cost from sick or unemployed workers. They could
      have had them if they had postponed the priority they gave to tax reliefs to the better-off.
      The Secretary of State says that it is a matter of priorities, and, of course, it is. Our priorities involve dismissing the idea that we should take this out of those who are sick or unemployed or disabled from industry. Our priorities are different from those or right hon. and hon. Members opposite. They are more civilised than theirs. That is why we shall divide the House.
      Question put: That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 214.

      Division No. 420.]

      AYES

      [10.46 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Hamling, William

      Meacher, Michael

      Ashley, Jack

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mendelson, John

      Barnett, Joel

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Beaney, Alan

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Millan, Bruce

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Horam, John

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Booth, Albert

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Murray, Ronald King

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

      Hunter, Adam

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

      O'Malley, Brian

      Cant, R. B.

      Janner, Greville

      Oram, Bert

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Orme, Stanley

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Paget, R. T.

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

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

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Judd, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Deakins, Eric

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Kelley, Richard

      Probert, Arthur

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Kerr, Russell

      Reed, D. (Sedge-field)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lambie, David

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Dunn, James A.

      Latham, Arthur

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Eadie, Alex

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roper, John

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rose, Paul B.

      Ellis, Tom

      Lever, Rt. Hn, Harold

      Sandelson, Neville

      English, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Evans, Fred

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Loughlin, Charles

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

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

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Foley, Maurice

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Foot, Michael

      McBride, Neil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ford, Ben

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spearing, Nigel

      Forrester, John

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackie, John

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Ginsburg, David

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

      Golding, John

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Tinn, James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marquand, David

      Torney, Tom

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Marsden, F.

      Tuck, Raphael

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Woof, Robert

      Varley, Eric G.

      Whitehead, Phillip

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

      Whitlock, William

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Wallace, George

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Watkins, David

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Mr. J. D Concannon.

      Weitzman, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Havers, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Astor, John

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Peel, John

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Heseltine, Michael

      Percival, Ian

      Awdry, Daniel

      Hicks, Robert

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Balniel, Lord

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bell, Ronald

      Holland, Philip

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Hornby, Richard

      Redmond, Robert

      Body, Richard

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Bowden, Andrew

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Braine, Bernard

      James, David

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Bray, Ronald

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Jessel, Toby

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Jopling, Michael

      Rost, Peter

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

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Buck, Antony

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Scott, Nicholas

      Burden, F. A.

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Sharples, Richard

      Channon, Paul

      Kilfedder, James

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

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kimball, Marcus

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Simeons, Charles

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Churchill, W. S.

      Kirk, Peter

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

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Soref, Harold

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Speed, Keith

      Cooke, Robert

      Knox, David

      Spence, John

      Coombs, Derek

      Lambton, Antony

      Sproat, Iain

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Lane, David

      Stainton, Keith

      Cormack, Patrick

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Costain, A. P.

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Critchley, Julian

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Stokes, John

      Crouch, David

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Crowder, F. P.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Sutcliffe, John

      Curran, Charles

      Loveridge, John

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Luce, R. N.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Dean, Paul

      MacArthur, Ian

      Tebbit, Norman

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Temple, John M.

      Dixon, Piers

      McLaren, Martin

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Drayson, G. B.

      McMaster, Stanley

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Dykes, Hugh

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Trew, Peter

      Eden, Sir John

      Maddan, Martin

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Madel, David

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

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

      Marten, Neil

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mather, Carol

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Farr, John

      Maude, Angus

      Waddington, David

      Fell, Anthony

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

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

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walters, Dennis

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Moate, Roger

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Foster, Sir John

      Molyneaux, James

      Warren, Kenneth

      Fowler, Norman

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      More, Jasper

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Goodhart, Philip

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wilkinson, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Gorst, John

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Gower, Raymond

      Mudd, David

      Worsley, Marcus

      Green, Alan

      Murton, Oscar

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Grieve, Percy

      Neave, Airey

      Gurden, Harold

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Normanton, Tom

      Mr. Clegg and

      Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      10.55 p.m.
      Sir K. Joseph: I beg to move. That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
      After the deeply felt debates today, I do not think that the House would wish me to repeat the arguments in detail. I have to explain once again that this Bill seeks to bring about two groups of changes. The first is to bring to an end a small number of abuses which have crept into the social security system, and the second group is to bring to an end a small number of methods of spending the contributors' money, which no longer have the high priority they originally had, and to make more priority use of the money elsewhere.
      We have discussed each of the changes at length and with deep feeling and with much experience, particularly from the other side of the House, during the Committee and again today. The arguments for the changes have not been penetrated by arguments from the Opposition. The Opposition have had this difficulty: that with one exception, there is no change proposed in this Bill which was not proposed, even if not carried through in principle by the Opposition when they were in Government.
      In the deepest sense, our proposals are all precedented and precedented by those who are now telling us that our proposals are divisive and wrong. They introduced them, even if their Government did not always have the willpower to carry them through.
      Because we have had the will power to carry them through, we are able to do more in certain directions more quickly than the last Government. I do not think it is necessary to make a long speech now, but I want to put my view of what has happened over the last months as succinctly as I can. I do not believe that in that remote day when a Labour Government are once against returned to office, that it will be any priority for them to reverse the changes made in this Bill. We shall have moved by then to a recognition of a totally different range of priorities. We shall be more deeply aware of gaps which perhaps we do not even identify now because I hope that successive Conservative Governments will have done much to remedy gaps of which
      1670
      we are all too well aware now, and when the time comes our more sensitive eyes will see gaps which will come far more clearly to attention, however strongly the Opposition may feel now about reversing the changes the Government are proposing in this Bill.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his constant, courteous and sustained performance in Committee. I thank my hon. Friends, who have generally by their silence, sometimes by their support, and occasionally by their criticism, made this Bill, perhaps, more easy to steer. I pay tribute to hon. and right hon. Members opposite, Front Bench and back benches, for the way in which they have brought the debates to life. I feel that many of their arguments have been falsely based, but I know that they have been sincerely put, in many cases from personal experience. What they have not taken into account is the change which has taken place in the context in which those experiences occurred to them.
      The Bill is part of a radical redeployment of resources to meet a higher set of priorities and to remove abuses which have become deeply repugnant to the public, including members of the Labour Party as well as of the Conservative Party.
      11.1 p.m.
      Mr. O'Malley: The Secretary of State ended by thanking both sides of the House for their contributions to the discussion of the Bill. In the same way, I begin by thanking my right hon. and hon. Friends for the weighty contributions, based on real experience, which they have made, contributions not matched in experience by those from the Government side. Second, I thank the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary for the courteous way in which they have not answered the questions and arguments which we have put to them.
      The Bill is based on a philosophy which is anathema to the Opposition. I described it earlier today as a philosophy of robbing the sick in order to help the poor. The Bill gives nothing to anyone. On the contrary, it worsens the lot of large numbers of sick, industrially injured and unemployed people. It abandons

      1671
      any pretence of neutrality in industrial relations, contrary to the practice of successive Governments of both political complexions over many years.
      The Secretary of State has made clear that the purpose and strategy of the present Government is to help the better off at the expense of those less fortunate, and he claimed—we strongly disagree with his claim and his priorities—that in order to improve some parts of the National Insurance Scheme others must be worsened.
      It is a Bill which increases the amount of selectivity in the social services and social security system, at a time when, in our view, selectivity has already gone far enough and the aim of any Government's policy should be to see whether, how and to what degree selectivity in the social services can be pushed back rather than increased. The present Government have already pushed the principle of selectivity far beyond any sensible limits.
      The principle of local participation, which is important and will become increasingly so in the 1970s and beyond, has been summarily rejected by the Government's cavalier proposal to wind up the local advisory committees. The Bill will certainly worsen industrial relations.
      The history of the Bill, right from its conception within the Department, has been marked by an almost complete lack of consultation with anyone, including the Supplementary Benefits Commission which will have to operate part of its provisions. By their conduct throughout, the Government have demonstrated that they will brook no arguments, however strong, once they have taken a rigid and dogmatic attitude, as they have on this Bill.
      The average wage earner and his family will suffer as a result of the Bill. It is a bad Bill, produced by an insensitive Government, and we strongly oppose it.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 167.

      Division No. 421.]

      AYES

      [11.6 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Dykes, Hugh

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Eden, Sir John

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rve)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      James, David

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Eyre, Reginald

      Jessel, Toby

      Balniel, Lord

      Farr, John

      Jopling, Michael

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Fell, Anthony

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fenner, Mrs, Peggy

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs.

      Body, Richard

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Boscawen, Robert

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Kilfedder, James

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Fortescue, Tim

      Kimball, Marcus

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fowler, Norman

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Braine, Bernard

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Kirk, Peter

      Bray, Ronald

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kitson, Timothy

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Gorst, John

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gower, Raymond

      Knox, David

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

      Lane, David

      Buck, Antony

      Green, Alan

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Burden, F. A.

      Grieve, Percy

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gurden, Harold

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Channon, Paul

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Luce, R. N.

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Churchill, W. S.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      McLaren, Martin

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      McMaster, Stanley

      Clegg, Walter

      Hastings, Stephen

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Cooke, Robert

      Havers, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Coombs, Derek

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Maddan, Martin

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Heseltine, Michael

      Marten, Neil

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hicks, Robert

      Mather, Carol

      Critchley, Julian

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Maude, Angus

      Crouch, David

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Crowder, F. P.

      Holland, Philip

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Curran, Charles

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Hordern, Peter

      Moate, Roger

      Dean, Paul

      Hornby, Richard

      Molyneaux, James

      Dixon, Piers

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Drayson, G. B.

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Trew, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Murton, Oscar

      Scott, Nicholas

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Neave, Airey

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Sharples, Richard

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Normanton, Tom

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

      Waddington, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Simeons, Charles

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

      Waiters, Dennis

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Soref, Harold

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Peel, John

      Speed, Keith

      Warren, Kenneth

      Percival, Ian

      Spence, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Sproat, Iain

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Stainton, Keith

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Wilkinson, John

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Pym, Rt Hn. Francis

      Stokes, John

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Worsley, Marcus

      Redmond, Robert

      Sutcliffe, John

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Temple, John M.

      Mr. Victor Goodhew.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mikardo, Ian

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Millan, Bruce

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Horam, John

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Barnett, Joel

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hughes, Rt Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Moyle, Roland

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Booth, Albert

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

      O'Malley, Brian

      Bradley, Tom

      Janner, Greville

      Oram, Bert

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Orme, Stanley

      Cant, R. B.

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

      Owen, Dr, David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Paget, R. T.

      Cohen, Stanley

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pendry, Tom

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Judd, Frank

      Prescott, John

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kerr, Russell

      Probert, Arthur

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Kinnock, Neil

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lambie, David

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Latham, Arthur

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Roper, John

      Ellis, Tom

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Rose, Paul B.

      English, Michael

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Evans, Fred

      Lipton, Marcus

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

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

      Shore, Rt. Hon. Peter (Stepney)

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

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Loughlin, Charles

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

      Foley, Maurice

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Foot, Michael

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Ford, Ben

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Skinner, Dennis

      Forrester, John

      McBride, Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Stallard, A. W.

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mackie, John

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Ginsburg, David

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

      Golding, John

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Tinn, James

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Marquand, David

      Torney, Tom

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Marsden, F.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Varley, Eric G.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Hamling, William

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Wallace George

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mendelson, John

      1674

      1675

      Watkins, David

      Whitlock, William

      Woof, Robert

      Weitzman, David

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Mr. J. D. Concannon and

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  POLLUTION OF THE SEA
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  11.14 p.m.
  Mr. Laurance Reed: This country as a matter of policy disposes of large volumes of domestic and trade waste to the sea every year, either from pipelines along the coast or within selected spoil grounds adjacent to the territorial sea. The oceans' capacity to degrade and dilute waste products is enormous and it is perfectly legitimate in this manner to use them as a receptacle for waste.
  But the self-purifying powers of the oceans are not unlimited and coastal waters very often can provide less dilution than is popularly supposed because the pollutants tend to get trapped in the coastal zones and are prevented from escaping to the open sea. Nor is the behaviour and fate of persistent wastes fully understood. Unless certain limits are set and observed about the nature and volume of waste discharged, serious and lasting damage can be done to the marine environment.
  Pollution of the seas threatens to engulf our coasts in gross ugliness and to undermine the marine life in coastal areas. But tonight I want to highlight the risks to public health associated with marine disposals. In England and Wales, the sewage refuse from 6 million people living in coastal towns is discharged into the sea, and the majority of the sea outfalls run out no further than low water mark, and the majority of discharges are not treated.
  The Coastal Anti-Pollution League lists nearly 200 resorts in Britain which are defiled by human faeces and sewer contents. In some places it would seem that it is more a matter of going through the motions than going swimming.
  Sewage refuse and other matter create some unsightly conditions and pungent
  1676
  odours and anxiety has also been expressed about bathing from polluted beaches. This fear has a rational basis, because raw sewage contains pathogenic bacteria. A study by the Public Health Laboratory in 1959 concluded that for all practical purposes the risk could be ignored except in areas so obviously and visibly polluted that no one would think of swimming there anyway.
  But these findings have not gone unchallenged. For example, a report by the French Consumers' Federation in 1970 claimed that several beaches on the French side of the Channel were positively dangerous, and diptheria and cholera were mentioned. Bathers, said the report, took their lives in their hands.
  Likewise, a survey by the Belgian Consumers' Union of resorts on the Continent, published this year, claims that holiday makers run a high risk of contracting any one of nine diseases known to be caused by faecal pollution, including conjunctivitis, enteritis and typhoid. The Italian coasts are rated as the worst, followed by those of Belgium, the Riviera and Spain. The president of the union said:
  "…. the tests were necessary because authorities, under pressure from commercial interests, had refused to investigate possible links between coastal pollution and disease ".
  Infection can also be picked up by eating shellfish which have filtered pathogenic bacteria and viruses out of sewage contaminated waters. Hepatitis virus are carried by oysters, and shellfish harvested from polluted areas have been collected containing polio virus. The Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations, 1934, allow local authorities to make Orders proscribing or regulating the sale of shellfish from grounds which have been polluted.
  The contamination has been spreading for years and cultivation has been either completely stopped or severely restricted in the rivers Blackwater, Colne, Exmouth, Lynham, Lytham, Roach and Whitstable and in Morecambe Bay, Poole Harbour and the Wash. Free swimming fish can also carry diseases picked up in anaerobic waters. Herrings, sprats, canned and smoked salmon have been identified as vehicles of infection.

  1677
  Full treatment will kill bacteria living in the sewage, but existing methods of treatment do little to remove nitrates and phosphates in the sludge. These nutrients are harmless in themselves, but they can have a malignant effect because of the changes they induce in the environment. An acceleration in the fertilisation of plant life is caused which gives rise to phenomena called "plankton blooms".
  These blooms consist of masses of planktonic organisms. They can spread over hundreds of square miles, liberating toxins which kill or stun fish, and poison shellfish. The phenomenon occurs spontaneously in the marine environment, but it appears that sewage-derived waste can act as a triggering mechanism. In 1968, a spectacular bloom was recorded over the North-East coast of England. It spread out from the mouth of the Forth and stretched right the way down the coast to Flamborough Head in Yorkshire. The bloom was followed by an outbreak of paralytic shellfish poisoning, and 85 people were taken ill.
  Marine organisms can extract pollutants in sea water and they store them in their bodies. Their ability to concentrate substances in this way varies from a few hundred to several hundred thousand times the value of such substances in the surrounding sea solution. Contaminations once absorbed can be amplified by marine food webs until toxic levels are reached in predators at the head of the chain—including seabirds, sea mammals and man.
  The bio accumulation of pollutants is now recognised as a major health hazard. In America contamination has rendered nine species of fish unfit for human consumption. Last year, as is well known, nearly 1 million cans of tuna fish were withdrawn from the market after it had been found that samples contained un-acceptably high levels of mercury. I agree that this particular episode may have been a false alarm but the fact remains that mercury even in low doses can disrupt the central nervous system and in heavy doses will lead to madness and even death.
  In 1953 a mystifying disease made its appearance in Minimata Bay, Japan. A bright, agile teenage child found one morning that he could no longer button his clothes. Soon he began exhibiting
  1678
  infantile behaviour. His parents, who were naturally worried, took him to hospital. The doctors could not explain his sudden retardation and the child became a hopeless invalid. Another victim was a middle-aged barber whose health gradually deteriorated until, devoid of hearing and body control, he too became a complete invalid.
  An elderly fisherman was similarly stricken. Within a week he could no longer walk. Within a month he was severely demented. Between 1953 and 1960 there were 116 cases of "Minimata disease", including 19 in infants. A total of 43 people died and the rest suffered permanent disability. The source was eventually traced to fish and shellfish caught in the bay which had been contaminated by the discharge from a nearby chemical factory.
  There was a second outbreak in Niigata in 1965, affecting 30 people and killing five. There have also been oases of mercury poisoning in Sweden and people there are officially advised not to eat fish more than once a week. Sea foods are becoming increasingly contaminated by oil spills and concern has been expressed about the potential cancer risks. Cancerous growths have been found in a variety of free-swimming fish, including Dover sole and it is thought that oil-polluted waters may be the cause.
  Research data from the United States confirms that hydrocarbons of the kind that can cause cancer in humans are concentrated by oysters and mussels in contaminated waters. No one has yet shown positively that cancer in man has resulted directly from the consumption of carcinogens in sea food but public health officials, in America at least, do not discount the possibility.
  Submarine waste tips are another hazard. In 1945 the Allies ditched something like 20,000 tons of German chemical warfare material, nerve gas and mustard gas, in the Baltic. Fishermen handling nets and fish contaminated with the gas have been badly injured on several occasions. Although the containers were originally dumped 25 miles offshore in 300 feet of water, the tides and currents have shifted some into shallow areas only a few miles from

  1679
  holiday coasts. Underwater currents and internal waves can make the bottom of the sea as restless as the top.
  There was a very interesting case in California some years ago where the State Narcotics Agency dumped confiscated drugs in San Francisco Bay. It was so concerned about the possibility of being hi-jacked by drug pushers that it actually armed the vessel with submachine guns.
  Exactly a week later bottles labelled "Metherdine" were washed ashore and the beach had to be staked out to prevent beach-combers from collecting the exotic jetsam. It happened nearer home. Last summer the Royal Navy dumped some ferric chloride containers near the Nab Tower, Portsmouth. A few weeks later several hundred canisters were washed up on the beaches of the Isle of Wight.
  Legal controls over marine disposals in Britain are few and far between. In the case of ship-borne dumping, there are no statutory controls outside the three-mile limit. A voluntary arrangement is operated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under which companies agree to keep to the spoil grounds and co-operate with effluent tests. But there are no sanctions and only a random sampling system is applied.
  In common with the Jeger Committee's Report, and with legislative proposals in the United States and Scandinavian countries, I believe that the time has come to introduce proper supervision and control over ocean-dumping. I should like to see a compulsory system of licensing which would include power to ban the dumping of specific materials and to designate safe sites, with provision for enforcement and sanctions for the violation of the provisions.
  The law is also defective for discharges along the coast. Sewage outfalls, outside estuaries and controlled waters, are not subject to any external control. I know that local authorities require loan sanction from the Department of the Environment for disposal schemes and I understand that this is not given unless the scheme avoids risk to public health and amenity. But in times of financial stringency there is inevitably considerable
  1680
  pressure on Ministers to accept the cheaper scheme rather than the safer.
  In the case of industrial effluent, the sea fisheries committees are empowered to regulate discharges which are detrimental to sea fishing and sea fish. But these powers cannot be used to control risks to public health, whether direct or indirect. It seems to me clear that we need some form of maritime authority or series of authorities to regulate consents within the coastal belt and prevent degradation of the environment.
  I know that the Department of the Environment has all these matters under active consideration, and I am not asking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for any firm commitments tonight. But I have four questions to ask him. First, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is currently examining our coastal waters and the state thereof. Will it comment on the health hazards of marine pollution in its report? Secondly, when granting loan sanctions for sea outfalls, do the Government agree that as much attention should be paid to the potential health hazards as to amenity and fishing interests? Thirdly, what support are the Government giving to the World Health Organisation in its attempts to identify the healths risks in this field and to draw up an internationally agreed list of proscribed substances? Fourthly, what arrangements have the Government made to keep a running check on the level of pollutants in sea fisheries and sea water, and are any safe limits to be laid down?
  In considering the noxious and the obnoxious, it is wise to err on the side of caution. Rules and regulations that prove to be too severe can always be relaxed, whereas damage, once done, would take years to repair and could be irreversible. Italy should be an object lesson to us. Her coastal waters are already dead as a source of food and as an amenity. Nobody in his right mind would eat shellfish in Italy, and about 70 per cent. of her beaches are acknowledged as a health hazard. In the words of Professor Mortarino,
  "It is not a question of when the sea will be dead. For the Italians it has already happened."
  11.28 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend the Member for

  1681
  Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) has drawn attention to a very serious and topical problem, but, to put it into perspective, I am sure that he would agree that we must recognise that the vast majority of pollution is caused by urban sewage discharge and industrial discharge from shore.
  I hope that in his reply the Under-Secretary of State will agree that it is important not to undertake any panic measure by restricting the use of ship or yacht w.cs. and, equally important, not to indulge in hysterical legislation about accidental spillage from tankers
  11.30 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The brief intervention of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) calls for little answer from me. I am sure that he will accept at once that the points to which he referred are things that my right hon. Friend must consider; but it would not be the practice of my right hon. Friend to adopt ill-considered or panic measures. Undoubtedly, the matters raised by my hon. and gallant Friend are matters of concern, and they will obviously be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend. I am glad to have the opportunity of replying to this debate. It is not always that we have an Adjournment debate on a subject of such massive international concern, and one in respect of which a Member of this House has made such efforts to acquaint himself with the problems involved.
  There is not the slightest doubt that large-scale pollution arising from human activities is a comparatively recent phenomenon, although both coastal waters and oceans around the various shores of the world have been subjected through the centuries to pollution of one sort or another, and this is something which, with the development of industrial and human societies, has become an increasing problem.
  It is true that our pollution, in many cases, makes no more than a marginal change in the state of the sea. But such a marginal addition could tip the equilibrium from safety towards risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) has spoken of the
  1682
  risks, and I recognised at once that they are there. He rightly points out that the sea has a tremendous capacity—but not an unlimited capacity—to absorb many of the pollutant influences to which it is subjected.
  Substances which can be broken down by the natural living processes of the sea—biodegradable pollutants, of which domestic sewage and sewage sludge are the chief examples—generally speaking have no more than local effects, because they are able to be absorbed in great degree. But non-biodegradable pollutants, which are sometimes present in very small concentrations in sewage, present a more serious problem, especially when they can be accumulated by living organisms through a food chain or some similar process. The examples that we are familiar with are mercury and organo-chlorine pesticides, such as D.D.T.—the most familiar example. More recently, polychlorinated biphenyls, which are used as plasticizers, have come to be recognised as being in the same category.
  Differing points of view have been put forward on the crucial questions on how far the marine environment has so far been damaged and the outlook that we can expect in the future. There is certainly no lack of alarmist reports, but I must make it plain that in our view, whilst there are undoubtedly serious problems—such as those to which my hon. Friend has referred—many of the popularised accounts seem to go far beyond the basis of fact established and accepted in scientific literature. In our home waters there has been damage to fisheries at the mouths of some rivers, but fishing and fish nursery grounds are otherwise generally unaffected, even a little way outside these estuaries. My hon. Friend took a balanced and helpful view of the degree of the problem.
  I agree that what we need is more basic knowledge of this subject. The Government attach particular importance to the work contained in the scientific reports of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas—which has reported on the North Sea—and the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution on the wider aspects of the problem. Both these bodies have reported on the unsatisfactory features of the present position, and

  1683
  their work is fundamental to the international activity about which I shall have something to say in a few moments.
  Risks to health must be considered from two aspects; first, possible hazards arising from the consumption of contaminated food and, second, possible hazards from bathing in contaminated waters.
  The main danger to human health which can arise from marine pollution is from the presence in fish or shellfish of heavy metals, bacteria or oil. This is quite distinct from the risk to fish stocks of pollutants which can kill or damage fish but involve no consumer risk.
  The best known hazard arises from the consumption of shellfish from sewage-contaminated waters. The risk of contracting enteric fever or food poisoning from contaminated shellfish has been known for many years, and stringent precautions are taken by public health authorities. The Public Health (Shellfish) Regulations of 1934 give local authorities powers to make orders prohibiting the sale of shellfish from grounds which have been polluted unless the shellfish have been cleansed, sterilised or relaid in clean water. Frequent samples of shellfish are taken for bacteriological examination. The precautions have been highly successful, and cases of disease due to the consumption of contaminated shellfish, which used to be very common, are now rare. The consumption of other fish from waters contaminated by sewage has not been shown to be associated with any significant hazard.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the plankton bloom of 1968. Such incidents are commonplace in some parts of the world but are rare in our waters. However, monitoring tests are carried out and medical officers of health are advised of the conditions under which harvesting and sale of shellfish should be suspended. Although this is something of which we must be constantly aware, there is no immediate anxiety for the United Kingdom.
  Hazards to man arising from the chemical pollution of sea foods are rare. Attention has been focused on the importance of inorganic mercurial contamination of fish by the occurrence of cases of poisoning among fishermen and their
  1684
  families in Japan who ate large quantities of fish from an industrially-contaminated area and by the subsequent American finding of a high methyl mercury content in canned tuna fish. Canned fish and other foods which are important in the national diet are being examined by Government laboratories of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which are also undertaking an extensive survey of fish caught by British ships in home and distant waters. So far as fish are concerned, this work extends the work which was already being done in these laboratories.
  The new scheme is concentrating on methyl mercury but checks are also being made for the presence of other heavy metals, like cadmium. The Ministry hopes to publish results at half-yearly intervals, but if the monitoring scheme reveals any cause for concern action will be taken at once to protect the consumer.
  The Minister of Agriculture announced in April that the survey was being extended to cover cadmium and lead. There have been reports of very unusually high levels of cadmium in limpets in the Bristol Channel, and these have, naturally, caused concern. The fact that these results are so much out of line with those which the Ministry had previously found around our coasts may be due to the different methods of measurement used or it may be that limpets happen to accumulate cadmium much faster than other organisms do.
  As soon as these reports were published, the Fisheries Laboratory, as a matter of urgency, analysed shellfish from the South Wales coast, which is the only commercial fishery of any importance in the area. The results gave no cause for concern.
  Oil contamination of the sea may result in the tainting of fish. This tainting has been regarded as a safeguard preventing the consumption of contaminated fish. In the small amounts present in such fish, mineral oils are not toxic apart from the fact that they may contain traces of carcinogenic hydrocarbons. I am aware of the fears about this which have developed recently, to which my hon. Friend refers. I am advised that it is most unlikely that there is any cause for concern, but the matter is being investigated and research is in progress.

