Sitting of 12 July 1971

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

    European Economic Community
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertaking was given to the Australian Government in the negotiations with the Six to ask for a transitional period before applying the common external tariff against Australian primary produce in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further arrangements he proposes
    2
    to seek in relation to Australia in his negotiations with the European Economic Community.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): There have been full consultations with all Commonwealth countries. No specific undertakings were given to Australia, but the Australian Government were told that Her Majesty's Government would do their best to secure the longest possible transitional arrangements for Commonwealth countries.
    It has been agreed in the negotiations that the Community's Common External Tariff should be applied over a transitional period from 1973 to 1977. These provisions would apply to Australian primary produce covered by the Common External Tariff. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have secured from the Community the explicit recognition that they would take rapid action should there be a denger of serious disruption of trade during that period.
    Sir R. Russell: Would my right hon. Friend explain how a misunderstanding seems to have arisen between his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Douglas Anthony, who seems to have gone away very sore about undertakings which he expected to get? Will my right hon. Friend use his great influence to restore normal relations with the Australian Government?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. There was no intention whatever to mislead and, I think, no grounds for being misled, because, as I said, no promise was given. We have tried to get the longest possible transitional arrangement and we have succeeded in getting one for five years.
    Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members are deeply disturbed about the attitude which the Australian Government have taken on this matter and that some of us who have been to Australia think that the Australians have some ground for it? Will my right hon. Friend personally given an assurance that he will look into this and try to rectify some of the obvious ill-feeling which has arisen?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked into it. I will certainly try to rectify any misgivings which may have arisen.
    Mr. Healey: Has the Foreign Secretary's attention been drawn to a letter by the Deputy High Commissioner of Australia in last Saturday's Economist suggesting that, if there were not a misunderstanding, there was a complete difference of opinion between the two Governments about what Her Majesty's Government's obligations had been in their undertaking on 22nd April and the way in which they had subsequently behaved?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have seen that letter, of course. There were consultations with the Commonwealth High Commissioners after every meeting in Brussels, and on 22nd April it was of course known that we were to accept the Community's preference system. It is a matter of explaining to the Australian Government exactly what the pledges were. As I said earlier, I will try to contribute to that explanation.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not extraordinary that long after the event it should be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to explain to the Australian Government what pledges had been given at a meeting on 22nd April and whether action they took a month later without subsequent consultations with the Australian Government was consistent with those pledges?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. The reason one must explain is that there have been misunderstandings. I do not think that there was any ground for misunderstanding. On 22nd April it was clear that we were to accept the Community's preference system.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has obtained about the economic future of the European Free Trade Association countries who do not seek to enter the Common Market; and what bankable guarantees he was given about their ability to trade with Great Britain in the future, without any discrimination against them on the same terms as under the European Free Trade Association agreement.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards have been secured in the European Economic Community negotiations against any re-erection of trade barriers between the United Kingdom and those European Free Trade Association states not applying for European Economic Community membership.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): The nature of the relations between European Free Trade Association non-applicants and the Community is a matter for their respective governments, but we hope that the arrangements which they conclude will avoid the re-erection of trade barriers as a consequence of enlargement of the Community. Our obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners remain as stated in the E.F.T.A. Communiqué of 28th April, 1967, published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 1st May, 1967.—[Vol. 746, c. 87–8.]
    Mrs. Short: Does not the hon. Gentleman see that, in my Question, I ask about bankable guarantees that trade barriers will not be erected between us and our E.F.T.A. partners? All that the hon. Gentleman has given is a repetition of the pious hopes contained in the White Paper, and they do not take us any further. Is he aware that there is growing pressure in Denmark and Norway against entry into the Market and that those Governments require considerable majorities in their Parliaments, to be followed

    5
    by referenda? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the latest news from Sweden is that the people of that country are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea of association and that there is great concern about the effect of entry on our E.F.T.A. partners and about the effect on our own foreign trade?
    Mr. Royle: I am always interested to hear any news that the hon. Lady has received. As I made clear in my original Answer, all members of E.F.T.A. are either negotiating for entry into the Community or holding discussions with the Community about their relations with it.
    Mrs. Short: We know that.
    Mr. Royle: The discussions with those who are not candidates for full membership have not gone very far. But, now that we have broken the back of our own negotiations, we hope that those of the non-candidates will make progress towards getting the type of arrangement that they all seek.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Can my hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will treat the E.F.T.A. countries rather better than did the previous Government who, without consultation, unilaterally imposed a surcharge damaging to their exports?
    Mr. Royle: This Government will always treat their friends well.
    Mrs. Short: Tell that to the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The results of the major issues resolved in the negotiations are set out in full in the White Paper laid before the House last week.
    Mr. Moate: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the remaining negotiations
    6
    will cover regional policies, and will he comment on reports that plans now being made in Brussels will compel a major change in our regional policies involving a return to investment grants and a reduction in certain areas to a maximum level of grant of 20 per cent.?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can hardly comment on the latest proposal. It is a proposal which has been put forward by the Commission. I do not think that it has been received by the Council of Ministers, which will have to consider it and which may take any action on it, even sending it back to the Commission for review. It is too early to talk about that.
    As an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, I must say that I am extremely interested in regional policies. Sometimes I think that the Community is more conscious of the importance of regional policies than we are and that from its policies a great deal of advantage might come to our regions.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the terms which have emerged from the negotiations have received a very different reception from leaders of Socialist Parties on the Continent from the tepid condemnation in that very sad broadcast of the Leader of the Opposition on Friday?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that I must leave out the Leader of the Opposition until I know a little more clearly what is his view. Certainly the regional policies have been welcomed by all the countries which benefit from them within the Community.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the last time that a version of a White Paper was issued free through the Post Office? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to allow a statement opposing entry to the Common Market also to be issued free through the Post Office?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend will be answering a Question on that point later.
    Dame Irene Ward: Would my right hon. Friend like me to send to my hon.

    7
    Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who asked the original Question on regional development, a very interesting letter which I have had from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Would it not be better, and eminently more satisfactory, to try to find out, before asking Questions of that kind, what our people have in mind?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that my hon. Friend was only seeking additional information.
    Mr. Healey: As a Scottish Member will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether it is still the Government's intention to reach a decision on the Common Market fisheries policy before the House is finally asked to approve entry in November?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend is talking about fishing policy in Brussels today. I hope that he will soon be able to make a statement.
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement with regard to negotiations with the European Economic Community, in particular in regard to its fisheries policy.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add at present to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 24th June. Fisheries is one of the subjects being discussed at the Ministerial meeting today and, with permission, my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement on this meeting later this week.—[Vol. 819, c. 1609–10.]
    Mr. Baker: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend has seen the divergent Press reports today on this question, and may I suggest that, in order to prevent a great deal of anxiety within the fishing industry, the 1964 Fisheries Convention is reconvened as a basis for a settlement of this very difficult question?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As my hon. Friend knows, we have told the Community that its fishing scheme is not acceptable for an enlarged Community. I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the Fisheries Convention.
    Mr. Grimond: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Community's present policy is not acceptable. Will he give an assurance that we shall accept no terms about fisheries which are less favourable than those offered to the Norwegians?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend to see what discussions have been going on in Brussels today. The right hon. Gentleman knows that our present fishing arrangements are not comparable with those of the Norwegians. In other words, we allow certain European countries to fish for certain types of fish between the six and 12-mile limits.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend recall that on frequent occasions the Government have said that we must know where we stand with regard to the fisheries regulations before this House is asked to come to a decision on the matter? May we be assured that that remains the Government's policy?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That would certainly be our ambition, but I think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend in a couple of days, when he will be able to give us a fuller account of the discussions that have taken place.
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making for the widest possible public understanding of the White Paper on the European Economic Community negotiations.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the White Paper is already attracting the very considerable publicity the Government would wish it to receive.
    Mr. Lane: Is my hon. Friend aware that the issue of the short version of the White Paper will be very welcome indeed? In view of the gradual movement of public opinion in favour of British entry, will my hon. Friend confirm that he and his colleagues will take every opportunity during the next few weeks of putting the complete picture to the public, because many of us have found that constituents who previously were sceptical, when presented will all the arguments for and

    9
    against are quick to see the advantages of joining?
    Mr. Royle: All these matters will be discussed during the debate in the House next week. The shortened version of the White Paper is to be distributed in the same way as the Government's Fact Sheets on Britain and Europe, including being made available free of charge at Post Offices. It will be available from today.
    Mr. John Mendelson: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that on the day after the publication of the full White Paper The Guardian devoted to it two full pages of comment by Hella Pick and its economics correspondent, who dealt with it under two headings, one pointing out what the White Paper did not say and the other what it left out? Would it not be more advisable, before publishing even the shortened version, for the Government to publish a complete version, including some of the facts that are required before the debate starts?
    Mr. Royle: The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not responsible for what The Guardian prints. If he has any matters to raise that he feels are not covered in the White Paper he will no doubt be able to refer to them in the debate.
    Mr. Montgomery: As this is a vitally important decision that we must take, and in the interests of fairness, since the Government are allowing the free distribution of the simplified version of the White Paper in post offices, will they provide similar facilities to anti-Common Market people who want to put forward their point of view?
    Mr. Royle: No, Sir.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is the Minister aware that depth surveys of public opinion show conclusively that the more a person knows about the Common Market the likelier he is to support our entry?
    Mr. Royle: I wholeheartedly agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which Community Institutions Her Majesty's Government will participate fully on the date of accession to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: In the negotiations it has been agreed that the United Kingdom should participate from the date of accession in the Institutions of the Communities with a position equal to that enjoyed by France, Germany and Italy. These Institutions axe the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the European Court of Justice.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is this not a very satisfactory outcome? Does it not mean that from the moment of accession Britain will be able to influence policies and avert the adoption of policies which might otherwise be unhelpful to this country, even if she were outside the Community?
    Mr. Royle: I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments. This is a very satisfactory outcome.
    Mr. Heffer: Does not the Minister agree that at the moment certain policies which the Commission is putting forward—for example, the regional policy—could badly affect areas like Merseyside? Does not he agree that it is not a question of some future date; could we not know now what is happening on these vital issues, which, if our people did know about them, they would certainly reject, in terms of regional policy?
    Mr. Royle: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the question of regional policies arises from a proposal that is being put forward by the Commission in Brussels, and therefore no decision has been taken. The other questions that the hon. Member raises are all points that he can raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy on his return from Brussels.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Minister explain why Her Majesty's Government have left out from their large White Paper the figure showing the effect on our balance of payments of the changes in tariffs caused by our entry into the Common Market—especially since the last Government gave an estimate of between £250 million and £300 million? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the present Government are said to have had the same figure in their White Paper but to have taken it out because of political pressure brought to bear by some members of the Cabinet?
    Mr. Royle: To do justice to the right hon. Gentleman, none of these questions is relevant to the original Question put to me. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the White Paper produced by his Government gave such a wide range of guesses that no one could possibly understand what was involved.
    Mr. Healey: With great respect—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are to have a four-day debate on these matters. Mr. Healey.
    Mr. Healey: On a point of order. Is it not in the interests of an intelligent debate that the House should have as much information as possible as to the terms before the debate takes place, especially since the Minister has just made a statement contrary to the facts in respect of the effect of tariff changes? This was given within a bracket of £50 million by the last Government, and a similar figure was prepared for the present Government but suppressed.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of order. I have already called him to ask a supplementary question, after I have pointed out that we are to have a debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his supplementary question?
    Mr. Healey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for misunderstanding your very kind advice to me. May I ask the Minister whether the bracket given by the last Government in their White Paper last year was not a wide one? The figure was given as between £250 million and £300 million. Is it not the case that a similar figure was prepared for inclusion in this White Paper but omitted as a result of the political fears of some members of the Cabinet?
    Mr. Royle: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not possible for me to reply to detailed questions at this stage. The matters which he has raised this afternoon can be referred to in the debate next week.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Commonwealth Governments have expressed opposition to Great Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: None, Sir. Whilst a very few Commonwealth countries have commented on details of the arrangements arrived at in the negotiations, none has suggested that these constituted grounds on which the United Kingdom should not join the Communites.
    Mr. Spence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but it would help us a lot if he were prepared to say whether he has had any unofficial expressions of opposition to the terms of our entry from any significant political group within the Commonwealth?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot answer in respect of unofficial communications; I am concerned with official communications. I will try to get some information, but I do not think that it will help my hon. Friend very much.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country and throughout the Commonwealth consider that these negotiations are a battle that Britain has lost and that the White Paper constitutes an approach by the Government suing for peace? Since grave apprehensions are held by people throughout the Commonwealth, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider having discussions with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see whether there should not be a special conference of Commonwealth countries to discuss many things about which they are gravely apprehensive?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman is an artist at putting his own opinion in the mouths of millions of others.
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Australia's export earnings he estimates would be at risk as a result of British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The value of Australian exports which could be affected by enlargement of the European Economic Community, on the basis of 1969–70 figures, is at most 7½ per cent. of her total export earnings.
    Mr. Redmond: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he agree that

    13
    the figures seem remarkably small? Would not many people be liable to ask what all the fuss is about? Cannot my right hon. Friend also tell the House what extra opportunities would be available to Australian exports as a result of our joining the Community?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The figures may be small, but to Australia they can be important. The butter and sugar exports are even smaller—about 1·1 per cent. I would have thought that with the increased size of the European Community and the comparatively low external tariff, Australia should have many opportunities for selling to this big market.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Assuming that we do not go into the European Economic Community, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have to have a sharp look at the position in which Australia is exporting to us tariff-free while we have to overcome tariff barriers in our exports to Australia?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As the hon. Member hints, the erosion of preferences started with the Commonwealth countries who wanted to manufacture their own goods. Certainly we should have had to have regard in the future to all Commonwealth trading arrangements.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there was surprisingly little complaint from Australia until recently, when they were nearing an election? Since on every occasion when Australia has wished to manufacture her own goods she has put on large tariffs against our exports, and has used factories in her own country and elsewhere, would it not be more reasonable to accept that both countries should do their best for each other by being as rich as possible?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I could not agree with the assumption that he made at the beginning of it.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth Governments
    14
    relating to the agreement on British entry into the European Economic Community reached at Luxembourg.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Commerce has expressed concern about the effect of some of Australia's exports of the agreement reached; no other Commonwealth Government has made representations on this subject.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is it not clear that the very last thing that the Commonwealth as a whole wants now is for Britain's entry to fail? Is the Minister aware that many of the complaints made about terms, allegedly on behalf of Commonwealth interests, are neither asked for nor wanted by the Commonwealth countries themselves?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is true that many Commonwealth countries—in fact, all of them, I believe—recognise that, unless she increases her strength, Britain is not much use to them. Therefore, they do support our entry into the Market.
    Mr. Marten: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in regard to Australia, whatever the percentage of exports concerned—7 per cent. was mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond)—it is a human and social problem that we are talking about for these farmers and sugar growers?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, that is true. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy went to such pains to get the Community's agreement that, should vital interests be affected, they would deal with them.

    Foreign Embassies (Espionage Activities)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to reduce the number of diplomatic staff in foreign embassies in Great Britain suspected of engaging primarily on espionage activities.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When there is firm evidence that a foreign diplomat in London has engaged in espionage, the Head of the Mission concerned is normally asked to withdraw him. From

    15
    time to time we have made representations to certain Governments on this subject.
    Mr. Hamilton: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the expulsion of British diplomats from Moscow recently was not because they were engaged in espionage but was simply a counter-measure to action which we had taken? Further, could he give any figures to indicate an increase in the number of diplomats in the embassies of particularly Eastern European countries and the Communist bloc over the last ten years?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can give an absolute assurance that the action taken by the Soviet Union in respect of our diplomats was purely retaliatory—there was no ground for it. In the last eighteen months, there has been a noticeable increase in embassy staff. Three members of the Soviet Embassy have been removed at our request and we have had to decline to issue visas for five more. I have taken this up with the Soviet Government.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: What action is being taken to reduce the gross disparity between the number of Eastern European and Soviet diplomats, or so-called diplomats, in this country and of our diplomats in theirs?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have this matter under close consideration all the time. I should not like to say any more about it at the moment. These matters can best be settled in a friendly way with the Soviet Government.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Rhodesia.
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has to visit Rhodesia.
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the visit of Lord Goodman to Rhodesia.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now pay an official visit to Rhodesia.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no plans to visit Rhodesia at present. Lord Goodman has visited Rhodesia at my request to engage in exploratory discussions. As I have told the House, I shall make a statement when there is something of substance to report. As I have often said, any settlement would have to be within the five principles.
    Mr. Davis: Having regard to the constantly totalitarian and racist behaviour of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what possible credence he could give to any pledge by that Government to honour the five principles? Having regard to that behaviour, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be best if these talks, official, unofficial, or whatever they are, were called off at once?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman might have put that question to his right hon. Friend some time ago.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad to know that he has made plain his approval of the wise words of a wise statesman, Sir Roy Welensky, that, inevitably, this society will lead to an apartheid-type society? Since the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to see black helots or slaves administered by a white minority, is he aware that we are glad to hear him say that he will stand by the five principles and not settle on any other terms?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our obligation, as far as we can discharge it, is to the Europeans and the Africans in Rhodesia. That is why a settlement must be within the framework of the five principles that we have made.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the fact that Rhodesia effectively has been independent for 48 years and that for the last seven we have tried unsuccessfully to pretend otherwise, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might not be a bad idea to consider the possibility of recognising that, if the Rhodesians wish to risk the prospect of a blood bath in

    17
    10, 20, 30 or 40 years, it is no business of ours?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the general opinion in the House is that at least we should try to bring Rhodesia to legality. That is the whole purpose of the negotiations.
    Mr. Healey: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reassertion of his determination to ensure that the five principles are complied with, including the fifth, which would meet the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will take no decision about changing the Government's relations with Rhodesia before the House has a chance to consider the proposals that are in mind?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: All Governments must always reserve the right to take decisions when they like. I have promised that I shall come to the House and make a statement the moment that there is anything of substance to report. That might well be on the approach to a decision.
    Mr. Healey: I can well understand that, but I hope that, in view of the deep interest and concern on both sides of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that he will take no decision about changing the relations of Her Majesty's Government with Rhodesia while the House is in recess. The right hon. Gentleman gave a similar undertaking last year with regard to arms for South Africa. This matter is of equal importance to our relations with the whole of Africa, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a similar assurance.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate about what I said in relation to South Africa. No Government can possibly pledge themselves as to when they will or will not take a decision. What I can say is that, before anyone else knows about the decision, that decision will be brought to this House.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the future of the Rhodesian
    18
    sanctions Royal Air Force detachment in Malagasy.
    Mr. Kershaw: The Government of the Malagasy Republic have confirmed that they would like the Royal Air Force detachment at Majunga to be withdrawn. Exchanges with the Malagasy Government about the timing and other implications of their request are continuing.
    Sir F. Bennett: On the assumption that this patrol has been performing an invaluable function in enforcing sanctions, commensurate with its cost, can my hon. Friend say how this blockade is to continue without it, and what alternative plans he has to replace it?
    Mr. Kershaw: It is true that this detachment has been helpful for patrol purposes and that its disappearance will naturally make the operation more difficult, but I think that the question of what, if anything, should be put in its place is for my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence.
    Mr. Healey: As the Government have decided to run on the aircraft carrier for another few years, would not this be a very good use for it? This is a rôle which it could usefully perform, whereas it has no useful rôle in the Mediterranean or North Atlantic.
    Mr. Kershaw: That, too, is obviously a question for my noble Friend.

    Malta
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about relations with Malta.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Since the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 1st July, there have been further exchanges with the Prime Minister of Malta, and our High Commissioner returned to Valletta on 7th July after his consultations with me.
    The Government have agreed, at the request of the Malta Government, to suspend the planned changeover between the present battalion in Malta and the Royal Marines Commando Group which was due to replace it this month.—[Vol. 820, c. 578–80.]
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do not many of us who know Dom Mintoff like to remember

    19
    the time when he wanted to get closer to Britain? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the time might have come when a Minister should go to Malta so that we can have some reciprocity in plain speaking? Meanwhile, may we be told whether the defence agreement is still fully effective?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes". The defence agreement is still effective. Certainly I shall consider the possibility of a Minister going out to talk to Mr. Dom Mintoff about the review of the defence agreement that he has requested. But the defence agreement is effective now.

    Peaceful Uses of the Seabed
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish as a White Paper the proposals which he plans to advance at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed in relation to the entrenched rights of coastal States within the proposed trusteeship area.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): No, Sir. As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 10th May, much detailed work remains to be done on this subject and it would not be feasible to set out our ideas in full in a a White Paper. But I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an outline of what our general attitude will be to the position of coastal States in relation to the trusteeship area.—[Vol. 817, c. 27.]
    Mr. Archer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Does the Answer of 10th May mean that the Government propose that, in addition to sovereign rights over territorial waters, there shall be entrenched rights over the area beyond? Is that not abdicating international control over two-thirds of the earth's surface, which is already potentially an arsenal, a gold mine and a sewer?
    Mr. Kershaw: No, Sir. I do not think that that is fair. We support the principle that the resources of the seabed should be
    20
    regarded as a common heritage. We believe that the trusteeship concept, which we support, will give rights both to coastal States and to the international community, which is not inconsistent with that principle.
    Following is the information :
    We consider that the entrenched rights of the coastal States within the trusteeship area must include all necessary jurisdiction over such matters as the licensing of activities in connection with the exploration and exploitation of the resources of the area and the supervision and legal protection of such activities. There are a number of aspects of the United States draft Sea Bed Convention, in which the trusteeship concept was proposed, on which the British Government would wish to put forward other proposals. These would be based on the contents of the working paper tabled by the United Kingdom at the August 1970 Session of the United Nations Sea Bed Committee. It will be remembered that the United States Government introduced their draft as a basis for discussion and expressly stated that it did not necessarily represent their definitive views.

    South Africa (Arms Supply)
    Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will make no decision regarding the supplying of further armaments to the South African Government while the House of Commons is in Recess.
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what orders for maritime arms have now been made by the South African Government; and what reply has been sent.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No new orders have been received for maritime arms. As I have said, the House will be informed of any decision to enter into any new arms deal with South Africa covering categories outside those comprised in my statement of 22nd February.—[Vol. 812. c. 34–42.]
    Mr. Healey: I welcome that reply. Will the Foreign Secretary be a little clearer and be prepared to say, as he did in answer to my earlier question about Rhodesia, that, whatever decision the Government may take, the House will be the first body to be informed of such a decision and that therefore no decision Will be published during the recess? Secondly, will he tell us whether the

    21
    Government's attitude on the supply of further arms to South Africa will depend on South Africa's pressure on the Rhodesian Government for a settlement satisfactory to the British Government of the Rhodesian problem?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I propose that the first statement about additional arms to South Africa should be made to the House.
    On the second part of his question, whether we shall sell more arms to South Africa depends not at all on a Rhodesian settlement but on our assessment of British interests.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that, for obvious reasons, the South African Government never ask for orders in this country until they have been assured that they will get export licences? Will my right hon. Friend tell us, for example, whether, if they wanted Nimrods, export licences would be available?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have not got a request for Nimrods. My hon. Friend is right about the procedure. A request comes and then the British Government reply whether they will give an export licence, and the licence is not given for some time. For example, licences have not yet been issued for the helicopters, because they have not been asked for.
    Mr. Whitehead: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether any talks are to be held with the two South African officials who are today visiting a Yarrow shipyard and who were reported on the B.B.C. this morning as being very eager to have discussions about the further purchase of frigates?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have heard nothing of this matter, but I will look into it.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the arguments in favour of the supply of these arms in the interests of our own defence are now stronger or weaker than they were when advocated a year or two ago by the then Foreign Secretary and the then Secretary of State for Defence?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As my right hon. Friend knows, we are always concerned
    22
    about the defence of the Indian Ocean and the sea routes, and the arguments for this have become stronger. We also measure the question whether we sell more arms to South Africa by the necessity to keep to the Simonstown Agreement.

    Namibia (International Court Ruling)
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy on The Hague International Court ruling on Namibia, South-West Africa.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the judgment of the International Court of Justice, whether he will make a statement on British policy towards Namibia.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa and the separate and dissenting opinions are long and important. I must ask hon. Members to await the completion of the Government's study of the Opinion.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the South African Government that Her Majesty's Government consider that South Africa's writ does not now run in South-West Africa? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate some idea of the line he intends to take when the whole Opinion is discussed in the United Nations?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. As I said, this is a long judgment—it runs to 400 pages—and there are dissenting judgments. I must ask for time to consider it before answering a question on it.
    Mr. Judd: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Advisory Opinion is of great significance not only for itself but for the process of building up the whole tradition of international law? Will he undertake to come to the House as soon as possible and make the fullest possible statement on the Government's position? If by any chance the Government decide that they will not accept this Advisory Opinion, will he make a full statement to the House on precisely how they can justify that attitude?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will certainly take the opportunity to clarify this matter to the House as soon as the Government are ready to do so.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As the matter is now being discussed in the United Nations and it may be that the question will arise for decision at a fairly early stage, will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Government will not apply the veto, as they did on an earlier occasion in relation to Southern Africa, and that, before a decision is announced, or perhaps when the decision has been announced but at an early stage thereafter, there will be a debate about the whole problem of Namibia?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We shall have to see what happens in the United Nations. The United Nations has been known to discuss things without adequate knowledge.

    Hong Kong (Generalised Preference Scheme)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the negotiations with Japan for acceptance by Japan of Hong Kong as a beneficiary country within the Generalised Preference Scheme.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: Discussions with Japan on the question of Hong Kong's inclusion as a beneficiary in the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme have taken place over a period of many months. The question was also discussed by my right hon. Friend with Mr. Aichi, the then Japanese Foreign Minister, during his visit to London last month. As stated in the communiqué after these talks, Mr. Aichi declared that it was the intention of the Japanese Government to include Hong Kong in their scheme, subject to certain restrictions and some delay in application.
    Mr. Blaker: Is my hon. Friend aware how welcome it is that the Government have been able to secure the inclusion by Japan of Hong Kong as a beneficiary under the scheme? Will he tell us how long the delay, to which he has referred, is expected to be?
    Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points which he has made. Hong Kong and other dependent territories will not be included at the start of
    24
    the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme on 1st August this year. The most probable date for their subsequent inclusion is 1st April, 1972. The final shape of the Japanese offer to Hong Kong has not yet been decided.

    East Pakistan and India (Refugees)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has received from the British High Commissions in Pakistan and in India of the number of deaths among residents in, and refugees from, East Pakistan, and as to how such deaths were caused.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest diplomatic initiatives undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the situation in Pakistan.
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will grant further humanitarian aid for Pakistan.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It has not been possible for our Missions in Pakistan and India to make estimates of the number of deaths caused. We are making a contribution of £1 million in cash or kind to U Thant's appeal for relief in East Pakistan. This is over and above anything given up till now.
    Mr. Janner: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has reached the stage of a major catastrophe, not only for the refugees but also for the Government and people of India? Would he not agree that there is a real threat to international peace? Will he reconsider raising the matter at the United Nations or at the Security Council?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that there are two issues here. The first is how to help ameliorate the terrible conditions. The second is how to reverse the flow of refugees. Many Governments are giving active consideration to the issue. No positive proposals have come forward as yet, although I am considering one put forward by the High Commissioner for Refugees.
    Mr. Allaun: Approximately how much economic aid is being, or is to be

    25
    supplied to West Pakistan? Should it not be ended entirely until the West Pakistan Army is withdrawn from East Pakistan, and the aid supplied to India instead?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. Friend is shortly to answer a Question about that. The greater part of the new aid which we hope to be able to supply is in East Pakistan, particularly in relation to power and water, and it is very important that this should happen if it is at all possible. As regards West Pakistan, I think that my right hon. Friend will answer a Question about that.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware how much his statement is welcomed and how responsible throughout these tragic times the Government's attitude has been? In particular, I welcome the £1 million extra for humanitarian relief in East Pakistan because it is true, is it not, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has emphasised the necessity for the long-term rehabilitation of the economy in the eastern wing of Pakistan?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the extra £1 million will help particularly the distress in the cyclone areas, where communications have been badly hit.
    Mr. Shore: In view of the behaviour of the West Pakistan Army in East Bengal, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has used his influence with the American Government, with whom he has discussed these matters, to see that our decision not to supply arms to West Pakistan is shared by the American Administration?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Communications between ourselves and the American Government must be confidential. I am responsible for the United Kingdom Government's decision.
    Mr. Jessel: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the West Pakistan Army goes far beyond what is needed to restore law and order in East Pakistan, and that the Army's conduct is the main cause of the enormous flood of refugees into India? Will
    26
    he bring all possible pressure to bear to cause some change in what is happening?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must say, as I have said before, that the flight of the refugees is largely due to fear. I think that it would not help if I were to say any more than that now. Again, I think that it is more helpful that our communications with the Pakistan Government should be private.

    Albania
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for renewing diplomatic relations with Albania.
    Mr. Kershaw: None, Sir.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my hon. Friend see whether it is possible to help this country maintain and develop the independence that we did so much to re establish?
    Mr. Kershaw: We are always ready to listen to any initiative from Albania, but we have not heard anything from her in this matter. In the meantime, I do not think that our tourist and trading relations are harmed by our not having diplomatic relations with her.

    India (Aid)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's future aid programme to India.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I cannot add at present to the reply I gave on 21st June to a Question from the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart).—[Vol. 819, c. 986–87.]
    Mr. Judd: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that aid is of little use without greater opportunities for trade? If he agrees on that, would he not also agree that there is room for grave concern at the latest developments in economic relationships between India and Britain and the possible implications for the Indian economy of our entry into the E.E.C.? Would he assure us that there is no question of our being asked to vote

    27
    on entry before we have the firmest possible assurances about how Indian economic interests are to be assured?
    Mr. Wood: I cannot give that assurance, because my responsibilities are for aid to India and other countries. The responsibility for trade matters rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Questions about the trade agreements, tariffs, and quotas for textiles should be directed to my right hon. Friend.

    Pakistan (Aid)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding new economic assistance for Pakistan from the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Wood: I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made on 23rd June.—[Vol. 819, c. 1436–37.]
    Mr. Barnes: In view of the report of the World Bank on Pakistan, which shows an astonishing amount of ignorance on the part of the Government of Pakistan about the true situation in East Pakistan, can the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm that there will be no new economic assistance to Pakistan, as distinct from any relief operation in which Britain might engage in East Pakistan, until there is a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Pakistan?
    Mr. Wood: What I am prepared to confirm are the actual words of the statement which my right hon. Friend made at the end of last month, in which he said that there was no question of new British aid—that is what the hon. Gentleman asked about—until we have firm evidence that real progress is made towards a political solution. That is what my right hon. Friend said, and that remains the position.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Sorefasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will stop aid to Sierra Leone owing to its occupation by Guienean armed forces.
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir.
    Mr. Soref: In the circumstances, that country is in a unique position, in that there is an alien, aggressive, Communist invading force there. In those circumstances, can we justify to the British taxpayer the spending of British money to support that country?
    Mr. Wood: The factor about that country which is not unique is that it has a lawful Government. The lawful Government requested these troops, and there is no reason at all why I should suspend aid for that reason.
    Mr. James Johnson: May I ask the Minister to pay no attention to this Fascist piffle? Is it not a fact that Siaka Stevens, the Prime Minister, asked Her Majesty's Government to give him help under these conditions but that we did not send any forces? This is a fellow Commonwealth State, and I object to this kind of attack on it.
    Mr. Wood: I cannot accept that description of my hon. Friend's remarks. He has a point of view and he is perfectly at liberty to express it.
    Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was in Sierra Leone recently and that I warmly support his answers today? Would he take this opportunity of agreeing with the view of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, that the primary aim of British aid is to assist long-term economic development, that this is in British interests and that it should not be turned off and on like a tap for short-term political reasons?
    Mr. Wood: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. It is a point that I took the opportunity of emphasising in the debate last month.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will invite the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone to pay an official visit to London.
    Mr. Kershaw: The Prime Minister of Sierra Leone was invited to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom in May. This invitation is still open.
    Mr. Whitehead: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and associate myself with his right hon. Friend's rebuff to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref). Nevertheless, could he convey

    29
    to the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone the very real regret felt in this country at the recent executions there—while of course acknowledging that we have neither the right nor the need to interfere in their internal affairs?
    Mr. Kershaw: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have no formal locus standi to interfere in these matters, but I am sure that the reactions of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) when he went there recently will have shown that there is a great deal of good will for this country in Sierra Leone, which we heartily reciprocate.

    Development Divisions
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to set up additional development divisions.
    Mr. Oramasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affair if he proposes to establish further development divisions similar to those in Barbados and Beirut.
    Mr. Wood: When I replied to the recommendations of the Select Committee, I said that I could not yet say what would be the outcome of the study now being made of this matter. This is still the position.
    Sir G. Sinclair: But in view of our development aid programmes in Malawi, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and in view of the importance of showing con-cen for African advance in that region, will the Minister not now set up a development division to help co-ordinate our assistance and to make high-level professional advice available on the spot?
    Mr. Wood: No, Sir. I cannot do it now, because I am still waiting for the study which is being made of the general principle affecting the development divisions. As my hon. Friend knows, I am generally sympathetic to this. I believe that the two which exist are very helpful. The area which he mentioned is one area that I have in mind for a possible future division if such were recommended.
    Mr. Oram: Have not the two existing divisions conclusively proved themselves in terms of value for money, and are they not fully accepted as useful instruments by the countries whose territories they
    30
    serve? Why, then, is it necessary to go into a long investigation of the principle of the matter? Is that not already agreed and can we not look forward to fairly ready action in the matter?
    Mr. Wood: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the two existing divisions. I have already tried to make that point, but the principle is important, because the principle is obviously different in the Middle East or the Caribbean from that in other parts of the world. That is why it is important that we should look at it.
    Mrs. Hart: What has been the cause of the year's delay in taking further consideration of a development division for Southern Africa? It was already at a planning stage over a year ago. What has happened since then?
    Mr. Wood: It is still at a planning stage and I hope that before long I shall be able to relieve the right hon. Lady's anxiety. I know she is keenly interested in this matter.

    Overseas Pensions
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to assume responsibility for the payment of overseas pensions directly to individual pensioners.
    Mr. Wood: I cannot yet give a date, but it will be as soon as possible after we have the necessary legislative authority and the agreement of the various overseas governments concerned.
    Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome that statement, but would my right hon. Friend hasten the end of this process, both in the political interests of the countries concerned and to remove from pensioners themselves further worry about dislocation of payments?
    Mr. Wood: Yes, Sir. I see the urgency of this, but legislation requires time, and time is required for other legislation.