  1685
  My hon. Friend referred to the risks to bathers and holiday makers arising from sewage contamination of bathing beaches and inshore waters. The possible risks to health from sewage contamination were investigated by a committee of the public Health Laboratory Service in 1963, and the subject has been examined more recently by Mrs. Lena Jeger's Working Party on Sewage Disposal. Both committees confirmed that the risk of contracting any communicable disease on bathing beaches or through swimming in the sea around British coasts was very small. The probability of any person becoming infected in this way was very much smaller than the chance of contracting the same disease by the more usual means of infection within the community.
  While accepting that there was no reason at present to believe that the risk of contracting communicable disease on bathing beaches was more than minimal and would not justify priority for further research, the Jeger Committee pointed out that it could not accept that dirty beaches were an inevitable part of the environment. That is something which I am sure the whole House accepts. Anything avoidable which detracted from personal relaxation and individual enjoyment of the coastline should be eliminated, and it must be a matter of great concern to my right hon Friend that this should be done as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friend will have earned the gratitude of the House for raising this subject tonight. It covers a very wide range of matters of great concern to the Department. I have tried to deal with some of the points he has made. My right hon. Friend is continuing to conduct
  1686
  various investigations into these matters and his conclusions on a number of subjects, particularly on the reports of the committees which have recently reported, are awaited. I am sure that the House will understand therefore, that I am precluded from making any immediate comment upon the likely conclusions to which my right hon. Friend will come.
  I have already dealt with my hon. Friend's specific question about the monitoring of fish. On the allied question of the checks on sea water, my right hon. Friend said yesterday that he was considering what additional monitoring was necessary, and I cannot at present add to this. As regards my hon. Friend's other questions, I shall draw the attention of the Royal Commission to his remarks, and I can assure him that the possible health hazards are always of importance in the consideration of applications for loan sanctions for sea outfalls and that we support and welcome the contribution which the World Health Organisation makes to the scientific work of G.E.S.A.M.P.
  I thank my hon. Friend for giving the House an opportunity to air this subject, and I hope that when my right hon. Friend is able to make his announcements, covering a wide range of subjects raised in this debate—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Palace of Westminster (School Visits)
  Palace of Westminster (School Visits)
  Nursery Education (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Nursery Education (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Selective Schools
  Selective Schools
  Schoolchildren (Computerised Data)
  Schoolchildren (Computerised Data)
  Teachers (Strike)
  Teachers (Strike)
  Schoolchildren (Free Travel)
  Schoolchildren (Free Travel)
  Examination Papers
  Examination Papers
  New Schools (Building Costs)
  New Schools (Building Costs)
  Museums (Admission Fees)
  Museums (Admission Fees)
  Nursery School Places
  Nursery School Places
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Family Planning Association (Conference)
  Family Planning Association (Conference)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Representation)
  Burnham Committee (Teachers' Representation)
  Sandwich Meals
  Sandwich Meals
  Furniture (Fire Risk)
  Furniture (Fire Risk)
  School Milk
  School Milk
  University Development
  University Development
  Hairdressing (Apprenticeships)
  Hairdressing (Apprenticeships)
  Student Unions (Finances)
  Student Unions (Finances)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Under-Fives
  Under-Fives
  Schools Council
  Schools Council
  Education (Milk) Bill (Representations)
  Education (Milk) Bill (Representations)
  Titian Painting (Acquisition)
  Titian Painting (Acquisition)
  Primary Schools, North Islington
  Primary Schools, North Islington
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Student Unions (Finance)
  Student Unions (Finance)
  HOME DEPARTMENT
    Shot Guns
    Shot Guns
  Furniture (Fire Risk)
  Furniture (Fire Risk)
  Road Vehicles (Excessive Smoke)
  Road Vehicles (Excessive Smoke)
  Fines (Non-Payment)
  Fines (Non-Payment)
  EMPLOYMENT
    School Leavers (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
    School Leavers (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Unemployment (Young Persons)
  Unemployment (Young Persons)
  Wearside
  Wearside
  Industrial Relations Bill (Houses of Parliament)
  Industrial Relations Bill (Houses of Parliament)
  Hackney
  Hackney
  David Brown Corporation (Redundancies)
  David Brown Corporation (Redundancies)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Manufacturing Industries (Short-time Working)
  Manufacturing Industries (Short-time Working)
  Strikes (Working Days Lost)
  Strikes (Working Days Lost)
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
    Shipbuilding (Clydeside)
    Shipbuilding (Clydeside)
  Sunderland
  Sunderland
  Natural Environment Research Council
  Natural Environment Research Council
  Pergamon Press (Inquiry Report)
  Pergamon Press (Inquiry Report)
  Mineral Resources
  Mineral Resources
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Investments)
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (Investments)
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
    Group Travel Documents
    Group Travel Documents
  Florence Biennale of World Art
  Florence Biennale of World Art
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Argentina and Falkland Islands
  Argentina and Falkland Islands
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  Overseas Students (Fees)
  SOCIAL SERVICES
    School Meals
    School Meals
  Doctors' Lists (Wembley)
  Doctors' Lists (Wembley)
  ENVIRONMENT
    Driving Licences (Forgery)
    Driving Licences (Forgery)
  Port of Chepstow
  Port of Chepstow
  Firm Price Tendering
  Firm Price Tendering
  Fire (Property Losses)
  Fire (Property Losses)
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  Motorways and Trunk Roads (Concrete Construction)
  Motorways and Trunk Roads (Concrete Construction)
  Railway Network and Road Programme
  Railway Network and Road Programme
  Derelict Land Clearance
  Derelict Land Clearance
  Rate Rebates (Publicity)
  Rate Rebates (Publicity)
  Winchester (Western Bypass)
  Winchester (Western Bypass)
  NATIONAL FINANCE
    Taxation (East Kilbride Centre)
    Taxation (East Kilbride Centre)
  Purchase Tax Act, 1963
  Purchase Tax Act, 1963
  Scottish Bank Notes
  Scottish Bank Notes
  Investment Allowances (Wales)
  Investment Allowances (Wales)
  SCOTLAND
    General Teaching Council (Registration)
    General Teaching Council (Registration)
  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme
  Highlands and Islands Veterinary Services Scheme
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  WEST MIDLANDS
  WEST MIDLANDS
  EDINBURGH
  EDINBURGH
  IRLAM STEEL WORKS
  IRLAM STEEL WORKS
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  MINISTERS' SPEECHES
  MINISTERS' SPEECHES
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members (Overseas Visits)
  Members (Overseas Visits)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Armed Forces, Germany (Allowances)
  Armed Forces, Germany (Allowances)
  Royal Naval Aircraft Yard, Belfast
  Royal Naval Aircraft Yard, Belfast

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

RUSSIAN NUCLEAR MISSILES: SUGGESTED TALKS
LORD KENNET: 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 now know whether they intend that the reduction of the intermediate-range nuclear missiles now deployed in the western part of the Soviet Union, which are capable of reaching this country but not the United States, should ever be discussed with the Soviet Union; and if so, in what forum.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I am not at present in a position to add to what I told the noble Lord in answer to this Question on this matter on June 22.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it not almost unique that a country which faces a concrete prospect of being threatened by the existence of certain categories of arms and has none appropriate to counter them should have no intention whatever of discussing the difficulties of those concerned?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I did not intend to imply that these matters would not be discussed in future. In fact, I think that on the last occasion I pointed out that the Government had by no means discarded the possibility of doing so. That, of course, is the answer that I gave to the noble Lord last time and which I repeat to-day. I am sure that the House and the noble Lord realise that this Question really applies to a far wider field than these particular weapons,
1050
but I think that I can assure him and the House that these matters are very much in the mind of Her Majesty's Government at the present time.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, would it not be possible to communicate both with the Government of the United States of America and with the Government of the Soviet Union, indicating that we are very much implicated in this problem and asking that in their considerations, in which we wish them well, this matter should be discussed with us before the discussions conclude?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think there is no doubt whatsoever that the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union are very well aware of the interests of Her Majesty's Government in this matter.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government are reluctant to make representations and take part in the SALT talks, would it not be desirable that NATO, which is primarily concerned, and the whole of Europe should make suggestions both to the United States and the U.S.S.R. that they should be involved in the discussions?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I imagine that the noble Lord knows that the SALT talks are bilateral, between the Americans and the Russians. That being the case, other countries are not directly concerned in these talks. At the same time, I am quite certain that both the American and the Russian Governments are well aware of the position of other members of the NATO alliance.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, are there not discussions going on in NATO with regard to a détente for the mutual reduction of armaments? Is it possible to have those discussions without also bearing in mind these major weapons?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it is certainly the case that there are discussions going on in NATO regarding the question of the reduction of armaments and ancilliary matters. I do not think that I can comment on the last part of the noble Lord's remarks, but I will certainly bear in mind what he has said.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it not the case that in the SALT talks the Russians and the Americans are talking about

1051
weapons with which they can annihilate each other, but nobody anywhere is talking about the weapons which can annihilate only us?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this of course is something of which I am quite certain that the House, and indeed the country and many other countries in Europe, are well aware. I quite understand the point of the noble Lord's supplementary question, but I think I must refer him to my original Answer.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES: ENTRY PRIVILEGES
3.8 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 grant entry privileges, where appropriate, to members of societies such as the National Art Collections Fund, the Friends of the Tate Gallery and the British Museum Society, when entrance charges are levied at national museums and galleries.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I have told the National Art Collections Fund and the Contemporary Arts Society that, provided their minimum subscription is £3 a year, their members will be admitted free to all the national museums on production of a signed and recognisable membership card. Where there is a bona fide society of friends of a national museum and the minimum subscription is £2 a year, the members will be admitted free to the museum or gallery in question on production of a signed and recognisable membership ticket.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Paymaster General for that reply, which I am sure will give great satisfaction to all those who care about these things.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount,
1052
since he has indicated that it is possible to modify the regulations where it is considered that a just case has been made, whether he would do the same sort of thing for crippled, spastic and disabled children and for those in the community who are not able to pay £3 to belong to an extremely valuable arts society?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, in reply to the noble Baroness, we have looked at a large number of requests to make special exemptions. It seems that if we are to keep the basic admission at 10p we really cannot go much further in the exemption field.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that the members of these societies are perhaps the best able to afford the charges for admission?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I hope that the result of this concession will be that the subscriptions to the societies will be very much increased, and therefore will greatly benefit the museums. That is really the purpose of the concession.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, may I congratulate my noble friend on what he has said to-day, and ask him whether he will now use his best efforts to obtain the same privilege of free entry to those many museums which already charge for entry, including, for example, the Bowes Museum, run by the Socialist Durham County Council?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, all museums other than the 18 national museums are either the responsibility of local authorities or of private trusts, and they can make what arrangements they think fit.
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 whether they will grant free entry to artists holding the membership card of the International Association of Art, which is under the auspices of UNESCO, when entrance charges are levied at national museums and galleries.]
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am looking into the suggestion made by the noble Lord. When I have received advice on this very complex matter, I

1053
will write to him. The arrangements under which scholars will be admitted free of charge will include many holders of documents issued under the sponsorship of international bodies.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount the Paymaster General for that reply. In considering this suggestion, may I ask him whether he was aware that this concession is granted by many museums in other countries which are associated with UNESCO? Will he bear in mind that it might be embarrassing if the United Kingdom were not equally reciprocal; and also that this concession is most important from the membership point of view?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I have looked at the list of museums abroad which grant this concession, and it is only a very partial list. I think I must find out the conditions on which membership can be taken up in this international society.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I assume that it is the wish of the Paymaster General to ease circumstances for anyone who finds it a real hardship to pay to get into museums and galleries? If so, is he aware that more than 90 per cent. of your Lordships' House is entitled to enter at half price?—and I think we should agree that less than 9 per cent. really have need of this concession. Would the noble Viscount look at the priorities, and if there are to be concessions, try and give them where they are needed?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I will certainly study what the noble Baroness has said.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is it not time that the noble Viscount considered devoting his great qualities to something more useful than trying to find exemptions to a most undesirable policy?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition in what I imagine is his view, that I have had to spend a great deal of time on this matter. But I think this is a constructive move and will benefit museums before long.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Viscount be prepared to extend his activities and make the exemptions still wider?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I have already said that our basic charge of 10p is very low in comparison with museum charges anywhere in Europe, and we wish to stick to it if we can.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Viscount think it is worth making?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Yes, my Lords.

" X "-FILM TRAILERS IN CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMES
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that trailers for "X"-films showing violent and vicious scenes are being shown during programmes specially designed for children, and whether they will take steps to prevent this practice.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESIIAM): My Lords, I understand that in a recent incident a trailer which had been given a "U" certificate provided certain scenes were cut was issued in error without those cuts having been made. The responsibility for preventing oversights of this kind rests with the local licensing authority. I am assured that steps have been taken by the authority concerned to prevent a recurrence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that partially helpful reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the British Board of Film Censors, who are obviously against such a practice, have said, through their Secretary, that they have no power to prevent happenings of this kind and that local authorities are similarly circumstanced? If, for example, the cinema manager, or even the projectionist, decides to put one of these undesirable trailers in, he can do so. That is the kind of thing that has to be stopped.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this was a most unfortunate incident. It has

1055
been thoroughly investigated by the Greater London Council—the licensing authority concerned—and by the British Board of Film Censors. The licensing authorities have powers to control what is shown in cinemas, and of course they take the advice of the Board. I understand that in the light of this incident and others the Secretary of the Board is holding talks with the trade to discuss the whole question of trailers for "X"-films being shown in performances of films which are mainly for children.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that so far as big distributors and the British Board of Film Censors, and of course local authorities, are concerned, everyone is anxious to stop this sort of thing happening? But my information is that they have not the power to do so. If I send the noble Lord information which is in my possession, perhaps he will have a look at it to see whether further action can be taken by his Department.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, yes; I will certainly look at it. My information is that there is probably no lack of powers; the difficulty lies in reaching some understanding between the interested parties as to what is and what is not a reasonable standard.

THE SUMMER RECESS
3.21 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, subject to the progress of business, I hope that the House may rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday, August 5. If progress should be even better than I anticipate, perhaps the House may be able to rise before that date.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, for making this shocking statement—though it is one at which we are not entirely surprised. We note the delicate bait that if we skimp our work we can get out of school earlier. I do not think I can possibly protest about this announcement, since I know that in the days of the previous Government we kept your Lordships sitting into August, and even later. I suppose the noble Earl is not able to say whether we shall be
1056
sitting alone, or that another place will be suffering at the same time. I understand that no statement on Business has yet been made in another place. This strengthens the argument, which was repeatedly put forward to us when we were in Government, of the need to have a more rational distribution of Bills between the two Houses, a matter to which I know noble Lords on the Government side of the House have devoted great efforts, though they have not always been all that much more successful than we were. But I hope that the Leader of the House will continue the efforts which I know he is making in this direction.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the last remarks by the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, will receive careful attention from my noble friend the Leader of the House. As the noble Lord said, my noble friend is giving this matter very careful consideration. The noble Lord further suggested that I was asking the House to skimp our work. I would not ask the House to skimp its work, but I would ask noble Lords not to waste words.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, are the Government aware that this is the day before Transfiguration?

LAW REFORM (JURISDICTION IN DELICT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, that the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE BILL [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Criminal Damage

1057
Bill be now considered. For your Lordships' information, may I say that I intend to move in respect of each, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the Amendment, and we may be able to take Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, together, and Nos. 3 and 4 together.

CRIMINAL DAMAGE BILL [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [References are the first Commons' print—Bill 154]
  [Nos. 1 and 2]
  Clause 1, page 1, line 18, at end insert—
  " (3) An offence committed under this section by destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson."
  Clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out from "of" to "shall" in line 16 and insert "arson under section 1 above or of an offence under section 1(2) above (whether arson or not)".
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. These Amendments restore the separate name of "arson" which we discussed in our House. The Government, in deference to the opinion of the two branches of the legal profession, moved Amendment No. 1 in another place. Although my preference was for the Bill as it was originally drafted, my advice to the House is that these Amendments should be accepted. They will give a great deal of pleasure to the legal profession.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I have read the proceedings before the Standing Committee in another place and, following the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I advise my noble friends to accept this Amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [Nos. 3 and 4]
  In the Schedule, page 8, line 42, column 3, at beginning insert "In section 103A (as inserted by section 23 of the Highways Act 1971), subsection (4)".
  Page 9, line 17, at end insert—

  " 1971 c.

  The Highways Act 1971.

  In section 23(1), sub-section (4) of the section inserted in the Highways Act 1959 as section 103A."

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. Amendment No. 3 is necessitated by, and consequential upon, the passage of Section 23 of the Highways Act 1971, which has overtaken this measure on its way through Parliament, and Amendment No. 4 covers the same point.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question Motion agreed to.
Clause 56 [General duty of employers to disclose information]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79XX:
Page 47, line 17, after (" of ") insert (" all the stages of ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now dealing with that clause of the Bill under which employers are required to disclose information for the purposes of collective bargaining to employees or their representatives. This is a matter which we dealt with in a certain respect in Committee, and the purpose of this Amendment is to try to meet the point of view which was then expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and at the same time to go some little way towards meeting the point of view which we expressed from this side of the House.
The question centres on the point of time at which information should be made available. One would think that it was a very simple matter, but of course it is not easy to define exactly where collective bargaining starts and where the sort of conversations leading up to collective bargaining finish. Therefore one wants to have some kind of definition. The definition in the Bill is "for the

1059
purposes of collective bargaining", and that is well and good, but one knows that one must make sure that in all the stages, the initial stages and the middle stages as well as the final stages, the information required should be made available. Obviously it does not improve industrial relations if information to be relied on is not made available at the time when it should be. The noble Lord who sits on the Woolsack (or judging from the arduous duties he has recently carried out, who sits on the Woolsack when he has an opportunity of doing so) said at column 407 on May 18:
" but I would say to him—"
that is, to me
" that as negotiations proceed, quite clearly more and different information may be desirable at different stages of a negotiation. Probably in the early stages information is forthcoming without much difficulty; as the negotiation becomes closer it may become more difficult to extract the information. But at any stage when the union feels it is required for the purpose of collective bargaining and that the employer is not performing his duty, its remedy is to go to…"
clauses this, that or the other. So the phrase which kept cropping up was "different stages", and this Amendment is put down in the hope that it will clarify the matter and make it clear to both sides that at all stages the information will be made available.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very clear way in which he has put this point. I should like to make it equally clear from the outset that the intention of Clause 56 as it stands at present is that the employer's obligation to disclose information should start at the stage when managements and unions get together to discuss proposals for change in the terms and conditions of employment or in a procedure agreement, but not before. It has always been the Government's intention that the employer's obligation to disclose information existed, to use the words of the Amendment, at all stages of collective bargaining, as we found in the latter part of this Bill. Indeed it is argued that this is the case, and that the Bill as it stands covers this. I am confident—at least my advisers are confident, and I am content to take their advice on points of this kind—that the clause as
1060
drafted does provide this. Nevertheless I think that this is a matter which should be put beyond the peradventure of doubt. I take the point which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was making. I think there is no doubt that it would be wise to be absolutely clear here, and with that in mind I should be very happy to recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment should the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wish to put it.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, had that in mind when he moved the Amendment; and I am most grateful to the noble Earl for taking the point so clearly. I think it helps, although one always relies on advice of this kind, if one makes it clear to everybody that that kind of advice should be available to them. I am most grateful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79FFF:
Page 47, line 21, after (" undertaking ") insert (" or the undertaking of any associated employer ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I should like to make it quite clear that I do so in the considerable hope that the Government will find it acceptable.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, might I say straight away, in case I am unduly encouraging the noble Lord by accepting his first Amendment, that I do not think he should push his luck too far. We may find as we go along that there may be something else on which I may be able to help.
LORD DIAMOND: I shall enjoy the journey all the more pleasurably because it is into the unknown. My Lords, the Bill as it stands refers to
" such information relating to his undertaking as is in the possession of the employer, or of any associated employer ".
The information which is likely to be in his possession relates to his undertaking, and the information which is likely to be in the possession of any associated employer is surely information about the associated employer's undertaking; and so I think one needs to include that undertaking as well as his own. That is what the Amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I should like to make one point on this. The occasion could arise where a holding company with a number of subsidiary companies might be able to withhold information, saying that this was not a matter relating only to a subsidiary company and was primarily a matter for the holding company which was engaged in the negotiations. But the information might be absolutely vital for the trade unions to reach a satisfactory agreement. I should like to advance that as a reason why it would be desirable for this to be made perfectly clear.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess that when I first read this Amendment I was attracted by the symmetry of it, that the disclosure should operate as it were, in both spheres. But may I make it clear, since we have not discussed this point previously, that the clause as drafted requires employers to disclose to trade unions information relating to the undertaking which is needed for collective bargaining, whether it is held by the employer himself or in the hands of an associate of his. I think that is the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter was referring. The effect of the Amendment would be to extend that obligation very materially, so that the employers had to disclose information relating to the undertakings of associated employers.
As I said at the outset, I was initially looking at this without advice and I was attracted by the symmetry of the Amendment. I saw that in logic there was a case for arguing that if a clause bit on one leg, as it were, it should bite on the other. But there are difficulties here, and quite considerable ones. Subsection (6) of Clause 163, as your Lordships know, defines "associated employers". I will not trouble your Lordships by reading the definition, but it is a pretty wide one, and although I readily concede that in some circumstances the affairs of an associated employer's undertaking might be relevant for the purposes of collective bargaining, to widen the obligation of the clause in the way which is sought would, I think, open the door too wide, and might indeed lead to very considerable practical objections.
I do not wish to pitch it too high, but I will expand what I have in mind. In a multi-company set-up, a requirement
1062
to provide information about the affairs of associated companies could impose a tremendously heavy burden on the employers. For example, in connection with other provisions of the Bill an employer has pointed out that because of the definition given in Clause 163, to which I have referred, over 150 companies in their group could be treated as "associated". This is by no means exceptional. Indeed, although this is quite a large group, there are other groups which are larger—for example, I think that Courtauld's have something like 500 associates—and therefore the implications of accepting the Amendment, in spite of the merits which initially commended themselves to me, could be tremendously heavy on a company of this sort, which might well be asked to provide information about a whole range of "associated employers". I think this really would be overwhelming the machinery of the Bill. For that reason I hope that the noble Lord, having listened to what I have said, will not press this particular Amendment.
I hope I have made clear that I am not in principle opposed to what he has been suggesting, but I think in practice it would place an unduly heavy burden upon the employers concerned. At the same time, in expressing the hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment I should like to point out that there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to stop employers from providing this sort of information if in their view it would promote effective collective bargaining. However, my Lords, to impose a statutory requirement of the sort which this Amendment would entail right across the board would in my view be unwise. That is really the advice that I should like to give your Lordships' House on this Amendment.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, before the noble Earl dismisses this would he consider a re-phrasing? The reason for this Amendment is that people on this side of the House are suspicious of the possibilities. I appreciate the explanation which the noble Earl has offered, but if the words were, "where the information required is relevant to the bargaining entailed", would that not be sufficient to satisfy extraneous inquiries which had no relevance to the bargaining that was going on? I wonder whether the noble Earl would consider words of that kind

1063
instead of the Amendment as proposed by my noble friend Lord Diamond.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I speak again so that the noble Earl can deal with both speeches at the same time? May I follow up the point which my noble friend has just made and say to the noble Earl that this is a matter of practice, not a matter of political theory, and it is therefore not a matter on which I should seek to divide your Lordships' House. I nevertheless press the argument upon the noble Earl, because I think he has misconstrued the situation according to the Bill. I think that the first unaided view he took was, as is often the case, the better one. And may I say why? The whole of this is conditioned by Clause 56(1)(a) which refers to the kind of information that can be asked for; namely, information without which the trade union representatives would be to a material extent impeded in carrying on collective bargaining.
Let us take the case of a company with 500 associated companies. How many of those associated companies are so closely connected with this particular negotiation as to affect the bargaining that is about to take place or that is going on? The likelihood is that of the 500 associated companies only a few, perhaps less than half a dozen, would in the slightest degree be so closely connected that the information referring to them would be information without which these particular negotiations would be to a material extent impeded. Therefore, with respect, I am not at all worried about a company having 500 or 5,000 associated companies. The ones I am worried about are those one or two associated companies whose connection with the company under consideration is material—and the noble Earl said in his first sentence that there would be cases where that information was material.
My Lords, I did not expect the noble Earl to reply that that was the Government's intention. I expected him to say either that it was an oversight and that they were grateful for the drafting correction, or that this was already covered by the Bill. It cannot be the case that the necessary information can be made available if part of it is relevant and it comes from one or two of the 500 associated companies. I certainly agree with the
1064
noble Earl that one should not bother your Lordships with a detailed definition of an associated company, but it is much more associated than your Lordships would think; it is a very close connection indeed. It would be the case that there would be one or two of such associated companies whose business would be so closely interwoven with the business of the employer under negotiation that really the employer would not be giving the relevant information. Therefore, I say to the noble Earl that this is not a Party point; it is merely a question of interpreting correctly the spirit behind the clause which says that the employer should give the relevant information; that the union must not ask for irrelevant information, and that the employer should be free to run his business under one hat, two hats or 500 hats if he wants to. I have always been very sympathetic with this point of view and I went to enormous lengths when I had responsibility for the Finance Bill to make financial provisions adjustable to the freedom of industry to run its business as it thought fit. I have not the slighest difficulty in saying that I welcome every business which wants to hive off one particular part of its undertaking under one hat another under another hat and to have 500 or more associated companies; but I cannot accept for a moment that it is not the spirit of this clause that relevant information should be made available.
I hope the noble Earl realises that I am not for one second seeking to give a trade union the right to wander all over the place to seek information and give many people a lot of trouble. That would be utterly stupid and counterproductive. But there is a point here, a sensible point, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would look at it, and look at it favourably.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is the first time that we have discussed this particular point. I am very prepared to look at this between now and Third Reading, but I do not wish to get into the position of holding out a whole host of considerations between now and then for purely practical reasons. On the question of relevancy, I think I can help the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, because—and I may not have made this absolutely clear in my opening remarks—I

1065
think there is nothing between us on this point. The form of words contained in Clause 56(1) does not necessarily preclude a trade union from requesting information which, although it relates to the undertaking in question and is relevant to the bargaining in hand, also relates to an undertaking of an associated employer. That information will of course, to be caught by this, have to meet the standards of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), and the Bill operates in this way as already drafted. It is therefore my view that the clause, as drafted, will allow unions access to all relevant information which they require for the purposes of collective bargaining without at the same time imposing a potentially intolerable burden or very heavy burden on employers.
Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that this is not a Party point. We are discussing a purely practical point and it is a question of interpretation of the drafting. I shall be glad to look at it again in the light of arguments advanced by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, and the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, but I should like to make clear that I am satisfied that at the present time the Bill gives us both what he and I would like. I am equally satisfied, subject to looking at it again, that to accept the Amendment would be to impose a heavy and rather impractical burden. I should not wish to be dogmatic on an area of quite difficult interpretation, and I hope, given that explanation, the noble Lord will not (and he has suggested that he will not) pursue this matter at this particular stage.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.50 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79GGG:
Page 47, line 21, after (" is ") insert (" available to or ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if this Amendment was accepted the clause would read:
"…all such information relating to his undertaking as is available to or in the possession of the employer,…".
The point is a very simple one. At the moment the Bill requires the employer to produce the information which is in
1066
his possession. I am not a lawyer; I do not know precisely what that means. If it means in his possession in the particular building in which he happens to be conducting the negotiations, that would not take us very far. If it means in his possession at any time, in the sense that it is already made up, that would not take us far enough. A more sensible description would be "available to" as well as being "in the possession of". That is why the words are inserted. I beg to move.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again while not being dogmatic, I am, I fear, in a resisting mood. I am not speaking as a lawyer, and it is certainly not my understanding that possession would have this rather narrow interpretation which the noble Lord was inclined to put upon it. May I explain the position, as this is also a new point? Under Clause 56 an employer already has a duty in collective bargaining to disclose to trade union representatives appropriate information which he has in his possession. He is obliged, in addition, to obtain any relevant information from associated employers. Consequently, in collective bargaining in relation to a company, trade union representatives have a right under the Bill, to relevant information from such associated employers. I believe that it would be unreasonable to extend the employer's obligation still further, as the noble Lord's Amendment would do. The Amendment could possibly oblige employers to seek from similar but non-associated enterprises information about procedure agreements (and I take procedure agreements as an example) which might be used in discussions in collective bargaining within their own organisations. That would be going beyond what is reasonable. That is certainly my understanding of the phraseology which we should be bringing into the Bill. The Amendment would involve the possibility of endless arguments as to what could, or could not, be made available. I suspect that we might be creating that sort of happy hunting ground for the barrack-room lawyer which certain noble Lords have accused those who sponsored the Bill of already providing.
Our predecessors in office were, I suspect, of a rather similar opinion to that which I have been expressing, since the corresponding provision in their Bill,

1067
which was Clause 22, was the same as ours. I am not resting my argument on that; their Bill was no more sacrosanct than ours is, but I believe that the point is relevant. I hope I have shown that I am not in spirit far from the noble Lord on this point, but I think there is a practical objection to the Amendment; and, especially in the light of a "goody" about to come, I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, six years as a Chief Secretary has taught me to be singularly incorruptible. If your Lordships do not mind, I will therefore concentrate on this Amendment, in the confident hope that the future is replete with "goodies". Nevertheless, one has to do one's duty on this Amendment. I did not find what the noble Earl said completely persuasive. The condition that any information is to be made available is set out in the Bill, and it has to be information without which the trade unions would be to a material extent impeded. The example the noble Earl gave is the kind of information which the union would not ask for because they would get it from their friends in the union, and would have ready access to it. They would not bother the particular employer about comparable arrangements. Unions are good at getting comparable arrangements and all the information on them. We do not disagree about the kind of information that we think the employer ought to give, but my anxiety is that the words are too narrowly drawn to enable the information to be made available. The noble Earl thinks that my Amendment would incorporate words which are too widely drawn. I do not think that either of us should rest our case wholly on the words if we are trying to reach agreement on this matter. I should be content if the noble Earl would say that he would give it further consideration; that is all that is necessary at this point. I do not know whether he would be prepared to say another word about it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we are on a comparatively narrow point. First of all, may I come to an important point of principle. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, like Robespierre, is "sea-green incorruptible", in case he was crediting me with any other possible opinion on his possible corruptibility. I
1068
am unwilling to go beyond what I have already said. There is a practical difficulty here. Having dealt with that point of principle out of order, may I have the permission of your Lordships to speak again on this matter? I find it hard to see what information that would be relevant for the purposes of collective bargaining could be obtained from sources other than the employer himself. If the employer has the information, it is in his possession and therefore the information is caught by the provisions of the Bill. If the information is not in the possession of the employer, if it is outside, it is just as likely that the trade unions will have access to it as the employer himself. I believe that to incorporate the notion of availability, which is a fairly wide one, into the Bill would be opening the door to endless barrack-room arguments as to what constitutes availability. The Bill, as drafted, gives those who wish to promote better collective bargaining—and we all do—everything that is really necessary. I will look at what the noble Lord has said, but I do not think I shall be able to meet him on this point.
LORD DIAMOND: May I interrupt the noble Earl?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, of course.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for permission to interrupt him; but unless I do so I am in a tactical difficulty. May I ask him to look at this point with a view to finding a word which does not mean available from outside sources, but available to the employer from inside sources although not in his possession at the moment? I am thinking of sheets of information rather than of sources of information. If it is in his possession, one does not want an argument on the lines: "Well, I could get the information if necessary". The Bill refers later on to the problems of preparing information, and one does not want an argument on that basis. I am not seeking to press the noble Earl for information from outside sources, meaning outside the undertaking or firm itself.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is certainly my understanding that the Bill as drafted would have that implication. It is also my understanding—but I am thinking on my feet and I am not a