    Jewish Citizens (U.S.S.R.)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest representations to the Soviet authorities, following the recent. Court decisions in the

    31
    Soviet Union affecting Jewish citizens who wish to emigrate to Israel.
    Mr. Kershaw: During his recent visit to Moscow the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed a senior Soviet official of the concern felt in Britain at reports about trials of Soviet Jews, from which Western journalists have been excluded.
    Mr. Dykes: Without any disrespect to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, would my hon. Friend see to it that this is done again at a higher level, so that there may be made quite clear to the Soviet Union, which does not appear to be as insensitive to public opinion abroad as perhaps some may imagine, the total abhorrence felt in this country at what his happening to Jews?
    Mr. Kershaw: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done this a number of times in this country, and our representative at the United Nations has also made himself absolutely clear about it.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SHOOTING INCIDENTS)
Miss Devlin Miss Devlin (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will set up an independent public inquiry into the shooting of Seamus Cusack and George Beatty in Derry on 8th July and if he will make a statement.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): On the first part of the question, No, Sir. In accordance with the standard practice, the Army has carried out its own investigation into the shooting incidents on 8th July and is satisfied that on both occasions when soldiers opened fire and civilians were hit the civilian concerned was carrying a weapon and there was good reason to suppose that he was about to use it offensively. This investigation does not supersede any proceedings that may be appropriate under the civil law, at which the Army will co-operate in making evidence available.
Miss Devlin: The Minister is doubtless aware that the statement issued by the Army that civilians who were shot, as he has said again this afternoon, were at
32
that time armed has been disputed by those people who are prepared to come forward to give evidence and their facts. The existing facts appear to be contrary. On the one hand, the Army says that the people who were shot were threatening the soldiers with firearms at that time, but Mr. John Hume in Derry, the Member of Parliament for that area, says that he has evidence which he is prepared to bring forward to an inquiry to say that that is not true. The only conclusion which can be drawn is that the Army will not face a public inquiry and will not face the facts. Therefore, the Minister of Defence stands in this House today as the official liar for the G.O.C. Northern Ireland and about the murder of people in the city of Derry. I hope that a public inquiry will be set up. I hope that the Army will come forward and give evidence and state their facts. If they saw people with guns, what kind of guns did they see? If they saw people threatening with bombs, will they produce facts and stand by them? Or will they accept that the Minister is lying?
Lord Balniel: In view of the hon. Lady's remarks, I think the House will be interested to know the facts. During the night of 7th–8th July a detachment of soldiers were deployed following the ambushing of a military Landrover. One of the soldiers saw a civilian carrying a rifle at the ready. He shouted a warning to the man to stand fast. This was ignored. The man then aimed at the troops. The soldier fired one aimed shot and the man fell. On the afternoon of 8th July a patrol in a Landrover was moving towards a crowd of stone throwers on the edge of Bogside. A stolen lorry was driven into the Landrover and nail bombs and stones were thrown at troops dismounting. Two soldiers each fired one shot and killed a man who was throwing a nail bomb at them. I am satisfied from inquiries I have made that there was no misconduct on the part of the troops.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is it not about time that it was made absolutely clear that those who use nail bombs and carry arms in situations like these are running the risk of being shot? Is my hon. Friend aware that on Friday I received messages all day paying tributes to the courage, the restraint and humanity of the troops involved? From what I can hear, I endorse them too. Why should anyone

33
pay very much attention to the strictures on the British Army of someone who in 1969 openly boasted she had spent part of her time trying to encourage them to desert from the British Army?
Lord Balniel: I take note of the last point made by my hon. Friend. On the first point, he is absolutely correct that people who take part in riots and carry rifle and nail bombs and petrol bombs are simply asking for trouble. It is only because of the immense care which is taken by the troops to avoid hurting innocent bystanders that more people are not killed in these disgraceful riots.
Mr. George Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that nobody in the House will wish to say anything today of all days which might heighten tension in Northern Ireland? Is he aware, since anger has been expressed by my hon. Friend behind me, that anyone who saw the scenes on television yesterday was bound to feel that the reaction of ordinary British people will be one of intense anger that our soldiers, who are trying to save Northern Ireland from a blood bath, should face the kind of provocative actions which they do face? Is he further aware that it is very necessary in these difficult circumstances that not only should the soldiers use minimum force but that it should be absolutely clear that they have used minimum force? While not wishing to dissent from what was said about the demand for an inquiry, it would be important, in order to give the clearest possible evidence of what has happened and to get that across, that such an inquiry should be a civil inquiry in which one would have the civil authority in Northern Ireland investigating the actions of the British Army. The sort of inquiry suggested by my hon. Friend might cause more complications than help.
Lord Balniel: I think the right hon. Gentleman has spoken for the broad mass of opinion in this country. I would certainly like to echo the point which he makes. It is the responsibility of the troops who have prevented a slide into further disaster to use minimum force. As I have said, I am satisfied that this was done on this occasion, but it is open to the civil authorities to make their inquiries in preparation for the coroner's inquiry, and the Army authorities will certainly co-operate in that respect.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I think that in view of what the Minister has said we should proceed with other business.
Later—
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may not be aware of the fact that there is considerable feeling amongst hon. Members on my side of the Chamber that on the issue of Northern Ireland, which we would all, irrespective of one's views, regard as a matter of the gravest importance, not one back bencher was called from among my hon. Friends. I would put it to you that on issues of this kind, which are, as I say, matters of the utmost and gravest importance, there should be a wider selection of hon. Members to ask questions.
Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make the point that, apart from the point of view of the hon. Member for mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and apart from the points of view from the Front Benches, no other valid points of view were expressed in the House? I have a feeling that some of my hon. Friends were prevented from putting their points of view. Naturally we are extremely distressed about it.
Mr. Speaker: All I can say is that I am sorry that the hon. Member should say that. The Chair is always in a great difficulty in making the decision whether to allow a Private Notice Question or not, and this is particularly so with regard to the events in Northern Ireland. It is a matter which gives me great concern every time there is a fatality in Northern Ireland, whether a Private Notice Question should be allowed, because I am not certain that it is always in the public interest. I also have to decide how many supplementary questions there should be. There were about a dozen Members who rose on the Government side, and originally only one on the Opposition side. The Minister indicated, as I thought, that there would be a further inquiry and investigation into the matter, and I thought that in those circumstances the quicker we moved on to the next business the better. The Chair may easily make a mistake. I do the best I can. If hon. Members are not satisfied they have a remedy open to them. I am very sorry. I did the best I could.

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED
3.37 p.m.
Mr. Tom Boardman: I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the recent White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, with the renewed emphasis on community care, the policy of providing community instead of hospital care for the mentally handicapped who do not need hospital treatment, and the additional £40 million made available by the present Government for accelerating over the next four years the increase and improvement of community services for the mentally handicapped and the improvement of conditions in the hospitals for the mentally handicapped.
When it was my good fortune to have won a place in the Ballot, I was faced with something of that choice which is extended to the winner of other lotteries, namely, whether to expend this good fortune on a few exhilirating hours of party politics, attacking the follies of the former Labour Government and perhaps lacing it with the a few criticisms of the present Administration, or using the time constructively. I decided on the latter course.
My choice of subject was influenced by many factors. In the first place, like many hon. Members, I have come across a great number of matters in my constituency which flow directly or indirectly from the problems of the mentally handicapped. That must be the common experience of us all. Secondly, my visits to hospitals for the mentally handicapped have shown that some have a standard which is quite intolerable in the year 1971.
Thirdly, a great deal of time of this House and a great deal of publicity outside it has been devoted in recent months to what might be called by hon. Members opposite the harsher aspects of Government and I believe that it is time that the other aspects of Government which is equally powerful—the compassionate side of this Government—should have rather more time devoted to it. That can be illustrated by pointing to the amount of time that has been spent in debate, much of it at the request of the Opposition, on issues such as steel, while as far as I am aware the only reference made in the House to this very important White Paper "Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped" was contained in a Written Answer by my right hon. Friend.
36
My final reason for choosing this subject was that if the White Paper is to achieve the object and aims set out in it, it is essential that there should be a better understanding on the part of the public and a wider audience than that consisting of those who read only parliamentary papers, because to achieve the objective the public must both know and care.
I do not suggest for a moment that there is any greater compassion claimed by hon. Members on this side than on that : to do so would be quite wrong. On the other hand, I believe that hon. Members will concede that there is no less compassion on this side than on that. All parties recognise and sympathise with the problems. The White Paper, which is referred to in my Motion, acknowledges very freely and fairly that a great deal of its ground work that was done by the previous Government. It is right to say that both parties will the same end, but my right hon. Friend is entitled to claim the added virtue of providing the means to achieve that end.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), when Secretary of State, recognised the need, which became very apparent in 1969. The House will recall that he then introduced what was known as the "interim" Measure in order to do something about the appalling conditions that had been starkly revealed in a number of cases. But a large part of the resources that were needed to fulfil the tasks set out in that interim Measure were dependent on the right hon. Gentleman's exhortations to hospital boards to reallocate money in 1970–71 which had already been allocated and no doubt used or planned to be used by those hospital boards for other essential hospital projects. He faced those boards with difficult problems of priorities, of robbing Peter to pay Paul. In 1971–72, which was as far ahead as he looked, I will not develop the reasons for this, the allocation of specific revenue expenditure under this head amounted to only £1½ million. My right hon. Friend increased the allocation of specific revenue to £3½ million, and also allotted further funds, so that the total sum available for hospital and local authority services for the mentally handicapped for the period

37
1974–75 will be increased by £40 million to £100 million in all.
I obviously must doubt whether that amount is enough. Many hon. Members, seeing the size of the problem, will feel that that is a very good start but that a great deal more is needed, and the White Paper recognises that it is only Stage I. But I must make some contrast between the policies of the parties on the financial aspects. I do not do so in order to provoke party controversy, because on this subject we can find a great deal of common ground, but the financial aspects illustrate the different approach and policies of this party and that.
There can be no disagreement that a great deal more money is needed; that a great deal more of the national resources must be put into both the hospital and the local authority services for the mentally handicapped. The former Administration, recognising that need, met it, or tried to meet it, in large measure by cutting back on the general hospital services and by transfer and reallocation. My right hon. Friend has approached the problem by giving very substantially more to the hospital services and the local authority services for the mentally handicapped, at the same time giving very substantially more to the other hospital services.
On the other hand—and this is, perhaps, an issue of party politics that I cannot avoid when talking about this aspect—the Government overall have financed a measure of these extra resources by requiring those who can afford to pay for certain services, whether they be prescription charges or school meals, to pay more than they did previously. This is the fundamentally different approach of the two parties, but it is a good illustration of how, when more money must be found, the present Government approach the matter. It is an approach which I believe has been supported by the public, and certainly by those who have seen the hospital conditions provided for many of these people.
I turn now to the needs, because it is needs to which my Motion primarily refers. The White Paper estimates that there are some 120,000 people mentally handicapped within the definition of the White Paper, of whom about half are children. A number of authoritative
38
sources believe that figure to be a substantial underestimate. There have been two censuses, the results of which are now being analysed. It will be interesting to see their outcome, but from the evidence of the large waiting lists for hospitals and certainly for homes for mentally handicapped, and of the number of mild mentally handicapped who may not have got on to any register, it seems that the White Paper, if it is out in its estimate of numbers, is out by being an underestimate.
I turn now to the question of the hospitals and the needs there. No doubt there are some very good hospitals, but a very large number—I fear they are the vast majority—are old and vastly overcrowded, and these conditions are intolerable, as I have said.
In the hospital group that serves my constituency in Leicester, there is an overcrowding to the extent of 46 per cent. I understand that this will be reduced to 15 per cent. in September. In paragraph 99, the White Paper acknowledges that, on the latest statistical evidence available, in 1969 60 per cent. of the hospitals had sleeping space of under 50 square feet per patient against a target of 70 square feet. I ask hon. Members to visualise what that means. I am sure that many will have seen those conditions. There are beds, side by side, with no room for such things as lockers, and very often no room for patients to pass between the beds, so that to get into bed they have to climb over the tailboard. Many of these patients are severely incontinent, and these are conditions which have become intolerable.
I welcome the White Paper's declaration of what is being done because, with the vast overcrowding, with incontinence, with lavatories very often well away from or inconvenient to the sleeping accommodation, and with limited recreational facilities, conditions for the staff are extremely hard. Morale must suffer and recruiting must be badly affected by that. I am sure that all hon. Members who have seen these sort of conditions, have the highest praise for the staff who do such tremendous work in these hospitals. But that is not enough. We must have conditions which allow us to obtain proper staff working under proper conditions, and not staff who can do no more

39
than look after the patients' basic physical needs.
I have some criticisms of the White Paper. It could have been rather more sharply drafted. I should like to have seen a clearer distinction made between the rôles of hospitals and residential homes. The dividing line between what will be in the hospital service and what will be in the local authority homes is not entirely clear. In a paper from the Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped, I have just seen that they have also made criticisms about that distinction.
In its intention and its clear message about laying the emphasis on domiciliary and community care, the White Paper is absolutely right. But the dividing line as to how that is to operate in practice sometimes gets a little blurred. It is essential that the strain on the hospitals be relieved so that they can achieve their proper rôle. There is a rôle for the hospitals, which is well set out in paragraph 181 of the White Paper, which talks about in-patient treatment and says :
"The aim is to help all patients, including the most severely handicapped, to develop to their full potential and to achieve as positive and independent a life as their handicaps allow."
That must be right, but it can be put into practice only if the strains on the hospitals and the overcrowding are removed.
The provision of residential homes is critical, both in relieving strains on hospitals and, what is far more important, in providing the right community care for patients. In all too many areas there is no halfway house between the family home and the overcrowded hospitals. For the mentally handicapped person whose condition has deteriorated or whose family conditions no longer enable him to remain at his home, the only course is for him to go into one of these overcrowded hospitals. That applies in too many parts of the country. The White Paper rightly sets out the conditions for which we must aim in these homes. They must be homes in which people can live within the community, as far as possible, and not be segregated from it, and in which they can attend a special school or training centre and live as normal a life as possible.
40
I welcome particularly the requirement that they should provide for weekly boarders. Many mentally handicapped persons can be looked after in their homes at weekends, and many families want them back in their homes but find it almost impossible to look after them throughout the week as well. It may be that the only person capable of properly looking after the mentally handicapped person is himself having to go out to work. If it is possible for the mentally handicapped to go as weekly boarders during the week and to return home at weekends, there are great advantages to both sides, to the family and to the handicapped person. In many cases it will be essential that this be provided for if advantage is to be taken of the special schools and training centres, and the jobs which we hope can be made available close to these residential homes.
I welcome, too, the short stay boarders requirement, because the strain upon families is intolerable if it is for 365 days a year. Some mentally handicapped persons need a considerable amount of care. If it is possible to lift that strain and enable the family to have a holiday or a break, the strain is tremendously reduced. I regret that although the City of Leicester, in which my constituency lies, has made more progress than most in the way of training centres and the provision of residential homes for adults—though not nearly enough yet—it has no provision for residential care of children.
The load and the strain upon the family, which is so well put in the White Paper, is not recognised enough by the community as a whole. The constant attendance which is so often needed, the effects on other children in the family who have a mentally handicapped brother or sister, and the sense of shame which so many of them wrongly suffer from—which is unfortunate in this day and age, but I am glad that attitudes are changing—very often makes them conceal or try not to acknowledge the existence of the mentally handicapped or find the right treatment or cure for them.
The White Paper recognises the family problem and proposes positive action. It recognises the financial burden, which can be severe for a family who have to travel some distance to see a handicapped person. The daily attendance allowance will probably relieve the strain on many

41
of these families when it begins to operate in December. But the problems are more than that. There is a need for advice and practical help. The emphasis that the White Paper puts on the importance of the family and what is being done about it is very welcome.
On the question of research into prevention and cure, important as that is, J should be glad if my right hon. Friend would say what progress is being made into the problems of autistic children. There seems some conflict of views about their treatment. If my right hon. Friend has anything which he can add, I should very much welcome it.
The final category, if I may call it such, within the White Paper is the voluntary service element. First, I praise the organisations which are and have been doing so much, especially in recent years, both in education and the changing of people's attitudes and for the practical help which they have been giving. I welcome the encouragement the White Paper gives to this and particularly the emphasis it lays on the help that can be given to families.
I will quote two examples, one where help would be very welcome and one where a great deal is being done. The first example which I quote to illustrate the point which I hope I have made is a case in my constituency of a severely autistic boy living with his mother and three sisters in a small council house. The three sisters had considerable academic ability. They were taking various examinations at an exceptionally high level—and the greatest credit to them—but in conditions which were impossisble. The severely autistic son was disrupting the whole system in the household and destroying any books that they left around. If a neighbour had allowed the three girls to use her front room in the evenings to do their homework and perhaps watch television in her house, because they could not have a television set in their own house, it would have been a tremendous help to that family. I suppose people were inclined to think that the help that was required was help with looking after the mentally handicapped son, but that was only part of the answer.
The other case refers to a unique group called Menphys which has been formed in my constituency to provide recreation for mentally and physically handicapped
42
children. The group meets every Saturday, collects mentally and physically handicapped children together, and takes them out. The group sometimes organises outings during the week, but outings on Saturday mornings are a regular occurrence.
This achieves two purposes. It takes the strain off the mothers and the households on Saturday morning. The mother can go and do her shopping, get her hair done or just put her feet up. It provides the one certain break the mother can have during the week. It also stimulates an interest amongst the children. It has been said by many with considerable experience that the mixing of physically handicapped and mentally handicapped would not help. In this group, which has been running for only a year, it has been a great success. A bond of understanding has been created between the mentally handicapped and the physically handicapped which I am told is remarkable. The mentally handicapped helps the physically handicapped, and vice versa.
I ask my right hon. Friend to study this experiment. There may be other such experiments of which I am unaware, but I believe that this one is novel. It is not without interest that some of the young people who have helped the group are seriously considering taking up work with children as a career. They have seen the rewarding impact of their work.
I will not attempt to elaborate on the White Paper. Many hon. Members have great knowledge of the problems and the facilities which are available and what should be done. They can amplify on these aspects far better than I can.
If the debate does nothing else than encourage a growth of understanding on the part of the public and brings to their notice the rôle that they can play in helping to cope with the problems of the mentally handicapped and their families—I stress "and their families"—I hope that hon. Members will not consider that this use of private Members' time has been wasted.
4.5 p.m.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I welcome the opportunity of speaking in this debate and I offer my warm congratulations to the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), not only on choosing the

43
subject, which is highly commendable, but on his contribution to the debate.
Apart from the outburst of indignation one hears after occurrences such as Ely and Farleigh, the problems of the mentally handicapped tend to drift unheralded and unseen in the backwaters of public indifference and neglect. This is why I am appreciative of the choice of subject by the hon. Gentleman.
Although I give the Government's White Paper a qualified welcome, I am bound to say that no Government have a proud record in the face of the continuing scandal of the imprisonment of thousands of mentally handicapped people in our asylums in conditions which would make any respectable prison reformer hysterical. I use the word "asylums" because I believe that the change to the term "mental hospitals" has begun to mislead the public about what these fortresses are. They are asylums which imprison mentally handicapped people.
I know that the Government do not like them and the Opposition do not like them and I think that the public are being misled into believing that, because they are called "mental hospitals", people within them are receiving medical treatment which will help. I believe that this euphemism should be dropped, even though I am still as anxious as anyone to ensure that the mentally handicapped should not be regarded by the public in the same way as they were in the past.
It is not only the Government who have no proud record about the mentally handicapped. It is also the medical profession, because neither royal colleges nor royal societies of medicine have done a great deal for the mentally handicapped. They are notably backward in helping backward children and backward adults. I believe that their silence in th face of the great scandals of the asylums has displayed either an incredible ignorance or an unforgivable neglect.
If mentally handicapped people were looking to the medical profession to expose these scandals, they have looked in vain, because they have been exposed by Members of the House, by members of the Government, or by forward-looking journalists. They have not been exposed by the medical profession.
44
It is beyond my comprehension how the medical profession can apparently condone a situation in a London hospital in which five senior consultants are attending in a hospital with 1,471 beds while at the same time in a general hospital with 1,471 beds there are 120 senior specialists. I know that mentally handicapped people do not all require medical specialists, but I refuse to believe that all the people in the mentally handicapped hospital need so little medical attention as can be given by only five specialists.
Although public opinion is changing, the public, too, like Governments and the medical profession, have no proud record when it comes to dealing with mentally handicapped people, because with up to 2,000 people in asylums, herded into domitories, deprived of clothes, possessions and self-respect, we should hear an outraged roar of public objection. But we do not. The public have been relatively quiet about scandals which have been exposed in the House, in the Press and on television. Although the Government and the Opposition are doing what they can about the problem—and I am critical of the Government, as I shall explain—only when the public are awakened will this problem be resolved. I hope that the Government will make a great effort to try to awaken public opinion. This is a chicken-and-egg situation. The stronger the public feels about this matter, the easier it is for the Government to take action. But until members of the public awaken to the problem, very little can be done by the Government.
It is a tiny minority of the medical profession who deserve our plaudits—those people who are dedicating themselves to helping the mentally handicapped. It is a small number of sociologists—people like Professor Peter Townsend and journalists like Ann Shearer and Sandra Franklin, the architect—who are campaigning in a greatly encouraging and highly stimulating way. They are in the vanguard with new thinking and new ideas. Although the Secretary of State will not accept all their ideas—I do not think that he can possibly do so with the limited financial resources at his disposal—these are the people who are becoming the new leaders of public opinion.

45
Some advances have been made, however, and the Government deserve credit for them, as do their predecessors. But, judged by the basic criterion—which is that the aim of any service for the mentally handicapped is to enable them to live as normal a life as possible—we still have a long way to go. That aim can be stated more clearly, perhaps with brutal clarity, by demanding that we should empty the asylums. We cannot do that overnight. I accept that it will take 15 years to do it. But if we set a deadline of 1985 to empty the asylums, this would be a noble goal at which to aim, because it has been estimated that if every population over 100,000 undertook to provide a living unit for eight people per year then the problem of our large mental hospitals could be solved. So the asylums could be emptied in this period and there can be no better aim for the Government or for the Opposition.
Although the Secretary of State is commendably committed in the White Paper to a significant reduction in the number of people in our mental hospitals, he says that he fears that it would be premature to try to empty the asylums. I can understand his difficulties and I recognise the practical problems of this objective. But I do not think it is seriously disputed that the great majority of the people in asylums are not in need of continuous medical care. They do not need
"assistance to feed, wash or dress"
and they even have
"no physical handicap or severe behavioural difficulties".
This is the picture which the House and the public must recognise.
We shall not have crazy madmen walking the streets if these people are released. They have a mental disability which does not need medical attention. Many of them are pleasant people who can live in an outside community without a great deal of difficulty. There might be some difficulty, but that could be provided for by extending community care, and the medical treatment which the minority of them require can be afforded in the ordinary general hospitals. The Government should commit themselves much more firmly to the priority of improving community care and community facilities.
46
I do not suggest that no improvements should be made to the hospitals. That is a necessary, temporary step. But I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that any improvements made to the mental hospitals do not lead to them becoming permanent institutions. The House will remember what happened with the old prefabricated houses. They were supposed to be temporary residences, and I now see "prefabs" from the First World War occasionally being renovated by well-intentioned councils and the renovation is used as an excuse for permanence. I hope that the Secretary of State will watch this situation very carefully.
One of the sections in the White Paper which really disturbs me is that in which the Secretary of State says that the Government will play their part but that the main responsibility lies with the local authorities. We all know the almost limitless range of competence and good will among the local authorities; and in the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which deals with mentally handicapped people, we have seen how a vast range of provision can be made. Some of them are doing a magnificent job. But some are greedy, lazy, selfish, arrogant, nasty and indifferent to the plight of the disabled, and the House might as well recognise that. Local authorities which ignore the mentally handicapped will have to be cajoled and bullied by the Secretary of State. While I commend those local authorities which are doing an admirable job for the mentally handicapped. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should put great pressure on the bad local authorities.
I hope that what the local authorities will get from the Secretary of State is a kick in the two places where it hurts most : first, in the backside and, secondly, in their pockets. This is the only way in which he can ensure that positive action will be taken on behalf of mentally handicapped people by local authorities which are indifferent to their plight. If these local authorities want to dig in their heels, I am sure that the House will be prepared to fight. But I hope that they will co-operate with the Government and with the House in attempting to achieve the noble aim of enabling all mentally handicapped people to live their lives in as normal a way as possible.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I shall not take up in detail the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I thought that he made some very fair points, though he was, for my taste, a little harsh on the medical profession as a whole, since I believe that we should not blame doctors quite so heavily for some of the things that have happened in this field over the years.
Broadly, I welcome the evidence of the Secretary of State's concern in this subject. So far as I can judge, the White Paper which we are discussing is a sensible document. It seems to me to take further the very well worth while developments which have come about in our approach to the training and education of mentally handicapped people in recent years, and it offers the prospect of a considerable better situation in the future.
I consider that the White Paper is right to lay the emphasis which it does on community care, and I do not think that anyone will be likely to dispute that this is the direction in which we should now be going. On the other hand, I think it right to reject the notion, even in principle at this stage, of the wholesale abolition of hospitals for the mentally handicapped. I recently visited one such hospital, as I shall explain in a moment, and the doctor in charge there pointed out to me one or two of the problems which would arise if we did adopt the notion that everything could be done in the community.
The first point to be brought out is simple. There are those, as this doctor told me, at his hospital "who have been with us for 20 or 30 years, who rightly regard the hospital as their home and the staff as parent surrogates". In other words, to have abolition and immediate dispersal of the patients at these hospitals could cause a great deal of unhappiness.
Second, and more important, the notion that there should be general dispersal rests so far, I believe, on a fairly limited research basis. The research of Dr. Kushlick is now rightly becoming well known, and anyone who has heard him speak or read about his work will acknowledge that it is in its way extremely impressive. But the fact
48
remains that we have not yet a substantial body of research. The experiments have been going on for only a year or two, and it would be a mistake, I believe, to rush into a policy which said that hospitals were necessarily wrong or hostels or family care necessarily right.
Community care and family care represent an ideal, but we must be sure of what we are doing before we have a headlong change in policy. In particular, we must be sure that, if people are transferred to the community, it will be possible effectively to provide the services which they so clearly need, and it must be seen that these services can be provided at least as effectively as they can in the best sort of hospital organisation.
We know that there are many facilities of which the mentally handicapped can make full use. They need, for example, physiotherapy units, they can use heated swimming pools to good effect, and they have need for such facilities as "rumpus rooms" and the like which are now being talked about. Perhaps the latter could be provided in a hostel or even in the ordinary home, but some of the other facilities will not be easily available if we have a sudden flowering of small hostels throughout the country. If we move towards hostels, we must be sure that the facilities are to hand.
We have heard—it is well known now—that this is an area of care presenting enormous problems. No one today can doubt the magnitude of what has to be done, and I shall not labour that. On the other hand, it is worth making the point that this is now an area of considerable hope, too.
In the first place, in the political world, Government and Opposition parties and public opinion generally have come to see that the mentally handicapped are people to whom we must now give far higher priority than we have ever given in the past. The battle is not won, but there has been an enormous advance in this respect. Also—this is of equal, or, possibly, even greater importance—we are beginning to absorb the lesson of just how much potential can be realised among mentally handicapped people. Over the last few years, people like Professor Tizard have shown that patients who, in the past, were regarded as totally ineducable are, in fact, capable of being educated, and as a result improved

49
facilities for training and education are coming into being. This is of great importance, and, again, it is very much part of the notion that, if we do disperse the mentally handicapped, we must not lose sight of them.
Third, and most important, there is greater public awareness, greater public sympathy and a greater understanding that the mentally handicapped should not be regarded as outcasts to be locked away.
I wish to tell the House now of my visit last Saturday to a fete held at the Manor House Hospital in Aylesbury. The first time I visited this hospital was some weeks ago, and I admit frankly that I went there with a considerable feeling of unease and some uncertainty about how I should react to what I might find there, for it is a hospital housing severely handicapped people. I broke the barrier, as it were, on that visit. After my visit there on Saturday, with my wife and two children, to open the fete, I came away with a feeling almost of exhilaration. This was due not to the fact that it is a highly advanced unit in terms of its facilities but to the real sense of revival which one feels there, a real sense that things are beginning to move.
The fete was given by the newly established League of Friends. I say "newly established" but I should say "revived", because it had been in existence some years ago but had fallen into abeyance. This fete marked the League's return to activity, and the Friends had put an enormous amount of work into it.
The environment and spirit of the hospital is affected also by the fact that, at long last, it is to have new buildings. For several years now, there have been plans on the drawing board for a new hospital, and last October these were given the go-ahead. I do not believe that the plans are perfect, partly because an essential feature of the new hospital is that it is to be built primarily as one big unit, and most of us know—certainly the staff know—that it would have been better to have it built as a series of smaller sections which might more easily be used to establish a family atmosphere. So the plans are not perfect, and the villain of the piece, as always, is cost. Nevertheless, there is a real feeling in the hospital now that it is moving forward to something very much better than people have had
50
in the past, and I believe that within the large new framework it will be possible, by careful organisation, to have quite a degree of family feeling and a breaking down into smaller units while at the same time providing the facilities which are of such importance. That is the second encouraging feature.
The third encouraging feature to me on my visit to the fete—I suspect that this is felt by most people who go to a function of this kind or who visit such places—is the unexpected degree of happiness which one can find in that sort of atmosphere. This is partly the result of the opening-up process which is taking place. Admittedly, it was, so to speak, a gala occasion on Saturday, with the feeling that everyone's parents and families were coming along, and a general atmosphere of cheerfulness which cannot but help to lift one's spirits. But it is most important and encouraging that one does find on visits to places of this kind that the patients themselves are capable of a degree of happiness which is infectious, infectious to the visitor and infectious, too, to the staff.
As I have said, I took my wife and two young children. Frankly, I was not sure whether to take my children, but come they did, and, even though they are very young, they were, I believe, able to share in the feeling that the place is a happy one. I am certain that the emphasis which we can now develop in community involvement will mean that this is more and more true in the future.
It is particularly important that the staff should be able to share in this feeling. We have heard criticisms of the staff at some of these places, and we know that there have been outrageous things done. But we know also—my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) was right to stress this—that over the years the staffs at these hospitals have done a splendid and heroic job. They, also, need encouragement. The greater community participation which is developing and the increased coming and going are just as important from the point of view of staff welfare as they are from the point of view of the patients. I was rather touched when the doctor in charge of the institution told me that he had just been talking to a man who had been married to a woman who already

51
had three children, all of whom were subnormal. One or more of them were in that hospital. The mother had died a short time before, but the man had continued to visit the hospital. The doctor had said, "It is good of you to go on coming here although these are not your own children." The man replied, "It is my privilege." The doctor was clearly moved by that, by the way in which people are prepared to go on accepting that kind of responsibility in circumstances which may well be difficult.
I do not want to be unduly sentimental about this, although sentiment keeps creeping in. We must recognise that there is a darker side to the picture. I refer to the familiar story of the backlog, the appalling overcrowding. Another side of the picture which is beginning to cause a good deal of concern to doctors is the deep ethical problem facing some of them. I approach this matter with some diffidence, because it is difficult to talk about. The doctors working in this field must face up to the question of how far to go in keeping alive some new-born children who might otherwise have died at birth and who may, in the doctors' expectation, not have a serious prospect of a happy life.
I would not dream of advocating euthanasia, nor do I dispute that the vast majority of handicapped children are capable of a real degree of happiness. They give out enough and take enough from life to justify their existence by any standards. The fact that they are capable of being loved and of loving is in a sense the real justification. But we must recognise that there are some people of whom that is not true. Doctors are beginning to be faced with a considerable problem. The classic instance is the condition known as spina bifida. Essentially the problem here is that if the child is not operated on at birth it is likely to die, but if it does survive it will almost certainly survive in a very poor condition, a much worse condition than if the doctors operated. If they operate they may achieve total success or simply prolong the life of someone whose life will, so far as can be judged, be at a very low level.
I would like to quote from an article written by Dr. Henry Miller, of Newcastle
52
University, which appeared in the Listener on 1st July. He wrote :
"Twelve years ago a group of dedicated and expert paediatricians in Sheffield deliberately decided to admit and treat all cases of meningomyelocele, or spinabifida where the spinal cord is present in the sac that protrudes at the site of the bony defect. Between 1959 and 1969 nearly 1,200 infants were treated, of whom more than 80 per cent. were admitted within 24 hours of birth.…
"The results of this massive surgical experiment are the most favourable that have ever been recorded. They are, however, profoundly disappointing, and support the critical and conservative approach to treatment rather than that of the enthusiastic interventionist.… Careful follow-up studies show that less than 10 per cent. of those originally admitted escaped severe crippling. Two out of five supporters are mentally retarded, and four have no bladder control. Many have required multiple operations, and have suffered distressing complications among which infections of the urinary tract and the brain itself are conspicuous."
He gives other examples, and then says :
"The implications of these findings for the infants, for their families and for society are disturbing. Indeed, if all the cases in the country were treated in this way we would soon have 10,000 such crippled children alive and would ultimately have to support between 20,000 and 30,000 crippled adults in the community. Such socio-economic problems should not in themselves decide the issue, but it is also clear from this important experiment that the interests of the patient with a severe lesion are not served by operation which can mean only a life of surgical misery and severe residual handicap."
This is a very difficult problem for the medical profession and for society as a whole to have to face, but there are some points I must stress. First, we are talking about a very small minority of the handicapped. Secondly, I do not think that we are talking about the allocation of resources but rather about an ethical problem. Thirdly, we must accept that is not a problem for the politicians to decide : it is one which the doctors must decide for themselves. They must make the decision whether it is right or wrong to try to prolong the life of someone who, at birth, faces a tremendous risk. It is right that the politicians should be prepared, as representatives of the public, to give a degree or backing to the doctors who are faced with this difficult ethical consideration, and that we should accept that doctors should be able to rely on the public to support them in the decisions they make.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my hon. Friend say how long such children are likely to live?
Mr. Raison: Increasingly the tendency is for them to live longer. Some of them have, I believe, symptoms associated with mongolism, and the life expectation of mongols is going up the whole time.
My point essentially is that we must trust the doctors. A distinguished American professor, Paul Beeson, has said that :
"If civilisation means anything you must trust people with a long cultural tradition to act in a humane way."
Clearly, the principle that the doctor will work on is :
"Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive Officiously to keep alive."
Naturally not to keep patients alive goes against the grain of medical ethics and of the whole nursing profession. I must reiterate that I am talking about a very small number of cases where the need may be different. But we must give doctors our understanding and trust.
I have said enough, I hope, to give the feeling that I believe that we are now on the move; that we have reached the stage where we can expect a concentration of public interest and public sympathy in the whole of this area which has not existed in the past. I believe that my right hon. Friend's document is a reflection of this.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Mayhew: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and hope to take up some of his thoughtful and positive remarks. He took the opposite view to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on a question that is becoming a rather tense dispute among those who are anxious to help the mentally-handicapped. I refer to the controversy as to whether we should now accept as a matter of principle, as my hon. Friend feels we should, the closing of all sub-normality hospitals within 15 years. The argument for this has been put forward very persuasively by a number of good friends of the mentally-handicapped. We think of Miss Ann Shearer, for example. The case was well argued by my hon. Friend on the ground that this was a challenging, precise target by which to
54
measure the progress we make in providing community care for the mentally-handicapped.
It can be argued as he did so well, that the idea of a hospital for the mentally-handicapped is in many ways anomalous and inappropriate. It is anomalous that, say, a mentally-handicapped adolescent who has gone successfully through a junior training centre and who has coped quite well should go into a residential institution called a hospital with a medical and staff nurses. It is not really appropriate to what he has experienced so far.
Even if it were medical care which he wanted and had gone to hospital to get, I am afraid that there would not be enough medical staff to give the care required. For those reasons, one has considerable sympathy for those who say that the whole concept of the hospital should give way and that for those mentally-handicapped persons who cannot be helped with community care the answer must be a general hospital and not a specialised subnormality hospital.
This has been admirably set out by those who support the concept and their case contains a number of important truths. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Aylesbury had some good points to make when he argued that it could not now be dogmatically said that there would never be a subnormality hospital of any kind. I think I have visited the hospital which he visited—I am almost certain which it is. If so, it is an example of a hospital which gives not only more expert, but possibly more personal care to mentally handicapped people than they might sometimes get in community institutions. That hospital may be instanced as a good way in which to look after those who need protective care.
However, my conclusion is that we should not tear ourselves to pieces trying to decide this question now. There is so much which is universally agreed in the way of urgent action needed to increase community care and to empty the hospitals that we ought not to start arguing about a decision which need not be taken now. I do not know why the Minister should be asked dogmatically to commit himself at this stage to saying that in 15 years there will not be one subnormality hospital left, however small,