1069
lawyer—that the phraseology information in possession" would certainly cover the sort of case the noble Lord instanced as an example, but I shall look again at what he has said. It would be a mistake to hold out a promise that I am going to import new phraseology at a later stage, but without any commitment certainly I undertake to examine what lie has said. I think it would be wrong for me to go so far as misleading your Lordships' House and to use the hallowed phrase "consider again".
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79HHH:
Page 47, line 39, after (" be ") insert (" or be confirmed ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I sincerely hope that this and the next Amendment are the "goodies" which the noble Earl had in mind. This Amendment is a very small one but not without interest, and one might almost describe it as slightly erudite. We are concerned with disclosure at this point and with what the word "disclosure" means. The provision in the Bill says that disclosure of the information shall be in writing. I do not know what would happen at a meeting if someone disclosed information verbally to someone else; that is not in writing, but it is a disclosure. If the person—and I understand this is the intention of the Bill—then said, "That was very interesting. Will you write and confirm it to me?" the employer could then say, "I am not required to do that, I have already disclosed it". If one were required to do it, it would have to be confirmed in writing. I think your Lordships see my difficulty. It would be clearer if the expression "or be confirmed" were included so that lines 38 and 39 of the Bill would then read "The disclosure of it shall be or be confirmed in writing". It is either to be in writing in the first place or, if it has been given verbally, it is to be confirmed in writing.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, for a former Chief Secretary, I am surprised
1070
that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, does not recognise the difference between the plural and the singular. I think I used the word "goody"; he has already doubled it. I hope that by playing down the particular importance of this Amendment, he was not seeking in any way to devalue the nature of the conciliatory attitude which I am about to show towards it. I think it is an Amendment which shows not only the greatest possible erudition but is also one of great practical importance. That is how I certainly regard it. At the same time I must grant that I do not think that there is a great deal between us on a matter of principle on this particular point. I understand there is some doubt as to whether the Industrial Court here involved would construe the present subsection, subsection (3), so as to entitle a trade union to written confirmation of information. I am quite clear, and the Government are quite clear, that this entitlement is desirable on grounds of policy, and I am happy to accept an Amendment which puts the matter beyond any possible doubt.
This right, of course, would extend only to information which an employer is obliged to disclose under Clause 56; it would not cover additional confidential information which an employer may disclose as an earnest of trust and good faith. Upon that understanding, I am very happy to recommend your Lordships to accept this erudite and undoubtedly very important Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I find it difficult to summon words to give adequate expression to the gratitude which I feel to the noble Lord. All I can do is to thank him very much indeed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, Amendment No. 79DDDD flows from the last Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, doubtless anticipated it; perhaps it was the second "goody" which he had in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 43, at end insert (" or confirming ")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.7 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79YY:
Page 48, line 13, at end insert—
(" (6) In this section the term "trade union" is used in the same way as in the code referred to in subsection (2).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on this occasion we have moved from erudition to simple logic, which is perhaps the more persuasive. May I describe the argument in a very few, simple steps. The first step is that an employer must disclose information in accordance with good practice, which we find described in subsection (1)(b):
" information which it would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice that the employer should disclose to them for purposes of collective bargaining."
That is the first step.
The second step is that that means having regard to the code of practice, because in subsection (2) one reads:
" In determining…what would be in accordance with good industrial relations practice, regard shall be had to the principles relating to disclosure of information…set out in the code of practice…".
That is very simple and straightforward. Then one has to look at the code to see what that says and all of us know what it says. Broadly, the term "trade unions" in the code is used to describe both registered and unregistered workers' organisations, so that one has these three simple steps which produce the result which this Amendment would make more clear. I have to say "more clear" because there is a little ambivalence in the Government's mind when it comes to thinking about trade unions. But they realise that as soon as one comes to the practice of good industrial relations which the code describes, then one disregards any esoteric distinction between registered or unregistered trade unions and one has regard to good relations between man and man, between the employer and the employee.
For those purposes, therefore, it is right that all employees should receive the information which is needed to enable the bargaining to take place on a proper footing and a fair footing, and indeed the code of practice, issued under the authority of the Government with the blessing of the Secretary of State himself, tells us to do that very thing. So all I had to do, really, was to say, "Well, it
1072
is not for me to put the Government's Bill right. They should have seen to it themselves." But perhaps their logic was just a tiny bit lacking in this respect, and so I have been only too happy to fill the gap and put down the Amendment, which I now beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, so far in the consideration of this Bill my noble friends and I have supported the Government in their stand of giving advantages to registered trade unions and definitely penalising unregistered independent organisations of workers. We see this as one of the major parts of the Bill, something not bad in itself, and certainly any attempt to take this out would be to wreck not only the Bill but also anything which ought to flow from it. Therefore we have been on the Government side on this particular point all through.
However, on this one point we definitely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, because, as he himself has said, this is really not a question of the relationships of the union itself; it is a question of general good industrial practice and general good management practice. It is the entitlement of all workers to get as much information as possible from the employers about what is going on in the firm. Indeed, we think this is one of the most important factors in the whole of industrial relations as opposed to industrial disputes. It is for this reason that we are now supporting the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, there are one or two points here which I feel your Lordships should consider. Although the code of industrial practice, on page 19, goes quite extensively into collective bargaining agreements on the general guide to that question, at the same time it states in reference to the term, "trade unions", on page 8:
" For the sake of simplicity the term ' trade unions' is used in this code to describe both registered and unregistered worker's organisations."
What I am worried about here, as I believe very strongly in trade unions, is that this is exactly the kind of set-up one would have in a works where people were not satisfied with their trade union. They would then demand of an employer to give them all the information they want

1073
to start to form themselves into a breakaway union—which I personally should not like to see. This is why I do not like this Amendment. I think it could be quite distinctly against the interests of the unions.
4.16 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in moving this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has laid great stress on the fact that in the code of industrial practice, the draft Consultative Document, no distinction is made between trade unions and unregistered organisations. I agree with him and, furthermore, I should like to say that it is entirely right that this Document should draw no such distinction. The code is concerned with principles of general application, and therefore there is no reason or need to distinguish between registered trade unions and unregistered organisations of workers, both of which have the common purpose of promoting their members' interests. As my noble friend Lord Balfour has pointed out—and he was on a very valid point, if I may say so—the term "trade unions" is therefore used throughout the Consultative Document to describe both registered and unregistered organisations.
Although the Bill draws a distinction in this respect, I do not think that this difference in terminology will cause confusion. The asterisked note on page 8 of the code is absolutely clear. The great majority of people who come into contact with the legislation will do so through the code of practice and the guides which will be issued by the department of Employment, and these will make the position absolutely clear. But the effect sought by this Amendment is to require employers to disclose information to organisations of workers which are not registered. I do not wish to make too much of this, but we have made it plain time and time again—we made it plain when we were in Opposition and we do not hide the fact now—that the registration proposals lie at the very heart of our policy on this matter. I know that the Opposition do not like this; they have made it perfectly plain. But, in any event, this matter has been debated, I think I might fairly claim, both in this House and in another place ad nauseam, and I do not intend to expound our philosophy here—it would be
1074
quite wrong on Report stage—in great detail. I would confine myself to saying only that it is a fundamental principle of this Bill that the privileges and rights which it affords should be restricted to those organisations which accept the very reasonable requirements of the registration provisions and the resulting responsibility towards their members.
The Bill therefore gives certain rights to registered bodies but not to those bodies which do not register. The right to relevant information in collective bargaining is, in our view, one of those rights. I should like to underline a further point here. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent an employer from giving information to officials of unregistered organisations of workers if he wants to negotiate with them; but I should like to make it clear that they cannot demand information as a statutory right under the Bill as drafted. I believe this to be right because it is in accord with our fundamental approach to the problem of registration. In Committee we debated (I suspect that it was at a rather early hour) an Amendment which would have had much the same effect as this, and although the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not mention this particular point at that stage—
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, there was no code at that point.
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords, there was no code, but we debated an Amendment which was very similar to this; it would have had the same effect. What I was going on to point out was that on that occasion both the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, implied that under the Bill unregistered organisations of workers would lose their existing negotiating rights. I should like to make it plain that if this is what was thought—it is certainly what they said—it is quite wrong. In this Bill we are not seeking to take away existing rights from unregistered organisations in this respect. What we are doing here is to confer new rights and privileges on those who do register, including the right to information in their collective bargaining. It is in our view, therefore, up to each organisation of workers to balance those benefits against the responsibilities implicit in

1075
registration. The principle of according, along with responsibilities, certain privileges to registered organisations is one from which we cannot depart, and therefore I have no hesitation in advising the House to reject this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has moved in such studiously moderate terms.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I hear and I understand the statement made by the noble Earl that this is a distinction from which he cannot depart. That is a statement but it is not an argument. But it is the only thing he has said that really sustains the weight of his high office and the matter we are discussing. I recognise that he is in great difficulty about it. We discussed this point in Committee and made suggestions from this side broadly along the lines we are now considering. But at that stage there was no code of practice, and to our astonishment the Government said, "Yes, it is right to give information to employees if their union has registered under this Act, but it is not right to give information to employees if their union has registered under a previous Act." That seemed to me to be an absolutely astonishing statement, and I think I said at the time that I found it quite shocking.
Since then we have had the code of practice, which makes the position absolutely clear that as soon as we attempt to put a theory like that into practice we come unstuck. Just imagine any factory with different sections in it and organised by different unions. Union A is registered under the new Act and union B is registered under the old Act; union A goes to the management and says, "For the purposes of our collective bargaining we need some information." The owner says, "Of course, not only am I required to give it to you by law but it is in accordance with the best industrial practice. Here it is." Then union B, which is registered under the old Act but not under the new Act, goes and asks for the same information affecting a similar body of workers employed by the same employer in the same undertaking but carrying out a different task and therefore organised by a different union. They are told by the owner, "Oh no. We are
1076
not required to give the information to you and we are not going to do so. We have given it to your mates but we are not going to give it to you." One can imagine the kind of explosion that would take place in that factory and how long it would be before all the men were out; and one can imagine also that until that information was made available none of the men would be back at work. It is a sure recipe for industrial unrest.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? He has said that there would be an explosion in that factory should that situation arise. Surely any normal management, and indeed perhaps even the more stupid management, would realise that point and would give the information to both the unions. The only point at issue is the right of the union to have the information if the employer does not want to give it. Surely in those circumstances it would be right to attribute to management normal common sense.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I entirely agree and I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I am only sorry that he has not spoken more often in these debates.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, perhaps I should say that the time of the House has been so fully occupied by the noble Lord and his colleagues that there has not been very much opportunity for the rest of us to take part in these debates.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am very sorry indeed to hear that. We must seek, through the usual channels, to create the opportunities so that we may have the benefit of the noble Lord's comment.
LORD CHAMPION: Extend the Report stage for another month.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alport, made a most valuable contribution. I entirely agree that any sensible management would give the information and would realise that it would be an intolerable position not to give it. The Government also recognise that, because as soon as they began considering practical points as to how industrial relations were to work in practice they produced a code of practice which says, "This is what you shall do". It says that you shall give this information

1077
to all the employees irrespective of whether or not their unions have registered. What I am saying is that it is a ridiculous situation when, as the noble Lord has said, every sensible employer would recognise that it was his duty to give information. The noble Earl now says, "We cannot depart from the policy we have taken on"; and we know what that means. The Bill therefore says something which is not necessarily quite the opposite to the code of practice, but it does not say the same thing. The Bill makes a careful distinction: it says that if you are registered you are entitled to it and if you are not registered you are not entitled to it. As the noble Lord, Lord Alport has said, that is sheer nonsense. It is nonsense for it to be in the code of practice and not to be in the Bill.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I just correct the noble Lord, who is always very fluent in his interpretation of what those who are taking part in the debate have said? I did not say that it was nonsense; what I said was that it is a question of rights, and that the practice that took place would depend upon the circumstances and should be interpreted as such by the management. But the principle laid down by the Government is perfectly applicable and understandable both to trade unions and to management.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I withdraw immediately what I said previously. The noble Lord did not say that it was nonsense; he made the case to show that it was nonsense to do one thing in the code of practice and another thing in the Statute. That seems to me to be as good a definition of a Government proceeding to nonsense as I can think of: to provide in week one a code saying, "You shall give the information to all concerned", and to provide in week two or three a Statute saying, "You shall not give the information to all concerned but only to some of those concerned."
I am grateful for the support the Liberal Party have given to this Amendment, because it means a great deal that they should have departed from their normal attitude to this aspect of the Bill on this one particular point. The Amendment seeks only to breach this principle in respect of this one area of giving information. The code, if the noble Earl
1078
would like me to read it out, makes clear, not only in the footnote but time and time again throughout the code itself, that it is important for efficiency that employees—employees in the plural and not just certain employees—are kept informed on matters which concern them, and that managements should ensure that every employee is given full information. All these things are repeatedly stated in the code. It is sheer nonsense; or, if it is not nonsense, it is worse—it is a deliberate withdrawal of rights from a certain class of employee. Because the employer who was so inclined would read the Statute and would say, "I am not required to give you the information until you register, and if you do not register you are not entitled to it by law, and that is the end of the matter." It is obvious that we cannot accept the noble Earl's reply, which is merely to stand on his authority. That is not an argument which appeals to us and we must press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord does so I wonder whether he would consider this argument. On Tuesday last we were discussing whether or not this Bill conferred new rights on trade unions. This is undoubtedly a place where a new right is conferred on a trade union—and a right which can be asserted through the Industrial Court. If the noble Lord succeeds in this Amendment no doubt he also had it in mind to make it later in Clause 102, which gives the trade union power to assert this right. If noble Lords will look at Clause 102 they will see that if an employer fails to give the information that this clause requires him to give then a complaint can be made to the Industrial Court and the Court can make an order determining rights, an order directing an employer
" to take such action in fulfilment of the duty in question as…it would be within the power of the employer to take and is action which in the circumstances he ought to be required to take."
If information is withheld for bargaining purposes, then under Clause 126 an order can be made authorising presentation of the claim to the Industrial Arbitration Board. And if we look at Clause 126 we see what the Industrial Arbitration Board can do. There a claim can

1079
be made to the Industrial Arbitration Board and
" Any such claim…shall be a claim that, in respect of one or more descriptions of employees specified in the claim, the terms and conditions of employment to be observed by the employer specified in the order should be, or should include, such terms and conditions as are specified in the claim."
In other words, they then take their bargaining claim to the Industrial Arbitration Board, and it will be for the employer to appear before that Board and, if he likes, argue his case there.
These are new and very substantial rights indeed. I do not think the noble Lord is justified in saying that no new right is given here. The clause gives registered trade unions the right to have certain information. There is a very important distinction between rights given by Statute and good practice set out in a code of practice. The code recommends employers to give information; the code does not say, "This is what you shall do"; it says, "This is what you should do". That is the essential distinction.
Good employers, and we hope all employers, will follow the code and give information of this kind. The only distinction is that if an organisation of workers wishes to avail itself of the rights, then it is required to register under the Bill, and registration will carry with it the requirement to comply with certain standards. That is one of the rights that is conferred. The noble Lord is well aware that neither unregistered organisations of workers nor trade unions can assert the provisions of the code in the Industrial Court. It is true that non-compliance with the code may be quoted in any action before the Court or the tribunal, but a right under it cannot be asserted. The right given in this clause is one which can be asserted, and that is why it is confined to registered trade unions.
4.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79YY) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64.; Not-Contents, 106.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Reay, L.

Airedale, L.

Fiske, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balogh, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Samuel, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Silkin, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burntwood, L.

Janner, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wade, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Daventry, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Brock, L.

De Clifford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Denham, L.

Alport, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Derwent, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Burgh, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Auckland, L.

Caithness, E.

Dundee, E.

Balerno, L.

Camoys, L.

Effingham, E.

Balfour, E.

Carrington, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Clwyd, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Barnby, L.

Coleraine, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Belstead, L.

Colgrain, L.

Falkland, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Ferrers, E.

Bessborough, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrier, L.

Birdwood, L.

Courtown, E.

Fortescue, E.

Blackford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Gray, L.

Loudoun, C.

St. Helens, L.

Gridley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Savile, L.

Hacking, L.

Margadale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Mersey, V.

Shannon, E.

Hankey, L.

Milverton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Morrison, L.

Somers, L.

Hatherton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strang, L.

Hawke, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Hood, V.

Moyne, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Strathclyde, L.

Ilford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Swinton, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Oakshott, L.

Tenby, V.

Kemsley, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Kindersley, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Kinnoull, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

Landsdowne, M.

Robbins, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Latymer, L.

Rothermere, V.

Wise, L.

Leicester, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Young, Bs.

Lothian, M.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 57 [Disclosure of information to employees by major employers]:
4.41 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79JJJ:
Page 48, line 15, leave out (" 500 ") and insert (" 200 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope to produce in respect of this Amendment at least three arguments as to why it should be accepted. We now come to the clause which deals with the requirement that a firm should disclose information to its employees regularly, not necessarily in connection with collective bargaining but just as a matter of sensible industrial practice, to keep people informed. Nobody wants that information to be required to be given in the case of every firm; so one eliminates the very small firm. But, equally, one does not want the requirement limited to the overlarge firm, and I think that at the moment we are in danger of doing that. At the moment, by definition, the person required to give this information is the owner of an undertaking which employs "more than 500 persons, other than excepted persons". For these purposes I am going to assume that "excepted persons" are mainly part-time employees; so the clause requires—and I hope that the House will excuse me from using the words "bites on" for one gets a little tired of being "bitten on" from time to time—an employer whose undertaking engages more than 500 persons, apart from part-time workers, to give this information. In these days that is a
1082
large firm, and can be a very large firm. In the case of a capital intensive employer, 500 employees, quite apart from part-time workers, could provide a turnover of £5 million a year or more. That is the first point.
The second point relates to the part-time employees. Suppose one had a firm of 450 full-time employees and 2,000 part-time employees, making a total of 2,450. That firm would not be required to give this information. A firm which had 501 full-time and no part-lime employees would be required to give it. I do not think that that is a very sensible way of looking at the matter. I make two points at this stage. The first is that we are, in my view, erroneously restricting the requirements to over-large firms; and, secondly, that the definition wrongly excludes part-time employees. As this particular Amendment refers only to the first leg of my argument, it proposes to leave out "500 employees" and to insert "200 employees". If, then, you have a number of part-time employees it is not such a relevant matter.
I know that there is a provision in the Bill, a so-called escalation clause, which provides for adjusting this figure. The noble Earl may tell me that if it does not work out in practice the figure can be adjusted upwards or downwards. That is true; and I hope that the Government will have regard to that and will adjust the figure if necessary. But this clause is bound to set the tone; it is the figure in the clause that would be regarded as the standard for good practice. Irrespective of the variation clause, I think it right that the Statute should provide a figure which sets the tone correctly. I think that 500

1083
is far too high. For the reasons I have given I hope that the House will regard 200 as more appropriate. There is nothing between us as regards the need to give the information; but this figure is set too high. I hope that the Government will feel that this is another Amendment that they can look kindly upon and perhaps accept. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I shall be very brief. My name is coupled with that of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made a staggering statement. He prefaced his remarks by saying something to the effect that no one wants the obligations of this clause to apply to every firm. I do, so that is a misstatement. I think the obligations here should apply to every firm; that they are the absolute basis of good industrial relationships no matter what size firm is concerned. I see no reason why these obligations should not be statutory and enforceable. For that reason I support the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the rather small step he has taken along those lines.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I refer to one point which I think might have been made clearer? The clause refers to "other than excepted persons". I know that the term is defined in a later subsection of the clause; but why not leave these words out of subsection (1) and call the employees simply "whole-time employees"? That would be simple; everybody would understand it and there would then be no need to refer to a later subsection. Otherwise, I would support the figure of 200. I might even support the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in making it smaller. I appreciate that a line must be drawn somewhere. The figure of 200 appears to be reasonable.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend was a little modest in his requirements. When I was in the other place, I remember a chemical company who were proposing, at a cost of something like £3½ million, to move into my constituency. They asked about labour relations and how they worked in that area, and I advised them. I asked what this move would cost and they told me that the cost would be anything up to £3½ million. I thought that an investment of that nature would involve bringing in
1084
200, 300 or 400 people. I was told, to my amazement, that there would be 36 people employed; and that backs up the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. Such firms are not given the same accommodation as other people because they do not reach the figure of 500 which is in the Bill, and I think that my noble friend Lord Diamond is being conciliatory with his figure of 200.
In all development areas there are factories on industrial estates where the figure would not reach even 200, but they are not to be taken into consideration or given the accommodation which they should receive because that figure is below the one in the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, may be able to help us. An employee in a particular type of industry wishes to know why the firm for which he is working cannot have the same facilities as are afforded for people in other factories where the number of employees may be greater. I am looking at this matter, and the comments which have been made, from that point of view.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment, and I agree with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Slater. Today, with automatic machinery a firm may employ 25 people and yet have the most enormous turnover. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley; I do not see why this should not apply to all employers, even those employing half a dozen people. I cannot see any objection to that. A bona fide employer should have no objection to his employees knowing everything about his business. I hope that my noble friend may be able to give a favourable response to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I urge the noble Earl to accept this Amendment. I speak from practical experience, having been involved with a plant which cost over £2 million and employed fewer than 100 people. As has been mentioned, all kinds of work which used to be performed manually has been taken over by automation and by computers. The numbers of workers in efficient companies are being reduced,

1085
and I think it essential that the minimum figure should be 200.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, may I mention that by subsection (7) the Secretary of State is allowed to vary the number? I support the proposal to have a figure of 500. In many cases, particularly on industrial estates, there are firms which are starting up perhaps in a highly technical field—say electronics. They may be operating on borrowed money, or they may be a subsidiary of another company which has supplied money to start the new enterprise in the hope that it may be successful. Very often such firms operate on a shoestring in their early stages and might not wish to disclose too much information about themselves. Usually in small firms there is a very friendly feeling between management and workers, but I think that if the number is reduced to something like 200 the requirement should not apply to firms of less than five years standing. This would give such firms a chance to get started. As the Secretary of State has the power to vary the figure I feel that we should not press this matter too hard.
4.55 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I am far from unsympathetic towards the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and other noble Lords. I think it is reasonable that employees, many of whom may have spent the whole of their working lives in a particular firm, should be entitled to have information about the firm they work for. The clause springs from a conviction, which I think we all hold, that in the conditions of modern industry employees can easily lose touch with the activities of the firm for which they work.
It is not for me to lecture noble Lords on the problems of modern industry, but I believe that a loss of personal identification with the job is one of our great problems to-day. I am not certain that we have the right answer to it, or that the answer may be found in a modern industrialised society. It is perhaps rather ironical that in the harsher conditions of an earlier age there was often more involvement in the job, and more pride in the work, because, I suppose, people were able to feel they were identified with
1086
it. I do not know: perhaps it was because the concern was a family concern, and work was then organised in smaller units. I have found that the element of depersonalisation in industrial relations is likely to occur as soon as concerns get above a certain size. That size is about the number that someone can know. I am not basing my argument for accepting the figure of 500 on this, but I think the right figure is that of the number of people with which one person can cope—about the size of a battalion, that sort of thing. That has been my impression from such first-hand knowledge of industry as I possess.
In drafting the provisions of this clause our thinking was influenced in two ways, which was rather schizophrenic, as they pulled in two directions. We wanted to ensure that an individual should receive at least a minimum amount of information about the organisation which employed him. On the other hand, we wished to avoid placing unduly onerous burdens on employers. It is difficult to generalise, but I believe that it is in respect of the larger enterprises that there is a need to do everything one can to counteract the problem caused by depersonalisation and lack of involvement. That is where the greatest need lies for doing something to stimulate better communications by the sort of regular statements which are provided for in the Bill. That is one reason why we have put in a figure of 500. In our view, it is the larger organisations where this is most needed at the present time. In addition, in fixing the initial limit at 500 we had in mind that to oblige small employers to issue such a statement might involve them in a great deal of cost and considerable work. For those two reasons, we believe that, at least initially, the statutory obligation should be limited to fairly big employers of labour.
There are only three things that I should like to add before I say where I stand on this. In the first place, I would point out that there is nothing in the provision to preclude employers of fewer than 500 workers from issuing such statements. Many already do, and many no doubt will continue to do so; and so far as I am concerned, the more the merrier. I hope that this Bill and its general direction will encourage thorn in

1087
what I think in principle is a highly desirable practice. Secondly, there is subsection (7), to which the noble Lord drew my attention and anticipated what I might say on it. It is an escalator. In this case, I think that it is far more likely to go down than up. I cannot see it going up; I can readily see it going down. I would assure your Lordships that it is my right honourable friend's intention to keep this matter under review and, he will if necessary adjust the figure. I think your Lordships may take it that such adjustment would be downwards. I say that with some considerable assurance.
I see nothing sacred about the figure 500. I gave from my personal experience a rationalisation for a figure of about that size. My own feeling is that the dangers which we are seeking to avoid here, and the problems we are seeking to mitigate, seem to be most prevalent and pressing in the undertakings of 500-plus rather than in the concerns of 500-minus. That is where a conscious effort is most needed to improve communications, though they are needed in the smaller firms, too. I do not wish to dogmatise. There is nothing between us in principle. In my view, 500 is not unreasonable. I do not wish to argue that 200 is necessarily totally wrong and, by the same token that 600 is necessarily totally wrong. In view of what I have said, and above all the clear indication that my right honourable friend will keep this under close review and will have no compunction whatsoever in operating the escalator clause, should this seem desirable and practicable, I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I believe that this is not an unreasonable figure at which to start. We may well move downwards over the course of years. My own instinct tells me that we probably shall. But I think that we should give the Bill a trial period and see how we get on; and then, if need be, my right honourable friend will operate the de-escalator.
5.4 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we are grateful for the conciliatory reply which the noble Earl has given but I do not feel that he has paid sufficient attention to either the weight or the spread of the
1088
argument. First of all, may I deal with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made. I am sorry that I used the phrase I did, but I did not have to-day's Marshalled List before me and did not have the pleasure of seeing that the noble Lord had attached his name to my Amendment, at which I am delighted. The Liberals take the view that this information should be made available in all circumstances. I share that view, but I am in this practical difficulty: that I do not think this is the kind of statutory provision we can make, because Statutes have to be carried out and, if necessary, policed. That is my practical difficulty; but I certainly share the view that information should be made available much more regularly.
To whom do we intend this clause shall apply? Not to the large firm, which already gives information, and I should be astonished if there were a large proportion of firms with over 500 employees who did not give information already: it is standard good practice. So I think we ought to direct our attention not to firms who already carry out this practice but to those who should be carrying it out. I should like to see a much smaller figure than 200, but we are on Report stage and I have to try to assess which Amendments are so moderate, over-moderate and reasonable that the Government might be willing to accept. That is why I pitched on the figure of 200. From the first-hand information we have been given to-day about the size of firms, I think that 200 is very relevant. It is not our fault that the Government pitched on this definition of number of employees. If they had tried to define it by annual turnover, that might have come out with a different result. I think it is right to base it on employees, because we are concerned about giving information to employees and we arrived naturally at that method of definition. When I said that a firm of 200 could produce a turnover of £5 million, I was being moderate, but I took this from my general experience. I know that as more and more capital-intensive firms come along, and as investment grows, as we hope it will continue to do at a much greater pace, investment per man will grow enormously. If we compare the American figures with our own we see how slight our own is. The number of employees

1089
in relation to turnover will grow progressively smaller.
The noble Earl was right when he said that this figure would have to be brought down. But we have to pitch it somewhere. Our figure of 200 is not so small as I expect the variation clause will lead to; I expect it will get down to about 100 over the next five years. I feel that I must press the noble Earl a little further to give this Amendment more favourable consideration. Of course nobody is going to say that it is a practical issue, but it must be made clear that we should encourage the smaller firm to do as the bigger firm is doing, and supply this information. At the moment the clause speaks only of the firms who no doubt already do it. In that respect it is not a practical clause, and I am bound to ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared either to accept this Amendment now or at least say he will consider this sympathetically—and I do mean sympathetically. Then there will be no need for us to press this matter further to-day.
LORD KINDERSLEY: My Lords, may I add a word? I have had a little experience, mostly in big industry, but also some in small industry. I cannot help feeling that we have probably to add a great number of part-time employees to the figure of 200, which is 200 fully employed people; so that in fact the final figure will be greater than 200. In my opinion it would be wrong for a firm of that size not to give the information about which we are speaking. I should find it difficult to vote in any other way than in favour of the Amendment, because I think this is fundamentally wrong.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords. I am grateful to noble Lords for the moderation with which they have pressed this Amendment. I should like to mention one point which I imagine is known to your Lordships. Many of the actual units which will be covered by the 500 clause will be under the 500 level. The clause applies, of course, to firms with over 500 employees; but as a result of subsection (1) companies whose individual establishments employ less than 500 will be covered. So there will be quite a few establishments of less than
1090
500 which will be covered by this Amendment.
Committee stages and Report stages in your Lordships' House are not just charades. I believe that the value of this House is that we can exercise independent judgment, and listen to the weight of argument, without undue attention to Party considerations. I think that a considerable weight of argument has been deployed in favour of this Amendment. I have listened carefully to what has been said from all quarters of your Lordships' House, and I think it would be wrong for me, speaking both as Leader of the House and also from this Bench, if I were not to say that I will pay close attention to what has been said on a part of the Bill to which I personally attach considerable importance. I would say straight away that between now and the next stage of the Bill I should like to give this Amendment sympathetic consideration. It would be a mistake for me to commit my right honourable friend, and indeed myself, as it were, thinking aloud, but I will bear in mind what has been said by a number of noble Lords representing a number of parties.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, who joined in our debate. Speaking, if I may, for all those who have participated in the debate, I am sure that we want to acknowledge the important gesture that has just been made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who holds such a high Cabinet rank, too. When he says that he is going to give the matter sympathetic consideration (which he did say, and for which I asked), I can only say that I am grateful, and I seek the leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.12 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79ZZ:
Page 49, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is raised now, in view of what the noble Earl has said, as a matter for discussion, and I hope he will listen to it from that point of view. In subsection (9) it says:
"…for the purposes of this section "—

1091
the section on the disclosure of information that we are now considering—
" a person is an excepted person…if…

(a) he is employed under a contract…for less than twenty-one hours…"

and there are two other exceptions which I do not think I need bother your Lordships with. This is the normal definition—and therefore I accept it immediately as a definition—of a part-time employee.
The question before us is: should a part-time employee be denied the information which a full-time employee gets? I do not think he should. If you are in a situation where the employer employs a largish number of part-time employees (even if it is 200 it is a largish number in a largish firm; and as the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, has made absolutely clear he would automatically be employing some, and possibly quite a large number, if you think of stores and businesses of that kind), I cannot myself see the argument for denying to those part-time employees the right to receive the same information, especially as for the purposes which we are considering. I do not think "part-time employees" is a good description. I think the description is misleading, because very often although it is a part-time engagement, it may be a person's sole occupation, and therefore his livelihood depends on that occupation. That being the case, that person is surely as much interested as a person who works longer hours and receives more remuneration. Indeed, the person could be at a low level of income, having great difficulty in making ends meet, and really be more interested in the odd 5p than the person who works the full hours and receives a larger amount of remuneration. On that score, I should have thought it was reasonable to ask that part-time employees, as defined here, should be given exactly the same information as full-time employees, and for exactly the same reasons, that their livelihood depends on it.
If that were all that the Amendment does I should seek to press it upon your Lordships. But unfortunately the Amendment refers to another aspect of this, too: it refers to the definition of the size of the firm. The noble Earl was good enough to say on the earlier Amendment that he would consider the question of the size of the firm. The size of the firm is defined in terms of full-time employees;
1092
it excludes part-time employees. If he is going to stick to a definition of that kind, of full-time employees only, then I think we should want to press this Amendment, which would then have the effect of meeting to a point our earlier argument, and also meeting completely the main argument; namely, that the whole livelihood of a part-time employee may depend on the information which is obtained for the purpose of collective bargaining for that employee's standard of living and wages.
I hope that the noble Earl will realise that this is quite an important Amendment. There are two aspects to it, but the more important one is treating the part-time employee as a person whose sole occupation this is. In those circumstances, it is difficult to see why that person should not receive the same information as his or her neighbour, who is also engaged in his or her sole occupation, although it happens to be one of longer hours. I beg to move.
5.20 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, without unduly delaying the House again, I should like to draw attention to an aspect of this matter which may be relevant. One must not forget that there are still parts of Britain where strange conditions of work exist. Even in these progressive days there is in textile towns a great deal of work done at home. In the silk industry and some other textile industries, and in glove making, it is an understood thing that quite a number of people, through generations of families, are linked with part-time work at home.
I possess an old document referring to the 1906 London Exhibition on sweated home-work. Conditions are not like that to-day, but in London in those days people were making tassels for coffins for about 3d. a gross. In the silk and scarf-making industries quite a lot of women do this kind of work at home. I hope that some consideration will be given to this. A firm in some industries could be employing fewer than 200 full-time workers and have quite a lot of home-work done. Without delving into this matter too deeply, the question arises whether those part-time workers should be entitled to know what is going on in the firm for which they are working. I hope that some sympathetic and understanding attention will be given to this matter.
LORD DONOVAN: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has undertaken to look at this clause again, may I raise a point which I think is more of technical drafting than anything? We are all assuming that the employees about whom we are speaking are employees of the owner of the undertaking. If one reads the first three lines of Clause 57 one finds that they are wide enough to cover the employees of an independent contractor who may be on the premises for a long time or for a short time. It may be the intention—I do not think it is, but it may be—to include those employees in this obligation. They are not taken out by the last three lines of Clause 57(1) because the employer who is the owner of the undertaking may be a quite different person from the employer of the employees employed by the independent contractor. I hope I have made that clear. It is a purely technical point which may be worth looking at.
5.24 p.m.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it was interesting to listen to the clarification given by the noble Lord, Lord Kindersley, of the technical matter which arises under this clause. I was also interested in the observations made by my noble friend, Lord Davies of Leek. May I say to the noble Earl the Leader of the House that much part-time working to-day takes place in telecommunications, just as much as in the silk industry. For a very long time trade unions, by means of negotiation, have been fighting for a shorter working week. As a result, in telecommunications the greater part of the personnel employed is female labour. They are prepared to work an eight-hour shift but they do not want overtime work. Yet the cycle of operations has to go on to keep up with export markets and so on.
I have visited some of these factories and I know what happens in my area. Many ladies, when their children have come home from school and the husband has returned from work, work four hours a night for five days a week in this way. They are therefore employed part-time and the employer may employ 600 or 700 on a part-time basis. We have this massive operation going on throughout the country. I will not particularise and give the names of big companies in telecommunications, for that would not be right in view of the knowledge I have
1094
of what is happening. Having listened to what was said by the noble Earl the Leader of the House in reply to my noble friend Lord Diamond, I hope that the Leader of the House will agree with the case that we are seeking to make.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, there is a practical side to this matter. You have heard arguments about part-time workers. Every major company employs part-time workers to-day. If there are a number of people working in the same plant, and information is given to some but not to others there will be a leak and someone will disclose that information. Why not give the information to all those employees at the beginning and thus save embarrassment? The difference does not make sense to me.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, speaking as one who is a part-time employee I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House will give sympathetic thought to this Amendment. I should hate to feel that I was deprived of the knowledge that the very few whole-time employees in my profession are able to get.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, in this connection a development is starting in contract cleaning. The people engaged in this work are almost invariably not employed for more than about 21 hours a week. There are also the big organisations which deal with the school meals service and with school cleaners. That is a very wide industry employing much female labour. I think that such people should be considered if the Government are prepared to look at this clause again.
LORD GRAY: My Lords, I wonder if there might be a question of what is an undertaking. Noble Lords have been speaking about part-time employees, and the definition of an undertaking in the Bill suggests that part-time employees should be taken into account in arriving at a decision about the size of an undertaking. Thus it might be that the proportion of part-time employees who are not to receive information might be so great that those in full time employment received no information.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I could first make one thing

1095
very plain to your Lordships' House? I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, started the habit of saying that I was going to have a look at the whole of this clause, and that habit has been creeping in. I should like to make perfectly clear that what I said was that I would give sympathetic consideration to a particular and specific Amendment moved to this clause. That was the extent of my undertaking. I do not wish in any way to detract from the undertaking, but I also do not wish to add to it save by my own volition.
In view of the fact that the debate has gone rather wider than a Report stage debate sometimes goes I should summarise the general position. First, we are anxious to do what we can to promote better communications in industry. This is what this part of the Bill is after. Here we are all agreed. Secondly, we felt it right to limit for practical reasons the employers' obligations in a number of ways. Perhaps I should summarise what we felt to be reasonable and sensible limitations. First, as we discussed on the last Amendment, an employer will not be required to issue statements at all if he employs fewer than 500 people. That I have said I should like to look at.
Then there are three categories of employees who are excluded from the statutory right to receive a statement. They are, first, employees who work for less than 21 hours a week; secondly, those who have been in employment for less than 13 weeks, and, thirdly, those who normally work outside this country. It is the first of those excluded categories of part-time workers, if one is allowed to use this shorthand phraseology, to which the Amendment relates. Its effect would be twofold. First, it would entitle such workers to receive an annual statement, and, secondly, it would mean that such employees would be counted in determining an employer's liability to issue statements. Certainly the effect of accepting the Amendment, given the way the Bill is drawn, would be that all employees would be entitled to a statement, irrespective of the number of hours worked.
1096
What would be the practical effect? It would mean that the statutory obligation would extend not only to part-time employees employed for four or five days or nights a week regularly, systematically, over a longish period of time (say in a bar or a public house or in a restaurant), but also to a much more casual type of part-time employee. It would apply, for example—and I am using this in no pejorative sense—to an older schoolgirl who works an hour or two on a Saturday morning in a department store or supermarket—one of the "Marks and Sparks" or Tescos of this world. I personally believe that it would be a mistake, and I hope that noble Lords will agree with me, to make this a statutory obligation on employers to impart the information called for in the Bill to such employees.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, if I may intervene before the noble Earl leaves this point, it seems to me that he is misinterpreting the effect of the clause. It seems to me that the part-time employee is not excluded from getting information, but is excluded from being counted as one of the number of employees making up the 500 beyond which it is obligatory to give the information. The paragraph says that the information will be given to persons employed in the undertaking. Now the definition of "employee" in the definition clause is a person who works under a contract of employment, not a person who works for more than 21 hours, and it is only for the purpose of ascertaining numbers that the 21 hours is effective. Therefore if the noble Earl were right you would have a ridiculous situation in a company which employed 501 full-time employees and 500 part-time employees, which is by no means an unusual thing—indeed it is very common, as my noble friend Lord Slater has said, in the electronics industry, in the textiles industry and as a matter of fact in any industry where the operation is such that it requires women to do delicate work because their hands are more suitable for it than those of men. In many industries nowadays you cannot get women to do such work on a part-time basis, except by allowing them to work for four hours or so a day, sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the afternoon or sometimes in the evening. Once

1097
this information is to be made available, it must be given to everyone who is employed in the undertaking, whether he is working 40 hours a week or four hours a week.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with all due respect, I do not think I am misinterpreting the noble Lord. If the noble Lord will look carefully at Clause 57(1), it reads:
" In the case of any undertaking in which on any date within a financial year of the undertaking more than 500 persons, other than excepted persons…"
Then there is the definition of "excepted persons", which catches the part-time employees of whom we have been speaking. I think that is the position: in fact, I am certain it is.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, what puzzles me is to understand the nature of the burden which it is apparently assumed is imposed on the employer in providing information for part-time employees equally with full-time employees. I think that if I were now an employer I should want all my part-time employees to have the information, and I cannot see the objection to providing it.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think there necessarily is an objection. What I was seeking to develop was the argument that here it would be a mistake to have a statutory requirement. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent an employer issuing statements to his part-time employees if he wishes to do so; indeed, for many employers it may be more convenient to do so rather than distinguish between one type of employee and another. Here it seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, was saying was perfectly reasonable. All I would say is that he seemed to be assuming that the employer would be debarred in some way from issuing some statements if this was a sensible thing to do. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill as drafted to prevent this, and in the case that he instanced I think that indeed it would be the sensible thing to do. I also hope that what I have said answers the question—whether satisfactorily or not I do not know—put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins.
Again, I should like to point out that there are two quite firm precedents here
1098
for adhering to the Bill as drafted; namely, in the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, and the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that—it is something we touched on a couple of days ago—Section 4 of the Contracts of Employment Act requires employers to issue to their employees within 13 weeks of starting work a written statement of the main terms and conditions of employment; but this does not include employees who normally are employed for less than 21 hours a week. I think it would be anomalous to give part-time employees rights under this clause of this Bill while excluding them, as they are excluded at the present time, from receiving written statements of the terms of their employment which are likely to be of even greater interest. Again, a similar distinction, rightly or wrongly, is drawn in the Redundancy Payments Act 1965.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask whether it would be entirely unreasonable to regard the provisions of the earlier legislation as being imperfect in this respect?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think it would necessarily be entirely unreasonable; but if one is going to move in one area it would probably be reasonable to move in all three areas and not have a lopsided arrangement. I am certainly quite unable to accept the Amendment as it stands at present because I should be very unhappy at placing a statutory obligation on employers to issue statements of the kind required to the part-time employee of the type which I instanced. I think that to make that a statutory obligation would really be going far too far, but this would be the effect of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has moved. I personally believe that the Bill, as drafted, is sensible, and that these exceptions are reasonable. I feel that the Amendment as it stands is defective or goes far too far; but even if it did not go so far I personally believe that the Bill goes just about the right distance in this particular area, bearing in mind that there is nothing in the Bill or elsewhere to prevent employers from issuing these statements to part-time employees if this is the sensible thing to do.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, if I may take the time of the House—
EARL JELLICOE: I think the noble Lord has already spoken.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I understood that, and I was introducing it by, "if I may by leave of the House", but I will not now impose on the leave of the House.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I will do my best to interpret what was in the mind of my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek by the look in his eye and hope that what I am about to say will find sympathy in his breast. There is no meeting of minds, I regret to say, on this particular Amendment, and I am sorry that is so because I want to treat it as moderately as I can, and I have been much impressed once more by the generally sympathetic way in which this Amendment has been received and discussed in all parts of the House. I was particularly touched by the gentle and subtle comments of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who seemed to me to be saying in very simple terms that not only do two wrongs not make a right but three wrongs in this case do not make a right. Two bad precedents are quoted, and what he might have gone on to say is that these are really different Bills with different obligations involved, and I do not think they are close precedents or similar analogies. So I hope we can have regard to this one Amendment alone.
The noble Earl says that he does not like the idea of placing a statutory responsibility on people in a certain respect, but it is this Bill which places a statutory responsibility. I am glad that it does. It is a wholesome clause and a clause for which we are grateful in all parts of the House. All we have to decide is not the question whether a statutory responsibility should be placed, but on whom it should be placed. At the moment, the noble Earl seems to think that we should include part-time employees, or at all events very small part-time employees. I think we shall be getting into hopelessly unnecessary detail if we say to employers, "You shall give it to all people employed full-time, to all people employed 21 hours a week, but not to people who are employed for 10 hours a week or whose employment of
1100
10 hours a week is spread over fewer than three days." There are so many variations and as has been made clear, the administrative argument is in favour of covering them all, not of putting upon the employer the responsibility of saying, "How many hours did this man or woman work in this week? Does he qualify or does he not qualify?"
I am sure there is no important argument in saying that we should redefine the question of 21 hours. Being compelled by Statute once a year—that is all it is; it is in respect of a financial year—to give these statements to part-time employees as well as full-time employees is something which I should have thought the House will wish to press on to the noble Earl.
My Lords, may I deal with the other part of it, the part affecting the definition of the size of the firm. In spite of what my noble friend said, I certainly took it that subsection (3), which says—
" such information…shall be issued to every person who,…, is employed…and who is not…an accepted person."
meant that this clause refers both to the hours worked and to the definition of numbers. So, having dealt with the hours worked, may I come back to the definition of hours?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, that is my interpretation of the Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am glad we are on common ground there, and I hope that what I am going to say will satisfy the noble Earl that there is no reason why we should not press the Amendment. Having dealt with the part-time aspect of it, I come back to the definition of numbers, and the noble Earl has said that he will look at that. I hope he will look at it in terms of saying that every firm with 200 or more employees, be they full-time or part-time, will have the obligation of issuing the statement, and that therefore it is right to remove this exception completely. He will have to make up his mind about that and we hope he will say that. It is conceivable that he will come back and say, "No, I am going to exclude part-time workers in defining the term". But he said he would look at this matter sympathetically, so something is going to be decided: thought is going to be given and a decision of some kind or another is to be made. It

1101
is within his freedom of action to take into account the fact that subsection (9)(a) is, I hope, going to be removed. Therefore there is no technical difficulty why we should not press it. The arguments are in favour of pressing it. Speeches in support of it have come from all parts of the House and I should be failing in my duty if I did not press the Amendment to a Division.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, may I ask for one point of clarification? When the noble Lord refers to part-time workers, is he including casual workers and seasonal workers whose employment may fluctuate from time to time? This would make the situation different. Is he referring to regular part-time workers who go on from year to year?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the only part of the definition of the exception with which we are necessarily concerned at the moment is part-time workers, in respect of their right to receive this information. Therefore I would say to the noble Lord that if this information is issued on a day when there are half-a-dozen casual workers who will not be there next week, does it matter if they get the information as well or should we put on the employer the responsibility of saying, "I must go carefully through the wages sheet of my 500 employees and extract those who are casual workers and will not be here next week?"
So far as casual workers are concerned there are two points which I should like to put to the noble Lord. First of all, in many cases a casual or a seasonal worker comes back season after season—for example, the hop pickers—and there is quite a relationship between the employer and the seasonal employee. Secondly, I am not suggesting to your Lordships that subsection (9)(b) should be removed, and that subsection defines one of the excepted classes as a person who has been employed in the undertaking in question for less than thirteen weeks. If your casual worker has beer employed for only
twelve weeks then the noble Lord need have no anxiety. I hope the noble Lord shares my view that we do not want to get too complicated on this, and I hope he will support us in the Lobby.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say one or two things. First, here, as elsewhere, it is not easy to draw the line, but it does not seem unreasonable to say that the line concerning the statutory obligation to furnish this information should be drawn at the 21-hour week; that is, employees working for less than, say, half the normal working week. That seems to us to be a perfectly reasonable watershed. Secondly, I would make clear again that here we are talking about a statutory obligation. There is nothing in existing practice or in the Bill when it becomes law which prevents an employer, when it is sensible so to do, from furnishing this information. There are times when it might be administratively convenient and sensible—the type of instance which the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, gave. There may be times when it would be inconvenient and not sensible. I do not wish to argue that. This does not affect the fact that part-time employees, however casually employed, for however short a time, can receive a statement if the employer so desires it. The only difficulty between us is whether this should be a statutory obligation.
I believe the effect of this Amendment would bite on the most casual type of employment, somebody being employed for a couple of hours a week. It is quite absurd to place what could be quite an onerous obligation on employers to furnish this information. I do not believe that the Bill as drawn is in this respect unreasonable. This Amendment goes far too wide, and I must advise your Lordships to resist it if the noble Lord presses it to a Division.
5.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79ZZ) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 89.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Bernstein, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Archibald, L.

Beswick, L.

Byers, L.

Ardwick, L.

Birk, Bs.

Champion, L.

Balogh, L.

Blyton, L.

Collison, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brockway, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Crook, L.

Hoy, L.

Reay, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Ilford, L.

Robbins, L.

Diamond, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Kennet, L.

Slater, L.

Foot, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Garner, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

McLeavy, L.

Strang, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morrison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Hanworth, V.

Norwich, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wade, L.

Henley, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Phillips, Bs.

White, Bs.

Hood, V.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Abinger, L.

Dudley, E.

Margadale, L.

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Mersey, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Effingham, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balfour, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Nairne, Bs.

Barnby, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrier, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Birdwood, L.

Geddes, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rothermere, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Gray, L.

Rothes, E.

Brecon, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hacking, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Savile, L.

Caithness, E.

Selkirk, E.

Coleraine, L.

Harcourt, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hatherton, L.

Strange, L.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Swansea, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe. E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Swinton, E.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Tenby, V.

Crathorne, L.

Killearn, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Kindersley, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

De Clifford, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Vivian, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Latymer, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 58 [Notification of procedure agreements]:
6.0 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 79K:
Page 49, line 32, after (" State ") insert (" after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industries ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which we discussed at considerable length in Committee. It is reported in two columns of Hansard. It is not my intention to rehearse the
1104
argument that we covered at that time. What I am doing is giving the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, a chance to make a statement, because he was kind enough to say on May 18 (col. 440):
" I am prepared, if this will help, to have another look at it, without commitment, to see whether it might in fact be desirable. I do not think it is necessary, but I have an open mind on this."
My Lords, upon his saying that, I was reported as having said:
" That undertaking to look at it beats me completely."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18/5/71; col. 440.]
Although this took place at an early hour in the morning, I cannot imagine for one moment that I said that what the noble

1105
Earl said beats me at all. What I said was that he
" meets me completely ".
Certainly that was the purport of my remarks because I liked what he said; namely, that he would have a look at it.
I am now asking the noble Earl to tell us what was the outcome of his further consideration: whether he can meet us without beating us, and whether he can tell us that he is now prepared, after having considered the matter further, to accept the Amendment which, after all, is a reasonable one and is one that he could very well accept without upsetting the principles that he has enunciated from time to time in connection with this Bill. I beg to move.
6.2 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: I should perhaps explain the Amendment to some noble Lords who may not have been here when we discussed it earlier. This Amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to consult with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. for the making of any regulations requiring employers to notify their procedure agreements and arrangements.
As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, we debated this matter at the Committee stage and I said I would consider it. I did so in studiously neutral terms which, with his usual fairness, the noble Lord has repeated. I have reconsidered this matter, and I say once again—echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said—that in principle there is little or nothing between us. Yet having reconsidered it—and this was not a pro forma reconsideration, but a real one—I must still advise your Lordships against this Amendment.
When I say that there is little between us, I know that in practice it is highly unlikely that the views of the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. would not be fully taken into account before regulations under this clause were made. I say that because I know that the voluntary exercise which has been going on now for some time, the notification of procedure agreements, has been working really very well indeed. It has been working with the full consultation and co-operation of both the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. I am confident that the consultation and co-operation in this respect will continue when this Bill becomes law and when this particular
1106
part of it "bites", to use a phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, now wishes to avoid.
The other course would be to lay a statutory obligation here for such consultation, which I do not think would be really justified. In my view the need to lay upon Government a statutory obligation to consult is justified only where the circumstances really demand it. I should like to instance a case where I think a statutory obligation is justified; that is, that before the Secretary of State makes an application relating to procedure agreements to the Industrial Court, Clause 37(3) would require him to consult the parties concerned; namely, the employer and the appropriate trade union. In that case I do not think the special consideration does apply.
However, I should like to refer again to two points, one of which I have already made. First, the views of the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. will almost certainly have been taken into account before these regulations are made. I should like to emphasise that. Secondly, I should like to draw attention to the fact that there is the not unimportant safeguard that regulations made under this clause would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament. There would thus be opportunity for specific approaches by or on behalf of those concerned at that stage. In any event, the regulations will only be used in those very isolated cases where it is considered really necessary and important that the information should be obtained.
I should like to assure your Lordships and make clear to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that I have reconsidered the desirability of incorporating the statutory requirement to consult, but for the reasons I have given I feel that it would be unnecessary to do so. Also, I believe that it is not a good thing in principle to load a Bill with statutory requirements to consult here, there and everywhere, except where it is absolutely necessary.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that it is not necessary here and that he will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it is quite obvious that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, as promised, has very carefully

1107
considered this matter between the Committee stage and to-day. I agree with him that the voluntary arrangement is working very well and I have some doubts myself about putting anything into legislation which is unnecessary in the circumstances. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.9 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79KKK.
Page 51, line 39, after (" an ") insert (" independent ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall move the Amendment quite shortly in the hope that it is not necessary to press the argument at any length. We are now starting on the clause which refers to the registration of trade unions and other organisations. We are dealing now with an introductory clause which states that an "'organisation of workers' means an organisation" which and then proceeds to a description. The point I am making is a very simple one. The first condition of such an organisation is that it should be an independent organisation. We had a similar Amendment on Committee stage but that Amendment dealt with freedom from domination or control by an employer.
Since then I have looked at the definitions more closely and I find that the word "independent" is there defined in relation to a trade union or other organisation as meaning "not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers". Therefore it seems to me that one word will serve the purpose of several words, and I hope that is a thought which all of us share. I apprehend I may be told that it is not necessary, that independence is already secured. It is partly because of that possibility that I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have looked carefully at this Amendment, and when I first saw it I felt that perhaps there was something to it, because of course we have exactly the same object in view. But, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will realise, the point which we both wish
1108
to pursue is covered under Clause 67, which particularly names an independent organisation of workers as an organisation eligible for registration as a trade union. Furthermore, as the noble Lord himself said quite clearly in his opening remarks, the clause that we are now discussing, Clause 61, is of a declaratory nature. Therefore, if we were to include "independent" in this particular place we should be favouring those unions which are employer-dominated. As neither of us wishes that to happen, I suggest that the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, who has cleared up the anxieties which were the main reason for my putting down the Amendment, and I seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if we could consider this particular Amendment, No. 79A with No. 79B. They are drafting Amendments only. I beg to move No. 79A.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 19, after (" and ") insert (" which ").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
6.12 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79BBBB:
Page 52, line 25, after (" which ") insert (" has power, without the concurrence of any person who is not a member of the organisation, to alter its own rules and to control the application of its own property and funds and which, if it was formed on or before the 30th June 1971, is for the time being registered as a trade union under the Trade Union Act 1871, or if it was formed after that date ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I fear we cannot dispose of quite as quickly as the last one. This Amendment, which I now beg to move, refers to the definition of a trade union. The subsection says:
" In this Act ' trade union ' means an organisation of workers which is for the time being registered as a trade union under this Act."
The Amendment seeks to make it say that it is an organisation of workers which is

1109
independent in the words described and which
" is for the time being registered as a trade union under "
one of two Acts. The Acts are the Trade Union Act 1871, under which most trade unions are at present registered, and "this Act"—which of course means the Bill under consideration. However anxious I am to speed your Lordships' business, I am bound to spend some time on what is a most important Amendment at a most important time politically.
First, may I repeat what I have said before: that we are not in dispute with the Government on the principle of registration. Indeed, it is very irritating when noble Lords rise and make speeches as if that was what divided us. What divides us is not the principle of registration; it is the compulsion to register in a particular way as defined under this Bill. Over 80 per cent.—I think, over 85 per cent.—of trade unionists are at present in unions which are registered. So it cannot be said that the trade union movement objects to registration. What it objects to, and objects to bitterly, is the registration that is proposed under this Bill, and all that goes with it. In practice the Government have now seen and demonstrated to us that the distinction which is arrived at by saying, "Only organisations of workers which are registered under this Bill shall be treated as trade unions" is a distinction which cannot stand. Since we last discussed that point the code of practice has been published—the code of practice upon which we all place great hopes; and I certainly very much hope and believe that that code, by itself, unemcumbered with the difficulties associated with this Bill, could lead to considerable progress in improving relations between the Government and the trade union movement and improving industrial relations as between employer and employee. That code of practice makes it perfectly clear: "For the practice of good industrial relations, would you please disregard the distinction between registered and not registered unions".
Secondly, since we discussed this principle in Committee the Government have made a statement with regard to the House of Commons' fair wages resolution, which states that every contractor
1110
with the Government must give the right of joining a union to every one of its employees. That resolution was passed in the late 1940s—1947 or 1948 or at about that time—and has subsisted ever since then, and has been accepted and reconfirmed by every Government since then. The Government have made it perfectly clear that in interpreting what that resolution means one must have regard to all unions, whether they are registered under this Bill or not. So I am saying that in practice this distinction is seen to be irrelevant.
In theory, I now go on to say, the proposed denial of rights to employees who do not belong to a union which registers under this Bill, but belong only to a union which has registered under the previous Act, is, in my view, if not a breach, a near-breach of our international obligations which we have taken on under the International Labour Organisation, and is certainly an infringement of the fundamental liberties which we regard ourselves as entitled to enjoy in this country—in particular, the freedom of association. It also means a withdrawal of statutory rights which have been secured for over a century. That is the theory of the matter.
So the first three points I want to make to your Lordships are these. We are in dispute not about the principle of registration but merely about registration under this Bill. In practice, registration under this Bill will be disregarded in the practice of good industrial relations, because the code invites us to disregard it. And, in theory, it is not only an infringement of our fundamental liberties but is very nearly, if not absolutely, a breach of our international obligations. It is for all these reasons that the Labour Government proposed, both in their document In Place of Strife, and in the Bill which they introduced but which went only as far as a First Reading, that there should be registration under the 1871 Act. That is of course what the Amendment proposes. The Amendment proposes that where old trade unions are registered under the old Act, that is fine: let them continue. Where there is a new trade union created that may be a consideration that it should be required to register under a new provision, but it is a normal method of dealing with changes in the law that one provides that those

1111
organisations which are already well established should continue on their existing procedures and compels only new organisations to take on new liabilities and new responsibilities and new burdens.
I want now to turn to the practical politics of what we are talking about, and I address myself with great seriousness to the Government. At the moment, we are in a situation where 8 million trade unionists belong to unions which have decided not to register under this Bill when it becomes an Act. I believe that today, in fact, instructions are going out from the T.U.C. advising these various unions as to how they can achieve their purposes in this new situation. These trade unions have decided not to register in accordance with a democratically convened conference and democratically arrived at decisions—the Croydon Conference—and the hostility which this Bill has engendered in the trade union movement is undoubtedly hardening; and, if I may say so, the arguments which the Government use to attempt to justify registration only add insult to injury. It shows that the Government are totally incapable of understanding why it is that all these organisations are wholly opposed to this Bill and to the registration provisions of it. As my noble friend Lady Gaitskell said, do the Government really think that all the unions are mad; that they have decided that it is not in their interests to register under this Bill?
I am seeking, as I have sought in every single Amendment that I have put before your Lordships on the Report stage, not to find a method of achieving what I think is right but to find a method of achieving a compromise which may seem right to the Government as well as to us, which may offer a way forward, so far as the unions are concerned, and which may offer an opportunity of avoiding the disasters that will clearly face us if the Government insist not only on carrying this Bill through but on implementing it. The proposal which I offer is that the registration should be either the existing registration or the new registration—the existing registration for existing unions, the new registration for new unions. That is a very moderate proposal. It would provide the Government with the opportunity which they
1112
may need for administrative purposes of having records of unions.
It may be in the public interest that the Government should have records of the unions. The Government would know of their rules, because that is provided for under the original registration provisions. There would immediately be a lessening of tension and a possibility of moving forward. At the moment I am proposing that provision only so far as this clause is concerned. There may be a whole host of consequential Amendments to be made if the Government want to go a long way with us; they may, of course, want to go only a little way. We could provide Amendments for later stages of the Bill which would meet this situation. Certainly what we have to provide straight away is that the 1871 Act should continue to exist, and accordingly an Amendment has been tabled to that effect, because the Government have proposed to remove it from the Statute Book.
I hope I have made clear why I am returning to this important issue and why I regard it as a public duty to advise the Government once more of the difficult situation for which they seem to be heading, and why I feel it right that they should think again in a very serious situation, and why I regard it as elementary justice that trade unions, which for a century have been able to register under the 1871 Act should continue to be entitled to register under that Act. This would be a simple way of achieving it. I beg to move.
6.25 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I accept the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has moved this Amendment. He said that in his opinion it was of great importance and he wished to make clear—and I think it is good to have it on the Record in this House—that he and his colleagues are not in dispute on the principle of registration. To instance that, he pointed out that about 87 per cent. of trade union members now are registered under the 1871 Act. He said that new factors had emerged since this matter was last debated at considerable length on the Committee stage, and he instanced in particular the code of practice. He said that the distinction now