55
however well staffed, however well appointed and however seriously handicapped the patients in them may be. Without prejudice to the argument that that may be the right thing to go for, I do not see why we should ask the Minister to decide it now. Let us go for what is practicable now over the next five or ten years in the basic things which urgently need to be done.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman), who introduced the Motion, ought not to be discouraged by the comparatively empty benches on either side of the House. It has been one of my observations over many years that there is no close correlation—when we are discussing social problems—between the number of Members present in the Chamber and the amount of human suffering caused by the problem under discussion. I do not know the reason. It is possible that it has something to do with the introduction of party politics—and the hon. Gentleman slightly lowered the tone in his admirable speech by introducing a partisan note. The truth is that if the social problem relates to some ideological factor, such as raising the cost of school meals in which the Government have been seriously at fault recently, even though in human suffering that does not measure up to mental handicap, more Members tend to be attracted to the Chamber.
I do not wish this to be a partisan issue. Throughout the years and throughout the decades every party has been equally to blame for neglecting this important problem, not only the problem of the mentally handicapped, but the whole problem of mental illness. It is extraordinary how disproportionately little attention is given by the political parties to the whole subject of mental health. Anybody who studies the matter with a clear mind will discover that the greatest obstacle to human well-being in this country is mental disorder in all its degrees and forms. The priorities of all the political parties, as shown in the election manifestos and in attendance in the Chamber at debates such as these, are astonishingly wrong, from top to bottom. It is high time that this situation was changed, and I congratulate the hon. Member on his choice of subject and I
56
hope that he will persevere in bringing it to the attention of the House.
None of us nowadays has any excuse for ignorance and nor has the public. Whatever excuse there may have been, there is none now. There is magnificent television coverage by the B.B.C., about the problems of mental handicap and mental sickness, and in the last five years it has had a pronounced effect on public attitudes. There have been several unofficial publications—the book "Put Away" by Dr. Pauline Morris—the campaign by the National Society for Mentally Handicapped Children, the excelent report published by the New Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped, the steady stream of publicity from the National Society for Menially Handicapped Children, the Spastics Society, the National Association for Mental Health, the Mind Campaign, which is just being launched by the National Association.
Finally, we have had one revealing and powerful official document after another. There was the admirable report of the Hospital Advisory Services, Dr. Baker's report, which was very important and which showed what a good committee that was. That report ended simply with a letter from a charge nurse in a mental hospital, and I am sure that the Minister has noted it. It was a letter to Dr. Baker saying that he might like to know in advance of his projected visit to the hospital that the following necessary and overdue reforms had been made : first, the toothbrushes had arrived for patients in the ward—and so on. This was splendid and it showed the importance and the strength of the Hospital Advisory Committee and it showed that this work had been properly handled by Dr. Baker and his colleagues, but it revealed an appalling situation in some of our worst hospitals.
We have had the Ely Hospital report and the Farleigh Hospital report and now the White Paper which is a frank and honest account of the problem. We now have no excuse. I shall not repeat what is often said in all the documents about the appalling conditions in some hospitals, for I take it for granted that hon. Members will know what they are.
When we talk about overcrowding, as the hon. Member for Leicester, Southwest did so convincingly, we ought to consider also the understaffing, which is

57
not quite the same thing. If anything, I am more horrified by understaffing than by overcrowding. It is true that the number of nurses has gone up in the last decade, as the White Paper says, and that is good, but we all know that the problem has increased, too, because the degree of handicap to be found in the hospitals is much more severe. Many more severely handicapped children are now living a long time and the nursing task in the hospitals is thus made much heavier, even though the number of patients per nurse is reduced. The result is that staffs may be discouraged and keenness and morale may suffer.
I am always immensely impressed by how well nursing staffs face their problems. I visited Farleigh Hospital a month or two ago. If one wants to know what the problem is and what caused the fearful tragedy at Farleigh when three nurses were convicted in the courts of persistent cruelty to patients, and if one wants to know how that kind of thing can happen, one should go to Farleigh and hang around the North Ward, where these things happened, try to imagine oneself with the job of a nurse there, dealing with young men severely mentally handicapped, mostly incontinent and many prone to violence and many epileptic, with only one other helper to look after 36 such patients for an 11½ hour shift without a break.
It is putting on someone more than any normal person can bear. What is more, I do not think that I exaggerate when I say that the reproduction of similar circumstances in other hospitals would be bound to lead to other Farleigh incidents. That is bound to be true.
At the heart of the trouble as much as anything is the understaffing, though admittedly Farleigh also revealed a shocking story of bad management. I shall not go into the details, since they are plainly on the record. Instead, I come back to the understaffing and perhaps I might ask the Secretary of State about it. He was kind enough to make a constructive reply to a Question which I put down about Farleigh in which he accepted almost all the recommendations of the Farleigh Commission. He said that he would ask boards to consider especially the needs of the most difficult patients. Has anything concrete come out of that? He also said that he was
58
pursuing the code of conduct laying down guide lines for handling difficult and sometimes violent patients which was drafted under the auspices of the National Association for Mental Health. I think that the right hon. Gentleman accepts it in principle. Has he carried it further in some way?
Before I leave Farleigh, of course there have been some improvements, including some to the North Ward. There is new hope under the fresh and positive medical leadership of Dr. Carter.
To return to the staffing point, will the extra money go to more staff? If it does, the result will be a better staff ratio, better working conditions, more staff recruited and more staff staying. And that in turn will mean that more staff are available to train the mentally handicapped and to modify their incontinence and their disturbed behaviour so that more of them can go out into the community. The result is a bigger turnover. The whole is self-perpetuating once one obtains a real push on the staffing question. I want to emphasise that most of all. But I am sure that everyone will agree that the quickest way to improve staff ratios is not to let people go into hospitals at the beginning. This is the major advantage of community care.
There is plenty of evidence that patients coming out of subnormality hospitals and mental hospitals and going into group homes, some kind of guardianship, and sheltered accommodation of one kind and another are a great deal happier. What is more, such a system costs less. Above all, it liberates hospital staffs and nursing talent for those who still have to remain in the hospitals. That is the justification for giving priority to it.
How are we to get it? Let me welcome the Secretary of State's £100 million. I said in his presence at a conference that we both attended that those who are interested in the mentally handicapped and mentally sick have watched streams of Ministers with good policies and good intentions go by and we have been disillusioned. The only test of a Minister of Health is whether he manages to blackmail his Cabinet colleagues into giving him the money necessary to carry out his policies. The Secretary of State has not made a bad start in that respect.

59
We are to have this money spent, we hope, on emptying hospitals rather than on improving them. We agree that they need improvement, and clearly some money must be spent on them. However, I do not get the impression from the White Paper that the financial priority is on emptying the hospitals rather than on capital expenditure on them, and I should like to be reassured on this obvious point. It may be that I have misunderstood some of the figures. However, paragraph 259 of the White Paper says :
"On the hospital side, it is hoped that capital expenditure in these four years will reach about £30 million."
Can we assume that it is carefully calculated that these hospitals gain more from £30 million worth of capital expenditure than from reducing the number of patients by spending the money on the provision of community care and stopping people going to hospitals in the first place?
My hon. Friend referred to pressures on local authorities. What pressures are there on the bad authorities to pull up their socks? Will the Minister explain how he sees the point made so admirably by my hon. Friend that some local authorities are mean-minded, selfish, indifferent, insensitive and need to be brought into line. A number of them are very good. We should like the Minister to explain his views of them.
May we have published officially a league table of local authorities? I do not think that we have one yet. Christian Action has had a go at working out some kind of league table. Just as after the war we had a housing league table showing up the bad local authorities, let us have one for those providing community care for the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick, so that we know where our own local authorities stand and which are the backsliders.
All in all, I am not altogether satisfied with the priority of expenditure or with the speed of the timetable. But it is a move forward to have a target and to have £100 million. We must give the credit to the Minister.
As other hon. Members have said, public opinion needs to be persuaded, not only because members of the public are the ratepayers and the taxpayers, but
60
also because it will be our attitudes, either of kindness or aversion, towards those coming out of hospitals which make success or failure of the enterprise. Public opinion, therefore, is keyed to the whole problem.
There are still examples of sheer prejudice and bigotry preventing the establishment of community buildings to help the mentally handicapped. However, I agree that, in general, there has been a great improvement in the last 10 or 15 years in the public's understanding of the nature of mental handicap and mental sickness, though not perhaps in its appreciation of the scale of the problem or of the urgency with which matters need putting right, or of the possibility of alleviating suffering. There is still a slight feeling that it is all God-given and that there is nothing much that Governments, Members of Parliament or local authorities can do.
As for the nature of mental handicap and the anxiety and aversion towards mental handicap and mental sickness, there have undoubtedly been great advances in the last 10 or 15 years. I liked the reference by the hon. Member for Aylesbury to the subnormality hospital fete in his constituency to which he took his wife and two children. He reminded me of a programme which I saw on television a month or two ago with my own children. It was a very good programme about mentally handicapped children, and we saw on the screen in close-up the faces of severely handicapped children. That would never have been possible only 10 or 15 years ago. As a professional broadcaster at that time, I remember doing some programmes about mental sickness. We managed to achieve a great breakthrough. We took a camera into a mental hospital. However, we could not show the faces of the patients. That was much too strong meat for the public at that time. The hon. Gentleman said that when he was approaching this hospital he felt a certain apprehension. I recall that when I made those programmes the idea was mooted that I should spend a few days and nights as a patient in a mental hospital to convey better to viewers what it was about. I agreed to do this.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I felt a slight apprehension as I advanced upon the ward where I had been allocated a

61
bed. I hope that the House will not take me wrong, but, after being there a few hours, I felt completely at home. This is the solution to the whole problem—the solution to the public attitude to mental illness and handicap—to get closer to it and to see the mentally handicapped and the mentally sick not as a large rather forbidding army of people, but as individuals with their own problems, families, personalities, and so on. That is at the back of the reason for getting community care going. We shall then be bringing the public face to face with a great human problem instead of hiding it behind the castle walls of huge Victorian asylums. Once again, as was true centuries ago, the public will be getting into contact with a great human problem, and nothing but good can come of that.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, Southwest (Mr. Tom Boardman) on choosing this Motion for debate today. He has done us a great service. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) on an excellent speech and on kindling my original interest in the subject by those television programmes to which he referred.
I had not visited any form of mental institution before becoming a Member of Parliament. I have subsequently visited training centres, schools for educationally subnormal children and mental hospitals. They are indeed most encouraging places to visit because of the sense not of hopelessness but of help, care and compassion which they give. Fortunately, the institutions serving my constituency must be somewhat model, because I could not put upon them the strictures which some hon. Members have expressed in the debate.
But I shall not forget the statement of one of the trained nurses at the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital in Colchester which serves my constituency, that by A.D. 2000 we would have a bed space shortage of 60,000. That figure must make us realise that we cannot wait forever to decide whether it is hostels or hospitals which we want. There is a pressing need for buildings of one kind or another, and we must do something about that problem rather quickly.
62
While I like the concept of community care, because it presents a rosy picture, there is an assumption underlying it that many of the mentally handicapped are not so severely handicapped as in fact they are. I do not believe that the severely mentally handicapped can ever live in community hostels with the assistance only of a warden and perhaps of one or two social workers. They will probably be institutionalised for the rest of their lives. Therefore, we must make sure that the buildings in which they live are adequate for their purpose.
We must be careful—I say this with some care—not to create more mentally handicapped people in our society. Some months ago I watched a "Panorama" programme about the problem of the homeless mentally sick in London. They were mainly schizophrenics who went to hospitals, were given crash treatment, and then pushed back into society because there was neither the bed space nor the stall available to give the long-term treatment which they required. Those people gradually deteriorate again when they return to society. They drift towards doss houses for their homes. As we know, those doss houses have no social or welfare workers attached to them. Therefore, these people get into more dire straits until ultimately they become the drifters in our society who either find their way back to hospital or end up on park benches as the flotsam of the world in which we live.
If we are not to create this category of mentally handicapped person, we must insist that all hospitals releasing such people into the community at least informs their local authority that they are doing so, so that they are not just pitched out with nowhere to go but come under the guidance and control of some local organisation.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the problems of the mentally handicapped child and his or her parents. This is primarily a problem for the community and for the family. If there is any single statement which is emphasised again and again in the White Paper, it is that love and affection is required by the mentally handicapped just as much as by the normal, and that there is an undoubted advantage in allowing such a child to stay, with its parents and to enjoy the benefits of home life.

63
Having said that, and before developing the point, I think we have to decide what level of mental handicap we are talking about. Here I take issue with the statement in the White Paper that we should continue to use the expression "mental handicap". If the World Health Organisation thinks that "mentally retarded" is the right expression and the Americans, the French and the Norwegians use that expression, why should we go out on a limb and use a phrase which in many ways is inaccurate? I think that the concept of "mentally retarded" is right. It allows us to have various levels. We can talk about severe or not so severe retardation of the patient. It is also more accurate when one is talking about somebody whose I.Q. is down at the bottom of the scale and therefore is clearly retarded compared with a normal person. But I am appealing for us not to use the expression "mental handicap" because, if we attend international conferences to discuss this kind of problem, we shall find that we are using an expression which others simply do not understand. However, I was glad to notice that even the White Paper used the expression "mentally retarded", and I shall try to continue to use that phrase during my speech.
The voluntary societies—and my constituency is blessed with a magnificent Society for the Care of the Mentally Handicapped Child—can do a great deal both to raise funds and to make families which have mentally retarded children realise that they are not the pariahs of society, but people who have had an extra burden laid upon their shoulders which, but for the grace of God, could be on any one of us.
But as the Appendix to the White Paper points out some mental handicap or retardation is genetic and can be carried as an hereditary disease. In this context, here I want to endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to the extent that I think we must recognise the use of abortion, and of contraception initially, and even of sterilisation, to ensure that such births do not take place.
I recall a Catholic couple coming to see me. Their daughter, who was mentally retarded, was going to have a child. The trouble was that she had gont to a
64
hospital to have an abortion but, somehow or other, had been frightened about the whole business and the operation had not been carried out. She was then at a stage when she could not find a doctor who would perform the operation. I do not blame the doctor for ducking the moral issue involved, but the concern of those parents and, I understand, of their daughter as the moment drew nearer was very real.
The thought that someone is going to bear a child which, by the greatest likelihood, will be severely mentally handicapped is a daunting one for any young person. I am glad that the appendix to the report touches on this issue, because I think that we should consider how we can prevent the birth of children who are not likely to have much chance of having any quality of life as we appreciate that expression.
That brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend about how we can help the family which has a severely mentally handicapped child, who wants to maintain that child at home, but who find the stress of doing so sometimes almost, if not completely, intolerable. The realisation that they never can have a normal life, certainly no social life, and the consciousness that the stress will be an everlasting burden may overcome any feelings of affection, and may presuade the parents that they must have their child institutionalised. Though they may believe that it is on a temporary basis, it sometimes lasts for the rest of the child's life.
My constituency is served by the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital, which is about 40 miles away. Any child severely mentally retarded finding its way into that institution is not going to be able to see much of its parents. Bit by bit the visits will become more intermittent and the child will become more and more an institutionalised patient.
That is inescapable, and when I asked my Society for the Mentally Handicapped Child what it would like me to say this afternoon, it said that I must emphasise the need for more short-stay hostels. I am glad that my hon. Friend touched on this, because I do not think there is any doubt that such hostels, possibly as an adjunct of a general hospital within the area, and thus drawing its funds both from the local authority and from the

65
National Health Service, could provide the breathing space that is so desperately needed by families faced with this sort of problem.
Sometimes such a hostel will become a home for these severely mentally retarded children, but at least it will allow for the possibility of their going home on occasion. More than that, it will maintain the continuing visiting which allows people to feel that they belong to somebody. I believe that such hostels should become part of the Government's policy because they are perhaps one of the most likely means of relieving the tremendous burden on the family that comes from someone in it being severely mentally handicapped.
I want to emphasise the new realisation that mentally handicapped people can be educated, can be trained, and can be made more able to stand on their own feet. The more a mentally handicapped person can do for himself, the easier he can live within the community, and at home. It follows from that that the more he lives at home, the less space is required in hospitals, and thus we gain all the way along the line.
But if the training is to be good, the quality of the teacher must also be good, and the desperate need, at least in the Greater London area, is to keep the teachers once they have been trained. I have in my constituency a school for the educationally subnormal, which is also a training establishment. The trouble is not that of finding people to train, but that of holding them once they are trained, particularly if they are married.
After 14 years, with all the additional allowances that are available in the Greater London area a teacher at that school earns £1,900 a year. That is not the sort of salary that will hold a man who is married and has children, when he can get a similar job in another area where the cost of living is very much lower. There is a need to offer these teachers a special allowance, otherwise this continual wastage of trained staff in the London area will pose considerable problems and stresses in teaching and training establishment for the mentally handicapped
As has been said before in this debate, and I shall repeat myself, I think that the stigma and the shadow of what is
66
mental handicap has passed to a great extent. The realisation that has come upon most of us that it could be our child has made us see this thing for what it is, an act of providence, not wanted, but not necessarily totally destructive of family life.
It is right that voluntary organisations should want to help, and I conclude by commenting on what I consider to be one of the most pleasant stories that I have heard. In my constituency the sixth formers from a number of schools have made it their task to visit the school for the educationally subnormal to help those children, to take them out for walks, and generally to try to improve the quality of their lives. I think that such compassion for young people from young people holds out a bright hope for the future.
5.17 p.m.
Mrs. Doris Fisher: I, too, should like to thank the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) for raising this debate this afternoon. All those who have spoken this afternoon have emphasised that the service needs extra facilities and extra cash, but it also needs extra public sympathy.
One of the things which concerns me about the White Paper is the emphasis on domiciliary and community care. Too often that phrase sounds good but when put into practice means very little. One has only to work for the service for the mentally handicapped to see the heartache, the concern and the worry of parents about what is going to happen to their children. Many things can be done to help handicapped people to be cared for in their own homes, but hospitalisation will have to continue until a far greater range of services is performed by voluntary bodies and local authorities
One of the first things that has to be considered when thinking about severely mentally handicapped children is housing facilities. Many local authorities award what are called medical points to certain categories of people on their housing lists. Very often extra points go to those who have physical disabilities, while mental disabilities are lowly rated, but the fact remains that unless there are decent housing conditions for a mentally handicapped child the alternative is for him to be placed in an institution.

67
I have cases in my constituency of parents living in back-to-back houses, sharing toilets, and trying to bring up mentally handicapped children at home, but eventually having to give up and allow their children to go into an institution. The Minister should tell local authorities that they should give priority in respect of housing for the mentally disabled as they do for those with physical disabilities. When I refer to housing I am not referring to flats or maisonettes. A seriously mentally disabled child living in a block of flats in my constituency causes many problems because it is a constant rocker in a chair. The chair is continually banging on the wall and causing annoyance to the neighbours. The provision of housing for these people is important.
Reference has been made to hostels and homes. I ask the Minister, whenever he intends to open a hostel or convert a building, to launch a publicity campaign of the kind that he launched recently to tell the public about the general services that are available, so that the local people are carried along with him. When local authorities and voluntary bodies attempt to convert large houses in residential areas I am worried at their being hindered by the outcry that arises when the local people realise that the work is being done for children or adolescent mentally handicapped people.
If the Minister could produce the same kind of public response as was produced in respect of the Government's financial measures this year we could go a long way to being able to provide these hostels or homes—call them what you like—in built-up areas and we could persuade the public to join in and help. As it is, more often than not, whatever good a local authority or voluntary body may feel about establishing a hostel or converting a house in a built-up area, its application is turned down because of the pressure brought to bear by local residents' associations.
Another possibility that we in Birmingham have used successfully—and I claim a little credit for it—is the establishment of residential schools belonging to the city. For two of the six weeks' holiday period now coming up we allow severely mentally handicapped children to use these schools so that they have a
68
fortnight's holiday, which at the same time gives the parents an opportunity of a fortnight's holiday away from their children. The parents thus get the same kind of rest and relaxation as is given to those sons and daughters who look after their elderly parents. The extension of facilities in this respect could readily be taken up in other parts of the country.
The White Paper refers to teachers in hospital. Under the new Act there will be a greater integration of what we used to call training centres under the education system, but I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider the question of teaching units inside hospitals for the handicapped. As many hon. Members have said, these hospitals will be with us for a long time, and if we can provide schools in hospitals for the physically disabled I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider extending this facility to children and adolescents who are mentally handicapped and cannot take their place in ordinary training centres.
The White Paper emphasises the serious problem arising from the shortage of adult training centres. Many local authorities—Birmingham is no exception—have provided purpose-built junior training centres. They have increased their numbers and enlarged them. They have spent a great deal of thought on how best to cater for these people, but a backlog has been formed, because when these children reach school leaving age they cannot be passed on anywhere else. It is unfortunate that although there has been a surge forward during the last eight to ten years in the provision of junior training centres the necessary impetus has not been developed to create the establishment of a sufficient number of adult training centres.
The White Paper rightly refers to this matter, and I hope that in the talks that are to take place with local authorities and regional hospital boards this situation will be emphasised—otherwise the good work that has been started in the junior training centres will be wasted.
We also need to extend the use of health centres. Many ante-natal care centres are not utilised to the full extent because mothers use the family doctor. In the Ladywood constituency we have a fine nursery group run by the health

69
centre, and its work is stimulated by the sixth formers in surrounding schools who, as part of their youth voluntary service, help to make a successful unit in a health centre, where the mentally handicapped children are clearly seen by the ordinary patients who use the centre. In that way the public see at first hand, and clearly, the way in which we are trying to overcome the disabilities of these children.
The White Paper mentioned many items of research. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the research undertaken by the Children's Hospital in Birmingham, which is very concerned at the possibility that lead is causing mental retardation. It is looking into the intake of lead by children living in down-town areas, where peeling paint and all the other things that we find in decaying property may be leading to mental retardation. I mention this because it is an interesting thesis. That research work is also short of funds, and any help that the Secretary of State is able to give would be welcomed. It is working alongside the University of Aston in this research.
The mental health service has always been the Cinderella service—a service that we have tended to sweep under the carpet because the majority of hon. Members and the general public have found it somewhat distasteful. This afternoon we should pay tribute to all the voluntary bodies who, for many years, have worked to draw the attention of the public, hon. Members and Ministers to the serious problem of the mentally handicapped. It must hearten many voluntary societies who are working in this field to realise that one day in the life of Parliament is being devoted to this serious subject. It is still a Cinderella service, but the White Paper goes a long way towards extending some of the provisions that all hon. Members want to see.
The White Paper continues the work initiated by the previous Government. If we want the White Paper to be successful, we must recognise that local authorities—there are many good ones whose members are as concerned as hon. Members about the provision for the mentally handicapped—are thwarted by lack of finance. If we want more domiciliary care, we must give local authorities the necessary finance. The spirit is there,
70
but so often, because there are many calls upon a local authority's finances, the services cannot be provided.
5.31 p.m.
Mr. Charles Simeons: I have listened with great interest to the views about the future expressed by many hon. Members. I will not give the Secretary of State any advice. I will merely tell him that I want him to do something which will not cost money. I want him to see that the right people—that is, the violent people—are in hospitals and not left to become total burdens on their mothers, who are the ones who bear the brunt of the difficulties caused by any abnormal child.
When they are small, they are lovable creatures, but at the age of six or seven, they become quite violent and extremely strong, and even uncontrollable. I would instance the case of Nigel Uvanoviz, in my constituency. The eighth of eight children, he suffered from gargoylism. This made him unable to react in the way that normal children do. He was violent from time to time and incontinent, but the family loved him. When he reached the age of eight, he became so strong that no one could do anything with him. The Ministry and the local authority were aware of this problem, but on each occasion that they tried, there was no vacancy for him in a hospital.
The mother said to me, "I can stand it no more; I am leaving home". I went to see her and found that the boy had a capacity for moving around in the dark, so that, when they had gone to sleep, he would creep downstairs and wreak absolute havoc. He would take knives and cut his mother's legs. He burned the money; he put all the Christmas food in the sofa.
One of his older sisters had to be kept home from school to look after him. The local authority did not prosecute her, because that would have meant exposing the whole subject and it would have meant that something would have to be done. No one was prepared to do anything. I do not mean by that that they were not willing to do it.
I was faced with this problem—either the mother left home, in which case the boy would be taken into care with the

71
other children and would end up at Bromham Hospital that evening, or we took him there and the mother stayed at home. The hospital was sympathetic but said that it would have to consider the case. But I saw the mother's problem and her immense distress. She was right at the end of her tether. I realised that there was only one thing to do, so I took him to the hospital, and, after pointing out that I had every sympathy with their problems, I left him there and wished them a happy Christmas.
The mother was very sorry that he had gone, as were all the rest of the family, but it means that that family has stayed together and that that mother has remained sane and can look after the family, who are united and go to see the boy from time to time.
A little later, I went to a party for the mentally handicapped. The drummer in the band occasionally sang incredibly well. On asking, I was told that he came from Bromham Hospital. When I asked what he was doing playing in the band, I was told that he was very good but that he had nowhere to go, so he had to be kept in the hospital. The point that I hope my right hon. Friend will note is that, if people like that had somewhere to go, Nigel Uvanoviz could have got into the hospital much earlier.
But this poses a problem which has been recognised earlier. The problem is that, unless there is a group in the hospital—some "walking wounded" as well as "wounded"—the burden on the staff is so great that they cannot cope. If all the patients are violent, the burden becomes intolerable. Therefore, in these hospitals there may be only a limited time for the staff to go on one tour.
Until recently, I was chairman of the management committee of a home for the chronic sick—one of the Cheshire Homes. We found that there was a period for which the staff would work with the great devotion which they always show, but that then there needed to be a turnover of fresh people. There is a period of human endurance both for the mothers and for the hospital staff. I would ask my right hon. Friend not only to look into this but to tell these management committees to ensure that the names of those in the hospitals who could go out-
72
side are sent to him so that he can assess the vacancies which would result.
I was prompted to speak today also because of another case in my constituency which is becoming similar. I will not pretend that one can follow my caurse of action twice. One cannot dump boys at hospitals all the time, because that means that the system would break down.
This boy is 11 or 12. He was put in the local authority centre, but they would not keep him, because he was too violent, and they sent him home. I will give my right hon. Friend his name and I hope that he will make some inquiries. After we made some inquiries, the Dedisham School for Autistic Children interviewed the parents and sent them a letter saying :
"…we did not feel that Michael would fit in with the school as it is likely to develop … I cannot make the offer of a place here for him as a result of our meeting last month"
This is because he is too violent, so his mother must bear the burden.
According to the father, her problem is even greater than this, because he is becoming so violent that he throws things around and is always breaking windows, which are expensive to replace. The mother would like to go out to work to pay for the extra expense, but she cannot because someone must look after him.
We should look to the future, but we should also do something for mothers who, through no fault of their own, must bear the burden of children who are not only subnormal but violent.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I too welcome this debate to which I have listened with great interest as someone interested in the problems of the mentally handicapped. I would dearly love to follow the hon. Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) and relate details of some of the harrowing cases in my constituency. I am sure that the Secretary of State is well aware of some of them. We could go on for the rest of the evening giving these examples, but I will restrain myself.
I have been actively engaged in this field for some years as chairman of a fairly active mental health association in Camden. We do as much as is humanly

73
possible in this field. I pay tribute to all the voluntary workers engaged in the tremendous task of running these services. I would go further and pay tribute to all the dedicated, devoted staffs of hospitals. Bad as some of the hospitals are, the staff work in most difficult conditions and have to put up with a tremendous amount. They deserve the gratitude of all of us, as we certainly know who have been fortunate enough to visit the hospitals and see the problems that exist.
I, too, welcome this White Paper and many of the new approaches and the thoughts in it and much of the thinking behind it—for the development of community care in particular. I have some reservations, of course. Like other hon. Members, I have waited since 1959 for the implementation of many of the ideas and suggestions. They have been bandied around for a long time but they never seem to get further than a committee or a sub-committee or a working party or a local council group. Heaven knows, if ever there was a subject for which there were more committees, or which was so over-committeed, than that of mental health, I do not know of it. I suppose I have listened to millions of words spoken by thousands of experts on the subject of mental health or mental ill-health.
An aspect I particularly want to emphasise and concentrate on is practical application of ideas. This is where one gets a bit impatient. I should like to see something radical happening before it is too late. I am becoming impatient with the long overdue implementation of some of these ideas, many of which many of us welcomed as far back as 1959. I think there has been a major shift in public opinion in the last few years. I know of the work done in my own locality by voluntary workers through public meetings, film shows, bazaars, in trying to bring home the problem to the community, and they have had a tremendous impact. I welcome it and hope it will continue.
Having said that, we now must put more emphasis on community care. As others have said, this in itself raises many problems, and the biggest of them is finance. It is all very well to set up these committees and to say we need this or that, that we will do this or that, but
74
in the end we come up against the question of cash and we have to cut the suit according to the cloth. This inevitably means discussion of priorities in the allocation of the limited resources. We all understand that there must, unfortunately, be some limitation on them at this stage. So we must have priorities. If we were all of us to draw up our own separate lists of priorities, I doubt whether we would find any two the same. There would be similarities, but they would not be the same, if each one of us drew up his own individual list of priorities of what he would like to do in serving the mentally handicapped and for the treatment of mental illness.
What in this debate seems to have come high among the priorities is the question of day care and junior training centres, or places where adolescents can be trained. Indeed, that might well figure on anybody's list. I hope it will be on the Secretary of State's list when he advises local authorities on how they might be prepared to spend some of this money. Many of us, when we visit these hospitals, feel a bit worried—I certainly am every time I visit them, and I visit a good many—at the number of people who seem simply to sit on beds reading newspapers, or doodling with a pencil, or perhaps reading books, but with nothing more constructive to do. It seems that far too many of them wander aimlessly about the wards, or about the grounds if the weather is fine. It seems to me that there should be some kind of occupational therapy units and that they should have a priority; there is urgent need for activity which could be related to the patient's return to normal life—that is, to the community. I say this will all due respect to the kind of therapy which goes on, some of which is very good, but we must take it a stage further and link it with the patient's ultimate return to the community. The activity could be something different from weaving baskets or making the various gadgets which they make in the wards, and so on. We have to think further along these lines of developing that kind of service, both in and out of hospitals.
When we consider day care I hope we shall not hear somebody say, "That is the hospital's job; that can be done by the hospitals", or the hospitals say,

75
"It ought to be done by the local authority". That would mean that we would go on discussing for another 10 years whose responsibility it is.
I shall refrain from discussing now the question which I have taken up with the Secretary of State and his Department about younger people, adolescents, in geriatric wards when they should be in some other place, but an aspect of the matter which worries me is that there are people whose problems could have been studied a long way back—in childhood. There is need for diagnosis earlier in order to process the problems.
Another of my priorities would be some form of child guidance, some family unit, some family assessment clinic. With all the new reforms instituted piecemeal by hospitals or by local authorities, the service has become fragmented. It makes it very difficult for mothers of young children who are suspected of having a problem if there are half a dozen different places to which they should take them or to which they may be directed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) said, they start with the health committee, if one is fortunate enough to have a health committee in the area; but then the child may be referred to a school medical officer or to the welfare people, or even to a school teacher; or it may be referred somewhere else; a psychiatrist may visit the school and may eventually catch up with the problem. I would suggest that there should be a unit to assess the whole family at an early stage of a child's problem, because I have seldom found that such a problem comes in isolation; it is usually related to some wider problem affecting the whole family or arising from its environment. The family should be assessed at an early stage and steps taken to alleviate some of the more immediate problems.
I promised to be brief; I am grateful for having caught the eye of the Chair. I conclude by emphasising to the Minister that I hope that when he has discussions with the local authorities on priorities, or advises them, he will give some kind of guidance on how they will spend this extra money, that he will have a mind to family guidance clinics, and that he will help to avoid the difficulty of one service leaving the matter
76
to another so that nobody does anything in the end, and that he will have a mind to some practical application of these ideas. I think that we shall then be started on the right road.
5.50 p.m.
Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on raising a subject which has produced so constructive and so unusually non-controversial a debate. I agree strongly with the comments of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew): we have seen a very dramatic change in the last 20 years, and we are now getting on to the second phase. I remember that when I went to the Ministry of Health in 1951 there was not a mental hospital that did not have the majority of its doors locked. One went round preceded by someone with a key as though one were going into Wandsworth Prison. A pioneer in this progressive work was Dr. Rees, then superintendent of Warlingham Park who, in the face of the enormous fears of some of his contemporaries, opened every door.
As a public relations exercise, we had to get rid of the idea of asylums and or the belief that everyone who was in a mental hospital was dangerous. It was a very substantial job to educate the public, mainly because they never got behind those great gaunt walls, and never had the opportunity of seeing the patients within them, the overwhelming majority of whom were neither violent nor dangerous.
Having got the doors open, we had an opportunity to encourage more nursing staff in order to bring about a better standard, so that mental hospital nurses were recognised as being on a par with nurses in general hospitals, and it was recognised that because there is not the same dramatically quick turnover of patients, such nurses need a temperament of their own—that enormous patience, kindness and care which nurses in mental hospitals show, added to the increased skill needed now in the treatment. During this period there were the greatest advances in bringing about a more rapid turnover, and in encouraging people to accept mental hospital care instead of waiting until their condition became acute. We had this enormous advance in