1113
cannot stand between the original Act, which is embraced in this Amendment, and the registration provisions under this Bill because, he said, the code of practice makes clear that one should in fact disregard registration.
I hope, and believe, that the purpose behind the code of practice is to make clear the guidelines to the kind of best methods which would be carried out by those who work and those who manage in this country, whether they register or whether they do not. I have the code of practice here, and it does not make any distinction between organisations, because—and this is the important point—the duties of all are the same under the code. The Bill distinguishes between those only because certain privileges are given only to registered unions—for instance, the freedom to introduce a breach of contract of employment. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that from the point of view of practical politics, as he called it, he understood that about 8 million trade unionists now belonging to unions had decided not to register under this Bill, and that a T.U.C. instruction was going out to try to help them in not registering. If the object of the Amendment is to avoid the difficulty that might arise if a large number of trade unionists refused to register, I would suggest that the difficulty would really be for the unions, because they would not have the privileges which undoubtedly exist under this Bill—shall we say the advantages of the Bill?
I read again with very great interest the debate which took place on May 20, and I think that my noble friend Lord Windlesham, who at that time was replying for the Government, made the case for registration—which is voluntary registration—under this Bill very clear. What are the advantages of the Bill? All it does is to lay down that the advantages should be restricted to those organisations whose rules meet minimum standards; and surely all the best organisations—trade unions—in this country would have these kinds of rules, and those who have not got them surely would wish them to reach the minimum standards.
I quite understand that noble Lords opposite have not at any time said that they agree with these particular advantages that registration under this Bill
1114
provides; they have mantained that all along. And throughout the debates we have maintained that it is right to have a minimum standard of rules as laid down in this Bill. I do not think that either of us will convince the other at so late a stage in the Bill, but to turn to the particular Amendment I would only say that, quite apart from the fact that it goes against the main thinking behind this Bill from the practical point of view—and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to what he called the "practical politics"—I think it would be difficult to have, on the one hand, the Register of Friendly Societies for 1871 unions and, on the other hand, the new register for new unions. To have these two together would really make life very difficult, and it would, to give one example, duplicate the administrative requirements of Clauses 87 to 91.
But it is not merely on the administrative difficulties I base this case. I take the case as put down by the noble Lord. The code of practice lays down the minimum requirements of behaviour of those who work and those who manage. Registration is voluntary; it gives certain legal protection to those who register. I suggest there will be many up and down the country who will think carefully about their position, both individually and within their union, and I hope at the end of the day many of them will think that to register will be the best action they can take.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I support my noble friend Lord Diamond in his most reasonable plea for the Government to reconsider this. Not only do I wish to ask the Government once again—I have forgotten the words I used before—do they really think that nearly 9 million trade unionists in this country are mad when they say they do not wish to register if this Bill goes through, and are quite ready to give up their privileges? After all, they are not mad; they do not wish to give up privileges for nothing. I really would plead with the Government to look at this sympathetically and see what they can do. and consider my noble friend Lord Diamond's suggestion about allowing the trade unions which have registered up to now under the 1871 Act to go on, and simply let the new unions who wish to

1115
register now register according to this Bill when it becomes law.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the noble Baroness surely realises that if this Amendment were accepted you might as well scrap the whole Bill. The noble Baroness says 9 million trade unionists would refuse to register. I have heard some exaggerations in this House, but never one as bad as that. I know quite a few trade unionists who will be only too pleased to register under this Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord may have his friends among trade unionists, and it may be they are of a mind to register. I would not dispute that for a moment. I beg his pardon, the noble Viscount. I gather he has many titles, both English and Irish, and it would delay your Lordships unduly if I referred to all of them. But what the noble Viscount must not do is to say that my noble friend Lady Gaitskell is exaggerating when she is repeating the figure, nearly 9 million, which is given on the Trades Union Congress's own authority and is the best figure that exists. I hope that the noble Viscount will take that into account. He may know half-a-dozen trade unionists sympathetic to this Bill, but the facts are—and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and the Government will take this on board, too—that there has been continuous and careful thought and consideration given to this question of registration by all the unions, by all the officials and by all the members of the T.U.C. They have had a full and public conference about it. They have given thought to it subsequently. They know the difficulties that are involved in not registering, and they have all decided that it is clearly against their interests to register and that they are not proposing to do so. They have all made that decision, over 8 million of them, nearly 9 million—I daresay that by the time it comes to the end of the day 9 million will be more likely the figure.
The Government are really being blind, absolutely purblind, if they continue to refuse to recognise what is happening, and it is no use the noble Lady saying that she feels sure that in due course many will be carefully thinking this
1116
matter over and will register. They have thought it over, because they know better what is in their own interests, with great respect than the noble Lord. They have given this matter more thought than the whole of the Government have done. They are capable of thinking about it. They are able people; they are experienced people; they have enormous responsibility. And I daresay there are more votes behind them in their trade unions than there are behind the Government to-day in their political stance, which is also of some interest.
It is no use the noble Lord saying to me "why not?" I had hoped that the commonsense of this would appeal to noble Lords, the realisation that if, after all that consideration, the unions do take the view, which I think is as plain as a pikestaff they should take, that it is wholly against their interests to register, that view would have registered with the noble Lord and the Government. It clearly has not registered with the noble Baroness. It is no use our exchanging arguments; she merely refers to the one side of the question; she can go on doing that till the cows come home. She may say I only refer to the other one. There are two sides. The balance in my view is overwhelmingly against registration—overwhelmingly. The Government are acting in the most unjust and unwise manner. I have no authority on behalf of the trade unions to put forward this proposal, none whatsoever. I was merely hoping the Government might be prepared to see that here was a way in which you could hold the position, give people a chance to talk to one another, get round a table and thus arrive at a modus operandi satisfactory all round. I am not going to try to persuade the Government if they do not want it. It is not something I want, it is not something the unions want, it is a possible compromise. If the noble Baroness does not want it, we will leave it, but we are bound to divide the House
6.38 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord does that, I wonder if I can say this. We have had very long debates on these matters. The noble Lord says the trade unionists are very able people, and so, if I may say so, is the noble Lord, and yet he is still talking

1117
in quite the wrong terms. He must know, I think, by now that there is no question of registration. As soon as the Bill is passed all those bodies will go on to the provisional register. If any body wants to deregister it is free to do so, but there is no question of registration. Those who are on the 1871 register will automatically go on to the provisional register. This is not a question of semantics, because this is already a compromise which was reached in another place, believe it or not, a compromise solution that was put up. They go on to the provisional register. If at that time a particular union meets the requirements in Clause 67—and they are very simple requirements indeed, that they are an independent organisation of workers, and they have powers without the concurrence of any parent organisation to alter their own rules and administer their own property and so on—it is transferred to the register, it is on the register.
And then at that point the Registrar will do what everybody agrees should be done, which the Donovan Report recommended should be done, that the rules of the trade unions should be brought up to date; this will then be done. And it will be done simply by the Registrar giving notice if the rules are defective in any of the ways we shall be coming to a few clauses later. If they are not defective they will continue like that in the register—quite unchanged. If they are defective, then surely the rules ought to be changed, and the opportunity is then given to change them. If the union does not change them, if it does not bring them up to the standards in the Bill, which are the right standards and are generally recognised as being the right standards, then the registration may be cancelled. Apart from that, the unions are free to withdraw their registration. If they withdraw their registration they are free later, if they choose, to apply for re-registration. There is no question of registration by the unions. It will be a voluntary act on the part of the trade union if they de-register. This is the essential thing. I do not think that noble Lords have yet understood it; and I am absolutely certain that 99 out of a 100 trade unionists, the Congress, the 8
1118
million of whom the noble Lord spoke, have not understood it either.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, is it not surprising, after all the time we have spent on this Bill, that the noble Lord should publicly admit that the trade unions of this country do not understand it? There must be something wrong somewhere—and, if I may say so, on the Government side.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have not personally had the opportunity of explaining the Bill to the trade unions; I have tried only to explain it to your Lordships.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, if trade unions are automatically registered, then if they de-register, if they withdraw themselves from that register, does one not take it from the noble Lord's observations that they will be no longer recognised as a trade union by the Government?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a difficulty of definitions. We are talking about the definition of an organisation of workers. Then we come on to the definition of a trade union. A trade union is an organisation of workers which is for the time being registered as a trade union under the Act. They will be included in the provisional register.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, this is something the Government cannot escape from. If a trade union as it is now—for example the N.U.R.—decided that it is going to de-register, to withdraw itself from the register upon which (purely because of the introduction of this Bill) it has been placed, it would cease to be recognised by the law of the land as a trade union.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps, my Lords, I may treat this as an intervention. The answer is simply that they then become an organisation of workers, as is provided for in this clause. "Organisation of workers" is an omnibus phrase. It includes trade unions, staff associations, non-independent organisations of workers and the rest. They then become an organisation of workers—entirely at their own choice.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, does that mean that we are going to be treated

1119
to the wonderful spectacle of a "National Workers' Organisation of Miners", a "National Workers' Organisation of Railwaymen", and an "Amalgamated Workers' Organisation of Engineers and Foundry Workers"? Are they not to be allowed even to call themselves a union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, within the terms of Order it is a little difficult for me to go on speaking. We are coming to the question of names later. There is an Amendment down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and I shall be able to deal with that point then.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, what is the Report stage for but to elicit information? This is the first time I have risen from these Benches during this Report stage. Do I understand the noble Lord to say that existing unions who do not decide to de-register will be put on the provisional register; that they will be approached as to the
compilation of their rules—and this is the point that I want to elicit—and that if those rules are found to be "defective" (that was the word the noble Lord used) the person who so decides is the Registrar? In the event that the union is notified to that effect but take no steps to remedy the defects, would they then be automatically de-registered from the provisional list?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord puts this question to me, so perhaps I may speak again with the leave of the House. We shall be coming to clauses which deal with this. The noble Lord will then see that the word "automatically" is not appropriate. They cannot be de-registered without an application of the Industrial Court.
6.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79BBBB) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 88.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ardwick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Slater, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hoy, L. [Teller.]

Stocks, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Crook, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Courtown, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Abinger, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hanworth, V.

Auckland, L.

Daventry, V.

Harcourt, V.

Balfour, E.

De Clifford, L.

Hatherton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Hawke, L.

Barnby, L.

Denham, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hood, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Dudley, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Bessborough, E.

Dundee, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brecon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kemsley, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Falkland, V.

Killearn, L.

Brooke of Yystradfellte, Bs.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Lansdowne, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ferrier, L.

Latymer, L.

Byers, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Caccia, L.

Geddes, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Goschen. V. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Gowrie, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Coleraine, L.

Gray, L.

Merrivale, L.

Conesford, L.

Gridley, L.

Milverton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Mountevans, L.

Rothermere, V.

Shannon, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Rothes, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Somers, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Strange, L.

Norwich, V.

St. Helens, L.

Swansea, L.

Oakshott, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Teviot, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Sandford, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Rankeillour, L.

Savile, L.

Windlesham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Sempill, Ly.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

6.54 p.m.
Clause 62 [Employers' associations and other organisations of employers]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79B. We have referred to this Amendment before; it is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 4, after (" and ") insert (" which ").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 79YYY:
After Clause 62 insert the following new clause:
Definitions of "combined organisation of workers and employers" and "joint industry board".
(" .—(1) In this Act (subject to section 86) "combined organisation of workers and employers" means an organisation (whether permanent or temporary) which—

(a) consists of an organisation or organisations of workers to which section 61 applies and an organisation or organisations of employers to which section 62 applies;

(b) is an independent organisation consisting wholly or mainly of workers and employers or individual proprietors of one or more descriptions;

(c) has as its principal objects the regulation of relations between workers and employers or individual proprietors of that description or those descriptions or organisations or organisation of workers and organisation or organisations of employers; and

(d) has power, without the concurrence of any parent organisation, to alter its own rules and to control the application of its own property and funds and those of its branches and sections (if any).

(2) In this Act subject to sections 67, 68, 71 and 72 "joint industry board" means a combined organisation of workers and employers which is for the time being registered as a joint industry board under this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that this Amendment, particularly
1122
because of the way in which the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack enunciated it, is appropriately lettered. It is almost totally different from any other Amendment which we have moved at any stage on this section of the Bill. As was emphasised by my noble friend Lord Diamond, the attitude of the trade union movement generally is to object, not to registration, but to registration under this Bill, because of the conditions attaching to it. This Amendment, which differs to a certain extent from the one moved at the last stage to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, promised to give consideration, concerns a joint industrial board which wishes to register under the Bill and which the Government are not encouraging in that course of action.
When I said that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had promised to consider the matter the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, looked somewhat startled. Well, my Lords, he did; and he has done so very well, because he wrote me a very long letter, extending to three foolscap pages, giving the reasons why the Government were still of the opinion that the Amendment should not be accepted. I will refer briefly to points in that letter because I have learned through these rather unusual channels that the Government are still not going to change their mind, and so I am not going to waste your Lordships' time by speaking at great length.
As the Bill stands, it may not prevent organisations like a joint industrial board from being registered, because, technically, it could be argued that they satisfy the definition of an organisation of workers since a substantial majority of the members are clearly workers, even though both trade union and also employers' organisations are acting in this type of association. In his letter the noble Lord went on to say that the reasons why the organisation wanted to be registered did not impress the Government; it was all a matter of probability and possibility. At

1123
no stage in the letter did the noble Lord inform me that it is not essential for this body to register to protect their interests. The phrases used are, "It seems improbable"; "It rests on the possibility"; "There does not seem to be any real danger". The reason why I have given the noble Lord this further opportunity is that in the letter he said there were technical difficulties in the way.
I appreciate that one of the technical difficulties is that an organisation consisting of employees' and employers' associations was seeking under the previous Amendment to come under Clause 61 which dealt with trade unions, and Clause 62 which dealt with employers' organisations; and it could be argued that an organisation which represented both could not therefore properly be regarded as coming under one or the other. It seemed to me, therefore, that the correct method was to bring in a new clause defining a joint organisation.
It may be that the noble Lord is right when he says that the organisation is worrying unduly. My point is that out of all the people in the country affected by the Bill, this one type of organisation which wants to go on the register is performing the task which is the Title of the Bill—industrial relations. Its whole object is to improve industrial relations. They draw my attention to the fact that during the time of their existence, the number of days lost in the industry has fallen from 28,000 to 9,000 last year and to as low as 5,000 the previous year. They accept what the Government want in this Bill. And as a reward for all this, they are told that they are not to have the benefit of registration.
I do not know what the noble Baroness will say in furtherance of this matter. If I am right in assuming that she is not going to accept this new clause, I do not intend to press it. What I shall do is to draw the attention of the organisation concerned to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has expressed the view that, notwithstanding his belief that the Bill is not intended to cover organisations of this kind, they may still try to register as a trade union, because they are a body consisting mainly of workers. I beg to move.
7.1 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that this Amendment is well prefaced by "YYY". It is the only Amendment we have had throughout the Bill which seeks to encourage registration under the Bill. What it seeks to do is to ensure that joint employer and worker organisations should come within the scope of the Bill and be eligible for registration under it. When I appeared surprised at the noble Lord saying that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn had undertaken to consider this, I thought he said that consideration was going to be given to the whole question of registration and did not realise it was only this particular point on joint boards.
I also am fortunate in having a copy of my noble friend's letter in front of me. I assume that this Amendment is put down in order to place firmly on the Record whether it is necessary for joint boards to have some special provision under the Bill or whether they can register as joint boards. They cannot register as joint boards. Each constituent part, whether it is the employers' or the workers' side, can register under the Bill. The real argument behind my noble friend's letter was that it was not necessary for them to register, because one can hardly imagine a situation where one side would encourage a strike while the other was encouraging a lock-out. I think that would hardly be a problem we would have to face.
Naturally we wish to convince the joint boards that their position is secure. They are concerned whether they could have protection under Clause 96, which protects a registered body as to inducing a breach of contract. If I may read the relevant part of the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred, it says:
" It seems improbable that the joint boards would ever be directly involved in actions involving inducement of breach of contract of employment."
I am sure that that is true. I would point out that a great deal of consideration was given to this matter in consultation with the joint boards, before we came to the Committee stage and none of those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Committee stage have been able to

1125
produce an example of where they would be in danger under the Bill. That being so, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that the Amendment is unnecessary and will see fit to withdraw it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I indicated that if the answer was as I expected it was going to be, I would not press this Amendment. In spite of all the meetings that have taken place—and the Joint Industry Board have made it perfectly clear to me that they have received very full consideration in meetings with the Law Officers of another place and in the correspondence that has taken place, they remain firmly convinced that they will be under disadvantages if they are not allowed to continue to register. I gather that they are registered as a trade union at the present time. If the point which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, emphasised just before we divided, that they may find themselves placed on the provisional register, is correct and if they are registered as a trade union now, they will go on the provisional register and then it is for them to see whether their rules conform to what is necessary to allow them to transfer to the register proper. I suppose that what will take place now is that bodies like this will examine carefully what has been said in this further discussion of their position and will consider what is the best course of action for them to follow. I do not think that I can further their interests any more by seeking to press this Amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if the House were now to form itself into a Committee on the National Insurance Bill and thereafter adjourn during pleasure, so that we can have an hour's respite. I beg to move that further proceedings on Report be adjourned to enable the House to resolve itself into Committee on the National Insurance Bill.
Moved, That further proceedings on Report be adjourned to enable the House to resolve itself into Committee on the National Insurance Bill.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

FINANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
7.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): 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 Aberdare.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ST. HELENS in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Revision of benefits under Insurance Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move that we leave out Clause 2, although I should like to first of all assure the Minister that I do not intend to press this to a Division, particularly as I am sure that he will notice, as I have, that there is some faulty drafting in this Amendment. The principle embodied in the Amendment is the same as that of the second Amendment following Clause 4, so I propose to make the point, and probably then to move the second one formally.
This brings forward a very important point of principle; namely, the operation of the earnings rule, which covers

1127
the first five years after retirement for both men and women. The last figures that I saw suggested that, out of the 8 million pensioners there were 1¼ million in this age group, and only about 16,000 of these at any one time would have their pensions reduced because of earnings. This seems to me, therefore, a reason why the Government might have a change of heart on this, because it is not going at any stage to cover a very large group in the community. I am fascinated to know how the demographers (I believe that is the term we use to describe them) arrive at the figure, as I see that the saving is put at £10 million. This seems to me to suggest that there must be a very large number of people involved in this. Perhaps the Minister will be able to let us know something of the size of the problem.
On Second Reading we discussed the point that the pension is completely extinguished when an individual earns a certain amount, which is specified here, and which has been upgraded; and this we appreciate. This represents—and I repeat this—a unique situation in State legislation. Nobody, no worker, actually pays back all his salary in tax. There are occasions when you think you do, but in actual fact I believe that even the highest paid collect something like 6d. in the pound. I think the classic case of the kind of situation that I am concerned about involves a man I know of 66 who, having retired from his own work, went to do voluntary work in a hospital and was persuaded to take a course of training in order to be a hospital orderly—a job, I hasten to say, that nobody wants: London hospitals have great difficulty in getting orderlies. The man does not seem at all elderly for 66—and indeed there is no reason why he should. He has taken on this job, and is carrying it out with great energy and enthusiasm and thoroughly enjoying it, but it means that he has lost his very meagre pension.
Surely if a man has put in 40 years of working life and paid insurance throughout the whole of that time, it is not unreasonable that he should collect a small State pension? There is no danger that anyone will get too much out of the State. The tax system acts as a regulator, so that he will never really benefit from the whole of his retirement pension, even if
1128
he is earning a salary. It seems to me that this rule acts as a definite disincentive, and especially in the area of occupations where we find difficulty in getting employees: the catering trades, the hospitals and the school cleaners, who are the people we find in this particular group. Her Majesty's Government have said on various occasions that they believe in self-help, and this is, after all, a very splendid philosophy. This is why I feel that, in this day and age, we have come to the point of time where the earnings rule should be abolished. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to support my noble friend Lady Phillips on this. As your Lordships will know, we had a discussion on this point of the earnings rule on the Second Reading of this Bill. I think many of us have been moving for some years to the position where we feel that the earnings rule should be entirely done away with. I hope, when he comes to reply, that the Minister will be able to give us some of the calculations on which the Government are now working. How much would it cost, so far as one can calculate? I recognise there is an element of hypothesis, but I think we should know whether he supports the figures put forward by my noble friend Lady Phillips, or whether the Government are working towards any other calculations.
I think we all feel that it is not merely a disincentive, as my noble friend said, but that this kind of provision is one which makes it far more difficult for the individual to regulate the transition from full-time work to complete retirement. As we said on the earlier occasion, individuals vary enormously in their physical and mental capacity, which may have relatively little relationship to their age, and we feel that there should be the greatest possible freedom for the individual to work out the pattern of his or her life as best he or she may.
I do not know whether the Minister has had any opportunity of considering further the particularly interesting suggestion that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on the last occasion, which involved retaining the earnings rule but allowing an average of earnings over a year instead of taking each week

1129
separately. As she pointed out, if people were doing occasional work—which is often very suitable for somebody who is in semi-retirement—it is made peculiarly difficult for them to do so if each week is taken as a separate unit, and the earnings of that particular week are taken on their own without any relationship to the earnings over the entire year.
Of course this would assume that some type of earnings rule was in operation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear pointed out with great force and clarity, it could be very much more advantageous, even if the earnings rule was in operation, if there were some arrangement of this sort. I recognise that there would obviously be administrative difficulty, and that it would mean that the person concerned would presumably have to collect retrospectively any money that might be due for the period during which he or she had earned, but I do not think it is an insuperable difficulty.
Nevertheless, welcome as a change of that kind would be, I think it would be better still if we could all now recognise that this particular provision arose in a different era, and that we should now move forward with our greater knowledge of geriatric problems. I would hope particularly that our trade union friends would appreciate that the conditions which led them in the early stages of national insurance to insist on this provision are no longer so relevant, and that most of their own members would probably be benefited rather than disadvantaged by the change which we are asking.
I should like to turn to the similar Amendment which I understood my noble friend was going to discuss (though in fact she did not refer to it) on Clause 4. Here one has a peculiarly difficult situation, if I have understood this correctly, in which the earnings rule is applied to the wife of someone who is receiving invalidity pension. His invalidity allowances, if I am following this correctly, would he reduced if she were earning more than the £9·50, or the tapering allowance up to £11·50 which is provided for. Surely this is against public policy, because the wife of a man who is incapable to the degree which would be required for him to receive an invalidity pension would, I should have thought, if
1130
she was able to arrange her affairs in such a way that she could be free to work, naturally wish to do so—all the more because she might not know how long her husband might live, and she might have to keep herself in the labour market with a view to her own future.
From the nature of things, if her husband was not earning he would not be able to make any very generous provision for his potential widow. I think it needs very little imagination to put oneself in the position of such a woman, and to realise that she might well feel that it was very unfair, if she was trying to make an effort, that the husband's allowance would be reduced if she were in a position to earn more than the permitted amounts, which, although they are greater than they have been, are still not very high by to-day's standards of earnings. So I hope that this can be looked at, even if the Government are not able at this stage to do away with the earnings rule altogether.
After all, when Miss Margaret Herbison was Minister of National Insurance, she secured the abolition of the earnings rule where widows were concerned. That had been a bone of contention for many years. I remember taking part in a number of deputations with Members of all Parties in another place, and discussing this with various Ministers. We were then particularly concerned with the case of the widowed mother. But Miss Herbison was so well versed in the real problems which face a woman in that situation that she was able to secure her colleague's consent to the complete abolition of the earnings rule for widows. Therefore, it seems to me that if the Government cannot take a big step at the present time, they could surely take a step under Clause 4 and modify the present arrangements so that the earnings rule does not apply in the case of the working wife of an invalid husband. This cannot affect a very large category of persons and would not cost a very great deal. I do not know whether the Minister has made any calculations of the number of people covered by Clause 4, but if he has I am sure we shall be very much interested to hear them. I really plead with the Minister to look at this matter again, even if he feels that he cannot take a major step, because here is a category of persons for

1131
whom we should have particular sympathy.
On the main point, I must say that in discussions with various groups I have found that more and more people are resenting the earnings rule, because they think that they have contributed throughout their working lives to what they believe should be regarded as a retirement pension, in the same sense as endowment insurance. If you pay premiums for a private endowment insurance to mature at a certain age, you draw the money which is due to you regardless of whether or not you are earning, and a very great many people are now coming round to the view that that attitude should be taken in regard to National Insurance. I hope very much that the Government will consider this.
7.24 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I was very glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that she is not going to press this Amendment. As she recognises, it would be a fairly disastrous Amendment to carry, because it would delete the whole of Clause 2 and none of the proposed uprating of National Insurance benefits which we propose under the Bill could take effect. I am sure that that would not be her intention. She concentrated on the earnings rule, as did the noble Baroness, Lady White. I should like to make it clear, at the start, that the earnings rule is an essential prop of the retirement condition for eligibility for retirement pensions. During the first five years after pensionable age, pension is conditional upon retirement from regular employment. It is therefore necessary to have some criterion of what is, or is not, regular employment in order to determine whether or not a person can be regarded as having retired from regular employment, and it is the initial level of the earnings rule which performs this function. Without the rule, the retirement pension would simply be an old age pension payable unconditionally at the age of 65 or 60, which I gather is what both noble Baronesses were asking for.
As regards some of the figures, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was quite correct in saying that about 1¼ million out of the 7½ million retirement pensioners
1132
are in the age bands subject to the earnings rule, and that only about 16,000 at any one time have their pensions reduced on account of earnings. But without the earnings rule to enforce the retirement condition—in other words, if we were to make it an old age pension which was payable as of right at those ages—some 250,000 people over pensionable age and still in regular employment, and 100,000 dependent wives, would all qualify for these pensions and it would cost, roughly speaking, £110 million a year at the new September rates. So we are talking in very high figures, and these could only be met by higher contributions or lower benefits elsewhere.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think we must take account of the fact that some would come back in tax. Also, I wonder whether the Minister can explain where the £10 million comes from. That puzzles me.
LORD ABERDARE: That has to do with the next Amendment which the noble Baroness wanted me to take at the same time. I shall come back to that, if I may. What we are doing is easing the rule very substantially under this Bill. The amount of earnings free of adjustment of pension is being raised from £7·50 to £9·50, and for higher earnings the present tapering arrangements remain. So that the point at which the single pension of £6 will be extinguished will be reached on net earnings of £16·50, instead of £13·50 at the present moment, and for a married couple both earning the limit will be £30·70. The point which the noble Baroness did not mention is that, although we encourage people to go on working for these extra five years, and hope that they will, they are at the same time able to earn increments to their pensions and in subsection (3) of Clause 2, which she is also trying to delete, we are raising the increments that they can earn to their pension. It is for those reasons that we consider it is right to retain the earnings rule, although we have made substantial improvements to it.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I have looked into it and I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I have also sent copies to both noble Baronesses opposite, but they have probably not yet arrived

1133
as they went only yesterday. Her proposal has been examined twice by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, in 1956 and in 1967, when the Committee were looking at the question of earnings limits. In the letter I have sent extracts from those Reports, which show that the Committee went into the matter very thoroughly, and that, whereas a rule averaging earnings might be a benefit to some, there are others to whom it would be disadvantageous. There would be very real difficulties in operating it, and on both occasions the National Insurance Advisory Committee advised against it. But when the noble Baroness receives the letter, I hope she will see the reasons in greater detail.
If I may turn to Amendment No. 2, paragraph (b) of subsection (1) has nothing to do with the earnings rule and I do not think she means to leave it out. This has to do with an invalidity or retirement pensioner who can draw a dependency increase for a separated wife. But she obviously is concerned, as was the noble Baroness, Lady White, about the earnings rule in this case. In the same way as the retirement condition is supported by the retirement pension earnings rule, so the earnings rule for wives ensures that there is a degree of dependency before the husband qualifies for dependency increase. This is the case for the normal retirement pensioner and his wife. What we have done is to extend the retirement pension rule to the wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners; and we have also extended the same earnings rule, which will act as a safeguard: there will be a degree of dependency before the husband qualifies for dependency increase. Hitherto, all wives have been subject to the "all or nothing" earnings rule, whereby dependency increase was completely extinguished if earnings exceeded the amount of the increase. The extension of the retirement pension rule to the wives of invalidity and retirement pensioners living with their husbands is a very considerable easement. The tapered earnings rule will allow these wives to earn up to £9.50 per week without the dependency allowance being affected at all, and to earn up to £14.20 before it is completely extinguished. This compares with the present rule, which would extinguish benefit at earnings of £3.10; so we have made a very big advance
1134
there in the rules. Of course, the man's personal invalidity benefit is not affected in any way by his wife's earnings. The other point which the noble Baroness asked me about was as to its cost. The relaxation which we have made to bring in the wives of retirement and invalidity pensioners will cost £10 million. If we were to do away with the earnings rule, it would cost a further £15 million on top of the £10 million. So, in spite of the eloquence of the two noble Baronesses, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept these Amendments.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation. On a small point, may I ask him whether he said "30" or "13" for the joint income?
LORD ABERDARE: If both were earning, it would be £30.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: That puzzles me a little as it is £9.50 each. However, I will not pursue that now. I appreciate that the Minister has taken the trouble to look into this matter, bearing in mind that both my Amendments were drafted wrongly. I can only plead that, hitherto, my Amendments have always been drafted by somebody else as I was on the other side of the House and not on this, and I am in that sense very much an amateur. The Amendments were put down to get the principle discussed, to which we will return on another occasion. But I should like to thank the Minister for his detailed explanation; and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Clause 2 agreed to.
7.34 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause.
Review of benefits
(" .There shall be an annual review of the benefits provided for in heads 10, 11 and 12 of Part I, and heads 6 and 7 of Part II, of Schedule 2 to this Act.")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment deals with a different point. Indeed, the facts in its favour are so obvious that they hardly need restating. We are asking here that there should be an

1135
annual review of the benefits provided, and particularly in relation to the retirement pensioner. This does not mean to suggest that we are net concerned about the others, but we feel that at any rate it might be one move towards what we could expect—an annual review of all schemes of benefit. We are dealing here with people of the higher age level, and any assistance that is given to them should not be deferred too long. The old saying in charity is, "To give quickly is to give twice", and it is certainly true that if somebody is in this age band and has to wait two years for a review of his pension, he may well not live to collect the extra money.
The second point, which will be quite obvious to your Lordships, is that we are in a period of rapidly rising prices. I believe they are rising now at an annual rate of 14 per cent.; and a recent index of the movement of prices which I studied showed that the heaviest increase was in food and fares. These will obviously be the two items which affect particularly those in the fixed income group of the retirement pensioners. Furthermore, yesterday we heard the historic announcement of the possibility of our entry into the European Economic Community. This made it clear that, whatever benefits we gain, temporarily at any rate all shoppers must expect a rise in food prices; and even a very superficial study will show that this must be the case. Now I know that when we discuss the E.E.C. we are going to be told that there is long-term advantage. That may well be the fact; but the old lady living in Dorset, who has to pay the same price as a managing director of an international firm who lives in Mayfair, will be the one who feels most sharply any swift rise in prices. No particular reason has ever been advanced, so far as I can discover, why it has to be a biennial review, except, I gather, that Ministers are always told, "It would cause far too much work to the Department if you were to have an annual review." We have an annual review of prices in relation to farming, and we have quite a number of annual reviews. If having an annual review will necessitate a simpler method of paying out benefits, then this seems to me all to the good. I appeal to Her Majesty's Government to accept this very simple
1136
but needed Amendment to the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: This Amendment, which has a certain attraction about it, is the same as one which was moved in another place on this Bill, and I am afraid I have much the same answer to give the noble Baroness as was given on that occasion. It represents a fundamental departure from previous practice. There have never been regular fixed intervals between reviews, although over the last ten years it has become a pattern for there to be up-ratings approximately every two years. Of course, reviews have never been limited to retirement pensions, and in practice it is unlikely that changes in retirement pension would be made without corresponding changes in at least the other long-term benefits. Both the Opposition and ourselves have now committed ourselves to biennial reviews: the Opposition did so in the Bill that fell at the Election and we did so in our Election manifesto. But, again, we are not rigidly bound to this precise period. Indeed, this year's uprating has, at great effort, been brought forward by six weeks. We are confident that the new pensions, when they are introduced in September, will have a greater real value than the present rate had when it was introduced in November, 1969. The cost of living, as measured by the Retail Prices Index, was going up at an annual rate of 9·8 per cent. in May, 1971, which is the last date for which figures are available. I think it is not quite as high a rate as the noble Baroness suggested.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I selected food prices.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness says that she selected food prices. We are confident that, with common sense and restraint on the wages front, price increases can be brought down to a reasonable level, and if this process should happen to take longer than we all hope, there is, of course, the protection of the supplementary benefits scheme, which can be reviewed annually, as it has been in recent years, and which is expressly designed to protect the living standards of the most vulnerable sections of the population.
The noble Baroness mentioned the massive operation involved in upgrading.