77
medical science, when the new drugs made it possible to control, perhaps to aid, and in some cases to prevent people ever having to go into a mental hospital at all.
No one made a greater contribution to bringing these facts home to the general public than did the hon. Member for Woolwich, East in his outstanding television programmes on the subject, one of which I believe was done at Warlingham Park.
Alongside this faster turnover and increased knowledge we also had the Leagues of Friends. I hope that more and more of the mental hospitals will, as has practically every general hospital, have their Leagues of Friends. In this connection I have a story to tell of one of the first Leagues of Friends we were able to get in a mental hospital in the West Country. The hospital was large—about 3,000 patients—and we got the local W.V.S. to start things off. As a first exercise they asked, "How many of these people never have a visitor, or a letter or a birthday card?". They found that 700 of the patients had for years never had any communication from the outside world. They found "a friend" for everyone—friends who would take in a bunch of flowers from their garden or remember a birthday.
I remember attending an open day and fête at one local hospital and then going round the wards. One woman who had been there for 47 years had two very dog-eared birthday cards. When I asked, "Is it your birthday?" the sister whispered that the cards had been there for six weeks and that the patient would not part with them. Very simply, this woman replied, "Isn't it wonderful? My friends sent me birthday cards and brought me this birthday present", and from an equally grubby bit of tissue paper—it had been so handled—out came three handkerchiefs, from under her pillow.
As the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) said, the general public could do far more in breaking down the sort of feeling of prejudice that is so prevalent. When the Kent County Council tried to set up a hostel for the mentally handicapped, it was opposed in 17 different localities by local residents who did not want these people within their community.
78
After seven years of negotiations, the council found this 17th site, and I am proud to say that it is in my constituency.
I hope that every mental hospital catering for mentally handicapped children will have Leagues of Friends because although the turnover among young people is greater, there is still an enormous problem.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's allocation of £100 million over four years for building. I know that most of this money will go to day patient and outpatient provision, to hostels and community care centres, but we will always have with us the very elderly patients.
I went on one occasion to Preston Park where in a ward of very elderly females I asked the average age. The ward was overcrowded : a 36 bed—but with 67 patients—this was some years ago. Three of the patients were in their sixties, about 20 were in their seventies, the majority were in their eighties, the eldest resident then was 97, and the staff apologised because their 103-year-old had died the Friday before! That type of patient may be in for 20, 30 or 40 years. We must not lose sight of the fact that in the care, comfort and warmth and discipline they enjoy, patients are far more likely to live for many more years than they would if prone to accidents, the colds and the chills outside.
My right hon. Friend's development proposals will command all-party support. We should have more outpatient and day-patient provision, together with the control and aid that drugs can give. I hope that particular attention will be given to the day centres and places to which patients of handicapped children, to whom they are prepared to sacrifice their time and devotion, can turn to get a break by putting the child in responsible care, if only that they may have a fortnight's holiday.
Can people realise what it means for a normal young couple with, perhaps, two or three normal children never to be able to take advantage of one of those nice package deals abroad, because the handicapped child's social behaviour is so unfortunate that no hotel or boarding house will accept the family? Instead, the parents have to camp, or hire a cottage, in which case the mother has still to cook for the family and look after

79
the handicapped child : there is no holiday for her.
I am proud to say that the Bromley Society for the Mentally Handicapped is aiming to build its own centre. It has had considerable support from Bromley Council. It seeks to raise £25,000, and in nine months has already raised well over half that amount. It intends to set up its own centre where not only can children go for the day, with parents themselves having a rota to look after one another's children, but where, if mum wants a day off to go to the shops, or do something that she is able to do with her normal children, when it is not possible to take the handicapped child with them, the centre will provide the opportunity. There are no parents who demand our sympathy more than those who make the enormous sacrifice, the sacrifice of their matrimonial companionship, often the sacrifice of never being able to go out together and leave the child, and the sacrifice of spending far more hours and doing more than one would normally expect to have to do with children of similar ages.
With the programme outlined by my right hon. Friend, these people can have a break. It will keep more people out of the hospitals and it will, with the younger people, do much to enable them to make their contributions, with the use of the present drugs and the use of the regular supervision which they can have at the day centres.
I hope that the Minister will be able to educate employers about epileptics. The new drugs have made epilepsy, for a very large number of sufferers, something which can be controlled. One of the saddest things is that when they have been controlled and been released, they have the greatest difficulty in getting a job, and immediately they are thrown back on themselves. Immediately they are inhibited that they are not like other people, they get depressed again, and within a few weeks or months they are back in hospital from the sheer frustration of being unable to get a job.
On the Bexley side of my constituency there is a very active association, and at its first meeting, which the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew), the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr.
80
Hamling) and myself attended, there was a surprisingly large turn out of about 150 people. They were all interested and anxious to help with epileptics, that being their particular speciality, all the parents there being parents of epileptic adolescents and younger children.
I support all that my right hon. Friend is doing. I am sure that he is right to get as many as possible to maintain contact with the hospitals. We should never forget that all too large a percentage of those who enter mental hospitals are forgotten, abandoned, or their families emigrate, and many of them never have the personal family contact so lavishly given to somebody in and out of general hospital in 12 days and whose place looks like Moyses Stevens during that period.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on introducing the Motion. But I make no apology for introducing a certain note of dissent and critical assessment since I believe that there are a number of inconsistencies and examples of lack of clarity in the White Paper which should be brought out.
It is remarkable that a White Paper in which the Government, having teetered on the edge of radicalism—now having come down firmly on the side of comprmise—should contain within the interstices of that White Paper a full and effective rebuttal of its own conservatism. But that is exactly how it is.
The crux of the debate, which is contained in paragraphs 190–1, is whether the hospital is the proper form of care for those who are not ill but whose intelligence is limited. Table 1 demonstrates very clearly that the great majority of people at present in subnormality hospitals do not have behaviour difficulties requiring constant medical supervision, do not need assistance in washing, dressing or bathing, are not room-bound, are not severely incontinent, and do not even have any physical handicap. This means that the services required by the mentally handicapped are basically social, occupational and educational.
Apart from the very handicapped people who are also mentally or physically ill and who might be cared for in units or annexes of general hospitals, specialist

81
hospitals for the mentally handicapped should be phased out. That is the clear implication. It is not a question of years, whether it be 15 or more, but the principle of the commitment. It also means that priorities should be decisively given to the development of community services over hospital services. All that the White Paper proposes, in its very interesting and extremely informative Table 5, is that the numbers of mentally handicapped cared for by hospital boards should be roughly halved while there is to be a corresponding increase in the number of local authority places to be substituted.
Most of the proposed rise in revenue and capital expenditure for the next few years is apparently intended for the hospitals, with money being spent on improving old hospitals, at least for a certain period, or, I regret to say, in erecting new smaller hospitals. Yet a 20-year period is being laid down for this process, even though local authorities are being asked to provide only an extra 55 places per 100,000 of the population, and even though the White Paper at paragraph 210, expects some areas to reach their target in only 10 years. But, if this is not faint-hearted enough, paragraph 210 caps the pusillanimity of the Government's plans with this sentence :
"So far as the resources available for capital projects allow, the Government will try to help authorities to complete their programmes within the time-span they set themselves …"
In other words, even by 1991, this far-from-radical set of polices may well not be complete.
Not only does the White Paper go only half way—and it does not get there fast also, because its central principles are confused and, perhaps, merely reflect a thinly disguised papering over of divergent Departmental views, it is unclear and inconsistent in its crucial exposition of the ostensibly complementary local authority and hospital rôles. One still wonders, after reading the White Paper, precisely what the rôle of the hospitals is to be. Paragraph 174 says that they should be used for treatment, though not for residential care. But paragraph 176 adds that they will not normally deal with physical or mental illness because general or psychiatric hospitals provide the necessary services. Paragraph 138 rightly asserts that the
82
assessment can be carried out as adequately in training schools, health centres, schools or residential homes as in a specialist hospital.
The White Paper's very ambivalent answer to the question of the rôle of hospitals is at paragraph 191:
"It is argued that only a hospital which brings together the mentally handicapped from a wide area can be large enough to classify patients with varying degrees or types of handicap, separate them in different wards and villas and provide the right tempo of life for each. It is also suggested that this type of hospital is necessary in order to allow staff to specialise in the care of the mentally handicapped and promote research into their problems and treatment."
But since there are to be exactly the same principles for care in local authority and in hospital services, this argument is easily refuted. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that the services in no section of society should be organised specially to fit in with the research needs which are made upon them.
As I have said, it is remarkable that the White Paper should fail in its policy recommendations to follow through the logic of its own observations. It notes with a telling accuracy in paragraph 97:
"It is extremely hard, though creditable attempts have been made, to create a homely atmosphere in a barrack-like institutional building; or to care for severely handicapped, incontinent patients in multi-storey buildings without lifts, or with lavatories on one floor and the rooms used during the day on another."
In that case if, on the Government's own admission, existing hospitals often defeat the principles of domestic simulation and community involvement, why is there no commitment in the White Paper for ending these unsuitable hospitals within a definite time-span?
In fact, although the Government indicate that the hospital population might be expected to reduce to 56 per cent. of its present size, the position is complicated by two factors. One is the recommendation to provide new units of up to 200 beds. Paragraph 245 states that
"200 in-patient beds would eventually be necessary only for a population well in excess of 250,000; a hospital serving more people than this would be too remote from many of them."
Quite so. As the ever-useful Table 5 indicates that 68 in-patient hospital beds are required per 100,000 total population,

83
a hospital with 170 places on one site would therefore serve a population of 250,000. Hence one might expect that all hospitals with an excess over 170 places would be expected to be phased out within a definite period of time, but the relevant recommendation of paragraph 241 that hospitals with 500 places or more should not be enlarged certainly appears anomalous, to say the least. As 36 hospitals, each of them with more than 500 patients, account for 64 per cent. of the total subnormality hospital population, this is an issue of lack of clarity which is of fundamental importance.
The second complication is the vagueness of the local authority commitment to residential care. Will the new homes of 25 persons per home resemble private housing in urban localities or will they be a pale copy of the larger Victorian institutions at present run by the hospital boards with or without a cordon sanitaire of isolation? This is a crucial question and one on which the White Paper, is, unhappily, entirely silent.
Nobody can fail to welcome the White Paper as a step in the right direction, but it is a faint and faltering step, two steps forward for every one step back. In view of the ground swell of reform, and in view of the mounting expectation over what I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree was a rather longish gestation period, it is a disappointingly timid offspring with more than a tinge of the Janus complex of two heads pointing in opposite directions.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Morris: This is a most timely and deeply important debate. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman). He has done a great service in allowing us to debate what right hon. and hon. Members on both sides regard as one of the main challenges facing us in the whole field of the social services.
There have been many outstanding speeches from both sides. We on this side believe that we may even have helped the right hon. Gentleman in his battle with the Treasury Ministers. While he has had some success in his exchanges with them so far, this debate may serve to fortify him in the further discussions there
84
must be for a much greater allocation of resources to help those who are mentally handicapped and mentally ill.
I am reminded of a speech made on the last occasion when the House discussed mental hospitals. It was a debate in February, 1970, in which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) referred to the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill as the Cinderellas of the National Health Service. In that debate the hon. Member for Farnham said there had been so little dissension because the House had avoided the one topic on which differences arise most easily, that of funds and resources. The hon. Gentleman then used these words :
"… we in this House are fooling ourselves … if we seriously believe that we can deal with these problems … by any other method but by finding a way of getting more money for people to spend on the Health Service in general and the care of the mentally sick and abnormal in particular."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1970; Vol. 795, c. 1393–4.]
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. The hon. Member for Farnham is now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I greatly hope that the Secretary of State will remind the hon. Member of the great wisdom of the approach he adopted in the debate of 11th February, 1970, and that this debate will serve to strengthen the right hon. Gentleman's hand in seeking from the Treasury more resources to help those who are mentally handicapped and mentally ill.
What we are debating is a shameful and unreasonable gap in our social scheme. The Mind Manifesto of the National Association for Mental Health, with the support of many other organisations, has reminded all of us of the size of the problem. I quote from The Times of 25th February, 1971 :
"Yet the size of the problem may be even greater than the formidable statistics compiled earlier this year by the N.A.M.H. What complex human misery lies behind the figure that at least 6,000 young people between the ages of 10 and 20 enter hospitals for the mentally ill each year? Or that 22,000 mentally confused people over 65 are taken every year from their homes and cared for in hospital? It is estimated that several million people in this country take tranquillising or anti-depressant drugs regularly to relieve mental or emotional strain. Millions take drugs to help them sleep.
Each year 4,500 people kill themselves and 14,000 make an unsuccessful attempt at suicide.

85
Over 72,000 children of school age are emotionally disturbed and attend child guidance clinics, special schools or psychiatric hospitals. About one-third of the estimated 30,000 tramps in Britain are mentally ill. There are probably about three million people whose lives are shadowed by mental disorder. In 1967–68, over 30 million working days were lost because of mental illness and the sickness benefit cost nearly £30 million."
We ought to reflect on the problems created by the bigger and bigger organisations in which most people now have to live and work. They are often extremely impersonal and soulless organisations. It is perhaps not surprising that so many personality defects should manifest themselves in organisations that are themselves so impersonal and soulless.
Like all of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate, I am deeply grateful to the Rt. Hon. David Ennals, whose great energies have been enlisted in the service of those whose problems we are debating, for the way in which he has delineated the size of our task. It is the wish of all of us that David will return to the House at a very early date.
He has done for the mentally handicapped and mentally sick what Oxfam has done for the very poor and Shelter for the homeless. I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree with me that the former Minister of Slate has done great service in this field.
Big hospitals, like other big organisations, can also be very soulless. Of one such hospital—one of the biggest psychiatric hospitals in the country—it was reported in The Times of 30th June this year that its inmates were
"waiting to die in neat straight rows."
Quoting from an official report, The Times said that
"In the unreconstructed wards, patients mill around in a kind of primeval gloom. Beds are jammed tightly together like pack ice with narrow passages running between them. In the lounges, patients sit cheek by jowl. Others shuffle about aimlessly among a nightmarish clutter of limbs and geriatric chairs.".
This sounds like a report, not from a hospital, but from an anti-hospital
The battle against such conditions as those reported in The Times is a grim struggle with squalor. The recent New Stateman series by Donald Gould and Ann Shearer shed a great deal of light on living conditions—I should perhaps
86
have said the conditions of existence—in many of our subnormality hospitals. Their series of articles should be made compulsory reading for everyone with responsibility in any part of this field. They say in their recent concluding article that most of the huge institutions are much of an age, that is, about a century old. They say that before the onset of industrialism
"… was a good time for mental invalids. A system we tend to think we have just invented—community care—was working well.".
Then came the asylums, with their high walls and sombre interiors. But if Victorian England was a harsh and inhuman place for mental invalids, at least our ancestors had the excuse of ignorance. Paragraph 43 of the White Paper states :
"Less was known then than now about the extent to which the mentally handicapped may respond to the stimulus of education, training and social activity".
There is no longer any excuse for preventable suffering. We can now so easily improve the conditions of those who lie behind the walls of these ancient institutions. All of us must see to it that the Secretary of State is supported in any and every attempt to end the squalor of many of our so-called mental hospitals.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are those who passionately believe that the existing sub-normality hospitals are not the answer to the problem of mental invalidity. The Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped wants these hospitals to be phased out within 15 years and to be replaced with a system of community-based residential units. Ann Shearer, Sandra Francklin and Pat Taylor, who have distinguished themselves by their work in this field, believe that this can be done without any increase in the totality of expenditure. The Secretary of State recently had a meeting with representatives of the Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped. I hope that he will keep in the closest possible touch with the Campaign, because it has a very important viewpoint to which he should pay careful attention.
As he knows, there are some other very strong critics of his White Paper. I agree with Peter Townsend that as we replace the existing sub-normality hospitals we do not want a system of minor isolated barracks put up by local authorities in pale imitation of the larger Victorian barracks which are at present run

87
by the hospital authorities. Professor Townsend has said :
"Yet the White Paper makes this an all-too-likely possibility".
In the Sunday Times of 27th June, 1971, he also said :
"The Government has taken a whole year to ruminate over its predecessor's unpublished proposals and the decisions that have been eventually reached are tragically disappointing in nature and scale. The Government proposes a reduction of hospital numbers and a shift to a more balanced division of services between community care and hospitals; but does so in a half-hearted and confused fashion which may result in a pattern of services little better than they are now".
I am sure that in his reply the Secretary of State will want to address himself to those criticisms.
I wish also to refer to a letter which I have received from Miss Mary Applebey, General Secretary of the National Association for Mental Health, who has made some very important points to me which should be considered by the Secretary of State in this debate. She says :
"I see no reason to suppose that the local authorities will now allocate more of their scarce resources to meet the targets which the Government now sets unless there is a statutory obligation placed upon them to provide services to the standard required".
She goes on to say :
"The role of the hospitals in the future is insufficiently defined"
The White Paper is rather defensive on this point. Paragraph 192, having discussed the conflicting viewpoints about the future of mental hospitals, says:
"The Government considers it premature to form a final view on these questions".
Many of us feel that the time is long overdue for reaching conclusions on this matter.
Mr. Raison Mr. Raison rose—
Mr. Morris: I must be brief, because I have given an undertaking to give the Secretary of State sufficient time to answer the points raised in the debate.
Another very important point made by Miss Mary Applebey is that
"The junior training centres which have now become part of the Education Service have over the past 20 years developed from nothing to a first class service, well housed and with a professional training for teachers. Similar provision for adults lags far behind and hostel
88
provision is practically non-existent. This is where the pressure has to be put on and unless there is urgency in the Government's plans for adults, the hospitals will continue to be choked by patients who ought not to be in hospital at all"
I have also been asked to emphasise again to the House and the country that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, affects the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill just as much as it affects the physically handi-happed. Miss Applebey has put it to me that the more this can be rubbed in the better. We do, however, accept that there is no point in attacking local authorities unless we ensure that they have the resources to do what we want them to do.
I have only one other point to raise with the Secretary of State. It concerns the Education (Handicapped Children) Act, 1970. The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science pointed out that the Financial Memorandum which was considered on 13th July, 1970,
"has no relevance … to any future increased expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1319.]
The reference there was to future increased expenditure under the provisions of that Act. I should like to be certain that the local education authorities, whose responsibilities are much increased by that Act, will themselves not be short of the resources to implement it properly.
What we all want, on both sides of the House, is that those who are mentally handicapped and mentally ill should at least be allowed to live in circumstances of decency and dignity.
6.30 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): Like all other hon. Members, I pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) for choosing this subject and for opening the debate in such a wide-ranging and constructive speech. His choice has been vindicated. If I may say so, I do not remember a debate containing more excellent speeches. I do not believe that a debate of this sort on this subject would have been possible 10 years ago. It might conceivably have been possible five years ago.
Although I shall refer to the main points made by all hon. Members who

89
have taken part, I wish to pick out, in particular, if I may, the speeches of the right hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) for their combination of factual knowledge and deep feeling.
There is no doubt that the occasional scandal does an enormous amount for a social service. The Mental Health Act, 1959, carried through proudly, and rightly so, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which followed a Royal Commission, laid out the framework of what the country needed to do for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. I recall that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) was in the Ministry just before that Act was passed. But the resources just did not become available in ample enough supply during the 1960s to make a very great difference.
There has been a difference for the mentally ill, thanks to the chemo-therapeutic revolution. There has begun to be a difference for mentally handicapped children, thanks to local authority expenditure on junior training centres. But there has not been enough change, and that is why we who are interested are now impatient to get on with the job. It was the series of incidents in the late 1960s which gave my predecessor an opportunity to begin a new impetus in care for the mentally handicapped, an impetus which I am glad to have the opportunity to acelerate.
I wish to pay tribute to four groups. First, I join with all those who have paid a tribute to the parents and families who cope, often under incredible strain, with mentally handicapped relatives. Second, I pay a tribute to the voluntary societies, which have pioneered a more humane attitude to the mentally handicapped. Third—I know that the whole House will endorse it—I pay a tribute to those astonishing people, the nurses. Occasionally, those of us who go to these hospitals—I expect that I am by no means the only one to have done it—will say to a nurse, "I am so glad that you choose to do this work. Why do you do it?", only to receive the answer, "I would not do anything else". It is a miracle of nature
90
for which one thanks God. Of course, there are criticisms. When one comes to analyse the pressures under which these nurses have to work, it is not surprising that there are episodes of which all concerned, and particularly the nursing profession, are ashamed. But, in general, the country owes a deep debt of gratitude to the nurses who care for the mentally handicapped.
The fourth tribute I pay is to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a fortunate Minister, and, I believe, a rare one in my office, who has as his right hon. Friend at the Exchequer someone who has previously been Minister of Health. My right hon. Friend has made available more resources for the Cinderella sectors of the Health Service, and because of that extra money it has been possible for the White Paper to be published and to offer more resources than some people feared would be available.
Undoubtedly there is a changing attitude in the country, and the changing attitude in the country coincides with a changing prospect for the mentally handicapped themselves. Over the years, doctors, teachers and research workers have uncovered a latent potentiality in most handicapped people, though not in all, which responds to training and to loving care. It is now agreed, I think, that, given individual and loving care, almost all mentally handicapped children and adults—not all, but nearly all, can develop to a greater or lesser extent.
I remember the startling impression which I had when I first came to my present job on reading an anecdote in one of the books published by, I think, Dr. and Mrs. Clarke about two girls, both with the same I.Q. when they started and both with loving parents. One of them lived all day and night in bed, nursed by her parents, and the other, of the same age and starting with the same I.Q., kept house for her parents. In the second case, the child had been stretched by the loving care of her parents instead of merely being cherished and cared for.
There is, therefore, a prospect for many of the mentally handicapped, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West emphasised, most of them are loving and loved. Most of them are capable of giving and arousing affection. But, of course, as other hon. Members

91
have emphasised—I shall come to the points which they made—there are some mentally handicapped who are very disturbed, withdrawn or intractable and a few who are violent.
I have been asked to report on the position regarding autism. I fear that I have nothing new to say. There have been a number of debates on the subject recently, one answered by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). It is a subject which spans my Department and the Department of Education and Science. There is a lot of work going on. No breakthrough has been achieved, and I should be wrong to suggest that any progress has been made which should be reported since the last debate only a few months ago.
Mr. Alfred Morris: And the dyslectic child? There has been a great deal of work done, has there not?
Sir K. Joseph: Research is going on, but I have no change to report.
Against these more promising features, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was right to remind us, there is a greater number of frail mentally handicapped children whose lives are being preserved. The capacity of doctors to preserve life is increasing the number of severely mentally handicapped who may live often for decades. I for one very much welcome the growth of discussion among doctors about where their ethical duty lies, a discussion which was focused by the broadcast by Dr. Henry Miller to which my hon. Friend referred.
The first matter which, I think, I should pick out of the mass of interconnected subjects with which we are dealing is, perhaps, the most important of all for the future, that is, the question of prevention. The House will have noticed that we have an appendix in the White Paper on prevention and early detection. There is no dramatic break-through at hand. There is a possibility, which is being deeply studied at the instigation of the M.R.C., of identifying Down's syndrome among older mothers early enough to offer them abortion where mental handicap is diagnosed. It may be that this could be a practical possibility within a few years. The House will know that mongolism, Down's syn-
92
drome, is a cause of a substantial proportion of severe mental handicap.
The White Paper does not seek to conceal the bad conditions of our services for the mentally handicapped. We have all paid tribute to the burden lovingly borne by the families at home, where most of the severely mentally-handicapped children are, as are nearly half the severely mentally-handicapped adults. But often the families go on bearing the burden long past the tolerable point and cannot pass it on to a suitable caring institution when the time comes. I am glad to say that the kind of case identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Simeons) is comparatively rare. As we decongest the hospitals by the growth of community services there will be places for those who become too great a burden for their families. It will not happen overnight, but I hope that such cases will become rarer and rarer until none is recorded.
In the hospitals, to borrow a phrase from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, patients are herded together. I will add a word to his phrase by saying that they are herded in conditions which are barbaric both for them and for those who have to care for them. We must try to understand the pressures upon the nurses in over-crowded, old-fashioned wards with minimum domestic staff, where because of the growth of local authority services patients tend to be far more severely subnormal than they were 10, 20 and 30 years ago.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, East asked me two questions. The letter of advice following the Farleigh Report has gone out from my Ministry to all hospital management committees concerned. The guidelines which the National Association for Mental Health initiated for the care of potentially violent patients are being discussed by the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists preparatory to something appropriately professional being sent out.
Added to the burdens of which we are all aware, the hospitals for mentally handicapped tend to be very isolated physically, so that there is a danger of the patients quickly becoming cut off from their families, and the difficulty in recruiting staff, both professional and domestic, is made the greater.

93
In the local authority world, although there has been not nearly enough growth of homes—the homes recommended by the Mental Health Act—we should pay tribute to the remarkable surge of provision of junior training centres, what are now called special schools. Local authorities did remarkably well during the 1960s. About 10,000 extra places for mentally-handicapped children have been provided. But the local authorities have not begun yet to provide equivalent provision for the adults.
Against that background, the objective of the country is common ground. There should be a first-class service for the detection and assessment of mental handicap; a full range of services to support, educate and train the mentally-handicapped, wherever they are living; residential accommodation of a homely kind for those who cannot stay in their own homes; and hospitals for those who need services which only a hospital can be expected to provide. Towards the achieving of those objectives a considerable amount of research is in hand and will be needed. There is a report in Chapter 8 of the White Paper on research in progress.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Woolwich, East who emphasised the important part that incontinence plays in the life of the mentally handicapped. Yet we know that, given enough attention to habit training, the mentally handicapped need not generally suffer from incontinence. Of course, there are cases where physical disabilities are associated with mental handicap. The methods of communicating with and training the mentally handicapped are still in their infancy. An important group of research studies connected with special educational and treatment methods is reported on page 65.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) asked me about research into the influence of lead in creating mental handicap. Research into the subject is going on at the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street. I have not had an application from Aston University, but obviously any application will be studied on its merts.
I come to what we want to see provided. First, for the majority of the mentally-handicapped, living in their own homes, there must be much better sup-
94
port—more home helps, more social workers, better laundry facilities, more holiday or emergency relief, and, above all, alternatives available if the strain is too severe. The whole House will agree about that. I am sure that under the impetus of their new social service committees, local authorities will be embarking enthusiastically upon strengthening such services. We all agree, too, that in the community there should be homely homes, not called hostels, homes with ordinary homely addresses, of a homely size—20 or 25 at the maximum. I would prefer to see them even smaller for children, anyway. The hon. Member for Ladywood made a number of good points in connection with local authority provision, but I do not have time to go into them individually.
In the hospitals, we want to give the doctors, the nurses and all the other professions concerned a chance to do what they could do if they were not coping with such desperate overcrowding. We want to enable them to assess and reassess, to train, to provide day services and out-patient services. We want them to have a catchment area, to decongest, to improve. There may well have to be smaller units, perhaps much smaller units of the Kushlik, Wessex type in the community, associated with district general hospitals where those professional services can be provided.
That combination of support in the home, community services and hospital services will all depend upon educational provision. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) and the hon. Member for Ladywood both made a number of valid points that are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. All those services depend upon sheltered employment and training, in the hospitals, through industrial therapy, training schemes or in special schools. All depend upon multi-disciplinary assessment, reassessment and advice. I particularly emphasise my agreement with the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) who stressed the importance of multi-disciplinary advice being available through one door for the bewildered family. That is an objective at the heart of the White Paper, but it cannot be achieved overnight, as he knows.

95
Serving all those different places where the mentally-handicapped will be there must be the volunteer, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst emphasised. No community can afford the money to provide all those services by the paid method alone. To support the family and the paid worker there must be the enthusiastic volunteer. Thank God there is a surge of volunteers coming forward.
That is a very tidy picture, but it does not correspond with reality. People are in the wrong place. People who should be in hospital are at home, and people who should be in homes are in hospitals. We have somehow to sort out the misplacements and stop more occurring. Therefore there is at the heart of the White Paper the simple principle of a stop—that is, the local, regional and, one day, the national stop. As a result of the discussions that will be taking place on the initiative of the regional hospital boards later this year, each area and region will assess the date by which local provision should be enough to enable hospitals no longer to accept cases that do not need hospital treatment. That date may be fairly soon—within two or three years in some areas where the local authority provision has already begun to approximate to what is needed. In other regions it will be more remote.
I hope—I shall come to what I shall do in connection with local authorities—that we may reach that stop before too long. As we begin to decongest the hospitals, the virtuous cycle to which hon Members have referred will begin. The less-crowded hospital will have a higher staff ratio per patient, the staff will be able to begin to train patients, more patients will become suitable for discharge to local authority homes and this, again, will improve the staff-patient ratio.
Against this background, what is the area of disagreement? The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) made, I thought, an unnecessarily strident speech. There is an area of disagreement here. Some doctors would like us to place more emphasis on hospitals where, they say, they can guarantee—once we end the crowding and provide the money—loving, graded, sheltered care and training and a happy life for their patients. There are others
96
who say that the hospital will have no purpose to play in 15 years' time.
We do not, however, have to make this decision now. There is so much that we have to do before that date can possibly come. The local authority provision is nowhere near enough yet. We have years of slog to get local authority homes in sufficient quantity to absorb those occupants of hospitals who, everyone agrees, should not be there. The time may come when these isolated hospitals will find it hard to play a purpose.
Mr. Meacher Mr. Meacher rose—
Sir K. Joseph: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I am not disagreeing with the desire of the hon. Member to make as great a success as possible of community care, but we do not have to take this dreadful decision now whether the mental hospitals will survive after 15 years. We have to make life tolerable in them now. The hon. Member would agree upon that. The staff and the inmates cannot be left, while local authority provision is building up, to continue in these barbarous conditions of today. We have to look after the morale of the menial hospital staffs. In future, hospitals may need to be much smaller and much more local, but meanwhile we have a great amount to do that all agree should be done.
The White Paper tries to set out the whole spectrum of overlapping considerations. I inherited a draft from my predecessor. I have acknowledged my debt to him. Local authorities now know their targets; hospitals know the prospect ahead of them. This I can guarantee : that within a few years' time, there will be no mental handicap hospitals, such as there are today, so overcrowded, so ill-founded and so inadequately staffed.
I must, however, report to the House that there is a big job to be done in improving the management in the hospitals for the mentally handicapped. I have already paid tribute to my predecessor for initiating and creating the Hospital Advisory Service. I would like once again to pay public tribute to Dr. Baker and his teams, who are doing an astonishing job of friendly analysis and advice in the mental handicap, mental illness and geriatric hospitals.
A new generation of consultants is growing up. These doctors will replace

97
the traditional—and often worthy and respected—rôle of the medical superintendent by working closely with their senior nursing and administrative colleagues as members of a multi-disciplinary team. These doctors are increasing the services of the hospitals by providing for day patients, running out-patient clinics and joining paediatricians in assessing handicapped children. It is, however, exasperating that even with existing resources in existing hospitals, some teams do so much more for patients than others. The question of multi-disciplinary management can transform life for the patients in these hospitals.
We have provided more money—never enough, but more. About half is going to the hospital service and about half through the rate support grant to local authorities. The House will have noticed that on page 42 of the White Paper there is a table of the gap which has to be filled in adult training centres and, above all, the childrens' and adults' homes. I am glad to say that even before the White Paper was published, local authorities had bid to me enough adult training centre provision to fill over one-quarter of the gap over the next four years and a substantial proportion—about the same—of the gap for adults' homes and children's homes.
I hope that as a result of the White Paper and what will follow it, local authorities will increase their bids. There are many competing pressures upon them, but they are enjoying a 12 per cent. increase in real terms this year over last year and will have a further 12 per cent. increase in real terms next year over this year in the rate support grant for health and welfare services.
It is my intention to ask the regional hospital boards to initiate this autumn talks with local authorities to discuss local plans for providing homes, training centres, day centres and supporting services. It is my intention—this has already been announced—early next year to invite local authorities to prepare, preparatory to submission to the Government for publication, a 10-year programme for all health and welfare services. As a result of the regional hospital board area discussions which will start at the end of the year, and of the pressure that, I
98
promise, I shall bring to bear by persuasion on local authorities, I hope that we can improve upon the figures I have already given.
It will take five years to make a real difference to the present position but I believe that in 10 years' time the position for the mentally handicapped and their families will have been transformed. I believe that in 15 years' time we shall nearly have finished the job of making this country a civilised place for the family of a mentally-handicapped child. No one thinks that it can be solved by a wave of a magic wand. We have decades and generations of relative neglect to repair, but the Government are determined to achieve and maintain a momentum.
I conclude by thanking again my hon. Friend for initiating what has been a most constructive debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the recent White Paper, Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, with the renewed emphasis on community care, the policy of providing community instead of hospital care for the mentally handicapped who do not need hospital treatment, and the additional £40 million made available by the present Government for accelerating over the next four years the increase and improvement of community services for the mentally handicapped and the improvement of conditions in the hospitals for the mentally handicapped.

REGIONAL HOSPITAL BOARDS (PUBLIC RELATIONS)
The following Motion stood upon the Order Paper :
That this House urges upon regional hospital boards the importance of keeping the public fully informed of developments in the hospital services, especially in view of the impending reorganisation of the National Health Service; and further urges each regional hospital board to give the public it serves an account of the progress made in implementing Command Paper No. 3000, Revision of the Hospital Plan for England and Wales.
Mr. Michael Cocks: In view of the time, Mr. Speaker, I shall be very short and merely give notice to the Minister that I shall communicate with him in order to draw his attention to the matters which I consider to be of public interest.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.59 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Hon. Members will, I am sure, have noted that the Bill is similar to a Bill which had its Second Reading in Committee in May, 1970, but which was overtaken by the dissolution of Parliament. I think that hon. Members will agree that it is a Bill of comparatively minor scope. Its four Clauses are concerned with the privileges and immunities of diplomatic missions, international organisations and Commonwealth representatives and therefore hon. Members will no doubt have examined them with care, but they will have observed that the Bill will not introduce any changes in practice or policy of major significance.
  Clause 1 is intended to put on a statutory basis certain financial reliefs which are already given administratively. It provides for the refund of the customs duty element in the price of hydrocarbon oil, which in effect means petrol and oil for heating, bought by diplomatic missions and certain persons connected with them and by the Commonwealth Secretariat. If hydrocarbon oil were imported directly by such persons for their own use, exemption from customs duty would be accorded under the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act, 1966. But as this is not practicable refunds have to be made instead.
  At present, these refunds are made under the authority of the Appropriation Acts alone, but it is an accepted principle that specific statutory authority should be obtained for recurrent payments of this kind. Such authority has already been obtained for refunds to be made to entitled persons connected with consulates or international organisations by the Consular Relations Act, 1968, and the International Organisations Act, 1968.
  100
  Clause 1 will amend the Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1964, and the Commonwealth Secretariat Act, 1966, to bring them into line in this respect with the Consular Relations Act, 1968, and the International Organisations Act, 1968.
  Up to now, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has made all these refunds. On this Clause becoming law, we intend to transfer the administration of the refunds to the Department of Customs and Excise so that they will no longer be made out of voted money but will come from revenue instead. As always where diplomatic privileges and immunities are concerned, reciprocity is at the heart of the matter. Our missions in other countries are in fact accorded the privilege of duty-free petrol with consequent overall financial savings to us. Clause 1(3) will allow us to withdraw the privilege from any country which fails to give reciprocity. We have never yet wished to do this, but as reciprocity is at the heart of the matter, it is appropriate to have the power.
  Clause 2 will enable us to accord privileges and immunities to the Caribbean Development Bank, which was established early last year and all of whose present members are States and territories within the Commonwealth. Its object is to provide capital for economic development in the countries in the Caribbean region, and it is a project which Her Majesty's Government consider to be very worth while. We ratified the Agreement establishing the Caribbean Development Bank in January, 1970, subject to a reservation concerning privileges and immunities. This Agreement requires limited privileges and immunities to be conferred on the Bank, and as Section 1 of the International Organisations Act, 1968, applies only to organisations which have at least one "foreign" member, legislation by way of a Bill is required.
  Clause 2 will amend Section 1 of the International Organisations Act to extend it to the Caribbean Development Bank. It will then be possible to make an Order in Council, subject to Affirmative Resolution of each House, to give full effect to the privileges and immunities provisions of the Agreement. This Clause will, of course, have no effect on the privileges and immunities enjoyed by other international organisations some of which are dealt with by individual

  101
  Orders under the 1968 Act or its predecessor.
  Clause 3 will amend Section 2 of the International Organisations Act, 1968, to provide statutory authority for granting exemption from vehicle excise duty to the senior staff of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. As hon. Members know, I.M.C.O. is a United Nations specialised agency with its headquarters in London. Section 2 of the 1968 Act was intended to accord diplomatic financial privileges to those members of the staff of I.M.C.O. whose rank was comparable with that of a diplomatic agent.
  However, Section 2 omitted to make provision for exemption from vehicle excise duty. There was an understanding between the Government and I.M.C.O. that this exemption would be accorded, and this has been done administratively up to now. The duty involved is about £800 a year. If the Clause becomes law, the Headquarters Agreement between the United Kingdom and I.M.C.O. will be amended to refer to vehicle excise duty, and a draft Order to give effect to the amendment will be laid before Parliament.
  Clause 4 substitutes for Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act, 1968, the provisions set out in the Schedule to the Bill. These provisions will enable an Order in Council to be made which will confer on Commonwealth representatives performing functions of a consular nature, and on their staffs and families, privileges and immunities on the scale which is enjoyed by foreign consuls under the Consular Relations Act.
  The intention of the original Section 12 of the Consular Relations Act, 1968, was to enable this to be done, but in a few minor matters powers are deficient, or there is some doubt about whether they are wide enough. For example, existing provisions do not cover clearly goods imported or hydrocarbon oil purchased for official use of a Commonwealth post nor do they cover members of their families and the private servants of members of their staffs. It is proposed to take the opportunity of the Bill to clarify the matter and this has been done in a way which will also make it possible to repeal the remaining part of the Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952. No
  102
  change of policy is contained in Clause 4, but it is a useful piece of legislative tidying-up.
  Legislation in diplomatic and international privileges and immunities may appear to be somewhat complex and it may be that a scale of immunities and privileges could be drawn up which would be acceptable in all cases. But, as is stated in the Preamble to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the purpose of such privileges and immunities is to enable the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions representing States. As the functions of the various persons and bodies enjoying these privileges vary considerably, the legislation required differs from case to case and this necessarily produces somewhat complex legislation.
  I trust, however, that the House will recognise that the Bill is a reasonable piece of legislation which makes necessary amendments to our present law in this respect. It enables us either to ensure for our own posts abroad the privileges to which they are internationally entitled and which we wish them to have, or to redeem pledges given to international or commonwealth agencies of whose purposes we approve, and I hope that the House will be able to accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.7 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I thank the Under-Secretary for that clear explanation of the purpose of the Bill. As I understand it, it is substantially a tidying-up measure. As he said, provisions relating to diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges are necessarily founded on the principle of reciprocity and it is for that reason that one may have more tidying-up than would otherwise be desirable.
  The major part of the Bill is to give statutory effect to that which up to now has been done by purely administrative action. Clause 1 gives statutory recognition to existing practice and that is to be welcomed, for it is always desirable that wherever possible rules of this kind should be on the Statute Book rather than apparently left to the discretion of the Executive.
  The other provisions put right minor omissions in previous Statutes, gaps which

  103
  were left and which ought to be filled, and again they are to be welcomed. Clause 1(3) directs attention to the reciprocity principle, although I assume that even under the previous administrative procedure reciprocity was a principle to be effected, although that issue rarely if ever arose.
  The Opposition had some share in the genesis of this legislation. We welcome it, and hope that it will have a speedy Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.11 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill repeals a number of Statures which are no longer of any practical utility. They are set out in the Schedule. This is part of the process of reviewing the Statute law which is designed to ensure that the Statute Book is not cluttered up with provisions which no longer serve any purpose beyond confusing members of the public and their advisers. I gladly pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who now sit opposite for designating a system whereby the Statute Book can be slimmed and there can be cut and excised from it various provisions which are completely spent.
  The Statutes which are recommended for repeal in the Bill have been studied by the Law Commission after consultation with various bodies. The ecclesiastical Statutes have been considered by a committee appointed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York. The banking Statutes have been studied by committees of the London Clearing Banks, the Scottish Bank's general managers and the Bankers' Association of Northern Ireland
  104
  There is in Part I of the Schedule the repeal of enactments relating to Irish peers, which is based on the decision of the Committee of Privileges in the Earl of Antrim's Petition, and the advice which was given there by three of the Law Lords was that the right to elect Irish representative peers no longer exists.
  It may be that some hon. Members will feel sad at the demise of ancient Statutes, but it is obviously sensible that there should be cut from the Statute Book, with which advisers to citizens have to work, those Statutes which are spent. It is for that reason that the Bill is presented to the House, on the advice of the Law Commission, having been studied by the Joint Committee.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I welcome the Bill, which is the product of the work of the Law Commission. I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tribute that he paid to my noble Friend Lord Gardiner and others whose work enabled the Law Commission to apply itself to matters of this kind in addition to the more major problems to which it addressed itself. It is clearly of value that a great deal of material which is no longer of any use should be cleared off the Statute Book, and a large step forward has been taken in that direction in the Bill.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Irish peerage, which has caused a great deal of dissension in recent years. As I understand it, a Select Committee of the other House found quite clearly that the right of representative Irish peers to take their seats in the other place had gone. In those circumstances, the Bill gives statutory effect to that, and I agree that it is right that that should be so.
  There are some interesting features amongst the legislation that is repealed. I draw special attention to the provision in Part IV of the Schedule which repeals Mr. Speaker's Retirement Act, 1895. Perhaps I might advise you, Mr. Speaker, that that does not mean that no Speaker will be allowed to retire in future. It applies only to one of your predecessors, the legislation now being spent.
  Parts VI and VII are of some interest. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may wish to give consideration to this

  105
  point. They cover the various Expiring Laws Continuance Acts year by year from 1962 to 1968 in Part VI and, in Part VII, the Consolidated Fund Acts and Appropriation Acts between 1963 and 1969. As I understand it, once the year in question has expired, the Act is spent. For that reason, we are now repealing a number of these wholesale.
  It occurs to me to wonder whether, rather than leaving it to a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, after a number of years it might not be possible to adopt the practice that succeeding Expiring Laws Continuance Bills or Consolidated Fund Bills automatically repealed those of their predecessors which by then had been spent, so saving having to deal with them in this way after a period of time. I do not know whether that is practicable. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be able to consider that point for the future.
  I hope that the other matter to which I wish to refer is not too much of a Committee point. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might like to look at it. It is the wording used on page 13 in relation to the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. It says :
  "In section 69(1), all the definitions other than such of the following as are in force at the passing of this Act, namely those of"
  —and then it sets out a number of them. I understand that the wording was suggested in the course of the proceedings of the Joint Committee on Consolidation and other Bills as being desirable to govern a situation which had arisen owing to uncertainty as to when the Mineral Workings Bill would reach the Statute Book. No doubt that was a good reason for using those words at the time, but the words themselves, taken without that explanation, are not easy to understand. One wonders whether someone looking at this collection of repeals in future years will be able easily to follow what is repealed and what is not repealed in Section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. If at this stage it is possible, by reason of events which have supervened, to adopt a rather more intelligible form of wording, it will be to the benefit of generations to come.
  I support the Bill generally and welcome it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Eyre.]
  Committee tomorrow.

  LAND REGISTRATION AND LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LAND REGISTRATION AND LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]
    Clause 5

      PROVISIONS AS TO FORM OF INDEX AND SEARCHES
      7.20 p.m.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move, Amendment No. 1, in page 6, line 37, leave out paragraph (a) and insert :
      (a) by reason of any discrepancy between—

      (i) the particulars which are shown in a certificate under this section as being the particulars in respect of which the search for entries was made, and

      (ii) the particulars in respect of which a search for entries was required by the person who made the requisition; or,

      It may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to the second of the two Amendments, which is in the same words and refers to Schedule 1.
      In effect, these are drafting Amendments designed to clarify Clause 5(7) of the Bill. They arise from comments made with force and perspicacity by the hon. Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) supported by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The hon. Gentleman drew attention to this matter in Committee. While accepting the intention and principle of the Clause, he indicated with some force that it did not make abundantly clear what should be the liability when there was an error by the computer. He pointed out that we should be able to see what the position was.
      The Clause intended that there should be liability and responsibility which could be avoided, but not wherever an error is made in a search. The Amendments are designed to make the intention of the Clause abundantly clear. They seek to redefine the discrepancy between questions which are posed instead of between searches. I think that was the confusion

      107
      which then existed. This discrepancy is re-defined, first, as between
      "the particulars which are shown in a certificate under this section as being the particulars in respect of which the search for entries was made, and
      (ii) the particulars in respect of which a search for entries was required by the person who made the requisition".
      It will be up to the person who gets the information to check that the answer he sought has been given. If it is clear that another question has been answered, it is the responsibility of that person to see that that has happened and to seek the further question and get the answer thereto. It is to clarify this position that the Amendments have been moved.
      Again, I thank the hon. Member for Kensington, North for having drawn the attention of the House to this matter. I hope that the proposal we have made will make the situation clearer and effect what he sought to have done.
      Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for moving the Amendment. It will greatly improve and make clearer the intention of the Clause.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman did me too much credit, in that the matter was initially raised in the Second Reading Committee by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). There was undoubtedly a query as the Clause was drafted. This was, to a certain extent, less apparent to the layman than to the lawyer who tends to use the word "search" to mean both the question and the answer. The Amendment deals with the problem most satisfactorily, and I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for presenting it.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I also thank the Attorney General for moving the Amendment. I know that the Government have thought deeply about this difficulty and come forward with one or two proposals which did not quite seem to meet it. However, the Amendment which has been moved should remove that difficulty.
      It is important to make clear what the difficulty is and where it hits. I am not sure that the Attorney-General directed his opening remarks in the direction in which I am advised the difficulty lies. I
      108
      understand that the problem does not so much affect the person who puts the search into operation; it arises as a result of the provisions of Section 17(3) of the principal Act which is set out in the Schedule on page 12 of the Bill :
      "In favour of a purchaser or an intending purchaser, as against persons interested under or in respect of matters or documents whereof entries are required or allowed as aforesaid, the certificate, according to the tenor thereof, shall be conclusive, affirmatively or negatively, as the case may be."
      I understand that the effect is that somebody who might not know that a search is being made may find that, as a result of some error made in the process of the search, his rights as a mortgagee are removed from the title. He was the person whom we were seeking to protect when we raised this matter in Second Reading Committee and in Standing Committee. I think that the Amendment protects him. The expression now used contemplates a situation where a search is made about one property and the computer prints out an answer relating to a totally different property. A person who had some charge on the property in respect of which the search was intended to be made would not be affected, because the result of the search would, on its face, relate to a totally different property. It seems, therefore, that the Amendment secures the result of protecting this innocent third party. That is the whole basis of what we were seeking to achieve.
      In the circumstances, like my hon. Friend, I welcome the way in which the matter has been dealt with.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      PART VII OF THE LAND CHARGES ACT 1925, AS IT WILL HAVE EFFECT, SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS IN RELATION TO LOCAL LAND CHARGES AND AGRICULTURAL CHARGES CONTAINED IN SECTION 10 OF THIS ACT, WHEN ALL REPEALS AND AMENDMENTS MADE IN IT BY THIS ACT OPERATE
      Amendment made : No. 2, in page 12, line 25, [Schedule 1], leave out paragraph (a) and insert :
      (a) by reason of any discrepancy between—

      (i) the particulars which are shown in a certificate under this section as being the

      109
      particulars in respect of which the search for entries was made, and

      (ii) the particulars in respect of which a search for entries was required by the person who made the requisition; or.—[The Attorney-General.]

      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      [Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Committee No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [Lords]
    Clause 3

      RESTRICTION OF LIABILITY FOR OIL POLLUTION
      7.30 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 1, after ' owner ', insert :
      ' nor any person performing salvage operations with the agreement of the owner '.
      Clause 3(h) follows the 1969 Convention and provides that a servant or agent of a tanker owner who may be liable under Clause 1 shall not be liable for oil pollution damage. The reason for this is that the Convention and the Bill impose a special liability on the owner and contain special provision for insuring and enforcing that liability. Provision is also made in paragraph (a) that the owner should not be liable in any other way for oil pollution damage. If proceedings were possible against the owner's servants or agents, behind whom an owner would normally have to stand, a way would be open indirectly to further proceedings against an owner. A salvor who carries out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner is in much the same position as a servant or agent of the owner although, as an independent contractor, in law he might not come
      110
      within the meaning of the phrase, and consequently it seems to us equitable, particularly having regard to the considerations to which I shall come in a moment, to put a salvor legally on the same footing as the owner's servant or agent for the purposes of the Clause.
      The risk of unlimited liability for pollution damage and difficulties in obtaining insurance cover are causing salvors to hesitate before undertaking salvage operations to tankers. Not long ago there was the incident of the "Panther", and I am informed that one reason for the delay in getting on with the salvage was the discussion over indemnity from the owners.
      As hon. Members know, the maximum figures for shipowners' liability for oil pollution contained in the 1969 Civil Liability Convention, and reflected in the Bill, represent the maximum available insurance cover. We have been told that salvors are consequently finding it impossible to obtain cover in the insurance market for their potential oil pollution liability when assisting tankers because if an oil spill results liability could attach both to the tanker and to the salvor. The insurance market is not prepared to put itself at double risk, and therefore excludes oil pollution liability from the salvors' cover. This leads salvors to seek to cover themselves by means of a full indemnity from the tanker—which in effect means from the tanker's insurers—but this is likely to be refused since the insurers are not prepared, in this way, to increase their cover for oil pollution damage.
      The general objective of the Bill is to ensure that adequate compensation is available to those who suffer damage from oil pollution. Important as that objective is, however, I am sure the House will agree that it is even more important, where possible, to prevent the damage from being caused in the first place, and one major way in which that can be achieved is by prompt action to salvage a damaged tanker and to minimise any escape of oil. Marine salvage is, of course, a service provided voluntarily by those who are equipped to do so, on the basis that they can expect high rewards if they are successful, but will get nothing if they fail.
      The situation that I have outlined could mean that at best valuable time could be

      111
      lost in starting salvage operations because of arguments about liability, and at worst that the salvage of a damaged tanker would not be undertaken at all. The Amendment gives a salvor protection if, but only if, he is carrying out salvage operations with the agreement of the owner, since it is only in such circumstances that he can be regarded as in an analogous position to the owner's servant or agent.
      We think that the Amendment is not unreasonable in itself, and will help to remove hesitations, which have occurred, on the part of salvors. This is done in the wider interests of facilitating prompt action by salvors and is, in any event, as I have explained, in accordance with the general principles behind the Clause. For those reasons I invite the House to agree to the Amendment.
      Mr. Roy Mason: This seems to be a sensible Amendment, and one with which we agree, but one question arises from the hon. Gentleman's short speech. He knows that in recent months the Government have decided unilaterally to change the law so as to be able, if necessary, to take steps to stop pollution, or further pollution, by an oil tanker which has been stranded, or been in collision, beyond our territorial limits.
      The hon. Gentleman said that in order to safeguard salvors the salvage would be done with the agreement of the owner. What will happen if there is a stranding, or a collision, involving a tanker beyond our territorial limits, and the Government in their wisdom, fearing a major pollution threat—and I think that I am quoting the previous Act correctly—decide, before the owner concurs, to initiate action to stop pollution, or further pollution, which necessitates salvors going beyond our territorial limits and taking action to stop further pollution? Will they be able to take that action without necessarily waiting for the owner's consent?
      Mr. Anthony Grant: My answer, at short notice, will be a little off-the-cuff.
      It is true that powers were taken in the other Act to enable the Secretary of State to take certain steps in the event of the danger of major oil pollution, but one would not expect that power to be used except in the most extreme cases. In most cases it would be for the owner
      112
      to instruct salvors, and the purpose of the Amendment is to remove any inhibitions or nervousness, due to financial reasons, which salvors may have about taking the necessary action.
      In the extremely unlikely event of the Secretary of State himself having to instruct salvors, I do not think that the Amendment would necessarily alter his position. In fact, I think that it would assist, because salvors would be able to undertake any task given to them by the Secretary of State without incurring liability under the Bill.
      I think that my off-the-cuff answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the unlikely event of the Secretary of State having to take extreme powers under the other Statute no inhibitions would be placed in the way of salvors undertaking any work that he might want them to do.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      COMPULSORY INSURANCE AGAINST LIABILITY FOR POLLUTION
      Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 2, leave out from 'by' to end of line 17 and insert :
      ' or under the authority of the Government of any Convention country '.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I think that it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we discuss Amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Booth: If the Clause were to go through unamended, the legal position would be that ships sailing into and out of United Kingdom ports would do so under insurance requirements which could fall into one of three categories. If they were United Kingdom ships, they would be required to carry a certificate of insurance against oil pollution damage which they may cause issued by the Secretary of State of this country. If they were ships registered in a Convention country other than the United Kingdom, they would be required to carry a certificate of insurance issued by the Secretary of State for the country in which they were registered. If they were ships registered in a country other than a Convention country, they would be required to carry

      113
      a certificate issued by the Secretary of State, or a certificate meeting requirements defined in a regulation, that is to say a certificate which met the requirements laid down by the Secretary of State, presumably of this country.
      The effect of Amendment No. 4 would be to simplify the position considerably, and to take away the right to sail a ship without a certificate issued by the Secretary of State of a Convention country. The Amendment is necessary in part because of the difficulty of defining, by regulation issued by the Secretary of State, and approved by the United Kingdom Parliament, a requirement of insurance which would have effect over all the conditions laid down by the country, not being a Convention country, which registers the ship.
      One could well imagine the insurer of a vessel, having made the translation into his own language of one of our regulations, putting upon that translation an interpretation of the insurance requirement which was different from that which the Secretary of State intended, and which he would effect when he issued a certificate of insurance to a United Kingdom-registered ship.
      Knowing the complexity of legal language a little better than when I first entered the House, I suggest that even English insurers reading some of the regulations issued—if our insurance could be effected in that way—could produce different types of insurance. Therefore, some difficulties of definition are bound to arise if we provide that it will be legal and acceptable for a ship registered in Liberia—or in any other non-Convention country—to enter one of our ports if it can be contended that the certificate of insurance that it is carrying against oil pollution damage claims meets the requirements of the regulations issued by our Secretary of State.
      A further objection to the form of the Clause—an objection that is covered by the Amendments—is that it places those who operate ships under flags of convenience countries in a position different from that of those who operate under flags of Convention countries. That is highly undesirable. One might argue the reasons which still cause owners to choose to sail under flags of convenience. However, for the purpose of this legisla-
      114
      tion we would not wish to discriminate between ships registered in Convention countries and ships registered in non-Convention countries in respect of insurance requirements for damage against oil pollution; we would want all ships that sailed into United Kingdom ports, or sailed in a way that put at hazard any of our constituents for oil pollution purposes—or any of the peoples of a Convention country—to be in an identical position in respect of the safeguards provided by insurance, whether the ship that brought about the hazard was registered in a Convention or a non-Convention country.
      With the best will in the world, a Secretary of State would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve that desirable aim if he had to operate the Clause as it stands.
      A further practical problem arises on the Clause. The certificates of insurance which will have to be produced to meet the requirements of the regulation would not necessarily be examined until such time as the ship concerned came into a Convention country's port—and there is no guarantee that even then the certificate would be examined—whereas the certificates carried by ships registered in Convention countries would be issued by the Secretaries of State in those countries in every case, and therefore they would require the prior examination of those Secretaries of State and to that extent would provide the safeguard entailed in the examination and issue of a certificate, which could not be said to exist in the case of non-Convention countries which provided certificate of insurance under subsection (3)(c) and (4) of the Clause.
      We hope that this legislation will be one of the factors that will bring about the reduction in oil pollution damage and consequent claims. In spite of that, we must examine how effective the legislation will be in dealing with those cases where oil pollution takes place and claims arise, if the Clause is unamended it would seem to provide a defence to a person whose insurance is defective—a defence that the insurance certificate carried complied with the requirements of the regulation. That defence would be open only to those who sailed under flags of convenience countries which were covered by regulations in such a way as to enable them to issue these certificates.

      115
      That position must be suspect because of the limitations of the Convention. If every country took as serious a view of the risks involved to international shipping as do the Convention countries, many more countries would be party to the Convention and, secondly, many more countries would be ready immediately to co-operate in framing legislation to match that of Convention countries. Since that is not the case, that aspect of the Clause must be suspect.
      7.45 p.m.
      There is also the difficulty of the financial incentive to produce a cheaper insurance if a way of doing so can be found under the provisions of the regulations. Having seen an insurance company crash and many people being left without insurance, this Parliament should be very careful in considering Clauses that allow for different types of insurance to cover basically the same risk. If anything, the risk may be higher when a ship sails into our waters if that ship is not a United Kingdom-registered ship or the ship of another Convention country.
      The Clause undoubtedly makes provision for regulations to be different for different countries. That is the only sense that we can make of subsection (4)(a) and (b), which allows regulations to provide that a certificate may be recognised if it is issued in a country in which the ship is registered—but insured, presumably, outside the country in which it is registered—if it is a ship registered outside the Convention countries. That lends itself to difficulties and to a multiplicity of forms of insurance.
      The gist of my argument is that the Clause is risky, and makes for tremendous complication. The Minister wants to reduce the risk, and I am sure that he wants to get away from complication and would like to see an equal position apply—a position of absolute parity between all ships which sail into Convention countries' ports, be they registered there or not, and having the sole requirement that they carry a certificate of insurance issued by the Secretary of State of a Convention country. It is in order to achieve that aim, in the interest of achieving a higher measure of safety against the pollution of our waters and the pollution risks which can fall to
      116
      those whom we represent, that I move the Amendment.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is trying to do something with which I sympathise, but I do not think that I can accept the Amendment. He wants to increase safety generally, raise standards of insurance and encourage as many Governments as possible to join the Convention. But the provisions relating to insurance certificates are not necessarily the right vehicle for this purpose.
      A ship which is registered in a non-Convention country may well be properly and adequately insured by a United Kingdom insurer, in which case a certificate issued by the Secretary of State would be applicable, or by a suitable insurer in a third country where the supervision of insurance was known to be satisfactory. In this case, a certificate recognised for this purpose by regulations made by the Secretary of State would be acceptable. Insurance, particularly marine insurance, is essentially an international operation and it would not in our view be appropriate to insist that the issue certificate should be confined to Convention States.
      We are looking forward to another conference in Brussels in November to negotiate the setting up of an international compensation fund for oil pollution damage. The fund Convention will be based on the 1969 Convention, and Slates will not be able to ratify the former without ratifying the latter. This will be the stimulus for them to come within the Convention.
      If claimants are successful, they will be able to look to oil interests as well as to shipowners and their insurers for compensation up to a very high amount. We cannot tell what the agreed limits will be, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we aim for limits which are high enough to cover the worst possible catastrophe to this country and not so high as to encourage inefficient cleaning up of the mess. In the meantime, we rely on the cover of the voluntary schemes of TOVALOP and CRISTAL.
      At the end of the subsection it says in effect that the countries nominated as acceptable certified authorities need not necessarily be nominated solely as certifying authorities for tankers registered in

      117
      their own countries. In this connection, we envisage that the main factor influencing the recognition of countries for this purpose—it should be noted that such countries would be Convention countries or non-Convention countries—would be the Secretary of State of this country assessing the reliability and the quality of the countries' insurers.
      I hope that the hon. Member will agree that it is desirable that the Bill should spell out who can make the regulations and without fettering unduly the discretion of the Secretary of State as to what those regulations should contain. I entirely appreciate the hon. Gentleman's motives, but they are misconceived in the sense of the Convention as a whole. I believe that it is better to deal with the matter as we have done in the Bill, by allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations in this respect. The House may rest assured that the Secretary of State will ensure that the highest standard of insurance is applicable in these cases.
      Mr. James Johnson: I take it then that this will be a selective list, that the Secretary of State will, at his own discretion, black list or eliminate some countries which he deems not to be worthy of being on the list.
      Mr. Grant: That does not quite put the position correctly. It is not the countries : it is for the Secretary of State to determine the quality of the insurance. There might be a country of which someone disapproved, but that is not the point. We cannot leave a situation whereby lay magistrates may have to determine this question by going through the complexities of international insurance. Although I appreciate the motives, I cannot accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Booth: I should like to put two points to the Minister—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may reply to the debate.
      Mr. Booth: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      If the aim of the Clause is to recognise the international character of marine insurance, and thereby enable the Secretary of State to frame regulations which will allow shipping companies to go to various shipowners to get their insurance,
      118
      why should not this apply to all Convention country ships? Why should not British companies go shopping around the world for insurance? Why not lay down a specific requirement that these certificates should be issued by our Secretary of State?
      Are we supposed to read Clause 10(4) as superseding Clause 10(3)? May the regulations be drafted in a form which will override subsection (3) and allow the international character of marine insurance to operate freely across all Convention ships? This is a ridiculous position. That part of the Minister's reply will not stand up against what we were discussing in Committee or against the principal aim of requiring the certification by the Secretaries of State of Convention countries.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: By leave of the House. I do not wish to make too heavy weather of this. Even looking at it as a layman, I do not believe that the drafting of subsection (4) which says that the Secretary of State may make these regulations, is inconsistent with subsection (3)(c), which merely refers to regulations.
      The Amendment effectively would exclude non-Convention countries, but I could envisage a situation whereby a Convention country might well have very unsatisfactory insurance arrangements and a non-Convention country might provide a most excellent insurance. It would be a pity to exclude it in that way. It would probably be invidious if I gave examples to stand as the highest standards of insurance, but it may not be a Convention country. This would be invidious. This is why I urge the House not to accept the Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Mason: I beg to move, Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 28, leave ' £15,000 ' and insert ' £30,000' ;
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it is convenient to take also Amendments No. 7, in page 7, line 28, leave out ' £15,000 ' ind insert ' £35,000 ' ;
      No. 8 in line 32, leave out ' £200 ' and insert :
      '£300 upon first conviction and for second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,000' ;

      119
      No. 9, in line 32, leave out ' £200 ' and insert '£400'.
      Mr. Mason: There are four Amendments grouped together here. It will be my intention to speak mainly on Amendment No. 6, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will specifically deal with Amendment No. 8.
      This fine of £15,000 proposed in the Bill is to be imposed on the evaders of compulsory insurance for liability for oil pollution. We believe that this is a derisory sum, that to evaders it is a farcical fine, especially if they decide to ignore the international Convention and will not bother to insure against oil pollution. Of course, the Under-Secretary and the House will know that I am speaking about a minority. We know that many of the oil companies and tanker owners treat oil pollution very seriously indeed. That is why TOVALOP and CRISTAL came about. They are treating this matter extremely seriously.
      However, we have to be concerned about a minority, the minority who will not use load-on-top washing methods to avoid forming oil slicks in the sea when they wash out their tanks. These are the fly-by-night oil slickers who clean their tanks by night, discharge crude oil into the sea, and vanish by morning, leaving massive oil slicks behind, the ships having vanished without trace. This is the minority we think must be brought into line.
      Progressive and good oil companies and tanker owners will not mind if we increase the fine to the evaders because the good companies will not be caught by it. Tanker owners who are not going to treat this international Convention and this new law of the sea seriously must be punished, and £15,000 is, to my mind, a derisory fine. The Under-Secretary will remember, and hon. Members present this evening will remember, that when we discussed the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, dealing with the illegal discharge of oil, the penalty was made £50,000. Originally in the Bill it was £5,000, but the mood of the Committee on the Bill was such that both sides of the Committee joined hands and encouraged the Minister to write into the Bill
      120
      £50,000. Yet here, in this Bill, premeditated evasion of insurance against liability for oil pollution, with all its serious consequences, is to have a fine of only £15,000.
      On the rare occasions the potential evader is caught he will pay; he will scoff; and he will move on. There are hundreds of oil tankers calling into our ports every year. We cannot examine them all, but when it is done, and they are found to be guilty of evasion, let us treat that seriously and make the illegal polluter pay. If he pollutes our coastline and is not insured against liability a long legal wrangle will follow and those claiming for damages are unlikely to be satisfied.
      The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) has the other two Amendments we are discussing with mine and he would increase the fine from £15,000 to £35,000. We will gladly give way to that if the Under-Secretary is willing to accept that. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well that his Amendment and ours were put down now because of the pressure which was applied to the Under-Secretary, who, to avoid the fine being increased in Committee, was forced to say that he would sympathetically consider a higher fine by this stage, so that we are anticipating that at least he will accept the £30,000 proposal which we make or, best, the £35,000 proposal by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Both on the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill and this Bill dealing with civil liability, the mood throughout has been that there must be high fines for oil polluters, and either the £30,000 or the £35,000 fine would be better than the small, derisory £15,000. In keeping with that mood I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will accept either the £30,000 or the £35,000. Those who attempt evasion of their liabilities, or pollute the sea and our shores, should not escape their financial responsibilities, and must be fined accordingly, and I hope that at the conclusion of this debate the Under-Secretary will accept either the £30,000 or the £35,000 fine proposed
      Mr. Peter Rees: I rise to draw the attention of the House to my Amendments No. 7 and No. 9 which, like the Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), are designed to stiffen the

      121
      penalties on shipowners who fail to insure their tankers against pollution, and against masters who fail to carry certificates of insurance.
      My Amendments are purely designed to raise the maximum penalties. They are not fixed penalties. It will be at the discretion of the bench of magistrates whether to award the full penalty or, where there are mitigating circumstances, to award some lesser penalty.
      I welcome the Bill and I congratulate the Government upon bringing it forward. This is the first Government to implement the Convention on which the Bill is based, and I think that that is greatly to the credit of this country and of this Government.
      Of course, this particular provision, and my Amendments to it, are not aimed at reputable tanker companies, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said. Indeed, I should like to pay tribute to B.P. for the very rapid and prompt assistance when the "Panther" grounded on the Goodwins. It set a very good example for other oil companies in similar situations. Unfortunately, there are less reputable companies, possibly registered in other countries, which may be tempted to chance their arm in falling foul of the law of this country and the premiums which, I have no doubt, insurers will exact. It is against those people my Amendments are particularly aimed.
      There is certainly in East Kent widespread concern, which I share, on the question of oil pollution. It is not an academic problem. Indeed, having bathed or walked on the beaches I can personally testify to the horrible oil patches floating in the sea and to the filthy sight of it on our beaches. That is what has moved me and the people of East Kent to demand really stiff penalties for those people who are callous enough to damage them.
      There is to this provision a very real parallel in the Road Traffic Acts. It is fair to observe that the penalties which can be imposed for failing to have third party insurance are comparable to but are a great deal more severe than those which can be imposed under this Bill, even if either the Amendments which I propose or those which the hon. Gentleman proposes are accepted. There is no question of barring absolutely from this
      122
      country's shores ships which are improperly insured.
      What I want to see is this Bill given teeth, teeth which are both sharp and white. I hope it will have two consequences, not only of easing the task of those attempting to exact damages on those responsible for pollution, but also of raising standards of seamanship, because I am very certain that insurance companies and Lloyd's will take note of this and will raise the premiums for those companies which have a bad accident record.
      The Minister was a little reluctant in Committee to acecpt this kind of Amendment, and was disposed to contrast the offence provided for in the Bill with that in the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, and it is fair to observe that under the latter Bill the deliberate discharge of oil only carries a penalty of up to £50,000, and deliberate discharge is clearly an offence of far greater gravity than that of merely failing to insure against spillage. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise, particularly after the generous words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley, that I here suggest a reasonable compromise, which I hope he will feel able to accept.
      Mr. James Johnson: The Minister will accept that we all want the Bill, and welcome it. It is an all-party Bill. As we all love the Minister so much, it seems a pity that, like the boy who stood upon the burning deck, he should on this Bill, as in the case of the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill, find himself not being manœuvred, but by sheer dauntless will force into isolation. None of us likes that. We want to work as a team.
      What is involved is not a matter of abstruse international law, or a labyrinth in which we all get lost and then come back again to find each other. The issue is just that there are these villains on the high seas who scatter filth about which often gets on our shores. Society today is more than keen, it is enthusiastic about eliminating pollution. We have this small minority of anti-social people, and the only issue is how to deter them from their practices.
      The Oil in Navigable Waters Bill first proposed a penalty of £5,000, but the Minister, with dignity and good will, gave way to the Committee's demand and

      123
      agreed to increase the amount to £50,000. Lest he be forced again into isolation I urge him to follow his previous course. Henry Ford said that all history is bunk. I do not accept that view. Teachers sometimes tell us that history never repeats itself, but it can and should, and tonight I think that it will.
      I agree with all that has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees). It is good that on these matters we can both talk the same language for the sake of people on the high seas, and on the shores, too. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about teeth. I do not want the Bill to have teeth. I want it to have big sharp spikes that we can stick into people who thwart society and behave like this. Let us have a deterrent. In terms of the amount of damage done and the amount of insurance involved. I suggest that a penalty of £35,000 is not out of way, especially when one thinks, too, of the enormous cargoes carried and the huge sums involved.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Booth: The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) and I have two things in common tonight. One is a concern that the penalties for sailing a ship uninsured should be adequate, and the other is our representation of constituencies with a considerable amount of coastline. My constituency, having some offshore islands, probably has a little more coastline than his, but I do not make any point about that.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman and my right hon. Friend have fairly posed the need for a proper relationship between the penalty and the degree of offence resulting in a massive discharge of oil at sea. In post-war years the growth in this risk has been enormous : if ever there was a growth industry, it has been the conveying of oil by sea. In the immediate post-war years we regarded the mighty "Queens" as the monarchs of the sea, thinking of them in terms of size and opulence. But they are almost mini-boats compared with the sort of tankers we can foresee in the immediate future. We can talk seriously now of ½ million and even 1 million ton tankers. The risk of major oil pollution is therefore enormous, and the penalty
      124
      for failing to insure against claims for oil damage must be seen in that context.
      Another factor is the international character of the oil-carrying industry. In connection with Amendment No. 4, the Minister fairly referred to the international character of insurance, and there is provision in the Bill for a person suffering damage to proceed directly against an insurer. This is a relatively new provision in our law, and one of the utmost importance in connection with the shipping industry. Those who in the past have had to proceed with claims against owners or masters of ships for damage caused by their vessels have frequently been involved in the most hideous complexities of law in connection with ship ownership. The practice of ships being owned by companies in one State and leased to subsidiaries in other States has become common. The practice of chartering ships to companies by subsidiaries of the owners is not uncommon, nor is the multi-national staffing of companies and ships. The labyrinth of international law involved in pursuing claims against masters or owners as a result of these practices has increased to alarming proportions. In the case of the "Torrey Canyon", when great legal expertise was brought to bear in connection with claims for damage, only 50 per cent. of the cost sustained was recovered.
      I therefore take very seriously the provisions enabling anyone suffering damage to proceed directly against the insurer. It is an excellent proposal, and the Government are to be congratulated on it. But, as a corollary, the Government must realise that it is absolutely essential to enable the insurer to be identified, and also to make sure that the vessel is insured. It must therefore be considered to be a very serious offence not to have a certificate of insurance available on the ship for examination.
      I agree with those who have congratulated the Government on being one of the first to bring in legislation necessary for the operation of the Convention, but that carries an additional responsibility, too. We are setting a precedent here, so we must make sure that we have the wording absolutely right. The Minister has hinted earlier tonight at some of the foreseeable difficulties in operating this when he mentioned the difficulty of