1137
It is true that it is a massive operation, and it places a great strain on the administrative resources of the Department, even with the use of the latest computers and other mechanical devices. But I should not like it to be thought that this is the only argument on which we rest our case. We think on policy grounds that the present two-yearly review is right, and beyond that we should continue to keep a close watch on price rises and the value of pensions. We are, as your Lordships are aware, currently working on plans for reconstructing the National Insurance Scheme, and among the questions that we are studying is that of reviews.
The noble Baroness mentioned the White Paper on entry into the Common Market. Of course the figures are there given of the effect on the cost of living, which will be about one-half per cent. each year; that is, taking an increase of about 2½ per cent. each year in retail prices: and as food accounts for about a quarter of the total of consumer expenditure, the effect on the cost of living will be about one-half per cent. per year. We have undertaken, as all Governments have and should, to keep the scale of pensions and other benefits under continuous review. That, I should think, is the best safeguard against any unforeseen difficulty. We have used the flexibility that this provides, as I have said, to bring forward the date of the present upgrading from November, when it was due at the end of two years, to September; and the fact that it has been customary for some years to review supplementary benefits annually is, I suggest, a further safeguard. I am sorry, but I cannot accept this Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Again I should like to thank the Minister for his explanation. Being a woman, I am a little sceptical about the figure of one-half per cent., or whatever it is, by which the figure is going to increase. I will wait and see about that. I think one has always to separate the things on which a pensioner spends the major part of his or her income, and I know from shopping that food prices are continuing to rise. Meat is getting so expensive that it will soon be something that you give to somebody for Christmas—two or three chops as a special present instead of a ring. From what the Minister
1138
has said, there is no law that cannot be changed in relation to this annual review. It is on this that I rest my case, and I hope that we can return to it.
On the question of the massive operation of changing the payment of benefits, one always wonders, as a layman, why it is so simple for the Railways Board when they increase their fares merely to stamp over the ticket that you buy, but that when it is a pension that you are going to receive, the whole thing has to be re-drawn and re-typed. Perhaps that is an area that we might study.
In other words, the operation seems much easier if you are getting money out of people than if you are going to pay money to people. I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall of course return to this question. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.47 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.]

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.0 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 65 [Guiding principles for organisations of workers]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79LLL.
Page 54, line 6, at end insert (" ; and every such organisation shall be free to frame rules to meet its own circumstances provided that no rule so framed conflicts with any such principle ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now at that stage of the Bill which deals, if I recollect correctly, with the
" guiding principles for organisations of workers."
We discussed the various aspects of this during Committee stage. One thing which emerged was the departure in the Bill

1139
from the proposals which were included in the Donovan Commission's Report with regard to the freedom of the union
" to frame the rules to meet its own circumstances."
I should like to refer to what was covered in the discussion in Committee. As reported at col. 596 for May 20, my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith first quoted from the Donovan Commission Report. Then, having referred to an "important qualification", as my noble friend called it, he quoted the words:
"without impairing the freedom which trade unions ought to enjoy to frame rules to meet their own circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/5/71; Vol. 319, col. 596]
We are here dealing with a rather difficult conflict. It is obviously right that there should exist the freedom of association which we all recognise—and if necessary I could read a very telling quotation from a speech made by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack supporting the idea of freedom of association, to which we are all married—and, within that concept, I am quite sure is the freedom of those who are associated together to decide the basis upon which they are so associated; namely, to frame rules to meet their own circumstances.
This was a concept which the Donovan Commission examined and they came out clearly in favour of it. There is the conflict, I repeat, between that concept and an excess of that freedom which would mean transgressing principles, which, so far as they are approved, affect the conduct of organisations of workers. So it seemed to me, my Lords, while not wholly satisfactory, but again as a possible half-way house, necessary to enshrine the words of the Donovan Commission in this area of the Bill, so as to make it clear that although one was not directly opposing any of the principles which, by the time we have got to the end of this clause, we shall have approved, nevertheless we were making it absolutely clear that the essential freedom to frame rules "to meet its own circumstances" was necessary for an organisation to be viable and free. I hope, therefore, that these words will commend themselves to the Government. I beg to move.
8.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says that he has enshrined words from the Donovan Commission in this Amendment. I think that so far as those words are declaratory they are unexceptionable. The trouble is that when one sets out to make a declaratory statement of this kind one has to be very careful that one does not get side effects which are neither intended nor wanted. In so far as they are declaratory, one has to consider whether the declaration is in the right place. After all, the rights of individuals as individuals may include the right to associate, but they are certainly not limited to the right to associate. We are here dealing with the guiding principles for the protection of individuals in their membership of organisations.
My Lords, there is nothing in this clause which requires an organisation to frame its rules in accordance with the principles. The requirement in relation to the principles appears in Clause 75(1) which says that if the rules are in conflict with the principles set out in Clause 65, or if they fail to meet the requirements of Schedule 4:
" the registrar shall serve notice on the organisation indicating what alterations are needed…".
That requirement relates, of course, only to registered organisations; but this requirement applies to all organisations, whether they are registered or not. If, for the sake of argument, one were to accept that there were some shred of doubt in this matter, that could not possibly arise under Clause 65, and the insertion of the provision in this clause would only raise doubts about the approval of rules under Clause 75.
That is not the only nor the main difficulty. This Amendment reads,
" every such organisation "—
whether registered or unregistered—
" shall be free to frame rules "—
where they are not in conflict with those principles in Clause 65. That implies surely that the organisation is not free to frame rules which are in conflict with the principles, and one has to ask what the status of such rules would be. I am advised that they would be made void by the provision.

1141
The validity of rules on any of the matters referred to in the clause would be constantly open to doubt. That is something which the Bill itself carefully avoids. Although there is common ground between ourselves and noble Lords opposite that the trade unions are, and will remain, free under the Bill to frame their own rules within the requirements of the law, there is no common ground on the need for a declaratory statement in the Bill. With or without a statement, that is the effect and they will be free to frame their own rules within the requirements of the law. We do no accept that there is any doubt about that at all. It is simply not worth the risk of making a statement which would have the undesirable side effects to which I have referred. So, while agreeing with the principle, we think that these words are misplaced and that they could have unwanted side effects.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said. I recognise, of course, that he is sustained by considerable advice as to the effect of any particular Amendment. When one frames one's own Amendments and puts them down one is not quite sure what the ultimate effect will be. However, I think that what he said encourages me to press this Amendment, because what he said was, "You will be in difficulty if this declaratory statement is included at this point, because these principles will need to be tested the whole time against the overall statement." That is exactly what one wants. The principles are principles which the Government see as the appropriate ones; and they may be so. But there is an overriding principle. It has been examined and reported on by the Royal Commission and, as I said before, it stems from a fundamental freedom that we all wish to encourage: the principle
that people who associate together have the right to frame their own rules to meet their own circumstances, subject only to those rules not conflicting with any broad issue of public policy.
Now public policy is involved in the guiding principles, so I think that the noble Lord has confirmed my belief that to the extent that this Amendment would cause questioning and some doubt in the construction and interpretation by those who have that responsibility, then it is a good thing. I would therefore press the Government further to agree that this statement is a statement which the noble Lord says that he accepts—indeed, I would quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, column 604, when he referred to this matter in Committee—should be embodied, or, if you like, enshrined in the Bill. The noble Lord said on that occasion:
" But, talking of rules, the short answer is that the unions frame their rules, except in so far as they are defective in the sense that there is no rule corresponding to the requirement of Schedule 4…. I cannot see anything incongruous about this at all."
He went on:
" The unions have responsibility for framing their own rules. Nobody writes their rules for them. They merely have to comply with the law regarding the rules and have the rules specified in the Schedule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20/5/71; col. 604.]
I think it is wholesome, healthy and democratic that this principle should be before everybody's mind, and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will include it in the clause. If not, we shall seek, by whatever methods are open to us, so to include it.
8.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79.LLL) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 24; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Longford, E.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Stonham, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs.

Stragolgi, L. [Teller.]

Hall, V.

Platt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

White, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrier, L.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

St. Helens, L.

Barnby, L.

Gray, L.

Sandford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sempill, Ly.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Brecon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Somers, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hatherton, L.

Stamp, L.

Burnham, L.

Hawke, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Thomas, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wade, L.

Dundee, E.

Mountevans, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

8.22 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79L:
Page 54, ine 15, after (" is ") insert (" recognised by the Union as ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I would first refresh your Lordships' memory as to the conclusions of the Royal Commission (which are stated in paragraph 650) with regard to admission. Referring to the rules of admission the Commission's Report states:
" They should be framed in such a way as to avoid discriminating arbitrarily against any type of applicant,"—
that is common ground—
" but unions must be allowed to retain discretion in deciding whom they should admit."
I think that is a short and fair and accurate presentation of the principle involved. There must at the end of the day be discretion exercised by the union and therefore this Amendment is framed to provide for that.
If I may say further why I think that is necessary. I think the shortest way is to remind your Lordships of what my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith said when we were discussing a similar point at the Committee stage. He said:
" Unless there is some regulation and some discretion vested in trade unions as to whom they shall admit and whom they shall reject, we shall have endless friction, endless difficulties, endless disputes, a weakening of the trade
1144
union movement and a great complication of industrial relations with no benefit whatsoever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 20/5/71: col. 612]
I think that is a fair and concise statement of the position. That is how we see it, and therefore we think it is necessary to have an Amendment of this kind to make our point of view clear. If the Amendment were accepted, subsection (2) would read—
" Any person who applies for membership and who is recognised by the union as appropriately qualified "
instead of the present wording, which is simply:
" is appropriately qualified ".
That is to say, if the Amendment were accepted the discretion as to what "appropriate" means would be in the hands of the union, whereas without that Amendment it would not. And I repeat that it should be in their hands. That is the effect of the Amendment.
There is the further point that anxiety has been expressed to me by those who are concerned with these matters as to what the Government's attitude is with regard to semi-skilled workers, dilutees, and so on, who without the Amendment, might be regarded as appropriately qualified for employment, thereby disgracing those who had qualified by apprenticeship to do a skilled job, or whatever it might be, and this final decision we think is sensibly left in the hands of the union at the end of the day. It is for these reasons that I hope the Government will look kindly on this Amendment.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in moving this Amendment, quoted from the Royal Commission Report and gave your Lordships the reference for the quotation, which was, of course, absolutely accurate. But, as I heard the noble Lord, he did not follow the quotation through and examine any of the matters which might result from that quotation; and I think it is fair to say that it is because the Government have apprehensions as to what the result or results of the quotation from the Donovan Report might be that we wish to resist this Amendment.
We are well aware that the phrase "appropriately qualified" has caused the Opposition a good deal of concern, and I think it is worth reminding ourselves why that is there. Subsection (2) gives a right of redress against the refusal of admission on grounds which amount to arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination against the individual person concerned. My Lords, paragraph (a) leaves the organisation entirely free to determine for itself the class of worker which the organisation seeks to recruit. If a person seeking admission clearly has no legitimate claim to be a worker of that description the organisation has every right to reject him; and it is only fair to say that in both Houses of Parliament many Members have made the point how important it is from the point of view of standards of safety. But on what grounds is the claim to be tested?
Paragraph (b) states that the worker concerned must be appropriately qualified to perform the work. This Amendment would give the organisation complete discretion to decide what are "appropriate qualifications". Moreover, the Amendment would leave the organisation free to exercise that discretion in different ways in different cases. It could say that one person was appropriately qualified and that another was not, without having to prove to anyone whether it was applying the same criteria in both cases. I am sure that was not the noble Lord's intention, nor would it be the intention of the vast majority of trade unions. But Clause 65 deals with the laying down of principles, and even if the Amendment is merely intended to
1146
give workers' organisations the right to lay down their own uniform qualifications—and this was the tenor of Lord Diamond's remarks—it would still be unacceptable to us. The effect would be to give organisations a completely free hand to make any conditions they chose, however doubtful the connection with the worker's actual ability to perform work of a type which the organisation sets out to organise.
May I go into more detail and show your Lordships how we feel that subsection (2) is going to work? Suppose that union X decides to recruit only skilled fitters and that only skilled fitters need bother to apply. But it may be that a union will only recognise a particular method of training. If that is so, and if the union can establish before a tribunal that this is reasonable, it may prove its case for rejecting other applicants. What we believe to be equitable is that a union should be under an obligation, if so called upon, to justify its decision before an independent party—in other words, an industrial tribunal. Subsection 2(b) gives an applicant the right to show before a tribunal that he is qualified to be employed on jobs which are organised by the organisation that he wishes to join.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked the direct question: what do the Government think about semi-skilled workers, dilutees and other such workers of similar categories? Our reply is simple: the Government do not have a view on this point. In line with so many other parts of the Bill, we say that the right course is that the view should be that of an impartial tribunal. This Amendment would take away that right, and it is for that reason that I hope the House will reject the Amendment, if it is pressed.
8.32 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, the Government continually state that their wish is to strengthen the unions, yet it seems to me that throughout our debates we have come across many instances where the Government either ignore the unions, treat them like recalcitrant children, or are completely paternalistic. Here is a chance where they can strengthen the unions, yet they are ignoring them. Who better to judge

1147
the qualifications for a worker than the trade union to which the worker belongs? They would not wish to have a worker who was not qualified. Why should they? It would not be in their interests. It seems to me that the Government are unreasonable in not accepting this extremely reasonable Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, there is one point that I should like to raise. It can happen that there is a redundancy in one particular field. Very often little effort is made by unions, who may be somewhat associated, to stretch their own conditions to allow good union members to join. For example, it may be that there are members of the mining industry who have become redundant, and they have difficulty in getting into another union and other employment. That is one of the reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted. Unions should be encouraged to try to help people who may not be totally skilled or may not have fully served their time in, for argument's sake, the electrical workers' union; they might have been in the mines all their lives. If we can help them to get jobs in possibly different fields from their own industry it is something worth while trying to push.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it was not my intention to make a contribution, but may I ask whether I understood the noble Earl aright when he said that a miner, through redundancy, is absorbed in another type of industry and wants to join that particular trade union and come away from the miners, but cannot do so? For the information of your Lordships' House, may I say that if anyone leaves the mining industry he is immediately given a clearance card. That means that he is no longer a member of the National Union of Mineworkers because he is not working in or about the mine. He has changed his form of employment, and the clearance card enables him to make his application to the appropriate trade union, without any form of entrance fee, catering for the class of employment he requires. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield knows as well as I do that inside the miners' union we have what we call "federation" in and about the mines. One particular section caters for the
1148
mechanics, another for the men working at the coal face. Others cater for the deputy class, others the officials and so on.
They join this type of federation but they are units, an integral part of their own particular organisation, the mechanics' union or the officials union, and so on. If anyone working within the industry left his job as a face worker to be a deputy he would have to be given his clearance card to go into the appropriate section of the union. I would say to the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, that the Government have made a mistake right from the start. They should have endeavoured to have more consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the people who know the workings of the trade unions. We are not going to be mealy-mouthed about this. There are unions in this country who give accommodation for people who ought to be members of a particular union, and do not have the opportunity of being a member of one, two or three unions: for example, the General and Municipal Workers Union, NALGO, the National Union of Public Employees, the Transport and General Workers' Union and so on. The medical officers of health can also become members of either one or two unions. This does not make sense.
A person should be a member of the appropriate trade union catering for the person's particular kind of work. The suggestions made by my noble friend in regard to this Amendment are something to which I hope the Government will give further consideration and every possible support.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I intervene shortly on this matter? The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has not quite accurately diagnosed the effect of subsection (2) of this clause. What are the steps which have to be taken by an applicant? First, he has to show that he is a worker of the description for which the union caters, or one of the descriptions for which the union caters. Secondly, if he wishes to complain that his application for membership has been refused, he has to show that there has been discrimination against him; in other words, by an arbitrary or unreasonable answer to his claim for membership.

1149
The noble Lord based his answer to the Amendment upon this view. He said that the Government do not take a view, for example, about dilutees, and so on; they wish the industrial tribunal in a given case to pronounce upon that type of matter. The noble Lord says that they are averse to putting it within the power and discretion of the trade union to specify what are the qualifications which they think are necessary, who should have the power to say what type of persons they will regard as qualified within one of the descriptions for which they cater? To put the matter upon the industrial tribunal is to ask them to decide something for which they are not qualified. How are they to know what is a wise standard of skill to exact? The people who know that are the members of the union themselves, the responsible executives of the unions. They should be the people called upon to lay down standards of skill, reliability, training, membership or whatever it may be. The noble Lord is quite wrong in saying that that should not be the task of the union, for it obviously should. They are the one set of people which is qualified to prescribe standards. The last people qualified to prescribe standards are those on the tribunal. They have not the material on which to judge.
I venture to intervene as I am concerned, perhaps because of my previous experience of the position of courts. I am most anxious that this legislation should not impose upon them a task which is almost impossible or extremely difficult in the nature of things for them to undertake. It may be said that they will have evidence before them, but the evidence that they should have before them and upon which they should be called upon to adjudicate is surely this: they should have before them the structure of the union and the sort of people for whom the union caters. They should know from the description of members for whom the union provides; they should then be able to say whether the applicant comes within that description. They do not know what is prescribed as prudent for the members' safety so far as standards of skill are concerned. The union knows that. What they are able to say, if the union has prescribed a general standard of training, an apprenticeship of skill in a particular and perhaps
1150
dangerous activity—and this is precisely what they can be called upon to decide—is whether, in the individual case, for some reason which cannot be explained except upon the basis of some personal prejudice, or something of the sort, they have excluded an applicant who comes within the description and who is able to show that he possesses the necessary standard of skill which the union has laid down as a qualification.
I hope that the Government will look at this matter again. I submit that this is another case where they are putting the courts in a difficult and artificial position. If the courts have to pronounce on cases of that sort which it is difficult for them to assess, confidence in them will gradually become undermined. That really would be a major catastrophe. I respectfully submit to the noble Lords on the Front Bench that this Amendment does not vest unreasonable power in the union. It says that the standards should be laid down and applied to everybody who is an applicant to become a member of a union. If those standards are not fairly applied, then prejudice and discrimination is shown against a particular applicant and the tribunal will interfere to protect that applicant. But I respectfully ask the Government to take the view that the Amendment places the responsibility of prescribing standards where it ought to he; that is, squarely upon the union itself. I hope that the Government Front Bench will give further thought to this subject and indicate that they would like to go into it rather more deeply.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether we are not becoming wholly unrealistic in the consideration of this Amendment. Let us consider what are the true facts here. A person will be engaged for a job. Obviously, he will have to be qualified for that job if he is going to be engaged for it. There are three cases: there is the ordinary case where there is neither an agency nor a closed shop. In that case a man applies for membership of the union; he has been taken on to do a job; he is within a certain description of worker; he will normally be considered as qualified for that job and there will be no diffiulty whatsoever about his being accepted by the union. If it is an agency shop, once again he will be accepted into employment and if he wishes to he will apply

1151
for membership of the union or he will apply not to be a member of the union, as the case may be. Here again he is already qualified, for if the union says that he is not qualified presumably he could still not be a member of the union. But why should he not be a member if he is taken on to do a particular job and the mangement are satisfied that he is capable of doing that job? In such circumstances that is a matter for agreement between management and the union.
LORD DIAMOND: I should like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to repeat what he said. Did he say that this is a matter for agreement between the management and the union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think that is so. The employer has taken on somebody to do a specific job. It is an agency shop situation; under the Bill, that person is going to be encouraged to join the union. What happens if the union says that it is not going to have this man? Obviously, the management and the union will have to get together. That is common sense. I am merely speaking about the common sense of the situation.
Thirdly, there is a closed shop situation, and obviously this is the most difficult aspect. There is no pre-entry closed shop left under the Bill. There is no question whatsoever of a union refusing to take somebody in and therefore preventing his being engaged to be employed under the Bill; but in the closed shop situation he has to become a member of the union. Is it right that the union should say that it is a closed shop and they do not regard him as qualified; therefore he cannot carry on his job when he has quite satisfactory, recognised qualifications? Again, that is something which should be agreed between the management and the union. One has to realise that these are possible situations, and clearly, in almost every case, there will be no difficulty whatsoever. Two things are laid down here: the organisation is free to say who is a worker of the description for which it caters, and, secondly, if a person is appropriately qualified for an employment, any person who applies and is appropriately qualified should be accepted, we all agree, into the union and not rejected by any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination.
1152
In summary, all I am saying is that there is just an outside chance every now and again that a union might refuse to take somebody on the grounds that he was not appropriately qualified for employment work of that description. But the question of who is appropriately qualified for employment as a worker in a particular factory depends very largely on the management and whom they engage as being appropriately qualified, or on the training that he has received and so on. It is to cover the very rare case where there may be some disagreement about this, where it is not desirable to leave the sole decision as to who is appropriately qualified, as opposed to the general description for which they are catering, to the union alone. In practical terms we are on a very small point here, but we regard this Amendment as unnecessary. It is entirely unnecessary to put in these words and in the very small proportion of cases it might be undesirable. When there is any doubt about putting words in a Bill of this kind it is better to leave them out, we think that they ought not to be in.
LORD DIAMOND: I am much encouraged by the speeches which have been made by my noble friends, each one of which seemed to me to add considerably to the case I was putting forward for the Government's consideration. I am sorry to say that I have not heard a single argument which dispels the point of view put forward by my noble friends. I raised this Amendment in the first place partly to probe the Government's mind with regard to dilutees, and so on, and partly to make clear that we were dealing with a matter connected with a fundamental principle, a right of association and the rights of those who associate to determine who is going to be in the association, which tends to be forgotten. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that there will be only a few cases in dispute. That is right; we are talking only about a few cases, so the world will not fall down if the freedoms which I have suggested it is necessary to exercise are exercised. The noble Lord's first argument is that in the case of a dispute between the worker and the union as to whether the member is appropriately qualified, the fact that the management has engaged him is sufficient evidence that he is qualified to do the job. The only

1153
answer I can give to that, one which occurred to me immediately, is—and I shall have to over-simplify it to make it as obvious as I can—to refer to the arguments which the noble Lord as employer, and I as the maintainer of standards, have had.
I refer to the time when the noble Lord was a member of a Government in another place and I was a member of the General Nursing Council. Government policy was to get more and more nurses because nurses were greatly needed. How do you get more nurses? Obviously by reducing standards. And what was the function of the General Nursing Council? To maintain standards. And there was a classical argument between the employer, the Government—the noble Lord sitting opposite—wanting to serve his purposes and, in order to serve them, being prepared to have a gentle regard, a non-critical regard, for the qualification of the person who was putting himself or herself forward, and the organisation representing standards and trying to maintain those standards. It is the usual argument of the short-term view versus the long-term view. I am glad to say that, so long as I was privileged to be a member of the General Nursing Council, we maintained our standards. That may be right or it may be wrong.
I am only saying that of course it is natural that there should be a conflict between the employer, who tends to accept lower standards because they are all that is available, and the union, which tends to support higher standards because of the apprenticeship, and so on, that has been gone through in order to achieve membership. In these circumstances, why does the noble Lord say it is right that the employers' view should prevail? At a moment of incautious speech—which we all experience—he said that the union and the employer should get together and agree. This clause does not say that they should agree. The union has no right in this clause except to go and represent its view to an outside body. So I am bound to say there is nothing here in the clause either to remind us of the fundamental right of the union or to protect skills and qualifications of which the union is naturally the appropriate guardian.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening?
1154
There is always a tendency to look narrowly at a particular provision in a Bill. I have said time and time again in our consideration of this Bill that there is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent the unions and the employers from agreeing on standards of entry, experience, qualifications and all the rest of it; and this is what will happen. What the noble Lord's Amendment would do would be to limit the matter to the unions alone.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, this is not right. I am giving the unions the minimum discretion to which they are entitled. I base my case first of all on the three years' study of the Royal Commission, which says they should have this discretion. One cannot just brush that away. I am on solid ground, not my own individual, subjective view, but the view of the Royal Commission which I have quoted, and will quote again with pleasure. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that I had not followed through the quotation. I have looked through the paragraph and I cannot see anything more in it which detracts one iota from the part I quoted; namely, that unions must be allowed to retain discretion. The paragraph says:
" Notwithstanding the other circumstances and arguments therefor, unions must be allowed to retain discretion in deciding whom they should admit ".
That is the first principle and I am on solid ground in saying that. Then I go on to say this—and this is why I am so grateful to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill: because as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was speaking I was wondering which clause he had in mind. As I read the Bill, there was the reference to "arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination" and there is nothing in this Amendment which would remove that. So the situation is still, as we would want it to be, that no union can refuse membership in an arbitrary or unreasonable way.
So then I come to the third question that I was concerned with and to the reason I raised it in a probing manner. What is the Government's atttiude with regard to dilutees, and so on? Here I received a frightening reply. I received the reply that the Government were going to run away from their responsibilities and were going to leave the matter in the hands of some outside body. That reply will strike fear into the hearts of those

1155
who asked me to raise this issue as one of the reasons for this Amendment. The Government must not do that. The Government have the responsibility of setting the pattern with regard to labour employment and labour standards, and merely to put the responsibility on to a body which, as my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has said, is by nature incapable of reaching an informed conclusion on an issue such as this, whereas the union is the appropriate body to do so, will not help the situation at all. It will mean merely that the Minister, who otherwise would have to answer in Parliament for decisions on general policy with regard to dilution of labour and so on, some
9.5 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79AAA:
Page 54, line 21, after (" notice ") insert (" paying any sums due to the organisation ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be highly improper for me to say that the answer to "AAA" is "for horses, horses, horses", so I will not do
1156
thing of most fundamental importance, will avoid that issue.
So, my Lords, I am bound to say that this Amendment, which started off in its usual moderate way, is now seen to be a very necessary Amendment. I am bound to say that absolutely. It is solidly based on the Donovan Commission's Report; it is solidly based in law; it is solidly based in experience. If the Government are not prepared to move in this matter, then we must divide the House on it.
8.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79L) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Lindgren, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

White, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrier, L.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Helens, L.

Barnby, L.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray, L.

Savile, L.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Skelmersdale, L.