      125
      the salvor in obtaining insurance against the sort of claim he might have to meet if he were held to be responsible for pollution damage.
      As a result of the bad operating practices of some companies, which the hon. and learned Member for Dover mentioned, we foresee the possibilities being examined by insurers. What is the insurer to think of some of the reports that have been made as a result of inquiries into accidents which have resulted in massive pollution damage? For instance, there has been a report that a vessel carrying many thousands of tons of oil did not have its navigational equipment working properly, and a report to the effect that there was not a qualified man upon the bridge. Surely, any objective assessment of insurance risk against major oil pollution must take these factors into account. If the penalties do no more than induce tanker owners to ensure that their ships have proper navigational equipment and that their bridges are properly manned, they will have done a great deal to achieve the end desired by all those who have welcomed the Bill.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: I hasten to assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) that the last thing I ever wish to be is in a state of total isolation. I have listened very carefully to the speeches made tonight, as I did to the debate in Committee.
      The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) recalled to the attention of the House that the Government decided, as a result of strong expressions of opinion from both sides of the House on the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, as it now is, to raise the maximum penalty for illegal discharge of oil, and other related offences in that Act, from £5,000 to £50,000. It has been argued, in previous consideration of the Bill, that the penalties of £15,000 for failure to have the requisite certificate of insurance and of £200 for failure to produce that certificate were inadequate, and we had a very full and careful debate in Committee on this subject. I listened very carefully to the views expressed on both sides. Since the Committee Stage, I have looked at this question again in the light of penalties relating to other offences over a wide
      126
      area. I still contend, as I did in Committee, and it should be made perfectly clear, that the offence with which we are dealing here, the failure to have insurance cover, must be distinct from the offence under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act of deliberately discharging oil into the sea. Therefore, a distinction must be preserved. Nevertheless, I recognise fully the arguments urged on me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees), who keeps at me very vigorously on this point, and the arguments of the Opposition, too.
      As I am in a generous mood, I can tell the right hon. Member for Barnsley that I am prepared to accept the higher figures now proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, the £35,000 figure and the £400 figure for the lesser offence, instead of £15,000 and £200. These higher figures entirely meet the spirit of the similar Amendments put down by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, so we are at one in that respect.
      As to the proposal of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) that the £300 should only apply to a first conviction and that for subsequent convictions the fine should be £1,000, I am afraid that I cannot accept that proposal. We should be satisfied with a maximum penalty of £400 for failure to carry or produce an existing certificate, which would be more than sufficient to discourage repetition of the offence.
      I make these concessions having regard to the strength of feelings expressed on both sides of the House. After all, that is what Parliament is all about. I want to make it clear that the Amendments maintain the distinction between these offences and the offence in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act. I reiterate what my hon. and learned Friend has said for the benefit of magistrates, who will have to have these very considerable powers at their disposal, that these limitations are definitely maximum limits which obviously would only be used in the most extreme case.
      I am prepared, therefore, to accept Amendments Nos. 7 and 9.
      Mr. Mason: On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so forthcoming and for recognising the need to increase the fines against those who may be willing to

      127
      evade their responsibilities and may, thereby, be likely to pollute the seas and the coastline, and possibly escape their financial liabilities.
      The hon. Gentleman knows, as do all of us who have sat through the Oil in Navigable Waters Bill and now this Bill, that during the course of the proceedings on both Bills we have been creating a precedent for many of the major maritime nations of the world. We can be proud that we have been in the forefront and that we have bettered both Bills during their Committee stages. But, above all, we can be proud that we are keen to make the polluter pay. The serious consequences that can flow from oil pollution will be punished, and we shall curb oil pollution as quickly as we can.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made : No. 7, in page 7, line 28 leave out '£15,000' and insert ' £35,000 '.
      No. 9, in line 32, leave out ' £200 ' and insert ' £400'.—[Mr. Peter Rees.]
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
      Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  ROMANIAN NITRATES (ANTI-DUMPING)
  8.27 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move,
  That the Anti-Dumping Duty (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I. 1971, No. 1048), dated 23rd June, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.
  The Order, which has been made under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1969, imposes an anti-dumping duty of £3·39 per ton on ammonium nitrate originating in Romania and imported into the United Kingdom between 1st April, 1971 and 22nd June, 1971 in-
  128
  clusive. It also revokes the Anti-Dumping (Provisional Charge to Duty) (No. 2) Order, 1971, which imposed provisional charges to anti-dumping duty of £5 per ton on Romanian ammonium nitrate and £6 per ton on calcium ammonium nitrate for a period of three months from 1st April, 1971.
  The making of the present Order and of the Order imposing the provisional charges, now revoked, is a further follow-up of anti-dumping action that was taken in May, 1970, against dumped imports of calcium ammonium nitrate from six countries in Western Europe. In announcing this action the Department stated that, if evidence were received of any other significant imports of calcium ammonium nitrate or of the two other straight nitrogenous fertilisers, ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphonitrate, at dumped prices, urgent consideration would be given to extending anti-dumping action to those imports. Accordingly, anti-dumping duties were imposed later in the year on ammonium sulphonitrate from West Germany and calcium ammonium nitrate from South Africa.
  When our import statistics showed significant imports of ammonium nitrate and calcium ammonium nitrate from Romania in February this year at apparently dumped prices, we imposed provisional anti-dumping charges while we investigated the matter. The investigation showed that the imports of ammonium nitrate which took place from 1st April onwards were dumped by a margin of £3.39 per ton but that the calcium ammonium nitrate imported from Romania in this period was not dumped to any significant extent. Accordingly, £3.39 per ton of the anti-dumping charges paid on the ammonium nitrate will be retained in payment of the duty imposed under this Order. The balance of the £5 charge together with charges collected on the calcium ammonium nitrate is being refunded.
  No anti-dumping duty is imposed on any imports of these fertilisers from Romania after 22nd June because the importer has given satisfactory undertakings that there will be no further imports at dumped prices.
  I invite the House to approve this Order.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS)
  8.31 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
  That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
  The draft Order would raise the limit on the borrowing powers of the Scottish Electricity Boards from its present level of £700 million to £800 million, the maximum provided for in Section 47(7) of the Electricity Act, 1947, as amended by the Electricity (Scotland) Act, 1969. This limit applies to the combined total of the outstanding borrowings of the two Scottish Electricity Boards, including any borrowing in foreign currency under the Gas and Electricity Act, 1968.
  The Explanatory Memorandum which was published in October, 1968 with the Scottish Bill explained that the limit of £800 million was estimated to meet the Boards' net borrowing requirements to 31st March, 1975. To ensure that Parliament would have an opportunity of reviewing the Boards' progress during the period, the Bill prescribed an interim limit of £700 million beyond which the Boards would not have power to borrow unless the Secretary of State made an Order, subject to the approval of the House of Commons. In the debate on the Bill it was stated that this interim limit was expected to be reached in 1972. This limit is now likely to be reached in the second half of this year, and it gives us a slightly earlier opportunity than expected to review the Scottish electricity position.
  The efficient planning and the continued expansion of electricity resources are essential to the economic growth of Scotland. To maximise efficiency, the forward planning of new generating capacity and the operation of the stations are undertaken as combined exercises by the two Boards. This gives the greatest benefit to Scotland as a whole and it means that the investment in a particular generating station is not solely to meet the needs of the Board responsible for building the station. For this reason the investment and borrowing requirements must be looked at from the point of view of the overall needs of Scotland.
  130
  The rate of increase in the demand for electricity in Scotland has fallen considerably during the past three years and the rate of growth in future years is now expected to be rather lower than was estimated in 1968. This is the general experience throughout Britain. This has brought reductions in the transmission and distribution investment programmes of the Boards which have more than compensated for changes in price levels which have taken place. Investment in generating stations, which take five to seven years to design and build, is not, however, so susceptible to short-term adjustments and current capital expediture is mainly on stations which were either under construction or in the final planning stage in 1968. These, of course have been affected by subsequent cost increases. The capital requirements of the Boards in the four years to 31st March, 1972—now estimated at £325 million—are therefore expected to be about £23 million higher than the 1968 estimate. This together with a fall of £28 million in the sums available from internal resources—that is lower profits—has meant that borrowing in the four-year period will be some £51 million more than expected.
  The reaching of the £700 million limit rather earlier than expected can, therefore, be attributed to the inflationary situation which has troubled all sectors of the economy and has resulted in both higher capital costs and in a lower level of self-financing. The 1968 estimates were based on prices ruling at that time and made no allowance for any price increases. The effect of these, unfortunately, may be increasingly pronounced in future years. Moreover, as considerable sums of retention money on construction contracts are due to be paid during the next financial year, it is unlikely that the £800 million final limit fixed by the 1969 Act will last beyond the end of 1972. The draft Order, therefore, provides for the extension of the limit to the statutory maximum of £800 million and it will probably be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation next Session fixing a new limit.
  As I have said, the increase in the estimated borrowing requirements of the two Boards is due mainly to the effects of the inflationary situation which was inherited by the present Administration and which they are determined to get

  131
  under control. It is affecting every part of the economy, both private and public, and it is perhaps a useful reminder to those who would press for a relaxation of the Government's efforts to see before them examples such as this of the way in which efficient management can be frustrated by this inflationary spiral.
  The Scottish Electricity Boards are, rightly, very proud of their record in improving productivity and efficiency. Productivity payment schemes have been pressed forward at maximum speed with highly successful results and I am assured by both Boards that this will continue. The Boards are very well advanced in this field, but even they cannot in this way absorb cost increases of recent levels.
  To have met these higher costs and at the same time to have maintained the estimated level of self-financing would have required tariff increases of an unacceptably high level which would themselves have added to the inflationary spiral. It was for this reason that the Boards were asked, when framing the tariff increase proposals introduced in February of this year, to take full account of the Government's view that in existing circumstances price increases should be kept to a minimum. Both Boards have had two tariff increases during the past year. In its annual report the South Board mention that a period of stability of tariffs is desirable and that for this reason-although 1971–72 will be a loss-making year—the Board would prefer to make no immediate move towards a further increase in tariffs.
  It is our policy as a Government to avoid as far as possible intervention in the internal and day-to-day management of the nationalised industries. I am satisfied that both Boards are doing everything possible to meet the present difficult situation and to supply their consumers as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Their need for the extension of the present limit to £800 million is beyond doubt and I ask the House to approve the Order so that the Boards can be provided with the funds necessary to carry out their important functions on which the economic and social welfare of Scotland depends so much.
  8.38 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: Perhaps the Minister
  132
  would answer a few questions before we pass the Order.
  As the Minister explained, the Order raises the borrowing limit, but he has not indicated the level of borrowing by the two Boards. I understand that it is well in excess of £600 million. One of the anomalies of the total borrowing of the two Boards is the large percentage of borrowing in relation to demand emanating from the North of Scotland Board. I estimate that 39 per cent. of the total borrowing commitment arises from the North of Scotland Board. Could the Minister say a word about the reasons for that? I have my own views.
  The North of Scotland Board is engaged in a highly capital-intensive enterprise. We ought to congratulate the Board on its policy of expanding demand in the area, on its social purpose, and on its policy to assist in promoting the attraction of industry to its area. I should like to hear comment from the Minister on the amount of borrowing in which the North of Scotland Board is involved, in particular, with reference to its work in connection with the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. I know that the bulk of the supply there will come from Hunterston B, but the transmission costs will come to the North of Scotland Board.
  The Minister made one or two points which are of interest not only in connection with the Order but in connection with electricity supply in Scotland generally. Although my constituency does not cover the power station at Longannet, a number of my constituents work in the mines supplying coal to that station. During the weekend, I had representations made to me about the failure of some of the turbo-generators there. The South of Scotland Board is involved in costs in this connection, and these are of relevance in considering its borrowing requirement. These failures are an embarrassment to the Board, and I should like to know what sort of contracts the Board has concluded with its suppliers and whether there are clauses in the contracts allowing the Board to recoup any losses caused, in part, by the failure of materials supplied to it. The Board itself ought not to be embarrassed, and its consumers ought not to be indirectly embarrassed, particularly when there are inflationary pressures in society generally. It ought not to suffer

  133
  further embarrassment due to additional costs brought about by the failure of certain suppliers to meet agreed specifications and standards of performance.
  The Minister rightly pointed to the remarkable achievements and improvements in efficiency of both Boards. The Boards have to meet certain targets of return on their assets specified by Governments of both parties, although the North of Scotland Board's target is of a somewhat different type. One of the reasons for the failure to meet these targets has been excessive inflationary pressure. But the Minister seemed to suggest that the inflationary pressure might have come from one of two sources, perhaps the inflationary effect of wage claims or, on the other hand, excessive prices of raw materials which the Board uses to produce its final product. He did not mention that the cost of money has been rising, but this is an important factor outside the Board's own orbit.
  It is proposed to raise the borrowing limit, but it is to be raised in the context of high interest rates prevailing in the economy as a whole. The return on net assets is made up of three components, depreciation, interest, and additional profitability. On this basis, it seems to me that the South of Scotland Board should, in general, be reaching about 12·5 per cent., but its inability to reach this figure is due partly to high interest charges, and especially so in relation to what it has to bear in capital construction before it takes its product to the grid. We can argue about this. We must concede that if the interest charge rises it might be part of the Government's policy to make certain allowances for that in the Boards' targets. But the inflationary pressures are not wholly of the Boards' making; they relate to the Government's overall strategy.
  The Minister has said that we are bouncing about near the ceiling of £700 million. I understand that the ceiling of £800 million about which he spoke tonight will last only until 1973–74. The Boards cannot assess demand merely for a year or two ahead. They must look seven years ahead. Demand management, particularly of electricity, relates directly to the growth of the gross domestic product.
  134
  It is a serious thing for the Minister to acknowledge that we are likely to be bouncing about at the ceiling. A Board can be embarrassed in two ways. If the growth of the G.D.P. exceeds its target it is likely to find itself with insufficient supply to meet eventual demand, which can be very costly to it, but if the growth of G.D.P. is less than its target it is still caught, because its assets are not being fully deployed. Therefore, whilst the Minister rightly emphasises the responsibility of the Boards for day-to-day management, the economic atmosphere in which they operate is conditioned by the Government overall.
  I should like an indication from the Minister whether the Boards are being given sufficient assurances that the Government's growth target, particularly for the Scottish region, will be met. There is no evidence that the rather meagre growth target set by the present Government will be met. What discussions is the Department having with the Scottish Boards to give them some assurances about future capital investment? If they are to be allowed to borrow, it is very important not to place an exorbitant charge on the public purse by embarrassing them at the end of the day, by having allowed them to create assets which are not fully deployed, because of the Government's economic policies.
  The Boards have had an insufficient allowance for self-financing, partly because of the inflationary pressures within the economy, which show no signs of lessening. The Minister's remarks gave no hope that he will assist in creating an atmosphere in which those pressures on the Boards will be lessened. If they get into difficulties in meeting the onerous targets they have been set, particularly the South of Scotland Electricity Board, will the Government immediately step in to give them some assurances that there will be no restriction on their necessary capital expenditure because of excessive inflationary pressures?
  The Boards are entitled to borrow in foreign currencies. We can get some indication from its annual reports of the foreign currency borrowings by the North of Scotland Board, but a cursory glance at the balance sheets gives no indication of the foreign currency borrowings by the South of Scotland Board. My right hon. and hon. Friends who are suspicious

  135
  about entry into the European Economic Community can see here a welcome example of public corporations having crossed barriers, presumably because of more favourable rates of interest on the Continent. I imagine that one of the reasons why they chose to borrow on the Continent—although the relatively small sum of about £3 million in all was borrowed by the North of Scotland Board—was that the rate of interest prevailing on the Continent was lower.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: I intervene briefly. It was customary when we had these debates in the cosy confines of the Scottish Grand Committee to make much longer speeches. Tonight, however, I am here to impress upon the Minister the need to recognise the changed position in the coal mining industry, not only in Britain as a whole, but in Scotland in particular. I suggest that he should impress upon the South of Scotland Electricity Board that coal is on the way up again and that he should do his best to impress upon the Board to make the main use of coal in the production of electricity in Scotland. We have heard over a number of years that coal was not competitive with oil, but I think it is now widely understood that coal can stand on its own against oil. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take note of this and impress it upon the Board at a suitable opportunity.
  The purpose of my intervention is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) concerning Longannet power station. I put down a Written Question last week to the Secretary of State for Scotland asking the reasons for the cause of the breakdown and what would be the result. The Secretary of State was able to tell me that it would be nearly the end of the year before two of the generators were ready for use again and that it would not be until later, perhaps early in 1972, that the third generator would be ready for use. This would seem to me to be a very costly business and I am sure that the limit of borrowing which has been brought forward tonight will not be sufficient, because I understand that the cost of meeting the breakdown will be very heavy.
  136
  It has been said—I do not know whether it is correct—that no one at the power station, where many people work, will be out of a job. This means that this body of men will be employed throughout this period without any production. It was also pointed out in answer to my Question that the supply to consumers in Scotland would not be affected. I sincerely hope that it will not be affected, but I cannot understand how a breakdown at the power station, which has been operating for almost a year, will not affect the supply to consumers.
  I also raised in my Question the important matter of cost. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he would not initiate a public inquiry into the cause or the reasons for the breakdown. The Secretary of State replied that he felt that a public inquiry was not necessary at this time. In my view, an inquiry of some kind is necessary because, with my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire, I feel that this will be a costly affair. After all, someone must be to blame for the three generators breaking down, and I feel that it can only be the supplier. I therefore ask the Minister to ask his right hon. Friend to institute an inquiry into the causes of the breakdown of the three generators at Longannet power station.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: The Under-Secretary will not expect any prizes for guessing the subject which I wish to raise. I thought that it might be easy to mention the coal industry in the course of the debate, but little did I dream that we could become involved in the merits of joining the Common Market. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) knows that I am one of those who are sceptical about what he suggests will be the wonderful results to be obtained from joining the Common Market.
  The South of Scotland Electricity Board is somewhat out of date and it must realise that coal now enjoys a seller's market and that the propaganda in which the S.S.E.B. is engaged does not do the indigenous industry any good. It must appreciate that is a seller's market not only for coal but for oil. No Minister can promise that oil supplies will be safeguarded, or that there will be price

  137
  stability. The S.S.E.B. should adopt a more modern approach when it draws comparisons between the prices of coal and oil. The "knocking" of coal is out of date, and the sooner that is understood, the better.
  I apologise to the Under-Secretary for not being here when he began his speech; I was detained elsewhere. He spoke about the cost element. He will recollect that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and I took part in an Adjournment debate when in the time available to us we drew attention to the S.S.E.B.'s proposal that the Portobello coal-fired power station should be converted to oil-fired.
  Portobello power station is in my hon. Friend's constituency and he argued a valiant case which was much appreciated by his constituents and by the miners. He and I have a joint interest in that the jobs of many miners are involved. We are talking about 1,200 or 1,300 jobs when the unemployment situation in Scotland is uncertain. With the state of the Scottish economy, we can ill afford to lose that many jobs, and the cost element argument of the S.S.E.B. does not stand examination. That is why I said that it was out of date. The men affected work at pits such as the Lady Victoria and the Whitrigg pit in my constituency.
  During the Adjournment debate, the Under-Secretary said that he was considering the facts and figures, and he admitted that the case for continuing coal-firing was probably stronger than that for converting to oil-firing, because of the present world situation.
  Since this Order is concerned with vast capital sums, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give some consideration to this matter before he replies to the debate. The decision is awaited anxiously. One might be forgiven for thinking otherwise in view of recent temperatures, but we shall be passing shortly from summer. At this time of year, in view of the lack of job opportunity in Scotland, it is unfair that there should be any doubt about the future of 1,300 jobs there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that this mad suggestion of the S.S.E.B.—made in economic terms—is a non-starter and that the jobs which are in peril in the area will be safeguarded.
  138
  The hon. Gentleman may also wish to comment on the situation at Inverkip. Some years ago, there was considerable optimism about the fact that Inverkip power station would be oil-fired. Despite the doubts of a number of hon. Members, we were told that there would be an oil bonanza and that price stability was assured. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to say that he has received assurances about the availability of oil supplies to Inverkip. At the time, we were told that the station had to be oil-fired because of the non-availability of coal and the cost factors involved. In the recent Adjournment debate, I gave figures to show conclusively that the cost factor element is rapidly disappearing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on the present position. Are oil supplies to Inverkip assured, or is there any question of a change of mind because of the introduction of new factors arising in the altered world situation?
  I return, however, to what is probably the most important point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can assure the House that the 1,300 jobs in doubt in relation to the Portobello station are in fact perfectly safe, in the interests of the miners in the area.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Palmer: I, too, must apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for not being here when he introduced the Order. I hasten to say that it was not because I have been in Scotland. I have been in Bristol. I must also apologise, as Englishmen do on these occasions, for intervening in a Scottish debate, though there is no reason why I should since my interest in electricity is fairly well known to hon. Members.
  In March of this year, there was an Electricity (Borrowing Powers) Order for England and Wales; in other words, for that part of the nationalised electricity supply industry south of the Border which comes under the general supervision of the Electricity Council. I had an opportunity to take part in the debate on that Order, and I made three principal points.
  The first was that the amount extra required to be borrowed was extremely moderate for the electricity supply industry generally and that the fact that it was moderate was no cause for congratulation since the electricity supply industry is peculiar in the sense that it tends to

  139
  reflect, almost in a straight line relationship, the prosperity of industry generally. If electricity does not require so much capital for the future, it is because the economy generally is much more restrained than it should be.
  The second point was that in terms of return on capital, in terms of numbers of industrial, technical and clerical staff employed in proportion to capacity or kilowatts installed, and in terms of relative price levels, the electricity supply industry was extremely efficient.
  The third point was that this efficient public utility gives excellent service to the nation. If it is now in danger of being forced into deficit, as is the South of Scotland Electricity Board, it is not the fault of the industry, but the arbitrary enforcement of Government policies, often against the best judgment of the industry. I propose to concentrate my remarks on that point, taking as my illustration the S.S.E.B. rather than the North of Scotland Electricity Board.
  I have studied the last annual report of the S.S.E.B. It is obvious, though it is not put in direct terms, that the Board, in the guarded language which it uses, is deeply hurt and indignant at the treatment that it has received from the Government. The S.S.E.B. shows up in cold concentrated reality the practical effects of the confusion, the ambiguity and the indecision of the Government's policies towards all the nationalised industries. This, more than any previous Conservative Government, is a Government of doctrine. They appear unable to make up their minds how far, if at all, the nationalised industries fit their theories. They are often in the position that they cannot live with the nationalised industries, nor can they live without them. They cannot decide just how mixed the mixed economy should be. On the other hand, the Government state that the nationalised industries must be commercially motivated.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The Order is very limited. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will restrict his remarks to what is contained in the Order.
  Mr. Palmer: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your warning.
  140
  I shall do my best to keep within the bounds of order. However, without going too wide, it is interesting to see how the S.S.E.B.'s difficulties reflect the problems which have been brought about for all the nationalised industries by the Government's policies. Subject to your Ruling, I should have thought that that point was perfectly fair.
  If, as one might suppose, the Government's policy is that the nationalised industries, including the S.S.E.B., should work on commercial trading lines, then their policies have made nonsense of that proposition so far as it affects the South of Scotland Electricity Board. First, the Government have interfered with the Board's price policies. This is clear from the Board's last annual report in which, on page 2, it says :
  "When eventually the new tariffs were introduced … the increases were smaller than what was strictly demanded by the situation."
  That followed discussions with the Government, because the Board says in its report :
  "Before finally determining the extent of these essential tariff increases the Board had to give consideration to the views expressed by the Government …".
  I suggest that it is not fair to the Board, any more than it would be fair to any other electricity board, that it should be told, on the one hand, to follow commercial considerations, while on the other the Government, without being frank and open enough to give a specific direction, influence it to keep its prices lower than it should do on strict commercial lines.
  Second, the South of Scotland Board—like the Central Electricity Generating Board south of the Border—is restricted in its liberty to choose its own fuels. Third, the Government are investigating the Board's profitable contracting and consumer utilisation activities. For those reasons it is impossible for the South of Scotland Board to work on commercial lines at all.
  In the matter of price policies, in the last two decades—and this point is made in the report—it is interesting to note that electricity has risen in price, in real terms, by only about one-third of the general rise in prices. That is a remarkable achievement, and when the Board proposed certain adjustments it

  141
  was not because its prices had been excessive in the past. In fact, it was the other way round. In terms of sheer price level, even against the other electricity boards in the United Kingdom, the South of Scotland Board comes out very well.
  In the matter of the choice of fuels, it has been the general contention of the electricity supply industry that if electricity prices are to be kept at a reasonable level, not only in relation to particular industries, and not only in relation to other fuels used by its competitors in this country, but also in relation to prices that are charged for industrial energy in other countries which, internationally, are our competitiors, and where price enters into the cost of the product, it should be allowed to choose freely between the various primary fuels that are available. These are, coal, oil, nuclear fission and, if I dare mention it, natural gas. I hold the view that the electricity supply industry should be free to use natural gas, in the same way as any other industrial plant is, if it is prepared to pay the going rate.
  There are many reasons why the electricity supply industry should always show a bias towards coal, because it is still its first primary fuel, and unless it looks upon the coal industry as a necessary prop to its existence things would be difficult for it. The view that I take—and it is shared by the unions—is that if the coal industry, as most of us would expect, for social and other reasons, requires a subsidy, it should be paid out of general community funds, and not out of the revenues of the electricity supply industry by overcharging for fuel.
  It is also particularly hard on the electricity supply industry that, while the gas industry gets its fuel oil free of tax, it has to pay a considerable amount of tax. In its last year of working, the South of Scotland Board had to pay more than £2 million in tax, while its close competitor, the gas industry, got off literally scot free.
  I should be interested to hear from the hon. Member what the Government propose to do about this, if anything. I must be fair about it, and point out that the previous Government, which I supported, also did little about it. It would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State, in collaboration with other Ministers, proposes to make a change now.
  142
  I have referred to the foregoing interferences with the reasonable commercial freedom of the electricity supply industry. I have in mind finally the suggested proposal, still going the rounds within the industry, to hive off the more profitable contracting and utilisation activities of the boards. The South of Scotland Electricity Board—I know this without having to be told it by any public relations officer; I have much sounder information resources—has had to make a report to the Government, presumably through the Secretary of State, from its point of view, about the possibility of separating from the Board's own normal finances its contracting and utilisation activities.
  Traditionally the electricity supply industry has always consisted of generation, transmission, distribution and utilisation. That is the way that it has evolved and developed. The contracting and utilisation activities operated by electricity undertakings did not date from nationalisation; they go back to the days of municipal and company undertakings.
  In those circumstances it is very hard that electricity boards such as the South of Scotland Board, struggling against the dead weight of Governmental policies generally, should have this time-wasting interference with their right to do something they have always done. I suggest to the hon. Member and those of his colleagues who think about these things south of the Border that it would be very interesting. if the Scottish Electricity Boards, in collaboration and conjunction with Electricity Boards generally, took a poll of their consumers to find out whether they agreed that the Boards should not in future carry on these utilisation activities. I believe that the consumers would say, "Certainly not a change; they should be allowed to carry on as in the past!"
  When the consumers are dealing with an Electricity Board they know they are dealing with something solid and reliable. If work is not done correctly, or is not maintained at a proper standard, they can return to the Electricity Board; it does not disappear. If the consumers are handed over to the tender mercies of private contractors they will be very much worse off in general and they know it.
  I put that point forward seriously. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to do so. If they think that these

  143
  policies will meet with the general approval of the population the Government should be bold enough to give the Boards freedom to take a local consumer poll on the matter. It would be to have the courage of their convictions.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: I, too, must apologise to the Minister for not having heard his opening remarks. I have no excuse. I have been in the House all the time. I did not notice the annunciator showing that the Minister was on his feet and that the subject had been raised. I hastened in when I saw it on the annunciator, but I was much too late.
  I want to make a point from an angle different from that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). He has been talking about the need for the South of Scotland Electricity Board to operate under reasonable commercial considerations or criteria. It seems to me that that Board is operating under criteria that might be regarded as rather questionable—utilising its monopoly power to do things that many other industries or firms might like to do but are unable to do. I am referring to the practice of charging a deposit before supplying electricity. This relates closely to the question whether the Board requires more borrowing powers or can generate more money itself.
  I can see the Board's case. It claims to have considerable bad debts—I think about £400,000. It has adopted a practice which in my area has caused considerable feeling among social works departments. When someone falls into debt and the department is prepared to help him out, the Board demands not merely the outstanding amount but a considerable deposit in addition. The social works department either says that it can do nothing or has to find the extra money. In one case, it was a large sum relative to the actual debt. The task of the social works departments was made more difficult. Unfortunately, there are many bad payers, and some measures must be adopted, but on the occasion with which I was concerned and about which I wrote to the Chairman of the Board, the terms were pretty harsh.
  There is also the practice of charging a deposit to a newcomer. When a young
  144
  couple move into an all-electric flat, they have to put down a deposit perhaps of six months' estimated expenditure. I wonder whether this practice is acceptable to the Minister. I should like to know under which powers this is done, whether it is a forced loan without interest and whether the money can be paid by instalments. What are the practices elsewhere? If other Boards with the same problems are not engaging in these practices, why should the South of Scotland Electricity Board get away with this and have the practice endorsed by the consultative committee? I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central. We have had the voice of the miners' representative and that of the ex-electricity worker. I am neither, so, representing a steel constituency, perhaps I can adjudicate fairly easily.
  This Report, and an excellent Report it is, the Report and Accounts of the South of Scotland Electricity Board, is a cry of protest at the continuance of practices which no normal commercial firm would be expected to put up with. It shows how in a whole range of ways the Board is made to suffer. I want to be fair to the Under-Secretary, and I am not picking on his Government, because I recognise that my Government, too, followed practices comparable with those which the present Government are following. The practices of the one Government and the other are not very different, though it may be that they are a little more intensively followed by the present Government, and followed a little more under cover, the present Government not being so open about them. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will tell us a little about that. However, there is tight control of prices and the failure to take account of increased costs, which have been very substantial.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) talked about coal now being in a seller's market. The S.S.E.B. will say it has been made to pay through the nose. Let us not put it that way. I had better say that it has been made to pay very substantially more for coal.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: My hon. Friend is looking at last year's Report. There have been dramatic changes since then, particularly with oil-producing countries demanding more for their products.
  Mr. Lawson: I am not arguing for or against that, but, on the basis of last year's Report, why has the Board found it necessary to come to this House and to ask for increased borrowing powers?
  Mr. Eadie: Would my hon. Friend accept that had he been at the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and participated in by myself he would have heard that we were not theorising about the seller's market but that it is a fact? It is documented.
  Mr. Lawson: I am not quarrelling with my hon. Friend, but, if what he says is so, all the more reason why the Electricity Board should be allowed to choose which fuel it wants. My hon. Friend cannot have it all ways, nor can my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter). If his argument is that oil is going up and up in price—
  Mr. Adam Hunter: It is a fact.
  Mr. Lawson: —well, fair enough; but what I understand the Electricity Board to be arguing is that it should be enabled to choose the fuel it wants and not be compelled to adopt any one fuel. That is what I understand the Board to be crying out for, or one of the things that it is crying out for. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian that, if coal is now in a seller's market, he should be prepared to say of the Electricity Board, "All right, let it pick its fuel".
  Mr. Douglas: I think my hon. Friend ought to know that, in terms of agreements made between the N.C.B. and the S.S.E.B. on occasion—I am particularly interested in Longannet—the long-term contract prices have been extremely favourably negotiated between the two Boards, and, in so far as the Coal Board has accepted long-term commitments, they are of benefit to both of the Boards That has to be kept in mind.
  Mr. Lawson: I am prepared to accept that from my hon. Friend, but, presumably, under the contract entered into there is long-term advantage to the Coal Board, too, because that pit would not have been developed had it not been for that power station. So there is mutual advantage. I accept this. I am not arguing about it.
  146
  I am not aware that this sort of thing is being argued against in the Electricity Board's Report. If the circumstances have so changed that coal has become so scarce and there is a sellers' market, there should be no need to insist so stringently that, come what may, coal it shall be.
  This is one of the features which the Board mentions and it is right that we should be able to say this sort of thing if we are to argue on commercial practice. Otherwise I fully subscribe to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central. If we are to insist that those commercial practices shall not over a considerable area apply, we should not apply the measuring criterion normally applied to fully commercial concerns.
  Another example of how the Board was badly treated, and badly treated, again, by my own Government—although in some respects and in a rather queer way not so badly treated by the present Government—is that of investment grants. In spite of the hundreds of millions of pounds which the Board spent over the years on property which would normally have been assessed for investment grant, in some cases 40 per cent., it was not able to obtain grants which any large private concern which wanted to put in its own generating plant was obtaining. That happened under my Government. The difference is that the present Government have wiped out investment grants, or propose to do so, which means that in this sense the Board may be said not to be suffering from that injustice. But it does not spring from any desire on the part of the Government to assist the Board. It just happens to work that way in this case.
  Even at a cursory glance at the electricity generating industry—and this is true of the whole United Kingdom industry—there is no question about its exceptional efficiency. It measures up to what is done anywhere else. At a time when the characteristic of any other British industry is that we are at the bottom of every production league—and this is the case even with our great chemical concerns—we are pretty well at the top of the electricity generating league, and this is most commendable. Even over the short period of five years mentioned in the Order, electricity units sold per employee have gone up by over 60 per cent. That is quite remarkable,

  147
  and very much in excess of what has been done in agriculture, about which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends often brag. The agricultural achievement pales into insignificance in comparison with that of electricity generation.
  The electricity generating industry is remarkably successful, but it is at this stage carrying unfair burdens. It should be given much greater freedom than it enjoyed under my Government or is enjoying under the present Government. If it had had that freedom, it would not now be necessary for the Board to seek power to borrow another £100 million. The intention initially was that the Board should pay out of its internal resources 66 per cent. of the cost of fresh development, but because of the policy that has been followed it has been able to pay not quite 40 per cent. It could easily have reached its 66 per cent., and possibly more, if it had been given reasonable freedom not to act in a way that is injurious to the interest of the nation—that is, if it had been given sufficient freedom to enable it to pay for the necessary developments in a way that can be seen to be fair to it as well as to us.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman, despite the fact that he represents a different Government, wil say that he agrees, and that the intention is to give the electricity authority much more scope for action than it has had up to the present.
  9.35 p.m.
  Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has occupied a very unusual position tonight—the middle of the road. He has called himself a referee. Only one thing ever happens to someone in the middle of the road : he gets knecked down. If my hon. Friend is to be criticised, it is for trying to comment on past performances of the Labour Government on this matter, especially when he talks about matters affecting the coal industry, which are rapidly changing, in ways I may be able to touch upon shortly.
  The speech that we are about to bear from the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, will be, perhaps, the most significant speech we shall hear about Scottish thermal economics—I think that is the phrase used in the
  148
  Office—in the current parliamentary year. We will be given a slight lift of the veil on the Bill that is to come after this Order. We are all concerned about how long the Order will last. In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman said that the figure would go so far. When we were in government it was intended that the figure would go until 1972. The Order will not go as long as that. Therefore, I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us that the date when this Order will run out, on present estimates, affecting both Boards, will be some time this year or early next year. That will mean, therefore, that he is promising us a Bill early in the next Parliamentary Session to carry on the work of both Boards.
  This raises the question of whether both Boards will continue. The hon. Gentleman has to satisfy us about that because there is a great deal of speculation at the moment about whether this and other monies voted to nationalised industries will be committed for Boards that will remain as Boards. For example, in The Guardian today there is an article by a very responsible journalist about what the Minister for Industry is about to do to the Gas Council. We are wondering what the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the light of what is the doctrinaire thought of the Government, is about to do with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. The North of Scotland Board has done extremely well in the last year. We have noted the Minister's commendations and we will use them against him and his colleagues if they attempt to merge the North Board with the South Board in their coming Bill. There have been temptations to do that in the past, and as a Government we rejected that proposition.
  The financial return on the North Board is much less than that on the South Board, for obvious reasons. We are wondering whether the Under-Secretary is being beguiled into the idea that after the Order, perhaps both Boards should be merged, because the financial performance does not seem to fit in with what is the precondition for return on investment under the present Administration.
  Mr. Palmer: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the McKenzie Report

  149
  generally came down against the amalgamation of the two Boards?
  Dr. Mabon: That is true. In the Report of the North Board there is a reference on page 13 as follows :
  "Rainfall was heavy in the north in 1970 and this enabled reductions to be made, in the interests of economy, in the amount of generation undertaken by the thermal stations in the pool operated by the two Boards."
  When we were in office we stopped this antagonism of the two Boards. We instituted, not only a joint account, but also a pooling arrangement for generation. That stopped all the rivalry between the two boards.
  The North of Scotland Board has a very difficult task in trying to connect everyone in its area to the electricity system. It is strange that, with all the argument, Parliament might be considering a situation in which people are not able to get such a simple thing as electricity. When we came into office in 1964 about 90 per cent. of the population there was connected. The Board's most recent report records, with a certain commendation, that 97 per cent. of all potential consumers in the North of Scotland have now been provided for. Three per cent. of the population of the North of Scotland does not represent many people. However, if the two boards were to be merged those people might as well write off any hope of being connected to the system. We will not allow the boards to merge.
  The Report of the North of Scotland Board this year has on its front page a photograph of the Invergordon smelter which was introduced by the last Government and which is acknowledged by everyone to be a great success, not only for its intrinsic value, but for what it means in terms of Highland development. I am glad that there are other investors outside the public sphere in Invergordon seeking to open up the area, which is an excellent deep water harbour, for further commercial activities. This is not just a matter of a board helping people in far off areas. It is also the possibility of bringing industry to areas which were formerly written off.
  The very existence within the North of Scotland Board's area of the Atomic Energy Authority prototype fast reactor, the most modern in the world—we lead
  150
  the world in atomic energy and feed into the North of Scotland system electricity from this most advanced science—is a proof of the tremendous importance of the North of Scotland Board.
  The Opposition would resent and fight any attempt to merge the Boards. What merging is needed has been done. It is important to leave the North Board as it is, to leave it to connect up its consumers and to advocate its peculiar point of view of development at the so-called periphery. I do not accept that word, but that is what the Board calls it.
  Page 3 of the Report of the North of Scotland Board contains a number of comments about new generating plant. I want some information about these. There is Foyers which we started and which we think will begin production in 1974. The erection of the plant may begin this summer. We are told also that the Board, under the excellent leadership of our old colleague, Tom Fraser, may construct a generating station with a total capacity of 1,320 megawatts at Stake Ness in Banffshire. This is an excellent addition to the economy of the North-East of Scotland. May we know a little more about that? May we be told a little more about the surveys for a pumped storage development using Loch Lomond as the lower reservoir?
  I should like the House tonight to pat the North of Scotland Board on the back and to say to it, "Let us know what you are doing. Know that your existence over the next decade is assured. We will ensure that you prosper well and we will not interfere with what you are doing. Indeed, we will encourage you to do even better".
  I turn to the affairs of the South of Scotland Board. My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) mentioned our concern about Longannet. Is it not interesting that Longannet, which was initiated by the Conservative Administration in 1963, is now the subject of discussion? It takes that long to plan a station. Similarly Inverkip, which we instituted, will not be the subject of much discussion until 1972 or 1974. In a sense, perhaps, the Under-Secretary of State has more responsibility for answering questions about Longannet than about Inverkip. There is genuine concern, perhaps with pressure from outside and indeed inside the Board, that

  151
  Longannet will not be given the consideration that we thought it would be given.
  The South Board is embarrassed by the high level of interest rates. It says on page 7 of its Report :
  "The high level of interest rates was made more burdensome by the necessity not only of borrowing the finance required for new capital investment but of borrowing to cover the repayment of earlier loans. The average interest rate on loans repaid in the year was 6'8 per cent. compared with 9·1 per cent. on the loans which replace them, the difference in interest amounting to £0·4 million in a full year".
  It is interesting that the heading to Chapter I of the South Board's Report is "Fight against inflation". This is one on the jaw for the Government. They cannot say, "We have been the Government for only a year. It takes a long time to work these things out." That argument is getting a bit thin. The Report should have started by saying, "Fight against inflation : Government nearly winning". This is a very sad Report from the South Board about all the embarrassments of the present and how it does not see much relief coming in the reasonably near future. Perhaps the Minister will say something to encourage the Board. We should like to hear a bit more about the forthcoming Bill.
  I turn to the argument about coal and oil and nuclear energy. The Minister is an absolute dab hand—and I hope that that is a parliamentary expression—at telling us things without giving us the figures and skating over the most difficult situations. For example, he attempted to bamboozle my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) the other night when he talked about the situation concerning Portobello. He gave no figures. He is the man without figures—no targets, no figures, no nothing, just nice, charming sugar-lolly words. But he should give us the figures concerning Portobello. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell can become the referee, he must know the figures. There may be a judgment to be made about the figures from the commercial point of view of the Board and from the social point of view of the Government. I accept that. As a Minister, I have had to confront such situations myself.
  But the commercial facts should be known so that we can weigh the matter in the Beeching manner when it came
  152
  to giving subsidies on railway lines and in the manner adopted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in her Transport Act, 1968, namely, that if a subsidy is to be provided, then let it be known and let us know what the community is paying rather than pretend that the economics are this or that when they are not.
  I should like the Minister to grasp the nettle instead of making nice noises about the miners and the coal mining industry and expressing anxiety about social matters. The miners of Great Britain have an enormous opportunity ahead of them. We can sell much more coal than we buy if we go into this matter vigorously. The economics of selling coal to electricity stations in Scotland might be different in as much as the attraction of other markets would give a better return for the Coal Board. Mr. Ezra, the new chairman, whom we all wish well, prophesies that he can not only sell coal at home but he can sell more abroad.
  In this changed atmosphere, I should like to see new attitudes being adopted towards electricity. Let us get away from the idea that we regard the mining industry paternalistically as an industry which is, sadly, running down, an industry with no great future, and so on. We have had the battle fought over coal versus nuclear energy, coal versus oil, coal versus natural gas—
  Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend is enlarging on an interesting argument about a seller's market, saying that there may be better and more profitable markets, but he should remember that for years the argument has been about price. If he talks about alternative fuels, he must talk about price as well, because the argument against using coal has been on price. Now we hear from my hon. Friend the reverse argument, to some extent, that we can sell elsewhere with the price becoming more favourable.
  Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend may have a point there, but what I am inviting the Under-Secretary of State to embrace is the fact that coal is no longer in a restrictionist market, that it is entering a phase of expansion, not expansion necessarily in Great Britain but expansion in wider markets. That being so, the economics of this Order and the Bill to

  153
  come, and our whole generating system in this country, are affected by the new situation. [Interruption] My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) should be glad about that and rejoice. I am not a referee. I never was, and I do not want to be. I am simply saying that he should rejoice, and I am inviting the Under-Secretary of State to say, in commending the Order to the House, that he will follow it with a Bill which will not merge both Boards but keep them as separate entities. The thermal economics of all fuels are changing, and the last matters which I have introduced are, perhaps, the most significant in terms of changed circumstances that we have seen in the last decade. If the hon. Gentleman says that, I shall be happy to see the Order go through, and my hon. Friends will be joyful, too.
  9.53 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: There was a moment during the last few minutes when I thought I might be able to go out and have a cup of tea and leave hon. Members opposite to it. I shall not try to usurp the new-found and, no doubt, happy position of the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) as referee in these matters. I was not quite sure while he was speaking whether his self-appointed position was altogether acceptable to all sections of opinion in the House, but from my point of view I can think of no more suitable, more charming or more balanced person to be the referee, and I look forward to watching the hon. Gentleman at work, although I suspect that it will be pretty hard work when he gets started.
  Perhaps I may put right at the outset some misconceptions about the timing of the Order and where it fits into the scheme of things. I mentioned this at the beginning, but some hon. Members, perhaps those who were not able to be here at the commencement of the debate, may not have appreciated the point. The £700 million limit was originally expected to last until 1972, but, as I said, due to inflation and various other factors, it looks as though that limit will be reached towards the end of 1971. So there is a difference there which, though not enormous, is of some significance.
  We expect the £700 million limit to be reached towards the end of 1971, and that is why we have a further Order
  154
  tonight to raise the limit to £800 million. Also, as there are considerable sums of retention money on construction contracts due to be paid during the next financial year, we expect it to be unlikely that the £800 million final limit fixed by the 1969 Act, which this Order brings us up to, will last beyond the end of 1972.
  This draft Order, therefore, provides for the extension of the limit to the end of 1972 up to the statutory maximum of £800 million, and it will probably be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation next Session fixing a new limit.
  The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) asked me to say whether the Bill would include a proposal to merge the North and South Boards. No such proposal has come my way. The Bill I mentioned would be to fix a new limit for borrowing powers and nothing else.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is not it a fact that there will be a Bill in the next Session? If there is, can the Minister give us a categorical assurance that both Boards will remain intact?
  Mr. Younger: I cannot commit us to having a Bill in the next Session. I have said that it will probably be necessary for the Secretary of State to introduce legislation in the next Session to fix a new limit. The Bill to which I am referring has nothing to do with any proposal the hon. Gentleman may have in mind for merging the Boards.
  The general tenor of what the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) said related to my remarks earlier about the relationship between having to increase the borrowing limit and whether the industry was able through its income from sales to finance a larger or smaller proportion of its capital investment from its own resources. I made the point that inflation such as we have experienced for the past two or three years reduces the Boards' ability to finance from their own resources. It means a bigger call on borrowing, if investment is to be kept at the level we need, and therefore greater borrowing limits.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what was the proportion of borrowing by the North of Scotland Board. The total borrowing of the two Boards against the limit stands

  155
  at about £670 million, which is within £30 million of the present limit. The North Board accounts for about £260 million, which is about 40 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman also rightly asked about the need for the North Board to have such a relatively high level of investment. It has invested considerably in the past in the highly capital-intensive hydroelectric schemes. The capital cost of generating capacity and transmission for Invergordon is met by the capital contribution of the British Aluminium Company and does not fall upon the electricity consumer.
  The North Board has £3·3 million of foreign currency borrowings—8,000,000 European units of account, borrowed in 1969 at 8 per cent. The South Board has £6·3 million of foreign borrowings, 60 million Deutschemark borrowed in 1969 at 8¼ per cent. That is a fairly substantial amount of borrowing, but is not very large compared with the two Boards' programmes.
  We welcomed the intervention of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). The hon. Gentleman, who is no stranger to electricity debates, and no stranger to Scottish debates on this subject, asked about the use of natural gas and about the fuel oil tax, which other hon. Members also mentioned. There has been discussion about this tax for many years. Some regard it as an imposition, while some regard it as right that, as some commercial undertakings have to bear it, others should, too. But it is entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not for me to say whether there is to be any change in fuel oil tax, or whether there should be. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will note what is said in these debates, as he always does.
  Mr. Palmer: I appreciate that it is the Chancellor's responsibility, but my point was the different treatment of gas as against the electricity industry.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separation Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Goodhew.]

ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS)
Question again proposed.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Member is quite right, but this is by no means a unique situation. Many industries pay fuel tax or other tax and find a competitor which does not pay the same tax on a similar or different product. I appreciate the point, but this is not a unique situation.
Mr. Douglas Mr. Douglas rose—
Mr. Younger: I am sorry, I had better get on. I have many points to which to reply.
I was asked also about the use of natural gas. This is a matter of general fuel policy the aim of which is to have the optimum use of all resources, including this new natural resource, which has come to Scotland and is now in use. With the hon. Member for Greenock, I was pleased to be present at the opening of the first factory in Scotland to be constructed to use natural gas.
The present policy is to concentrate on the premium markets—that is, domestic consumers—where the national benefit is the greatest. Use of natural gas in power stations would be a matter of negotiation between the electricity boards, the Gas Council and the gas boards, which have the statutory right to purchase from producers and whose consent would be required to any direct purchase arrangements. Applications from an electricity board for the conversion of a power station to burn natural gas instead of coal or any other variant of the various fuels would be considered in exactly the same way as requests for conversion to oil-firing are considered—that is to say, taking into account all the possible consequences, including the social consequences of all kinds and the possible social consequences on areas

157
which are dependent on a great deal of mining employment.
The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire also asked what was the cost to the Boards due to any failures on the part of suppliers, in particular in the context of the failures at Longannet. I know that this is a matter which causes considerable concern to many hon. Members. It has been a great disappointment to the South of Scotland Board that it has had three failures at Longannet during the last few weeks.
The No. 1 generator was shut down about a month ago because failure of a heat exchanger admitted water instead of steam into the turbine, causing damage to the rotors and the casing. More recently, faults developed in the turbines of Nos. 2 and 3 units, both of which probably have bent shafts. The trouble here stems from overheating caused by faulty or overtight glands.
As to future operations, the Board expects that Nos. 2 and 3 units will be repaired and in service towards the end of the year. No. 1 unit, which is more seriously affected, should be in operation early in 1972 and it is hoped that at that time No. 4 unit, which is building, should be completed and start operating.
I must make it clear that responsibility is entirely a contract matter between the Board and their suppliers. This is something that the Board must argue out with their suppliers if the causes and the extent of damage which may have occurred are properly established. It certainly would not be proper for me to interfere or to suggest that either one side or the other was more to blame, if, indeed, blame is attached to anyone.
Mr. Douglas: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman uses the word "interference" circumspectly, but his Department was aware of the contracts and surely knows whether they have penalty clauses concerning equipment or failure to adhere to specification. He ought, therefore, to be able to give us a direct answer whether these causes are covered in the contracts.
Mr. Younger: All contracts contain various provisions of that sort. I cannot tell the hon. Member—I do not think that anyone can yet, not even the people in the Electricity Board—whether the defects or the troubles which have been caused are likely to come within the
158
ambit of any penalty clauses, damages or anything like that. This is a matter which will have to be left until investigations into what actually happened are more or less complete.
The hon. Member for Bristol, Central mentioned contracting and retailing in the electricity industry. I repeat what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said about this some time ago when he assured representatives of the employees and consumers, that is to say, the chairmen of the electricity consultative committees, in England and Wales that they would be consulted before any action was taken to hive off any part of the industry. I give an entirely similar assurance in respect of the contracting and retailing operations of Scottish Electricity Boards, that is to say, that the consumers' councils would be fully consulted before any decisions were taken. The contracting and retailing activities of the Boards are under review, as the House knows, but we are not yet in a position to say when the review will be completed. I can say only that no decision will be taken until after appropriate consultation with all concerned.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made some interesting comments on the subject of Inverkip. I have no reason to doubt the availability of supplies for Inverkip power station when it eventually comes into operation, but this is entirely a matter for the Electricity Board itself and presumably it is satisfied about the supply position, or it would not be pressing as it is, as is shown by its report, for conversions.
The hon. Member for Motherwell raised the important issue of the practice of the South of Scotland Board of asking for security deposits and so on when making consumer connections. This is a matter for the Board itself, a matter of commercial running, but I recognise that it causes considerable public disquiet from time to time. The Board has a consumers' consultative council and representations may be made to the council at any time. In general, it has been consulted about the Board's schemes now in operation and it has accepted the Board's general policy in these matters. However, it will certainly be ready to consider individual cases which are reported to it.
There have been complaints about the Board's policy of asking for security

159
deposits or guarantees from new consumers. This is entirely a matter for the Board. Outstanding debts on electricity accounts on 8th April, 1971, amounted to £4 million compared with only £1·5 million a year earlier. Most of this increase was probably due to the period of the postal strike, but £500,000 was six months' overdue, very much in excess of anything which could be attributed to the postal strike.
In 1970–71, £350,000 bad debts had to be written off and in 1969–70 the figure was £423,000. It is to protect other consumers from having to bear these bad debts that the Board has instituted the practice of asking for deposits or guarantees. The Board would be most willing to receive representations of any kind from hon. Members on this subject, but I must repeat that the consumers' consultative committee accepts the Board's purpose in taking such deposits and in general approves the Board's action.
Mr. Lawson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this practice is engaged in by other Electricity Boards?
Mr. Younger: In other Electricity Boards? I could not answer for Boards in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman will have to ask the relevant Minister about that. However, I am not aware that the North Board has the same scheme as the South Board. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wants further details, I shall write to him about it.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the representations which have been made by the Association of Directors of Social Work in Scotland, which is very concerned about this matter? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to us about it, since we, too, are worried.
Mr. Younger: I appreciate the concern. This is the sort of matter which is brought to Members of Parliament, and it is essential for them to have proper facilities to deal with it. I shall be happy to look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Greenock asked for one or two details about the con-
160
struction programme. He asked about the Foyers scheme, which is a North of Scotland scheme. The construction of the station on the shores of Loch Ness is well under way, and the station is expected to be in commission in 1974. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, it has two 150-MW reversible sets installed in a shaft below the level of Loch Ness. The scheme will use Loch Mhor as the upper reservoir and Loch Ness as the lower reservoir. It will require a labour force of 500 until 1974.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Stake Ness project. I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker), who has been to see me, and from other hon. Members who have raised the matter from time to time that there is concern about the pace at which the project appears to be going ahead. I can assure hon. Members that there has been no hold-back in the process of evaluating the best form that the station shall take. At present the studies as to the best type of station for the job that it will have to do are well advanced. I hope before long to get final estimates and tenders based on the various different alternative models that we are trying to assess. As far as we can see, the project has to be evaluated as to the type of station that it will be. But there will be no delay in going ahead with its construction.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Loch Lomond scheme. That is at an earlier stage of consideration, and there are a number of technical problems. However, the studies are going ahead well and I have reason to think that at the end of the day a scheme will be brought forward.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the site in Banff in any doubt? Can the hon. Gentleman give us any time scale with regard to Loch Lomond?
Mr. Younger: I cannot give a time scale for Loch Lomond. It is at too early a stage to see the likely time scale. There is no doubt about the site at Banff, by which I assume that the hon. Gentleman means the physical site.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Yes.
Mr. Younger: There is no doubt about that. But we are at the stage of trying to work out whether a steam-generating heavy water reactor will be right or whether another form will be best. Within the broad limits of those several alternatives, we are getting on reasonably well with it.
Most of the other points on which we got into a fairly useful discussion, I think, came under the heading of the alleged complaints about interference with which the hon. Member for Bristol, Central said that the Report of the South Board was riddled. Here, both sides of the House are in difficulty. I said earlier that it was our policy to interfere as little as possible with the nationalised industries. I reassure the hon. Member for Motherwell that that is our policy. We want to leave these industries as much as we can to get on with the job and to act commercially as far as they are able.
There is a misconception about what acting commercially means. One or two hon. Members opposite appear to think that acting commercially means being able to put up prices without let or hindrance whenever one feels like it. If hon. Gentlemen opposite think that that is how an ordinary commercial undertaking carries on, they cannot have worked for one. If they had, they would have found that there are innumerable reasons for putting up prices and far more reasons why it is impossible to do so, either because one's competitor has not, because the market will not stand it, or because sales will go down, and therefore, the profitability of the business, too. To think that an industry which is nationalised and which has to take into account social factors in its pricing policies is acting uncommercially because of that alone is a complete misconception. Commercial concerns have all kinds of inhibitions about what they can do in these matters. Electricity boards are no exception.
When we come to what the complaint was the matter becomes most interesting. It seemed thatt he hon. Member for Motherwell was pressing me, and also my predecessor who was there to take his medicine, that we should not be interfering with the running of these industries. That struck a sympathetic chord in my mind.
162
Two things have stuck out in previous debates on these matters. We have had excellent, articulate and persistent requests by the hon. Members for Midlothian, Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) and many others that we should interfere with the antionalised industries on social and on many other grounds. Taking it one stage further, I had always thought that one of the great advantages alleged to be gained from nationalising industries was that the Government could interfere and make them work for social and other reasons. If, on the one hand, the message is that we should never interfere, we cannot fulfil what is alleged by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be one reason for nationalisation. If, on the other hand, we are to interfere, as the hon. Member for Midlothian suggests, I am prepared, as I have often said, to consider requests to change the fuel supply at the power stations, giving the widest possible consideration to all factors, including social factors. This is what we are, and intend to continue, doing.
Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman knows that we have already said that where an industry is to operate with other than commercial considerations, as this industry is to operate, it should be done openly. If the industry is being made to subsidise the community, as in many cases this industry was, then it should be done openly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with that, but it puts a different light on the argument which he has presented.
Mr. Younger: I will not quarrel with that. This is merely another factor in the difficult triangle of considerations which we have to work out in these matters. However, we cannot get away from the fact that when an industry is publicly owned, as this is, for better or for worse, the Government of the day have certain responsibilites towards it. I am trying to discharge those responsibilities by taking the widest possible view of the public interest.
We have had an extremely interesting debate on all these matters. We may not agree on everything, but I think that we agree that the Order is necessary and desirable and that we wish the Boards every success in their coming years of

163
activity. I hope that the House will now approve the Order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Electricity (Borrowing Powers) (Scotland) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

ELECTRICITY (BORROWING POWERS)

  MEDICINES (SURGICAL MATERIALS)
  Resolved,
  That the Medicines (Surgical Materials) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th June, be approved.—[Mr. Alison.]

  HOUSING BILL
  Order for Committee read.
  Committee tomorrow.

RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
RECOGNITION OF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS BILL [Lords]
  Clause 2

    RECOGNITION IN GREAT BRITAIN OF OVERSEAS DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS
    10.19 p.m.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 6, at end insert ' act or '.
    The purpose of this Amendment and Amendment No. 3, in Clause 3, page 2, line 11, after 'date', insert 'of the act or ', which I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, indicated would be taken with it—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If that meets the convenience of the House, so be it.
    Mr. Silkin: It would be convenient for me, at any rate, Mr. Speaker.
    The purpose of these Amendments is to attempt to resolve a difficulty in the framing of the legislation. It is a difficulty which I believe the Solicitor-General has recognised as a real one, and one which we ought, if we can, to resolve.
    The purpose of this legislation is to give effect in this country to the provisions of the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations. The object of that Convention is to avoid what are called "limping marriages"—and I suppose one could also say limping legal separations—that is, the situation in which a man and a woman can be regarded in one country as being divorced, or legally separated, but in another country—and so far as the Bill is concerned this country—as still married and bound to cohabit. We are leading the world in
    166
    legislating to give effect to the intent of the Convention.
    The difficulty which has arisen, however, is one which springs from the wording of the Convention itself—not that we are bound to follow the precise wording of the Convention; indeed, in the Bill we are seeking rather to go beyond it than to stay entirely with it. The intent of the Convention is, I think, reasonably clear. It is that where a divorce or legal separation is obtained in another State, then that divorce or legal separation, except in certain specific circumstances, which are referred to in Articles 7, 8 and 9, and which are reproduced in Clause 8(2)(a) and (b), shall be regarded as being as valid in other countries as it is in the country in which it is obtained.
    There are exceptions, but the wording of the Convention provides what, on the face of it, appears to be a qualification, because it uses the language
    "obtained in another contracting State",
    and
    "which follow judicial or other proceedings officially recognised in that State and which are legally effective there."
    and the Bill has sought generally to follow that language.
    The term "judicial proceedings" is, I think, reasonably clear. What is not clear is what was intended by those who drafted the Convention when they spoke about "other proceedings". I think it is clear enough—at any rate I am persuaded so—that they did not mean some other form of quasi-judicial proceedings. I think that they had in mind something wider than that. Indeed, the preparatory discussions which led to this form of wording undoubtedly produced a situation in which it was generally accepted that the wording would be intended to comprehend, for example, divorces of the type of the Muslim talak divorce, which do not involve any form of court proceedings, or anything of that kind. It would probably also be accepted that the legal considerations intended to be comprehended by the Convention were not necessarily the kind of legal separations which are obtained by means of some form of court proceedings.
    We are therefore left with the question : what was meant by "other proceedings"?

    167
    I take the view that the term "proceeding" connotes a sequence of events rather than a single act or event. The wording of the Convention and the wording of the Bill—which both talk about the "institution of the proceedings"—tend to support that view, yet the talak divorce and similar types of event are difficult to square with that obvious meaning of the term "proceedings". That is where the difficulty lies in the Convention, and we have reproduced the difficulty by using the same words—"judicial or other proceedings"—in the Bill.
    We know that we intend to include such forms of divorce as the talak divorce and separation which are not necessarily the result of any form of judicial or administrative procedure, but the wording that we have used, because it follows that of the Convention, does not seem clearly to explain precisely what is intended.
    I appreciate that the hon. and learned Member has thought long and deeply to try to find a better form of words which would more clearly express what is intended, because it is more important to give effect to the intent of the Convention than to follow its wording. But I conclude that it is the concept of a sequence of acts or events that is inherent in the word "proceedings" that causes the difficulty.
    At this stage we are not concerned with the question whether the act or event that gives rise to a divorce or a legal separation in a foreign State is one that we should recognise. That limitation seems to be the function of Articles 8 to 10 of the Convention and Clause 8 of the Bill.
    10.30 p.m.
    In Clause 2 we are making the type of process—if I may use that neutral word—which is the subject matter of the Bill as wide as it can be, so that it is subject only to the limitation explicitly provided for in Clause 8, which, in terms, says that
    "Subject to subsection (1) of this section, recognition by virtue of this Act … of the validity of a divorce or legal separation obtained outside the British Isles may be refused if, and only if"
    and then follow the circumstances set out in Article 10. What is missing from the Convention and the Bill is the concept of a single act as distinct from a sequence of events, which is understood by judicial or other proceedings. The single act,
    168
    which may be judicial or non-judicial so long as it is recognised in the country of origin as giving rise to divorce or legal separation, is that which the Convention intends to be recognised in the foreign State and which the Bill should intend to be recognised here, subject only to the limitations in Clause 8.
    If there is any doubt left about the interpretation of the Clause, there is a real danger that we may not be giving effect to the intent of the Convention. I recognise the difficulties of this matter, but the sort of distinction which the Solicitor-General drew in Committee between what the Bill should and what it should not recognise was not logical. The real distinction is between what the foreign country accepts as a divorce or legal separation, provided that it does not conflict with the Bill, and what it does not so accept. If that is so, then one can put the wording right, as the Amendment suggests, to cover not only the sequence of events but the act itself.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has understandably returned to the point which caused him and all of us who have considered the Bill some anxiety on Second Reading and in Committee. The Bill is unexceptionable. It is designed to implement the Hague Convention. We are blazing the trail for other countries by passing these provisions into our domestic law.
    It is clear that the draftsmen of the Convention themselves probably did not finally resolve what they meant when they included the words "judical or other proceedings officially recognised" in Article 1. Those words extended as far as was felt necessary by the countries which drafted the Convention. It would not be satisfactory for this House to content itself with saying "At least we have not made it more confused". It is plainly our duty to see that we get it as clear as we can.
    The hon. and learned Member has said—I echo this—that it is extremely difficult to find an appropriate form of words to do what we want to do. What we are trying to do is to make it plain that the recognition which is to be afforded under the Bill should not be confined to recognition of judicial proceedings alone. Plainly, we intend to

    169
    extend recognition to such things as the talak divorce.
    Having reached common ground on the objective, I do not find it possible to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's second or third shot at amendment as being any more apt or appropriate than the words already in the Bill. The Bill speaks of "judicial or other proceedings," and the Amendment proposes the insertion of words to make it read "judicial or other act or proceedings."I suggest that the inclusion of the words" or other proceedings "at least makes it plain, first of all, that the other proceedings need not themselves be judicial, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts.
    It follows that the other proceedings can include administrative proceedings, including possible registration in a Government office or divorce by legislation. It can also include proceedings which do not involve the intervention of an official; a formal series of steps following a strict legal pattern such as those taken in a talak divorce, where the official plays no part and where no official step is necessary to register them.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman's point is so far so good, but "proceedings" implies a sequence of measures, a degree of formality and bureaucracy and judiciality which could result in excluding from the Bill some single act taken by the parties resulting in divorce by the country in which that act is being taken. The difficulty is that if one takes a single step like that, an act as opposed to proceedings, or even a proceeding—which was one of the alternatives I thought of at one time—one might arrive at a proceeding so informal as to make it difficult to bring it within the framework of this kind of recognition.
    The Bill, and any Bill of this kind, must depend on the possibility of identifying a particular moment of time jurisdictionally at which the act or proceeding can be identified between that act and the jurisdiction under whose law the matter would be valid—
    Mr. Silkin: Would the informality matter so long as the country concerned accepted the validity of the divorce or legal separation resulting from it? Is not that the key to the intent of the Convention?
    The Solicitor-General: I hestitate to go back to analysing the intent of the Convention, but in terms of finding the key to what is workable and acceptable in this country the point must be that if we are providing for a quick, automatic machinery for the recognition, which is really what the Clauses do, it should be possible to identify quickly and automatically the nature of the act or proceedings which qualifies for recognition and be satisfied that at the time the act or proceeding was taken or was taking place the necessary jurisdictional link of nationality or whatever it may be could be fulfilled.
    If one looks at that in the context of the word "act", for example, rather than "proceedings" and then at a judicial act, one immediately runs into possible difficulties in deciding whether the judicial act in question is the service of the petition or the granting of the decree nisi or of the decree absolute. One is not then able to identify it with any clarity because under Clause 3 as it stands we have
    "… at the date of the institution of the proceedings …".
    If we insert
    "… at the date of the act or of the institution of the proceedings …"
    we become a little uncertain on that ground.
    I suggest to the hon. and learned Member and to the House that the answer to his problem is to say that when we reach a proceeding or act as informal as that which he has in mind, the parties would have to rely on the provisions of Clause 6 which enables a divorce and legal separation which is valid by virtue of a rule of law arising from the domicile of the parties still to be recognised in this country, but it requires it to go through an admittedly rather more complex means of proof and establishment of recognition. But that is the long stop and the safety net, which is sufficient to deal with this problem.
    As the hon. and learned Member mentioned, I have considered alternative ways of defining the meaning of "proceedings" by confining them to something in which an official intervenes, which would not be sufficient, or by saying that some formality should be regarded as the only essential for "proceedings", but even that would give rise to difficulty. I

    171
    have thought of using the word "proceeding" rather than "proceedings", but I am not sure that that does more than perpetuate or conceal the difficulty.
    I hope that the House will accept that there are difficulties about "act"; that, in the context of the Bill and the Convention as a whole, the phrase "judicial or other proceedings" will enable all those divorces which involve formal steps following a strict legal pattern, including certainly talak, to secure recognition under the law of this country and, beyond that, that Clause 6 will operate as a sufficient safety net or long stop, and that the Clause as drafted is the most effective way of dealing with this matter as clearly as we can.
    Accordingly, I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.
    Mr. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 9, at end insert :
    (2) For the purposes of this Act a legal separation exists when any legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated.
    The Amendment arises out of a difficulty which was expressed in Committee, but a difficulty which is, perhaps, not quite so formidable as the one we have been discussing. The difficulty here is to decide what was meant in the Convention and what is meant in the Bill by the expression "legal separation". Clearly that term can be capable of a wide variety of meanings, from the separation obtained by means of some kind of court order to the separation which is consensual, under which the parties agree not to live with one another again. It is not expressed in either the Convention or the Bill just how far that term is intended to go.
    We discussed this in Committee, and as a result the hon. and learned Gentleman, who has taken the utmost trouble over trying to get accuracy and precision about the Bill, was good enough to write to me, and in his letter he said that he had reached the conclusion that
    "… such a separation connotes some overt step, taken at an identifiable moment of time, which produces (possibly among others) the result that the spouses are no longer under any legal obligation to live together."
    10.45 p.m.
    I agree with that definition. The Solicitor-General has put it so well that
    172
    I think it should be written into the Bill. The wording of the Amendment follows as closely as possible the wording of the hon. and learned Gentleman's letter to me, in that it defines "legal separation" by saying :
    "For the purposes of this Act a legal separation exists when any legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated"—
    that is, when the spouses are no longer under any legal obligation to live together, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says in his letter. There may be other results, as the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly says, but this is the critical result. This is what is crucial to a legal separation. How the position has been arrived at that the parties are no longer under a legal obligation to live together does not seem to matter provided that it is, in the words of the Convention and of the Bill, recognised and effective in the law of the country concerned.
    I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be ready to accept his own words by way of annotation of the Bill. It is in this spirit that I offer them to him.
    The Solicitor-General: It would be tempting to respond to the tribute paid to these words by the hon. and learned Gentleman by falling over myself with enthusiasm to accept them as an addition to the Bill. The difficulty is that the hon. and learned Gentleman's tribute goes too far and overlooks the qualifications in the wording which I adopted, because I said that a separation was something which produces possibly, among other results, the result that spouses are no longer under any legal obligation to live together.
    It would not be appropriate to define "legal separation" in this way. I was not proffering a draft of legal separation. The form of words adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman would, as drafted, include a decree of divorce or annulment, because each of those things would produce a situation when a
    "legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated".
    It is clear that we could not accept the Amendment, because in Clause 4(2), for example, a distinction is drawn between a legal separation and a decree of annulment or a decree of divorce. The definition would not be appropriate as

    173
    the hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to draft it by borrowing my own words.
    Mr. William Wilson: Has the Solicitor-General thought of this possibility under the Amendment? If adultery is committed, the legal obligation to cohabit has been terminated. Would that come within the wording of the Clause—
    "the recognition … of … legal separations … which—
    (a) have been obtained by means of judicial or other proceedings"?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is speaking of the impact of English law. We would not always be concerned with that. We might be looking at the impact of other systems of law. Any situation which could arise by implication from the law that a spouse was no longer bound to cohabit with her husband, for example, would not be a legal separation arising from judicial or other proceedings. Therefore, it would not be a legal separation for the purposes of the Bill. It might be if we were to adopt the Amendment, because if we could argue on the system of law in question that an obligation to cohabit had been terminated by virtue of a state of fact—namely, adultery—we could argue that a legal separation existed for the purposes of the Act. It may be that that is not what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) intended.
    Mr. Silkin: Not only is it not what I intended, but it would not follow because the words are qualified by the following words which the Solicitor-General pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson). The legal separation, however we define it, must have been obtained by means of judicial or other proceedings.
    The Solicitor-General: I think that that is probably right; but I suspect that it goes beyond my function to try to resolve the ambiguity which arises from the Amendment. Therefore, I ask the House, if only because I am incapable of understanding all the difficulties of the Amendment, to count that as an additional reason for not enthusing over it and for not accepting it.
    Mr. Silkin: It is rather a pity that the Solicitor-General is not willing to accept
    174
    the Amendment, although it was founded upon language of his which I accept, and has not been able to put forward a better definition, because in the absence of a better definition—and this is, I understand, the last opportunity there will be to define the term—the expression is left in the indecisive state which we all agreed it bore when we discussed it in Committee.
    It is a pity that we have not said precisely what we mean but have left it to the courts to decide what is intended by the term "legal separation", which we all agree can embrace a wide variety of situations, albeit they must all be obtained by means of judicial or other proceedings. The Solicitor-General had his opportunity to cap my Amendment with a better one. I regret that he has not taken it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee), read.
  Bill to be considered tomorrow.