Brecon, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Burnham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Templemore, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Terrington, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hatherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

Thomas, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Killearn, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mountevans, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

so! This is a short point which refers to subsection (3), under which:
" Every member of the organisation shall have the right, on giving reasonable notice and complying, with any reasonable conditions, to terminate his membership…"
The Amendment seeks to add the words,
"paying any sums due to the organisation"
after the word "notice" in line 21. This seems to be a reasonable thing to require a member to do before leaving

1157
the organisation. Particularly is this so because one might otherwise find that there are individuals who seek to get the benefits of trade union membership and when it comes to their arrears being so great that action is about to be taken they retire, change their jobs and join some other union with their arrears still outstanding. It is improper that this should take place, and therefore I hope that the Government will either say that this is already covered under the words, "complying with any reasonable conditions", or else will agree to the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I really think there is very little between us on the point which the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, has moved in this Amendment. Subsection (3) of the clause already slates that the right to resign is subject to the member "complying with any reasonable conditions", and I think I can almost meet the noble Lord (without however, accepting his Amendment, which I must say we do not want to do) by saying that we would agree with him that in principle there is nothing unreasonable about an organisation wanting to recover money lawfully due to it. If, then, a trade union were to make it a condition of acceptance of resignation that contributions up to the date of resignation shall have been paid, I cannot see, although it does not lie within the mouths of Ministers to lay down the law, that anyone would regard this as unreasonable. It would be pointless to list all the conditions which might be regarded as reasonable. It is, after all, for each organisation to determine for itself what detailed conditions and rules it wants to lay down, and then for the Registrar to determine what is reasonable.
Where we are not seeing quite eye to eye on the Amendment is that we can see no special reason for singling out a requirement to pay sums due to the organisation in specific terms when we are considering a clause dealing with broad principles. The noble Lord referred, perfectly reasonably, to some of the very practical difficulties which unions may find if people leave unions with their dues unpaid. The noble Lord referred to their going off and perhaps joining another union. I imagine that the majority of cases of people leaving a
1158
trade union will be when there are changes, from a closed shop to an agency shop, for example (but we think there will be very few people who leave on that account) and when a member simply wishes to change to membership of another trade union; presumably then the Bridlington Rules continue to operate. If, however, as the noble Lord suggested, a member is being disciplined and leaves the trade union before action is taken against him, it could well be reasonable for the member to have to remain in that union until the case had been heard; and in any event, after a member leaves (although I know that this probably is not so acceptable to any of your Lordships) nevertheless it will be open to the organisation to recover contributions, arrears or fines through the courts. This does seem to be a special case, and mainly for that reason we would rather not put it in the Bill in the terms of the Amendment. But I hope I have said enough to show the noble Lord hat very little divides the two sides on this matter.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is quite right; very little divides us. He has based his case mainly on the principle which I wholly endorse; namely, that you do not single out special cases when you are dealing with generalities. And he said that his view as a Minister is—and no doubt he is advised about this—that the condition I am suggesting would be regarded as reasonable. Therefore, the purpose of moving the Amendment is achieved, demonstrating that in all probability it would be so regarded if put to the test. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79MMM.
Page 54, line 34, at end insert—
(" ( ) (i) Every organisation shall have the right, on giving reasonable notice and complying with any reasonable conditions, to terminate a person's membership of the organisation at any time.
(ii) For the purpose of this subsection reasonable notice means notice which takes account of all relevant circumstances including the future livelihood of that person.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment under which it will be specifically and categorically stated that every organisation shall have the right,

1159
on giving reasonable notice and on complying with reasonable conditions, to terminate a person's membership. And then it goes on to define—I will come to this a little later—in a particular way one of the elements in reasonable notice. The subsection we have just been discussing says that every member shall have the right, on giving reasonable notice, to resign. The corollary is that every organisation shall have the right, on giving reasonable notice, to terminate membership.
There are the two aspects, the reverse and the obverse, of association. It is a very obvious thing to say, but it is not sufficiently clearly stated in the clause. Subsection (9) of the clause says:
" A person's membership…shall not be terminated unless reasonable notice…"
I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Stow Hill is here. I take the view that that is not a sufficiently positive way of saying it, and that it ought to be said positively and said immediately after, or as soon as possible after, the statement that every member of the organisation shall have the right to resign. That is the reason why that part of the Amendment is introduced.
But the Amendment goes further. Not merely concentrating on reasonable notice and compliance with reasonable conditions, it goes on to read:
" For the purpose of this subsection reasonable notice means notice which takes account of all relevant circumstances "—
it could not be broader than that—
" including the future livelihood of that person ".
One knows that when the question of termination of membership of a trade unionist is considered, it may have an effect on that person's livelihood or that person's job at that particular place of work. It is right that it should be taken into account. In case it was the view that that is not taken into account in deciding what is "reasonable notice" and "reasonable conditions", the Amendment specifically states that it should be taken into account. So you may have a situation where in the generality of cases reasonable notice would be a period of x days or weeks. You could have a situation where the skill involved was so special and the
1160
circumstances of the job so peculiar that it was not likely that the worker would be able to find a similar livelihood elsewhere in as short a period as that of x weeks and he should be given 2x weeks or 1½x weeks. Therefore, I hope that the Government will feel it right that when we are stating the guiding principles we should state not only that a member of an organisation has a reasonable right to resign but that the organisation, in having, in turn, a reasonable right to terminate his membership, should be especially careful if his livelihood is concerned. For those reasons I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has sought to devise a kind of balancing system here. I do not complain of that in the slightest except from the point of view of the drafting of the Bill as a whole; because in Clause 65 we are manifestly dealing with the conditions of organisations of workers in relation to their members. We are not really concerned with the rights of the organisations but with the rights of the members. This clause seeks to protect the rights of the members. It is not intended in the Bill in any way to deprive an organisation of workers of the right to terminate the membership of persons where it has good cause to do so. In fact such provision is made in Schedule 4, which deals with the rules of trade unions. In paragraph 17, reference is made to expulsion and to other disciplinary measures. There is no question of the right to terminate membership being called in question. I suppose that non-payment of contributions is likely to be the most common reason. Other reasons may include transfer of membership to another union under the terms of a Bridlington-type agreement or a member ceasing to satisfy the eligibility conditions of membership.
Termination for disciplinary reasons is in a category of its own which is covered by subsection (8) of the clause: but the same principles apply. Whatever the termination reason, the member should be informed of it in sufficient time to give him an opportunity to take any action he considers necessary to get the decision reconsidered. We feel that in the structure of the Bill and in the context of the clause it would be better

1161
to leave the drafting as it is. Subsections (8) and (9) together give an individual member the right to take the action he thinks necessary. This is what this clause is all about. There is no question of throwing any doubt on the rights of trade unions to terminate membership. But this is more a matter for the rules under Schedule 4 than for this clause.
9.20 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point would he be kind enough to direct his mind to the heading of the clause, and to the rubric:
" Guiding principles for organisations of workers."
The heading is:
" Principles as to conduct of organisations of workers, other than federations of workers' organisations."
So "federations" are excluded; what is included, and what is focused on, is "organisations of workers". I do not follow the noble Lord when he says that this is not the appropriate clause to deal with matters affecting organisations of workers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are dealing with organisations of workers here; I did not say that we were not. The noble Lord is an old enough Parliamentarian to know that the rubric and title do not affect the text. The text shows clearly that what we are dealing with in this clause is the conduct of organisations of workers towards their members. It is the rights of the members that ought to be protected. Here again I do not think that there is any matter of substance between us. I do not see anything in the noble Lord's Amendment which needs to be stated. I think it much better to leave the drafting as it is. It is designed as a whole for the purpose of protecting the rights of members vis-à-vis the organisations of workers.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again in a terrain with which I am not completely familiar, but I do so as the result of a number of conversations I have had with my noble friends who really are experienced in this field of trade unionism. Your Lordships will remember that when we were discussing the matter and this clause on Committee, we discussed an Amendment
1162
which would have enabled unions to refuse membership to persons who had consistently shown themselves hostile to the purposes of organisations of unions. That Amendment was put down, after considerable thought, to deal with a situation which apparently arises not infrequently.
If you want to organise your union properly and you want disciplinary procedures to work; if you want it to be an efficient instrument for maintaining standards and conducting collective negotiations, it is difficult to achieve that objective if you have as members people who will not co-operate. Everyone is entitled to express an opinion; no one would seek to stifle a hostile expression of views about how a union is managed. No unionist who has spoken to me ever asked for that. But they gave a number of examples, which I will not quote, of cases where an individual just simply could not fit in with the scheme. Sometimes he was over-critical; sometimes he was a "barrack room lawyer type"; sometimes a person, to use a phrase which we have used previously in these debates, who was ideologically motivated in a sense that militated against the objectives of the union.
If you want to organise a union and see that its branches function, that the authority of shop stewards is maintained, and that there is a response among the members to the leadership of the union, it is difficult to do when you have a number of persons of that sort among the membership. When we discussed the Amendment in Committee the Government Front Bench did not feel able to accept it. They felt that it was again a case in which greater protection was necessary for the individual member, the person who was rejected. They felt that if something of that sort were included in what was then Clause 61, now the present Clause 65, his position would not be safeguarded and there might be victimisation. As I understand it, this Amendment is an effort, by a different route, to achieve something on the same lines.
As the Bill stands, the union can terminate membership upon reasonable notice. We are talking not of a person who has rendered himself liable to disciplinary procedure under paragraph 17 of Schedule 4, who cannot be got rid of for any specific conduct of his, but a

1163
member incapable in a general sense. We are trying to meet the situation by saying to a union that if they cannot get along with a man, if he is a disruptive element and obstructing the proper processes of the union, it may terminate his membership but it must take into account his livelihood, his interests as a wage-earner—the fact that he may not find it easy to obtain other employment. With 800,000 persons unemployed, this position obtains especially at the present time. The union has to give him a reasonable time to get himself other employment.
The great issue which has divided the House, and which has been debated over and over again is the issue of the agency shop and the closed shop. When the Commission have before them a proposal for an agency shop or a closed shop, they would find it much more acceptable if they knew that nobody could be victimised, in the sense that he could not be got rid of and possibly deprived of his livelihood, simply on reasonable notice, not further defined. If they knew that an individual could be removed from the union only if a reasonable opportunity was given to him to find another avenue of employment they would find it more easy to approve the establishment of that agency shop or closed shop. Therefore I submit that this is not a fringe Amendment. It is one which goes close to the basic principles on which this Bill is constructed, and the basic matters of principle which have divided the House upon it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, looking carefully at this Amendment, the only significant difference I see between it and the Bill is that in the Amendment there is no specific provision for giving the reason for dismissal.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken. There is a basic, a crucial, difference between the situation as it would be if the Amendment were accepted and the situation as it is with the Bill drawn in its present form. The union will not be able to terminate the membership of one of its members unless it gives reasonable notice, which must mean—and this is the critical difference—it takes account of all relevant circumstances, including the future livelihood of
1164
that person. He cannot be got rid of on a week's notice in a period of heavy unemployment, such as the present day. If there is a closed shop, he may have to leave his employment, and the union cannot terminate his membership unless it takes account of that, and gives him notice of such length that he will have a reasonable opportunity to establish himself somewhere else. That is the distinction. It is a basic and critical difference. I submit that it will go a long way towards the building up of more orderly relationships for which the Government are striving under the terms of this Bill. I submit that that is its purpose; that is the basic essential of this Amendment. It is a matter of important principle, and I hope that the noble Lord will listen to it and consider it much more sympathetically than he has up to the present moment.
9.32 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I should have thought that this was a reasonable Amendment for the Government to accept. It is something that would not be used very often, but it is a reserve power that would enable the unions to face up to difficult members—and we do get them occasionally. I remember only one incident in my active trade union career in which a clause of this description would have been extremely helpful and would have prevented much discontent and difficulty that developed in the circumstances. It is the question of a man's future livelihood that has to be taken into consideration, even if a union wanted to apply this particular clause. When you get a member from time to time deliberately violating rules and working against the structure of the organisation of which he is a member, the trade union officers are in extreme difficulty in keeping the peace in that particular area. A clause of this description, purely as a reserve power, would be very helpful and in the interests of all concerned.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am bound to press the Government a little further on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has not put forward any strong reason why the Amendment should not be accepted. He said, first of all, that this was not the appropriate place, and when I quoted the

1165
heading and the rubric he said that that did not decide it, and I quite agree. So I will read the first paragraph:
" The principles set out in the following provisions of this section shall be guiding principles in the conduct of every organisation of workers,…".
That is what the clause is about. If the noble Lord were saying, "We are interested only in defending possible individual union members against organisations, and we are not interested in specifying reasonable conditions for the unions themselves", then I could understand his remarks. That may be his point of view; it is not our point of view. Our point of view is that a clause, to be a fair clause, should state, as it does in subsection (3), that every member has a right to give reasonable notice and retire, and also that every organisation has a right to give reasonable notice and to terminate the membership.
My noble friend Lord Stow Hill has pointed out the effect of this Amendment. It is a very moderate and balanced Amendment and it has acknowledged everything that the union should take into account in deciding whether the membership should be terminated. I dislike intensely putting your Lordships to the bother of trooping through the Lobbies
and taking time, but the noble Lord does not seem able this evening to understand any of our points, or able to meet us at all. If he said that he was prepared to look at this again and see whether there is any other part of the Bill where this could be better incorporated, I should be only too glad to reconsider it for a later stage. At the moment he merely says, "Well, leave the drafting to the draftsmen". I do not know what Parliament is here for it we are to be told, "The draftsmen have served it up and you must eat it".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I really cannot go further than saying that, as this is a clause which is designed for the protection of the individual member, we shall look at the Amendment to see whether there is any point that is not covered already in the Bill and which should be covered in the Bill. I cannot say more than that. We do not think this is the right place.
9.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79MMM) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 18; Not-Contents, 57.

CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Stonham, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Popplewell, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

White, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lauderdale, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Helens, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Savile, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Selkirk, E.

Brecon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Burnham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Templemore, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hatherton, L.

Terrington, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hawke, L.

Thomas, L.

Crathorne, L.

Henley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.43 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79M:
Page 54, line 40, leave out (" casting his vote ") and insert (" voting ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is a very small matter, and I hope that the Government will find it helpful. The clause as it is at present drafted refers in subsection (6) to:
" In any ballot and on any motion,…every member of the organisation shall have a fair and reasonable opportunity of casting his vote…"
I think that you cast your vote "in any ballot", but "on any motion", presumably, you either cast your vote or you simply vote—for example, on a show of hands. All one is trying to do by this Amendment is to make sure that the method of voting is that which the organisation decides, either putting up your hand or casting your vote, or whatever the case may be. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Lord move his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: Yes, at the beginning and, ex abundanti cautelâ, at the end.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I think is in the right place and very well adapated to its purpose. It makes an improvement, and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 79C:
Page 55, line 7, leave out from (" to ") to end of line 10 and insert—
(" take part in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, or in such circumstances as, in accordance with any provision of this Act, to constitute an unfair industrial practice on the part of the organisation or of that person, or
(c) to take part in any irregular industrial action short of a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has organised, procured or financed as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79C. The Amendment does two things. First, it makes clear the intention of paragraph
1168
(b) of subsection (7); secondly, it extends the scope of the paragraph in an important respect. First of all, if I may deal with the point of clarification, it was intended that subsection (7) should prevent an organisation of workers from disciplining any member who declined to take part in a strike or other form of irregular industrial action where inducing that action in itself constituted an unfair industrial practice. For example, it is an unfair industrial practice to induce a strike over recognition issues while the matter is before the C.I.R., and any union taking such action lays itself open to proceedings before an industrial tribunal or the Industrial Court. It would be illogical if workers who refused to join such a strike could be punished by heir union for not taking part. But, unfortunately, paragraph (b), as it stands, would only protect the worker who refuses to participate in inducing such a strike, since it is the actual inducing, and not the strike itself, which constitutes an unfair industrial practice. Paragraph (b) of this Amendment has the effect of transferring the protection to non-participants in the strike itself, irrespective of whether they decline to participate in its inducement. This was the original intention, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Amendment is effective in removing any uncertainty about the meaning of the subsection.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry, but I must ask the noble Lord a question. This is an important Amendment, and as our speaking rights are strictly and properly limited, I must ask him this. He referred to paragraph (b) of the Amendment. Did he intend to do that? I cannot see a paragraph (b) in the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I meant paragraph (b) of the clause.
LORD DIAMOND: Would the noble Lord mind repeating that part?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The Amendment includes paragraph (b). I am sorry if I misled the noble Lord. The second object of the Amendment is to extend the scope of the clause to strikes and other industrial actions which are not connected with an industrial dispute—for example, a political strike. The

1169
House has already given some thought to this question in Committee when we discussed an Amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Byers, Lord Henley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley. That Amendment was unacceptable for technical reasons, but I think it is fair to say that there was a general feeling revealed in the debate that some protection of this nature was desirable, and even the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was heard to say: "No one on this side of the Committee supports political strikes."
Noble Lords will be well aware that on a number of occasions in recent months unions have attempted to bring pressure to bear on members who have refused to take part in political strikes. There is some uncertainty about their right to discipline members in this situation under the existing law, and I feel sure that the House will agree that Parliament would be failing in its duty if the Bill failed to remove that uncertainty. I do not think I need go further into the purpose of this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sorry, but before the noble Lord sits down he must go further into it, because he has not said one word about which part of the Amendment achieves the purpose which he says it achieves. He must spell it out. This is a most important Amendment which affects the liberty of the subject and goes beyond the purpose of the Bill, as I read it. I hope that the noble Lord will explain it to the House because it is very important.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry, but I should have asked that Amendment No. 79D should be taken together with this Amendment. That Amendment is to Clause 65, on page 55, line 33. That Amendment is linked with the earlier Amendment which refers to disciplinary action—the Amendment I have been talking about—against members of workers' organisations who decline to take part in strikes or other irregular industrial action. The Amendment 79C applies in part to the situation where the action is taken in circumstances unconnected with any industrial dispute, but the definitions of "strike" and "irregular industrial action" which appear in Clauses 163 and 33 respectively are expressly related to the industrial dispute
1170
situation and therefore have to be modified for the purpose of this clause. The Amendment leaves the essential nature of the definitions intact while rendering them applicable to the situations with which this clause, as amended, is concerned. My Lords, I hope I have covered the matter—
LORD DIAMOND: Not at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps then I should explain that this Amendment does not prohibit workers' organisations from adopting a disciplinary code. Very many trade unions feel it important that members who break the rules of the union should be liable to a penalty or ultimately to expulsion. They will not be prevented from taking such powers, but they will be subject to constraints in the way that such powers are exercised. If, for example, a trade union has a rule which says that members are to withdraw their labour if instructed to do so by a district committee acting within its powers, that union would in general be able to exercise any disciplinary powers within its rules against a member who refused to strike. Its exercise of those powers in individual cases would, however, be subject to the test that the action it took was reasonable and fair, and within this context it would not be permitted to discipline a member for refusing to take part in a strike which was an unfair industrial practice or which was not connected with an industrial dispute with the employer. My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Diamond is a little clearer about this Amendment now, but if he is not, I shall just have to try to explain it further.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is, That Amendment No. 79C be agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I did say, "Before the noble Lord sits down".
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, said in part that this was an Amendment which met the purpose of an Amendment put forward in Committee by my noble friend Lord Byers and myself to which my noble friend spoke. We

1171
are grateful to the Government for meeting us on this point. Perhaps it is convenient that I should speak before the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, speaks at the end of this debate, because that may give him an opportunity to get back at Members on the Conservative and the Liberal Benches on this point. I think what is now being done is a very valauble and useful thing. We are not in any way trying to limit the liberty of people to withhold their labour on political matters. The Liberal Party no less than the Labour Party regards it as vital to the liberty of the subject that workers, if they do not like on political and conscientious grounds what their firm is doing should be able to withhold their labour. That is a basic human right, a human right, for instance, which is spelled out in Roman Catholic theology on such matters as contraception and abortion. In the whole of moral theology in the Roman Catholic Church and to some extent in the Anglican Church, this is a human right which must be observed. But to say this is not to say that a union itself should have the power to enforce and particularly to hold over a member strong disciplinary measures if the member does not agree with the union on these matters. Power in these matters should be very definitely confined to industrial disputes, and I think that the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is a useful one. For our part, we should like to welcome it and to thank him for his initiative in putting it forward.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Diamond for intervening before he speaks, but I simply wish to say that I once described the Industrial Relations Bill as a legal jigsaw puzzle. Well, having heard these two Amendments together, it not only seems to be a legal jigsaw puzzle but one in which the pieces do not fit, and I do not understand a word of it. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would clarify it for me, if he can.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I sought to intervene before the noble Lord sat down but that was not apparently thought appropriate or proper, so I am bound to address the House now in this way. I am virtually in the same position as my
1172
noble friend Lady Gaitskell. The noble Lord gave us the strongest impression and misled us completely into believing that he had not the foggiest idea of what he was talking about. He really did. He gave us the impression that he was getting into the same muddle as we were—and, my God! that is a muddle. I was hoping that when the noble Lord introduced a totally new provision into the Bill at this late stage, going further (as I read the two Amendments) in the way of restriction of labour than anything so far contained in the Bill, he would have regarded it as his responsibility to explain which words produced which results. But I am afraid he got himself and us into a hopeless muddle, and I find it very difficult to know whether or not the two Amendments taken together mean what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, thinks they mean—in which case, far from having a go at him, I would be supporting him almost up to the hilt—or whether they mean something different.
I think we have a responsibility for finding out what the words mean. That is my stance at the moment. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has made perfectly clear the stance of the Opposition on the general issue of political strikes, where it can be defined in such an obvious and easy way. But, my Lords, we all know that you cannot define it in such an obvious and easy way for statutory purposes. As I understood him what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said was that the right to protest against a political action is a fundamental right.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Yes.
LORD DIAMOND: That is our point of view, too; but of course it is obviously difficult to define a precise stage between exercising a right of protest against something which stems from a political decision which you probably want to protest against, and what is generally called "a political strike". There was an issue—was it not one concerning the Musicians' Union?—where they refused to cooperate on a political issue. I do not know whether football players are organised in a union. I imagine that they are. They may take a certain view about being ordered by their employer to go and play in South Africa, for example.
A NOBLE LORD: Or Russia.
LORD DIAMOND: Or Russia. There was a case where a union refused to load ships which were going to Poland in order to bring an end to the Russian Revolution. There was a case where, as my noble friend has reminded me, trouble arose out of loading ships for Nigeria. I want to know what the Government's proposals are. That is all I am asking at the moment; I am not taking a view until I know what they are.
I could not follow the noble Lord's speech. I tried hard to associate his remarks with the Amendment and I could not, because he was referring to the clause when he said he was referring to the Amendment, and then when I looked at the Amendment he said he was referring to another Amendment. It was difficult to collect one's thoughts and find out what he was talking about, so I hope that all your Lordships will find it necessary for me to do at the moment is merely to question the noble Lord and to say that I would be grateful if he would have another go and tell us what this important clause means. We quite understand that part of it has no new effect, but we are interested in the part which has a new effect. What are the words and what is the effect? We should be grateful for his guidance.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me to explain this and I shall endeavour to do so. May I just take him through this—that is the only way that one can possibly do it. This clause as it is drafted at the present time says this in subsection (7):
" No member of the organisation shall he subjected by or on behalf of the organisation to any unfair or unreasonable disciplinary action; and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) no disciplinary action shall be taken against any member of the organisation by reason of his refusing"—
and we are talking about disciplinary action taken against a member of the organisation—
" or failing—

(a) to take any action which, in accordance with any provision of this Act, would constitute an unfair industrial practice on his part, or

(b) to participate "

and instead of the word "participate" we then have—
1174
" take part in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute ".
I draw attention to the fact that it is not only if the organisation itself but if "any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed an industrial dispute that (b) applies. Those words are important because it might be possible, for example, for an outside organisation to organise the strike but for the organisation itself perhaps to finance the strike or in other ways to assist it, and then subsequently to discipline the person concerned for not having taken part in the strike, so those words are important. I read again:
" take part in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute ".
In other words, the disciplining is limited to cases,
" in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute ".
It goes on to prohibit disciplinary action even where there is an industrial dispute:
" in such circumstances as, in accordance with any provision of this Act, to constitute an unfair industrial practice on the part of the organisation or of that person…"
Then it says:
" (c) to take part in any irregular industrial action short of a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has organised, procured or financed as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection."
The noble Lord will see the concept of irregular industrial action is added also to the provision. I should have thought all this was self-explanatory—
LORD DIAMOND: There is another Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the other Amendment, if the noble Lord would like me to deal with that, too—I thought I had explained it perfectly simply—is:
" For the purposes of subsection (7) of this section, section 33(4) of this Act, and the definition of "strike" in section 163(1) of this Act, shall apply as if—

(a) in section 33(4) the words "in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute", and

(b) in the definition of "strike" the words "in contemplation or furtherance of an

1175
industrial dispute, whether they are parties to the dispute or not ",

were omitted."
That is purely a drafting Amendment the effect of which is that for the purposes of the bar on disciplinary action against non-participants in certain types of strike, or other irregular industrial action, the definitions of irregular industrial action or strike already in the Bill are to apply outside the context of an industrial dispute by which they are qualified for purposes elsewhere in the Bill. I should have thought that was perfectly clear, and I have already explained it. If the noble Lord has not understood it, then if he will study it on the Record I am sure that he will come to understand it.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask a straightforward question. I hope that I am not trespassing on your Lordships' patience if at the same time I apologise if I was a little abrupt with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, because I thought that these two Amendments made sense. May I ask the noble Lord this question. Would he agree with what I thought was the result of the Amendment which, if it is true, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says he agrees with?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry, I did not quite hear what the noble Lord said.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: In that case, my Lords, I will leave the matter.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I was going to ask the noble Lord whether he would explain the words "in contemplation or furtherance". Whose contemplation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is the well established, common form in trade union legislation at the present time. It has always been "in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question which I have to put is, That the said Amendment be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That, I am afraid, stops the Amendments to Amendment No. 79C, and we now go on to Amendment No. 79QQQ, which is a fresh Amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack explain what he meant when he said that he was afraid that this stops the consideration of the Amendments? I was not quite certain what the noble and learned Lord was referring to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I am asked to explain. I think I should explain from the Woolsack, because this is my function as Chairman. Amendment No. 79C has now been passed in an unamended form. It follows that no Amendment to Amendment No. 79C can be moved, unless I am wrong, and therefore Amendments Nos. 79NNN and 79PPP fall. I am advised I did not call it, so I shall call it. That means that we must not take the Amendment as passed, because once the Amendment is passed I cannot call the Amendment to it. Nobody moved it; perhaps I should have called it. I shall now call it. The trouble was that the noble Lord, instead of moving his Amendment, asked a question, and in consequence I became confused. I now call Amendment No. 79NNN.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. From ignorance of the procedure here, but some knowledge elsewhere, I was naturally expecting the Question to be put in the ordinary way, after the Amendment on the main Question had been put; then one would take the further Amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of saying, "Not moved".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We seem to have reached the same point by different routes. I shall now, ex abundanti cautelâ, call Amendment No. 79PPP.
LORD DIAMOND: Not moved.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we have already discussed this Amendment. I beg to move.
Page 55, line 33, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of subsection (7) of this section, section 33(4) of this Act, and the definition of "strike" in section 163(1) of this Act, shall apply as if—
1178

(a) in section 33(4) the words "in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute", and

(b) in the definition of "strike" the words "in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, whether they are parties to the dispute or not",

were omitted.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.14 p.m.
Clause 66 [Unfair Industrial Practices in connection with principles stated in s. 65]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79CCCC:
Page 55, line 38, at end insert—
(" Provided that any such action shall not be an unfair industrial practice if and in so far as it does not contravene any provision contained in Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation or of Article 5 of the European Social Charter.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 66 deals with the question of unfair industrial practices in connection with the principles which we have been discussing, not wholly satisfactorily, in the previous clause. I imagine that the Government would say that the last thing they want to do is to introduce a Bill under which there is permitted what is not permitted under international labour organisations to which the Government have subscribed. I am advised either that there is some doubt about this or that some of these principles can constitute a contravention of those conventions. Apparently, the matter is not free from doubt. I have two sources of advice, and that advice has been offered to me. Therefore I thought the simplest way of clarifying the matter was to put in a proviso to make it clear that the Government are not intending what nobody would expect them to intend. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As I understand it, the effect of this Amendment would be to deprive an individual of any right of redress in respect of an action taken against him by an organisation of workers where the action, although in breach of the guiding principles, was not in breach of specified international instruments. The instruments specified are Conventions Nos. 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organisation or Article 5 of the European Social Charter.
I think this Amendment is founded on a misunderstanding. Its apparent object is to ensure that the guiding principles shall not be enforced—I think it is right that this is the noble Lord's intention—in any way which would deprive organisations of workers of the right conferred by these instruments. The inference is that there is, or may be, some
1180
inherent conflict between what the guiding principles say that an organisation cannot do and what these instruments say it should be able to do. I must tell the noble Lord that that is simply not true. Clause 65 serves a purpose quite distinct from that of the two I.L.O. Conventions and from Article 5 of the European Social Charter. Clause 65 is essentially concerned with the rights of the individual member in relation to the organisation to which he belongs. The two Conventions and Article 5 are concerned with the rights of organisations in the community—with freedom of association, and the right to organise and bargain collectively.
The noble Lord might like me to give an example to illustrate the difference. Article 2 of I.L.O. Convention 87 on Freedom of Association states this:
" Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation ".
In other words, no worker should be kept out of a union because his employer or the Government or anyone other than the union says he cannot join. Subsection (2) of Clause 65 is not concerned with the attempts of outsiders to stop people from joining unions; they are dealt with in Clause 5 of the Bill. But it is concerned to prevent a union from being able arbitrarily to reject individual applications for membership without good reason. Convention 87, on the other hand, says nothing but that the rules should say who can join a union; it certainly does not say that unions can have the right to exclude applicants unreasonably or arbitrarily. Clause 65(2) ensures that the rules do not countenance arbitrary and discriminatory treatment of applicants.
I could give the noble Lord other examples, but obviously one cannot go right through the Article in this fashion. But the same pattern would follow. The point is that Clause 65 and the international instruments really have quite different objects; they do not conflict, and this Amendment would achieve nothing except to cause confusion. So I must ask the House to reject it.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I raised the matter because the view was strongly put to me by a very authoritative source that the objects did conflict. The noble Lord has no doubt taken advice, and no doubt he is not speaking without due consideration by his advisers; and if his advisers are satisfied that there is no conflict, there is no point in having the words there. If there were a conflict the words would be necessary to remove it. In view of what the noble Lord has said, for which I am grateful, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Organisations eligible for registration as trade unions]:
10.19 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79N:
Page 55, line 43, after (" concurrence ") insert (" of any person who is not a member or ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79N. In this clause we are discussing the organisations which are eligible for registration as trade unions, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that, in order to be eligible, an organisation has to have the power to alter its rules in the way described without the concurrence either of a parent organisation or of any person who is not a member of the organisation. This is an attempt to strengthen the independence of the unions and I hope it will find sympathy with the Government. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we accept the fact that the noble Lord has said that this Amendment is put down in order to strengthen the wording in regard to the independence of trade unions, but it is already a condition of eligibility for registration that an organisation of workers must be "independent" as stated in subsection (1)(a) of this clause. The word "independent", as the noble Lord knows, is defined in Clause 163 as meaning
" not under the domination or the control of an employer…"
No organisation which was unable to alter its rules or to deploy its funds without
1182
the permission of an employer or an employers' organisation could be said to be "independent" in this sense. Therefore I suggest that in this respect the Amendment is unnecessary.
It is difficult to think of any other person who might have authority over the rules of an organisation unless that person happens to be a corporate body, for example, a federation of trade unions. I doubt whether this is intended, but I think the effect of this Amendment would be to exclude from registration any trade union which gave up any of its sovereignty to a federation. I am quite certain that this was not what the noble Lord had in mind. We believe that the word "independent" is adequately defined in the Bill, and that this Amendment would not add to it.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I always find it difficult to understand the kind of answer which says, for example, as here, that if the word "independent" is included in Clause 67(1)(a) then in subsection (1)(b) you do not have to put in any of the words which describe that independence. I find it difficult to understand that kind of answer when I look in subsection (1)(b) and I see the words
" without the concurrence of any parent organisation ",
why, for example, does not the independence of any organisation exclude the meddling of any parent organisation, and why, therefore, should be have to put in the words
" or any parent organisation "?
I am merely saying that I do not understand it; I am not saying it is wrong. No doubt the draftsmen have understood it, and if the noble Earl says that the words which I have proposed are unnecessary because that degree of independence is already secured by the words in subsection (1)(a) then I am content to seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.25 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 79G:
Page 56, line 1, leave out from (" funds ") to end of line 2.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79G which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. This Amendment and the corresponding Amendments which have been tabled on Clauses 71 and 84, namely Amendments 79H and 79J, are felt to be necessary because it has become evident that certain features of the tests of eligibility for registration which are set forth in these clauses could present difficulties for some organisations who wish to register. The purpose of subsection (1)(b) of Clause 67 is to ensure that organisations which obtain registration as trade unions under the Bill have the authority to comply with the statutory requirements on registered organisations, which are stated in the Bill. This makes it essential that a trade union should have the authority to make any necessary changes in the rules and to control the application of its property and funds.
There are in existence a number of organisations, both of workers and of employers, which have been created by the amalgamation of existing organisations and where the terms of amalgamation have left the original organisations with a considerable degree of autonomy, although they have now become parts of a large organisation. It is not uncommon in this sort of situation for these so-called "branches" to retain independent control over certain funds, for example funds devoted to provident purposes. In such cases one may find that the parent organisation has no control over certain branch funds, while the branch does not have complete autonomy over its own rules. In this event, Clause 67, as it stands, would prevent both the parent and the constituent organisation from registering as trade unions, and Clauses 71 and 84 would have similar effects.
On reflection the Government do not feel that the unions' control of branch funds is essential for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), and have concluded that the tests of eligibility for registration are therefore unnecessarily rigorous in this respect. It is therefore proposed that the reference to control of branch funds in this clause can be dispensed with
1184
and similar Amendments are proposed to the later clauses. I hope this will have the approvel of noble Lords, and I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I think I understand what the noble Earl said, although it is not all that easy to follow. I do know that there are certain unions whose branches have autonomy over their own funds. I would ask the noble Earl what happens when the branches are not sufficiently independent to register separately and yet have some independence, some autonomy over their funds? Do I gather that if this Amendment is accepted the branches will now be included with the parent and the whole thing will be registered as one?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if the branch is included in the parent organisation and the parent organisation is registered, then the branch will also thereby be registered. Under the Bill as it stands, if a branch had autonomy over the use of its funds it would be excluded from being registered, and so would the parent organisation. Under the Amendment, the parent organisation, including the branch, will now be able to be registered, even though the branch retains the automony over its funds.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79P.
Page 56, line 2, at end insert—
(" and
(c) does not receive directly or indirectly financial assistance from any employer ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is again an attempt, as an earlier Amendment was, to reinforce the independence of the union. I think the words are words which appear somewhere else in the Bill; I am not absolutely sure about that. At all events, that is the purpose of the Amendment, and if the noble Lord is going to say that it is not necessary because the word "independent" in Clause 67(1)(a) sufficiently covers it, well and good. But I should have thought there was something to be said for the words. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am afraid that this Amendment is not

1185
acceptable to the Government—not for the reason which the noble Lord put forward but because we do not believe it to be necessary. We also feel that it would have a restricting effect. If this Amendment were accepted, no workers' organisation benefiting in any way from financial assistance from employers could register as a trade union. As a means of preventing organisations under employers' domination or control from gaining the status of trade unions, that the Amendment is, I suggest, superfluous because subsection (1)(a) already has that effect.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? If he says that, then I need not trouble him any more.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in that case I will not trouble myself or the noble Lord any more; although I am bound to say that the Amendment does have different effects.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, in view of what the noble Earl has said, that subsection (1)(a) covers the point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.32 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79Q.
Page 56, line 2, at end insert—
(" and
(c) is not for the time being registered as a trade union under the Trade Union Act 1871 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, but not, at this stage of our debate, with any great hopes. This would have been very relevant if an earlier Amendment had been accepted, permitting registration under the 1871 Act and under this Bill to run side by side. The Government did not see fit to do that and I do not therefore wish to spend a lot of time on this Amendment. If the Government are going to say, "No", they might as well say it quite quickly.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, No!
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79R:
Page 56, line 6, leave out (" all ") and insert (" three-quarters of ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 79R. This relates to the problem of registering a federation of workers' organisations—it might be the T.U.C. but not necessarily so—where something less than 100 per cent. of the constituent members are registered. We have discussed this previously, and the Bill provides for all the constituent or affiliated organisations to be registered either on the general register or on the special register. I understand the Government's anxieties, but it is going too far to talk of 100 per cent. I repeat what was said previously: that these organisations are valuable organisations, much needed by Governments, helpful to Governments in all sorts of ways; they produce information and enable the country to be governed and are continually being used. One does not want to come to cross-purposes because a small number of organisations within the federation—small in number, or small in importance or small in membership, whatever the case may be—do not register. I agree that 100 per cent. is a round figure, but it is not a suitable one in terms of practical politics.
I hope the Government will recognise this and make their own Bill more workable by removing the word "all" and substituting for it something representing less. In my Amendment I have suggested "three-quarters With the consent of the House I suggest we now discuss the following Amendment which is purely to suggest an alternative of" 85 per cent."I should have thought" three-quarters" was all right; but if the Government want "85 per cent." then I would withdraw the first suggestion and be happy to accept the second. I do not think this is a Party issue; common sense says it will not be possible to get 100 per cent. The Government will need the cooperation and functions of these federations and therefore less than 100 per cent. should be provided for in the legislation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that this is not a political issue; it is a severely practical issue for one or two reasons. The outstanding one is that if you were to try to lay down a

1187
certain proportion, whatever it might be, which was not to be registered, that proportion would gain an advantage by a side door so to speak. The second practical point is that it is extremely difficult to specify any effective proportion in a matter of this kind. Were we to talk of a proportion of the membership of a federation in individual terms this might make sense; but you could quite easily have a federation of, say, 20 members and take three-quarters of that, and it would mean that five members need not be registered trade unions. Those five might constitute 95 per cent. of the total membership of the federation in terms of numbers. As a practical issue I do not think that this is possible.
Naturally one sympathises with a federation where a minority of its constituent members, for son-le reason or other, refuse to become registered. Possibly they may not be eligible for registration. The answer to that is that there is a difficult choice to face: they would have to decide whether to exclude from membership those who were not registered; or for the federation itself to forego the advantages of registration. One has also to bear in mind so far as federations are concerned that, as federations, they do not gain nearly so much in the way of advantages as do individual trade unions. From the point of view of the trade union member it is far more important that the rules of the union should conform with the rules laid down in the Bill than that the rules of the federation should conform, and so on. It is far more important that an individual's trade union should belong than that a federation should belong. But there is this choice. If you cannot get 100 per cent. agreement of the membership it is an insurmountable difficulty, if one accepts, as we feel we must, that the advantages should he enjoyed only by registered trade unions.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my point at all. He is so concerned with what he regards as the advantages to trade unions, and what we regard as obligations and burdens on trade unions, that he cannot remove his gaze from that to think objectively about the point I put to him: namely, the need for Governments to have good relations with federations of trade
1188
unions and federations of employers' associations. This would be impossible if you cannot have registration. Registration should not be made impossible if there is but a small minority of the membership of the federation not registered for one reason or other. I am sure the Government will find this a practical difficulty.
I am not going to press this Amendment to a Division. It is designed to help the Government because this is a problem which the Government will meet. If the Government wanted to overcome it they could do so easily. Where there is a will there is a way, and one could think of all sorts of formulae which could get over it. One which occurs to me is to insert the words, "such smaller number" or "such smaller number as the Secretary of State adopts." We do not have to provide for it in the Bill, but give the power to make regulations and then every case could be looked at separately. This is in the Government's own interest, of having workable relations with important elements in trade and society, which the Government need in order to be effective in Government. But I must leave it to them. I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.41 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79RRR:
Page 56, line 15, at end insert—
(" Provided that no rule in the rule book of an organisation of workers or a trade union prior to the passing of this Act shall have effect in so far as it deals with the registration or non-registration of the organisation of workers or trade union.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, organisations of workers are now faced with the difficulty that in their rule books they find references to registration, which may refer to the Trade Union Act 1871. It was clear to what this referred when the rule was made, but it will no longer be absolutely clear. All the circumstances will have to be taken into account to find out what is meant by "registration". This is clearly related to the problem of the fair wages clause, which I raised in the debate on the code of practice, where there is a reference to trade unions. Under this Bill, a trade union is an organisation which is registered under the Bill. The

1189
Government recognise that this causes confusion and, as the noble Lord told us, they are arranging for a statement to be made in another place to clarify this. All I am asking is that a statement should be made here clarifying this issue, so that those organisations which have references in the rule books to registration will know that they have a neutral situation; that they are free to do what they want. The alternative is for the union to alter the rules, but that takes time. In some unions the rules can be altered only every three years. I think this Amendment would be a helpful clarification. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we recognise the point which the noble Lord has made on his Amendment, but we feel that trade unions should be free to make their own decision about whether or not to register. We believe that they should make their own rules and that it is not right that we should by this Bill alter the rules under which they are abiding at the moment. The unions make their decisions in various ways, according to the provisions of their constitutions and rules. Some may make a decision relating to registration by resolution at annual conference, others by adoption of a new rule. We believe it is right that they should abide by their rules, and that, if they wish to alter them, they should do so in accordance with the way in which they are entitled to alter them. The noble Lord said that at the time the rules about registration were made, what was in mind was registration under the Trade Union Act 1871. That may be the case or it may not: one cannot tell what caused a union to make a particular rule. What does seem to be clear is that if one wants to interpret the intentions of the rule-making authority, it is best to go back to the body and ask them to consider the question again.
As soon as the Registrar informs a trade union that a particular rule may have to be changed—perhaps because it is in conflict with the requirements of the Registrar—the union will have to call its rule-making authority under Clause 94 of this Bill. When the union is considering the rules which the Registrar has told it to reconsider, it is of course entitled to consider at the same time any other rule it may have, including any which may oblige it to become registered.
1190
We do not believe that there is anything to be detracted from the unions by their becoming registered; we equally believe that it is not right in this Bill so to alter their rules that they will be prevented from becoming registered. If their rules say that unions are to be registered, then the Government feel that it is right for the trade unions themselves to alter their rules in accordance with their own provisions.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, but I do not think he has really taken my point. I am merely trying to say that, as I understand it, it is not possible for anybody to give advice, without considering each case separately and all the circumstances, including the documents, and so on, and what is meant by the words as a result of this Bill. The simplest thing would be for the Government to help all organisations in this way, instead of, as the noble Earl suggested, putting each organisation to the trouble of altering its rules so as to clarify its position. Of course it can do that; but it is much more troublesome. If the noble Earl is not prepared to help them, that is the end of it, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Guiding principles for organisations of employers]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 79E:
Page 57, line 12, leave out from beginning to (" to ") in line 13 and insert—
(" ( ) No member of the organisation shall he subjected by or on behalf of the organisation to any unfair or unreasonable disciplinary action; and in particular (but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection) no disciplinary action shall be taken against any member of the organisation by reason of his refusing or failing—

(a) to take any action which, in accordance with any provision of this Act, would constitute an unfair industrial practice on his part, or

(b) to institute or participate in a lock-out which the organisation, or any other person, has organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, or in such circumstances as, in accordance with any provision of this Act, to constitute an unfair industrial practice on the part of the organisation or of that person.

1191
( ) The principles set out in subsections (1) and (2) of this section, and those set out in subsections (3) to (6) and subsections (8).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment corresponds, so far as employers are concerned, to Amendment No. 79C, which dealt with the position of trade unions and organisations of workers. I think it follows exactly the same lines, dealing with lock-outs as the other Amendment did in regard to strikes. I do not think I need to go into it in detail. Its effect is simply to prohibit an organisation of employers from disciplining any member who refuses or fails to commit an unfair industrial practice, or to participate in a lockout instigated or supported by the organisation, where such instigation or support would itself constitute an unfair industrial practice, or where the lock-out itself is not in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can explain the necessity for this Amendment? I know that it matches the other Amendment, but unless it is pure window-dressing I cannot see any purpose in it. Can the noble Lord tell us what sort of circumstances he is proposing, at this late stage, to legislate against or for, and whose rights are increased or reduced?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is quite conceivable that an employers' association might indulge in an unfair industrial practice on a recognition issue or something of that kind, and it might wish to discipline one of its members for not adhering to its instructions. It could quite easily happen, though not very often, and it is only fair that this provision should be in the Bill since the same restriction is placed on trade unions.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
10.51 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79F, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this section, the definition of "lock-out" in section 163(1) of this Act shall apply as if the words" in contemplation
1192
or furtherance of an industrial dispute "and the words" whether parties to the dispute or not "were omitted.").—[Lord Drumalbyn.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 71 [Organisations eligible for registration as employers' associations]:
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79H, which is consequential on Amendment No. 79G.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 26, leave out from (" funds ") to (" shall ").—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Provisions as to certificates of registration]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79U:
Page 58, line 33, leave out from (" name ") to (" and ") in line 37 and insert (" of any other organisation of workers or of any other organisation of employers ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 73 refers to a certificate of registration and the registered name of an organisation when it becomes registered as a trade union. It states in subsection (4):
" The name so specified—

(a) shall not be identical with the name by which another organisation is for the time being registered…in the special register, and

(b) shall not be a name so nearly resembling the name…"

The present rules affecting registration under the 1871 Act are, to my mind, wiser. What those rules state is not merely that you shall not register a union under a name which is the same as another registered organisation, but that you shall not register if the name is the same as another organisation, whether it is registered or not. What we are seeking to do is to avoid confusion, so it seems sensible that the same rules should apply here. The Amendment therefore proposes that if the name is similar to any other organisation of workers or employers, whether or not it is registered, you should not adopt that name.
I can give one example which seems a forceful one. Let us suppose that a large union does not register for five years, and then it decides to register. By

1193
that time the Registrar has registered another organisation with the identical name, as he will be empowered to do under the Bill as its stands. Then the position will arise that a substantial organisation is prepared to register but is not able to register in its own name, because in the meantime the Registrar has registered another body with the identical name. This could cause not only confusion, but tension and difficulties. The present rule is a sensible one, and what appears in the 1871 Act is a good precedent for the 1971 Act. My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am afraid we feel that the Bill as it stands is less confusing than with the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord; and perhaps it would be convenient to the House, if it is also convenient to the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment, that we should also discuss the next Amendment, because I think they go together. These particular Amendments would prevent the registration of a trade union or an employers' association under a name which might be confused with that of any other organisation of workers or employers. Why we feel the Bill is best as it stands is because it is in fact modelled on Section 13(3) of the Trade Union Act 1871, which also related only to registered trade unions. I take the point that the noble Lord made, that there might be a union which for about five years decided not to register and then, when it came to do so, found that the Registrar had already granted that name and that he therefore could not give it to this particular organisation; but that would happen in any case. The difficulty about the noble Lord's Amendments is that the Registrar really would have no certain means of knowing the names of the very large number of unregistered workers' and employers' organisations in existence at any one time. Therefore, I should like to suggest to him that the Amendments probably could not be administered as effectively as the provisions in the Bill as it stands. In fact, if I remember rightly, I think I had something to do with moving an Amendment on this question of names on Committee stage. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not alter it, because I rather liked it in the original.
LORD DIAMOND: I find the argument appealing but not wholly persuasive. First of all, the noble Baroness said that this Bill is modelled on the 1871 Act. That may be so. It merely is a case, then, of history repeating itself. In 1871, Parliament thought it knew what was the right thing. No doubt somebody from the Opposition Benches got up and proposed what I am now proposing; the Government thought it was not the right thing and did not listen, as usual, and so it was enacted in that form in 1871. But by the time 1876 arrived—in the course of five short years—it was discovered to be a foolish proposal and there was introduced Trade Union Regulation 2, which apparently is not in the noble Baroness's papers but which I am assured was introduced. Parliament therefore decided to reverse the process out of experience. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not been adequately briefed, but as she has based her case on a false assumption she will realise why I am not acceding to the logic of her case.
So, in spite of the rebellious remarks from the noble Lord sitting behind the noble Baroness (which noble Lord is showing the results of the last rebellion in which he was engaged, and we hope the results are rapidly improving) I think it would be right to ask the noble Baroness to give further consideration to this question. I think we are on a point which is good in common sense, and, so far as I know, we are on a point which is good in practice and experience. I am told that Regulation 2 of 1876 is the relevant one, so perhaps, in the circumstances, the noble Baroness would be good enough to say that she would like an opportunity to consult her advisers, particularly the one who failed to brief her properly.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if I may speak again with the leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me whether I would reconsider the matter from a common-sense angle. While it is true that I do not happen to have Regulation 2 of 1876 handy, I will do as the noble Lord suggests and approach the problem in a common-sense way, not by saying that I will reconsider it, but by suggesting to noble

1195
Lords that now in 1971, when we are considering whether it would be easier to have this applying only to registered organisations or whether it would be easier to have it applying to any organisation of workers, as the noble Lord's Amendment proposes, it would define and narrow the issue and make it easier to clarify if we leave the Bill as it stands. I approach this, as appealed to, in a common-sense way, and I appeal to the House not to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 74 [Incorporation and vesting of property]:
11.2 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 79SSS.
Page 59, line 15, at end insert (" and in so far as applicable the rules of the organisation shall become the rules of the body corporate.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I shall not take up much of your Lordships' time in moving this Amendment, because when we discussed these clauses (and I refer to Clauses 74 and 90, which deal with the corporation structure of unions as the result of the grant of a certificate of registration) at the Committee stage on May 18, the Ministers said that they would like to look further at the clauses, which were then, respectively, Clauses 72 and 88. Since the Committee stage, my noble friends and I have received from Ministers a number of letters dealing with the questions that were asked on the Committee stage, and I should like to express my deep indebtedness for those letters, which I have found extremely helpful. From something that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, said, I was not quite sure whether I should have received a letter on this particular point. I have not done so. Therefore, perhaps I should proceed upon the assumption that I should again revert to the point in an Amendment.
The real question raised by Clause 74 is how the conversion of the trade union, an association of individuals, is to operate when the association becomes a body corporate: what is to be the machinery? The process of incorporation by charter of associations of individuals is of course
1196
well known. I myself have studied many charters for the purpose of incorporation of members of an association. The charter, in my experience, always sets out what is to be the constitution of the new body, and what are to be its rules; or it at least gives a reference to some other document in which the rules are to be contained or, possibly, states how the rules are to be made. One would have thought it would be requisite, in order to complete the process of conversion in this particular case of the aggregate of individuals into that corporation, that something analogous should be provided for in the terms of the Bill we are discussing. I think I am right in saying that no such machinery is provided for. It is for that reason that I have ventured to put down the Amendment to page 59, line 15, to insert the words:
" and in so far as applicable the rules of the organisation shall become the rules of the body corporate."
In this particular context I should have thought that even more essential than it might have been in other contexts. That is because the formulation of the rules and their conforming to some broad standards is made a condition of registration. In other words, the attention of those who drafted the Bill was particularly concentrated upon the scope and nature of the rules of the new corporation. It would therefore seem necessary, in order to apply the process of incorporation, to provide something as to what the rules of the new corporate body were to be. I infer that it is the Government's intention, at any rate, that the existing rules of the trade union, subject to such mutations as are rendered necessary, should become the rules of the corporation itself as from the date of incorporation. If an individual trade unionist wished to know what his rights were against the corporation or against any member of the trade union, he should look at the rules of the trade union as adapted and converted into the rules of the corporation. That is what I would imagine. There may be somewhere in this Bill—though I have not discovered it—or somewhere in some Statute which is automatically applicable, some provision which would have the effect of automatically making the rules of the union the rules of the corporation. If there is such a provision, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would indicate

1197
where I can find it. So far, I have not found one, and therefore I think it should be incorporated into the provisions of Clause 74.
My Lords, when we discussed the matter in Committee on May 18, I ventured to put to the Government Front Bench a considerable number of questions. The Minister said that the Government would like to consider them and I expected that, as a result of their further thinking, a number of Amendments might appear on the Marshalled List dealing with some of those points. In fact only one Amendment appears, the next on the Marshalled List, which deals with the topic of the obligations resting upon a trustee for the organisation which are by that Amendment transferred to the corporation. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable and practicable change. I do not know whether I should infer from the fact that there is only that one Amendment that Ministers having considered the matter carefully with their advisers, feel that no further change is necessary. If that is so, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, when she replies to the debate, would amplify that with the advantage of the Amendment which is before the House and say what further thinking the Government have had on that general topic.
May I remind the noble Baroness and Ministers of a matter which particularly concerned me and which I find not easy to understand? It is in regard to the property of the new corporation which would be amenable for the purpose of satisfying judgments obtained by persons who had claims against the corporation. I refer to what is now Clause 52, and I think I am justified in raising that issue on this Amendment because it arises out of the rules structure of the corporation. In that context, I asked what could be the object of providing that when judgment was given against the corporation, property of the members of the corporation otherwise than that jointly owned or owned in common with other members of the corporation should not be amenable to execution.
The clear implication of that is, I suppose, that property, whether owned jointly or in common with other members of the corporation, should be amenable to execution in satisfaction of a judgment obtained against the corporation. I find
1198
that very difficult to understand. It seems to me that there can be no possible circumstance in which such property could be rendered amenable to the process of execution. If one is to give full force to the provision in Clause 74 that once the union becomes a body corporate all the property of the union vests in it, and if the property held by the individual members jointly is to vested in the corporation, what is the point of saying or implying that that property is amenable to execution in the hands of the individual members of the union?
Those are the kinds of questions I asked, and I do not want to rehearse them again, because they are fully set out in the speech which I ventured to address to your Lordship's Committee on May 18. But I would remind the noble Baroness of those questions, and I should he most grateful if, in dealing with the Amendment, she would indicate whether she thinks it is desirable, and possibly also expand a little and give some indication as to the thinking of Ministers on the proper answers to those questions. The Ministers did say they would be glad to go into the matter further, and I should be most grateful if she would elaborate her answer—which I think would be just within the rules of relevancy and order. I beg to move.
11.12 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, we have certainly looked very carefully at the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, but, so far as this particular Amendment is concerned, we do not feel that the provision which he has laid down is necessary. I should like to explain why. As he will recall, the Bill requires, in Clauses 68 and 72, that an organisation which applies for registration must submit a copy of its rules to the Registrar along with the application, and the Registrar will already have access to the rules of organisations that are transferred from the 1871 register to the provisional list. Clause 75 and Schedule 4 further make requirements concerning the rules of organisations which have been registered under the Bill. Therefore it seems clear to us that for an organisation to be incorporated under the Bill it must have rules; and those rules must set out the relations between the members and the organisation. The incorporation of an

1199
organisation under this clause does not, as I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord knows, create a new entity. It merely changes the status of an existing one; and it therefore follows that the rules of the organisation immediately before its incorporation are still the rules of the organisation after incorporation. The Amendment would not in fact clarify what is already a fact. I suggest that, framed as it is, it would create uncertainty as to which of the organisations registering might be invalidated, because of the phrase "in so far as applicable". That would create uncertainty, and it is for this reason that I hope the House will not accept the Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will, I am sure, have received by now the letter which was sent to him by my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack, concerning the rules of limitation of liability and also the winding up: all matters which he incorporated into the particular speech to which he has referred.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, from something which she said in conversation I had the impression that a letter might be on its way to me. I have not yet received it, but I shall look forward to doing so.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, in that case I feel it would not be incumbent upon me to read out a letter which was sent by my noble and learned friend upon the Woolsack. I think it did cover the other point, and I do not feel that I can quite relevantly refer to Clause 152 here. Therefore, having answered the point on the rules, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will feel that his Amendment is unnecessary and that he will withdraw it.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for what she has said. At a quarter past eleven in the evening and in the knowledge that a full and informative letter is on the way, it would be hardly appropriate for me to engage the House upon a minute discussion as to the effect of Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union which we have to some extent dismembered. I
1200
will not venture to do that. With great respect, I do not feel convinced by the noble Baroness's reasoning with regard to the effect of incorporation, but I do not think it would assist the House if I prolonged the discussion further at this time in the evening. I am most grateful for what the noble Baroness has said which I shall certainly ponder over, and shall greatly look forward to receiving the letter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, does the noble Lord seek leave to withdraw the Amendment?
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 79CCC:
Page 59, line 15, at end insert (" and any liability or obligation to which any person is for the time being subject in his capacity as a trustee for the organisation shall by virtue of this section be transferred to the organisation.
( ) Nothing in section 12 of the Finance Act 1895 (which requires certain Acts to be stamped as conveyances on sale) shall be taken as applying to this Act.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is first of all to provide for the transfer of liabilities from the trustees to the organisation upon the latter's incorporation as a trade union or employers' association and, secondly, to establish that the incorporation of an organisation as a trade union or employers' association shall not attract stamp duty.
Subsection (3) of this clause provides for the vesting of property and funds upon incorporation, and subsection (4) for the continuation of proceedings. The Amendment adds a corresponding provision for the transfer of liabilities from the trustees to a corporate body. The vesting of property and transfer of liabilities together create a liability to the payment of stamp duty upon incorporation under Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1895. We have discovered this, although only at Report stage, and it was not our intention that this should he the effect of registration. Therefore, I hope the House will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, speaking for myself I would have thought that these were helpful Amendments, particularly the second one relating to stamp duty. The first one I have already referred to. That would seem to me, if I may respectfully say so, to follow from what had previously been enacted in Clause 74, and I hope the House will agree that it has merits.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Examination and approval of rules by registrar]:
11.19 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79W:
Page 60, line 15, at end insert—
(" (5) Where a disagreement arises between the Registrar and the organisation as to whether its rules are defective as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section such disagreement shall he referred for settlement to an independent review body consisting of three persons of whom two shall be trade unionists appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Trade Union Congress.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the principle of this Amendment is one which we have discussed before and it is merely to incorporate the Donovan recommendation at this point in the Bill. The question of a disagreement about the rules as between the Registrar and the organisation was fully gone into by the Donovan Commission, and they strongly recommended that there should be a body set up which could help in resolving these difficulties and that that body should consist of two trade unionists with a lawyer as chairman. I have, so far as possible, followed the wording of the Commission's Report, and I suggest this would be a helpful proposal to incorporate into the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Amendment gives expression to the point of view which the noble Lord expressed at the Committee stage, and I would readily acknowledge if there were no other machinery available under the Bill, that there would be much to be said for the proposal. The proposal that the Donovan Commission made did not deal only with the question of whether the rules complied with the
1202
requirements of the law. It listed three other matters as well. These are all dealt with by the Industrial Court or tribunal, as the case may be. It would seem that this would be adding an unnecessary piece of machinery into the machinery that already exists. I daresay the noble Lord did not think it worthwhile following out his proposal. It would seem fairly clear that if such a committee were set up subsections (2) and (3) of the clause would not be needed. This would be final, particularly as he used the words "referred for settlement". If it were settled this matter could hardly arise, except to the extent that if the decision given was against the union the registration would have to be cancelled, and that matter would go to the Industrial Court.
As there is provision for the trade union or employers' association to apply to the Industrial Court, and this is plainly at least an equally impartial court to the machinery the noble Lord suggests, and this machinery is in the Bill, it seems quite unnecessary for this particular purpose to set up this further machinery. I was not absolutely clear from the way the noble Lord explained his Amendment whether this was intended to be a particular tribunal, or an ad hoc tribunal, to be set up locally whenever disagreements of this kind arose. In either case it is unnecessary as the Bill is drafted; it would be simply an additional piece of machinery. I suggest to the noble Lord that it simply is not worth while in the circumstances, and I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I will certainly not withdraw the Amendment. This is a very worthwhile proposal, which is fully argued by Donovan. We have argued it on a previous occasion. It is as different as chalk from cheese to the kind of machinery which the noble Lord proposes. I made the argument absolutely clear on the last occasion when we discussed this matter. It is not a proposal for compulsion, but for discussion and settlement short of compulsion. It is not a proposal for court action, but a proposal for friendly advice. In psychological terms it is an extremely wise proposal. I have no intention of withdrawing it, although I know that I should

1203
be disturbing your Lordships unnecessarily, from an arithmetical point of view, if I pursued the matter in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments: a Special Report made, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eleven o'clock.