ROADS (LANE DISCIPLINE AND PROCEDURES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]
10.54 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: The subject which I wish to raise tonight has already come to the notice of hon. Members at various times, but it has not figured recently in debates in the House. It is none the less a subject of increasing importance, and I am for that reason glad of this opportunity to raise it on the Adjournment. I refer to the parts of the Highway Code which deal with road lane procedures, and the question of lane consciousness on the part of the driving public, especially in urban areas, where,

175
alas, our roads are becoming increasingly congested and lane discipline is all the more important.
Perhaps, after the heady wine of electricity in Scotland, the question of recognition of divorces and legal separations and the other matters debated during the course of Government business today, it might be thought that the subject of this short debate was of minor significance. In fact, however, it is a matter of vital importance for the traffic authorities, for the Department of the Environment, for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see here ready to answer what I have to say tonight, to motorists, to the motoring organisations and to the leading motoring journals. The question of road lane procedures and the way in which this country grapples with it will be of growing importance in the future.
Perhaps it is not a topic in the forefront of most people's minds precisely because of the phenomenon which we have in Britain, that the idea of lane discipline and lane consciousness on the part of drivers is not one to which much thought has been given outside the world of specialists in traffic matters. Yet there are certain factors which, I believe, demand that it be given urgent attention.
Congestion is growing on our urban roads. I hasten to say that I am not here dealing with lane procedures and lane discipline on out-of-town roads and motorways. I am dealing only with lane procedures in urban areas. In London or the other large conurbations of Manchester, Birmingham and so on, the inexorable rise in traffic volume continues. I would be the first to admit that the authorities have done a great deal in using white paint to mark out roads, to delineate lanes and so on in an attempt to improve traffic flow. We have seen what Ministers of Transport of both parties have done to improve traffic flows in, for example, the Greater London area on main spine and through roads. But, none the less, the problem will become increasingly difficult of solution unless a radically new approach and new procedures are adopted for the future.
We are in this country—"blessed" is hardly the word—unfortunately endowed with roads even in the conurbations which are difficult in their shape and design, reflecting
176
the result of historical accidents, roads with many quirks, awkward curves and turns. We ought to be considering in a far more energetic way than ever before the working out and adoption of a more North American approach to lane discipline and procedures. It is essential that there be a much more self -disciplined approach on the part of the British motorist to what constitutes a traffic lane, a two-lane road and a four-lane highway.
I think it fair to say that in urban areas the British driving style is often opportunistic and undisciplined in this respect. As individuals—this has been borne out by psychological investigations—when we are behind the wheel of the motor car we each feel that we are the best driver on the road. I am sure that all hon. Members have experienced this opportunistic and casual approach to traffic lanes shown by other drivers both ahead and behind them—cutting in, overtaking, and not obeying the lines seperating different lanes, and so on.
The authorities have been, naturally, inclined to say that the present system is, perhaps, though marginally deficient, capable of continued improvement on the margin, and they have been reluctant to say that we need radical changes. It is the argument for radical changes that I am attempting to put forward now.
A special study group should be set up within the Department as a matter of urgency to consider the whole question of lane discipline and procedures on our increasingly over-burdened urban roads. Its terms of reference might include the adoption of American-style continuous lines rather than the dotted lines we now have to separate the lanes of our urban roads. Although they would involve additional expenditure on paint, continuous white lines would have a much better psychological effect in dividing lanes. The motorist through other propaganda means, a revamped Highway Code and a suffer driving test, should be much more conscious of the difference between lanes. He should have the feeling that each lane is much more of a separate road than the average motorist now regards it in London and other large cities, so that a change of lane is much more of a major decision.
Not all roads in London are suitable for a multiplicity of lanes. Many would be suitable only for single lane. But

177
they need to be delineated much more clearly and less haphazardly, even if the roads are not homogenous and harmonised as in North America, with its squares and block-by-block separation of junctions.
Continuous white lines should also be extended to the areas around roundabouts. It is a common experience for many motorists to be cut out at roundabouts by a driver who is not aware of the mentally-induced dividing area on a roundabout with more than one lane. This is a complicated matter which needs careful thought.
A number of other items must be coupled with a much stricter and more conscious lane discipline. That is why I also advocate, although reluctantly, the need to consider much stricter parking restrictions on heavily congested, overburdened urban roads. If the authorities are not strict enough about parking on single yellow lines one lane of a two-lane road can often be immobilised for far too long.
It has become increasingly dangerous to have bollards to divide the traffic where no junction is involved. An obvious example in the centre of London is Shaftesbury Avenue, which has bollards all the way up. Many streets in London are characterised by their narrowness, and cars on the point of overtaking must brake sharply to avoid bollards. They reflect a much more leisurely age of traffic and are not relevant to the need for a much faster, more disciplined, steadier, much more conscious flow of traffic in lanes, particularly in narrow streets.
I suggest that we should also have flashing, continental-style traffic signals at night, instead of the red, amber and green lights—not at all junctions, but here the heavy flow of daytime traffic diminishes to a suitable degree. It could not be the normal amber light because of the existing Belisha beacons. It would go a long way to maintain a reasonable speed of traffic flow at such junctions at night, and traffic would no longer be held up excessively. I am sure that it is the common experience of many hon. Members, as they drag themselves off reluctantly from the House of Commons at night on their way home, to find that they are delayed at junctions with no traffic coming in the opposite direction.
178
I am well aware of the departmental arguments against the use of this kind of Continental system : that our lights are vehicle-actuated and the Continental lights are time-based and, therefore, the whole system is different. It simply is not true, however, that one is never delayed for a excessive period at quiet junctions late at night because our lights are, apparently, vehicle-actuated. It just does not work like that. The fault is not mechanical but is in the way that the lights are constructed.
Next—and this is the reason for part of the title of this debate—the Highway Code needs to be revamped to induce a much greater lane discipline and lane consciousness, on the North American pattern. As a visitor from time to time to North America, I have been impressed to see the very restrained way in which drivers there use their lanes, regard them as separate roads and regard a change from one lane to another as a major and important decision necessitating a long flashing signal, in contrast to the jumping from lane to lane which is so characteristic of motoring in London, Birmingham and elsewhere.
The Highway Code has a very weak section on pages 11 and 12 dealing with lines and lanes. It is weak in two respects, because generally the Highway Code is not mandatory in the legal sense, although it may be taken into account under the Road Traffic Acts in litigation which might arise from careless or dangerous driving. It is not mandatory. Perhaps that is the right basis for the Code in the future. None the less, there is, presumably, the right balance between those things which are enforceable legally through litigation and prosecution by the police and the Home Office and something that is merely advisory and gives friendly suggestions and tips about good driving. That is why I find, with some reluctance, because other sections of the Code are admirable, that the section on lines and lanes is pathetic and weak. I very much hope that the Department of the Environment will seriously consider strengthening that section. This applies not to motorway lane discipline but only to urban areas.
To give a quick example, paragraph 56, on page 11, of the Code, states :
"Do not wander unnecessarily from lane to lane. If you need to move into another lane, first use your mirror."

179
That compares very badly with the equivalent Highway Code in many states of the United States of America and many provinces of Canada, which have a full-blooded section on lane discipline. I admit that their physical conditions merge more happily with their highway codes. Nevertheless, they have a 100 per cent. exhortation to maximum lane discipline and lane-consciousness. That is what I wish to advocate tonight.
For that reason also, I put forward the suggestion that the driving test should have a much more important component devoted to it—either by oral interrogation or written examination, as often applies in the American states-dealing with lane-consciousness. The need to hammer home lane-consciousness and lane discipline will surely mean the difference between bearable and unbearable congestion, not only in the rush hours—and we all see how heavily overburdened our urban roads are, particularly in the Greater London area—but outside the rush hours and until late at night.
The imposition of a much stiffer policy, coupled with the right sanctions and, if necessary, the need for careless driving to embrace also bad lane discipline, would go a long way to improve what will be an increasing problem in the future and with which we are dealing now only at an early stage. It is with these things in mind that I have raised the subject on the Adjournment tonight.
11.10 p.m.
Sir Ronald Russell: I shall intervene only for a minute, and I am grateful to both my hon. Friends for allowing me to do so. I shall make only two points. First, I would support what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said about traffic signals at night, but I would add Sundays and Saturday afternoons as well when the same trouble occurs.
My second point concerns overtaking on motorways. I would ask the Under-Secretary if rule 116 could be amended to allow overtaking on the inside lane when traffic is clinging unnecessarily to the middle lane, which I find happens frequently on the Ml. If one wants to overtake a vehicle in the middle lane one has to go across to the outside lane to do so
180
and then back to the inside lane, which is inconvenient and perhaps dangerous to traffic using the inside lane.
11.12 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has done the House a service in raising this matter, and in doing so in so eloquent and well-informed a manner. I pay tribute to the way in which he has done his homework on this important subject.
I do not know whether the British are more or less lane-conscious or more or less disciplined in their respective lanes than people in other countries. I know that whether or not we are better or worse than the Germans, the Americans, or anybody else, we are not good enough, and I agree with my hon. Friend in stressing that. The essential point is that in this country we do not, for the most part, cut in or barge other people about on the pavements or in the home, but somehow when we get into a car far too many are inclined to barge about and to cut in and change lanes in front of other people. Apart from being dangerous, it is exceedingly selfish and bad-mannered, and I am sure the House should record its condemnation of those who behave in that fashion on the roads.
Lane discipline is important for two main reasons : safety and proper traffic flow. The two go together, particularly in urban areas, because if every driver is keeping to the rules traffic has a better chance of moving more smoothly and more safely, since drivers are not having to cope with the unexpected. I will take this opportunity of offering to the motoring public a short list of do's and dont's, and in this I hope that I can carry my hon. Friends with me. Do not change lanes unless you have to. Once in your lane, stay in the middle of it and do not wander about. Do not use the right hand lane just because you are travelling fast. It is there for overtaking. It is not there to be used as a speedway. Finally, if you must change lanes, check on the traffic behind. Look in the driving mirror and signal your intention in good time to the traffic behind you.
My hon. Friend referred to the Highway Code. The rules of this game are laid down clearly in rules 50 to 62. There

181
is a separate section on motorways in rules 112 to 116. I note what my hon. Friend has said, but I do not agree that the Highway Code in this respect is pathetic or weak. However, I will consider his points carefully when we come to the next issue of the Highway Code. There is another source of traffic advice in the driving manual published by my Department for the modest price of 62½ new pence. It is called "Driving" and goes into more detail than is possible in the Highway Code.
My hon. Friend referred to the American lane system. Having had a good deal of personal experience of driving in the United Slates for about 12 years, I am bound to say that traffic conditions there are very different from those in most of our towns and cities. American towns mostly have the square or rectilinear pattern, and most of the American traffic is more homogeneous than ours, that is to say, their cars are more likely to be of the same size and there is nothing like the same mixture of vehicles of different performance plus a whole medley of public transport, lorries, motor bikes, cyclists and so on. This in turn must mean that American speeds tend to be more uniform and consistent than those on British roads. Consequently, the need to overtake, which is responsible for much of the lane changing in this country, occurs less frequently. By the same token, a ban on lane changing is less easy to enforce in this country than it may be in the American situation.
My hon. Friend referred to the driving test as a means of educating drivers in proper lane discipline. The routes over which our tests are conducted are naturally conditioned by the sort of roads near the test centres, but I assure my hon. Friend that we do our best to ensure that all driving test routes include roads on which there is a good mixture of traffic and where lane discipline can be and is tested. I assure him that any serious fault in this respect—lane wandering, changing lanes without proper precautions, or selecting the wrong lane for turning—is recorded against the applicant and as such can frequently involve failure.
My hon. Friend mentioned lane markings. Here I am bound to disagree with his suggestion that we might use mandatory solid white lines on our roads to enforce lane discipline. A line of this
182
type is being used to mark lanes reserved for buses, and there is great scope for bus priority lanes in our crowded urban environment. As a general rule, it is right to reserve solid lines for dangerous sites on two-way roads. The double white line system is well understood in this country and commands a high level of general obedience. It is questionable whether the same respect could be maintained if the full force of the law were applied generally to all lane lines regardless of whether the need for them was clear to the motoring public. Anything which devalued the impact of our double white line system would be a very doubtful gain from a road safety point of view. But that is not to say that the present road marking system is fixed down to the last detail. We are always looking for improvements to meet changing needs and I am perfectly happy to consider some of my hon. Friend's suggestions, including his suggestions for radical change. I will consider, although I do not give any undertaking, his suggestion for a working party.
My hon. Friend suggested that traffic bollards could cause more danger than they were worth, and he referred especially to Shaftesbury Avenue. I should like to consult the Metropolitan Commissioner about that, although with so many tourists in the middle of London, using roads all over the place, there is something to be said for pedestrian refuges, even in Shaftesbury Avenue, and we have to remember the pedestrian as well as the vehicle. I have looked at various ideas for sanctuary lanes and raised strips, but none gives the same protection to pedestrians as does the bollard, and nor would they separate opposing vehicles so effectively. But, again, we are looking at the design of bollards because, with cars tending to be designed with a lower eye-line for the driver, it may be possible that the size and location of bollards can be done rather differently from today.
As for traffic signals, my hon. Friend has said that, for the most part, we have vehicle-actuated signals in this country. Our fixed-time cycles are normally satisfactory during peak traffic conditions, but no one can deny that, when the traffic is light, they can and do cause delay. Nearly all of them being capable of vehicle actuation, a problem has arisen recently, namely, that with the very large

183
increase in the volume of traffic, there has been a great deal more heavy wear and tear on the rubber surface tubing which actuates the signals. I am sorry to have to say that in many instances, because of the heavier wear and tear, the vehicle actuation is not working at present, and this is the cause of a good deal of the delay.
Fortunately, an improved maintenance service has been negotiated recently with the signal companies, and I hope that the new system which is coming into use shortly will be adopted by all local authorities so that traffic signals with pneumatic detectors will get back once again to full vehicle actuation and that that will cut down delays.
My Department has developed an improved form of detection, using what are called inductive loops buried beneath the road surface. Each loop is buried three or four inches beneath the carriageway surface. When a vehicle passes over it, its electrical characteristics change, and the change can be detected by electronic equipment. A buried inductive loop can recognise either a vehicle passing over it or, alternatively, a stationary vehicle standing on it. This information is then used by the traffic signal controller to recognise traffic movements and traffic demands.
The inductive loop is not widely known, but it performs a function similar to that of the pneumatic detector. However, being buried beneath the carriageway, it is not subject to the same wear and tear. Therefore the problem of its wearing out does not arise. It is a more reliable detector than the pneumatic type, and it should meet some of the problems of delay to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
My hon. Friend also spoke about parking and waiting restrictions. I agree entirely that the problem arises very often
184
from sheer unscrupulousness and selfishness on the part of the few who place the many at great inconvenience and some risk. I hope that we are all clear that, while yellow lines prohibit parking, genuine loading to adjacent premises is permitted unless the more restrictive marks known as "blips" are also present on the kerb. Local authorities have quite wide powers to control loading, but many selfish drivers take advantage of the exemption for loading at the expense of delays to their fellow drivers. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the selfishness and sheer bad manners of those who park and wait illegally at the expense of their fellow motorists.
Recently, the Metropolitan Police Commissioners have reminded drivers that exemption from waiting restrictions applies only to vehicles which are actually being loaded or unloaded. It is right to underline the warning of the Metropolitan Police Commissioners that, where this is not apparent, drivers must expect enforcement action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) raised a special point about overtaking on motorways. It was a valuable contribution, as all my hon. Friend's contributions on the subject area. I shall be writing to him about it.
Inevitably, in the time available to me, I have had to deal summarily with the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East. I hope that I have said enough to convince him that we in the Department—
The Question having keen 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 twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Australia
  Australia
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Republic of Ireland (Official Talks)
  Republic of Ireland (Official Talks)
  Katyn Forest
  Katyn Forest
  Namibia (International Court Ruling)
  Namibia (International Court Ruling)
  Persian Gulf
  Persian Gulf
  Malta
  Malta
  East Pakistan and India (Aid)
  East Pakistan and India (Aid)
  World Health Organisation (German Democratic Republic)
  World Health Organisation (German Democratic Republic)
  Somali Democratic Republic
  Somali Democratic Republic
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Angkor (Cultural Monuments)
  Angkor (Cultural Monuments)
  Tiaoyutai Islands
  Tiaoyutai Islands
  Commonwealth Sugar Agreement
  Commonwealth Sugar Agreement
  Developing Countries (Industrial Assistance)
  Developing Countries (Industrial Assistance)
  Montserrat (Hospital Facilities)
  Montserrat (Hospital Facilities)
  World Population Control
  World Population Control
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Loft House, County Durham (Opencast Mining)
  Loft House, County Durham (Opencast Mining)
  Air Corporations (Transfer of Routes)
  Air Corporations (Transfer of Routes)
  Developing Countries (Industrial Investment)
  Developing Countries (Industrial Investment)
  European Coal and Steel Community
  European Coal and Steel Community
  Imported Foods (Mark of Origin)
  Imported Foods (Mark of Origin)
  Defective Motor Cars (Consumer Protection)
  Defective Motor Cars (Consumer Protection)
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Ltd.
  Industrial Development Certificate Control
  Industrial Development Certificate Control
  Chinese Medicines and Pharmaceutical Products
  Chinese Medicines and Pharmaceutical Products
  Answers to Questions
  Answers to Questions
  Nottinghamshire (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Nottinghamshire (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Motor Cars (Trades Description Act)
  Motor Cars (Trades Description Act)
  Power Stations (Coal Consumption)
  Power Stations (Coal Consumption)
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies
  Smokeless Fuel Supplies
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Short-haul Airliner (New Project)
  Short-haul Airliner (New Project)
  Miners (Pay)
  Miners (Pay)
  Dollar Land Company Limited
  Dollar Land Company Limited
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Electricity Supply Industry
  Electricity Supply Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Value-added Tax (Electricity Tariffs)
  Value-added Tax (Electricity Tariffs)
  Take-home Pay
  Take-home Pay
  Social Security Benefits (Tax Refunds)
  Social Security Benefits (Tax Refunds)
  Leeds (Government Bookshop)
  Leeds (Government Bookshop)
  Purchase Tax (Handicapped Children's Play Equipment)
  Purchase Tax (Handicapped Children's Play Equipment)
ENVIRONMENT
  Trunk Road Programme, Greater London
  Trunk Road Programme, Greater London
  Untreated Sewage (Discharge into the Sea)
  Untreated Sewage (Discharge into the Sea)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Humberside Report
  Humberside Report
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Housing
  Housing
  Council Housing (Subsidies)
  Council Housing (Subsidies)
  Council Tenants (Survey of Incomes)
  Council Tenants (Survey of Incomes)
  Cyclists (Injuries to Pedestrians)
  Cyclists (Injuries to Pedestrians)
  Railway Services, Cornwall (Survey)
  Railway Services, Cornwall (Survey)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  European Parliamentary Assemblies (Delegates)
  European Parliamentary Assemblies (Delegates)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
DEFENCE
  Beira Patrol (R.A.F. Element)
  Beira Patrol (R.A.F. Element)
  Welsh Depot, Cwrt-y-Gollen
  Welsh Depot, Cwrt-y-Gollen
  Biological Centre, Porton (Animals)
  Biological Centre, Porton (Animals)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Reorganisation
  Secondary Reorganisation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Student Teachers (School Training)
  Student Teachers (School Training)
  Art Education (Coldstream Committee's Report)
  Art Education (Coldstream Committee's Report)
EMPLOYMENT
  Abrasive Wheels Regulations
  Abrasive Wheels Regulations
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Imperial Smelting (Plant Closure)
  Imperial Smelting (Plant Closure)
  Perth (Employed Persons)
  Perth (Employed Persons)
  Research
  Research
  Average Hourly Earnings
  Average Hourly Earnings
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Prostitutes
  Prostitutes
  Community Development Project (Northern Region)
  Community Development Project (Northern Region)
  Prisoners (Manufacture of Articles for Sale)
  Prisoners (Manufacture of Articles for Sale)
  Bail
  Bail
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Stamp Machines
  Stamp Machines
  Mobile Radio Committee and Frequency Advisory Committee
  Mobile Radio Committee and Frequency Advisory Committee
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Population
  Population
  Immigrant Births
  Immigrant Births
  Euroean Economic Community
  Euroean Economic Community
  Emergency Ambulance Services
  Emergency Ambulance Services
  Research
  Research

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

THE POLICE FEDERATION
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to disband the Police Federation.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): No, my Lords.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I take it from that Answer that Her Majesty's Government are reasonably satisfied with the way the Police Federation is carrying out its statutory duties?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Police Federation is consulted regularly and frequently by my right honourable friend when matters which affect its members' interests are being considered. These consultations can take the form either of informal meetings or of formal consultations in the Police Council, the Police
2
Advisory Board or the numerous committees and working parties set up under these two consultative bodies.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg noble Lord aware that the position from his side of the desk looks a little different? Can he give an undertaking that his certainty that this consultation is done fully is shared by the Police Federation? Or is it an indication of the view of Her Majesty's Government on consultation with the Police that the Police Advisory Committee has not met since last October?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Police Advisory Board, to which I think the noble Lord is referring, has in recent years met about once a year; it is next due to meet on July 19. But there are a number of standing committees, working parties and ad hoc working groups on which the Federation is represented that are in session between formal meetings of the full Board.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord had given a different answer to the Question, have the Government any power at all to abolish this excellent and highly responsible body which represents all ranks of the police?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I agree with the tenor of what the noble Lord has said. Parliamentary approval would be needed; it would be necessary to repeal Section 44 of the Police Act 1964, and my right honourable friend has no intention of doing that.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I ask one more supplementary question?

3
Can the noble Lord explain to me, in my innocence, why the view from his position is so different from that expressed by the Police Federation? Is there some breakdown in communications here?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not aware of the feeling of discontent to which the noble Lord refers. My right honourable friend saw the Federation himself—not through the Police Advisory Board or the Police Council—on July 1. The purpose of this meeting with representatives of the Federation was to dicuss police boundaries in the context of local government reform. There is close and continuing consultation.

SUPPLIES TO PAKISTAN
2.39 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what supplies, economic and military, to Pakistan have been banned, how far this applies to existing and future contracts, and what are the amounts involved.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): None, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that many of us regard what has happened in East Bengal as the worst outrage against democracy since the time of Hitler? In view of the report of the World Bank, published to-day, which denounces what happened as West Pakistan's guilt, administrative incompetence and militant brutality, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will join with the aid consortium in continuing to withhold all aid until West Pakistan comes to a just political solution?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's opinion. I think it has been announced that we will do what the other countries who took part in the meeting of the consortium on aid agreed to do.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understood from the noble Lord, Lord
4
Carrington, that if military supplies are not banned that therefore military supplies are continuing? Do I understand that to be the implication? if they are being supplied—I may be open to correction on this; because I do not know all the facts and probably the noble Lord does—are they being supplied to both sides in this conflict?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary said in another place, no new contracts for arms supplies to Pakistan have been signed since 1967, with the exception of a refitting of a naval vessel and some radar equipment. There is none in prospect and therefore the question of a ban does not arise.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, it would appear that, with my usual generosity, I have misunderstood the reply of the noble Lord. Did I understand him to say that there is no ban on supplies? If so, is that not extraordinary in view of the repudiation of democracy by West Pakistan?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think my Answer was quite clear; it said,"None." Since there are no contracts for arms between this country and Pakistan there does not seem much point in banning them.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, what about Pakistan as a member of CENTO? Does the Minister really mean that there have been no supplies through CENTO to West Pakistan?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord has read his own Question. The Question asks whether Her Majesty's Government are going to ban economic and military supplies to Pakistan. There are no military supplies being sent to Pakistan.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
D. & J. FOWLER LIMITED AND ASSOCIATED COMPANY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee of 14 Lords with the Chairman of Committees be appointed to consider the Bill, and that the Bill be committed to such Committee;
That the procedure of the Committee shall be, so far as possible, that of a Committee of the Whole House;
That the Committee shall first meet at 3 o'clock on Monday the 19th of July, and thereafter have power to adjourn from time to time;
That the Reports of the Committee's debates and the Minutes of the Committee's proceedings be published from day to day as appendices to Hansard and the Minutes of Proceedings respectively; and
That the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:—

V. Bledisloe,

L. Beaumont of Whitley,

L. Beswick,

L. Burntwood, L. Carrington,

L. Granville of Eye,

L. Gridley,

L. Harvey of Prestbury,

L. Kings Norton,

L. Lindgren.

L. O'Neill of the Maine,

L. Sandford,

L. Trefgarne,

L. Wynne-Jones.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
2.43 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.
Schedule 4 [Requirements as to rules of trade unions and employers' associations]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79X:
Page 150, line 11, leave out (" must ") and insert (" should so far as is practicable ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I need to speak only shortly on it as this point was discussed on Committee. The essential purpose of the Amendment is to remove some of the excessive detail in Schedule 4 and to turn it broadly into the nearest we can to a check list. The idea of a check list was mooted and found considerable favour. The Government promised to give the matter further consideration. This Amendment tries to achieve that. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that we can agree to this Amendment. As the noble Lord knows, it is linked with the Bill itself. The Schedule sets out the rules which a trade union has to comply with under Clause 75, to which the House has already agreed, if it wishes to remain a trade union. It lays down what must be in the rules of the trade union. It leaves the trade unions free to draw up their own rules in any way they please so long as those rules cover the matters contained in the rules in this Schedule. The Schedule is obviously in clear contrast with the code of practice. The code lays down what management and the unions should do: the Schedule lays down what employers' associations and trade unions must provide for in their rules if they are to remain registered. The Bill makes provisions for exemptions in paragraph 24, on page 152. If any of the provisions in Schedule 4 is not appropriate to the circumstances of the particular union, the organisation will show why it is not practicable and paragraph 24

7
will give the Registrar the necessary authority to waive it. It is sensible to add a waiver to an exceptional case. It is not sensible to put the waiver in the forefront so that everyone may feel that he is an exception and does not have to comply with the rules. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will agree that this Schedule of rules is in keeping with the Bill.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords—
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I did not know whether my noble friend Lord Shinwell wanted to make an extended point on this Amendment. I was hoping we could come to an early conclusion.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, it appears to me that this proposition is extremely relevant to the following Amendments if we can discuss the following Amendments in the terms of what is practicable—because that is what we are dealing with now on this Amendment—then I do not propose to say anything further. Although it appears to be innocuous there is not very much in it—when it comes to amending rules (and there are propositions in the Schedule to which later Amendments will refer), if there are to be vast changes in the rules of employers' associations and trade unions then the question arises whether some of them are practicable. Obviously if they are impracticable there is no point in embodying them in the Bill. That is all I want to say at the moment; no doubt we can discuss the matter later.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his comments. He is absolutely right, both in the substance of his comment and in the procedural point he makes, that there are a number of subsequent Amendments which will deal with these issues. We are far from satisfied with Lord Drumalbyn's answer. He has made no progress whatever on his thinking at the Committee stage. His answer takes no account of the recommendation of the Donovan Report which recommends that unions should have the right to draw up rules to suit their own circumstances. Unions know best what their own circumstances are. Of course there have to be rules, but they need not be laid down in this detail. May I remind the noble Lord of what my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner said when we were discussing this matter on Committee:
" If there is anything that will wreck this Bill it will be Schedule 4. I thought the Government wanted the trade unions to register. The effect of these rules is to make it virtually impossible for any union to register."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/5/71, col. 864.]
I agree with my noble and learned friend and invite my colleagues and friends and those who share our views to divide the House accordingly.
2.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79X) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hirschfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Archibald, L.

Hoy, L.

Samuel, V.

Bernstein, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Birk, Bs.

Kilbracken, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Moyle, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Pargiter, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Peddie, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Oakshott, L.

Allerton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Roberthall, L.

Burton, L.

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

St. Aldwyn. E. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

St. Helens, L.

Carrington, L.

Hood, V.

St. Just, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Coleraine, L,

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonehaven, V.

Courtown, E.

Kemsley, V.

Strang, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Swaythling, L.

Denham, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Thomas, L.

Dudley, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Willingdon, M.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Effingham, E.

Mountevans, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

2.58 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79Y:
Page 150, line 28, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall obviously have to spend a little more time in explaining this Amendment. I am greatly encouraged as to the reasonableness of your Lordships' House in voting in almost equal numbers on the last Amendment. If I may, I will discuss this Amendment with the following Amendment, No9Z.
These are both attempts to eliminate paragraphs which are of excessive detail, at least—there could be many more—and which contain other stupidities as well. Both these paragraphs set out in quite excessive detail what the rule should provide. Your Lordships will have Schedule 4 before you and you will not wish me to read out the paragraphs in full. In particular, paragraph 7 has the additional foolishness of saying that the rules should
" specify the powers and duties of the governing body of the organisation, of each of its officers and of officials who are not officers of the organisation."
I invite your Lordships to think of any organisation in which any one of you is involved, and of the situation which would arise if the rules of the organisation—not the day-to-day arrangements, not what may be decided on from time to time, but the rules themselves had to specify (" specify"must surely mean to
10
set out in complete detail) the duties of the governing body of the organisation, of each of its officers and of officials who are not officers. I suppose one official would be the petty cashier, or the office boy, or what have you. I repeat, I invite your Lordships to think of any organisation with which you are, or have been, closely connected and try to imagine the sort of chaos that would result, the inflexibility and the impossibility of organising and administering that organisation, if it contained within its rules the detailed, specified duties of every member of the governing body, of every one of its officers and of every one of its officials. It just does not bear consideration. For those reasons, I move the first Amendment and I hope that both will be acceptable to the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, intended that these two Amendments should be discussed at the same time.
LORD DIAMOND: Yes.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. When the noble Lord was speaking to a similar Amendment in Committee, he cited not only paragraphs 6 and 7 but also paragraphs 5 and 10 of this Schedule as all exemplifying what he alleged was unnecessary detail in the Schedule. He did not appear to oppose the idea of rule books dealing with these matters, but he just did not want the Schedule to say that they must."Leave it to the unions ",

11
were his words. But what is so wrong about saying that the rules of legislative organisations should say how officials are to be placed in and removed from office?
If the noble Lord will look at the Donovan Report, in paragraphs 654 and 698 he will find that it is quite plain that the authors thought these words appropriate matters for rule books to cover. This is what the Schedule says should be done. These are matters which are to be covered by the rules. As I have said before, and said often, it is open to the unions to draft their rules according to their own circumstances provided that they cover these points. Paragraph 6 leaves the organisation free to determine whether election, appointment, or other selection system shall apply to any given post, and to determine methods of seeking and selecting incumbents for those posts. Its practical effect is to ensure that the method of filling any particular post is published to the membership in the rules and thereby known to the members affected; is binding on the organisation's executive and is capable of being altered by constitutional means if the membership so desire.
This provision helps members to ensure that they exert democratic control over their organisation, but deliberately it does not require that all posts should be filled by election, which would seriously hinder organisations in filling posts for which special experience or personal qualities are required. The deletion of paragraph 6 from the Schedule would only serve to weaken the function of registration as a guarantee that an organisation is administered on a just, fair and democractic basis.
If I may turn for a moment to paragraph 7, I should point out that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that a trade union would be obliged to specify in its rules the detailed duties—I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, echoed this fact this afternoon—of all its employees and that it would be unable—this is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said—to change or rearrange these duties as between one employee and another save by a formal change or rule. This obviously is not so. The requirement as drafted applies not to employees but to"officers"and"officials ". An"officer"of a trade
12
union is one who holds an office in the union for which provision is made in its rules."official ", for the purposes of this Bill, is defined in Clause 163. It includes both"officers"and such other persons as may be elected or appointed under the rules to be representatives of members. Officers"and"officials"alike may be employees of their union, but the majority are not. Union employees with no responsibility for representing members are not"officials "; they are therefore outwith the scope of this requirement.
The requirement is to specify the duties of those officials as well as their powers. This does not mean that every last detail of internal activity or function of a particular union officer or official must be set out, or that no activities may be undertaken other than those specified in the rules. What is required for any post is that those duties and responsibilities should be specified which, in the view of the union, comprise the essential nature of the office or post, distinguishing it from posts elsewhere in the union, or at higher or lower levels, and which establish the limits of the authority of the official to act on behalf of the union.
Most certainly it is for the union to determine these matters for itself. If, for example, a union decides that a particular official is to be responsible for communicating, union policy to the members, it may wish to say so in general terms and that would satisfy the Registrar. If the union wants to go into more detail, that is its own affair. The Registrar will not prevent it from doing so. I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding here. The term"duties ", I think it would be generally agreed, obviously means what someone is required to do. If one is asked what are the duties of a particular office, one can describe those duties either in broad terms within which specific instructions might be given, or provide a detailed list. Which way one decides to do this may depend to some extent on the nature of the office. In most cases I should think the first course is preferable, but unions can decide this for themselves.
My Lords, if noble Lords opposite will look, as I dare say some constantly do, at the rules at least of one union, they will find the duties specified in the minutest detail. Take, for example, the

13
rule book of the A.E.U. That rule book is a comprehensive, detailed document. About five pages are devoted to the office of General Secretary and another three to the duties of divisional and national organisers. Over six pages are devoted to the duties of and obligations upon the branch secretary. It also prescribes the duties of such officers of check-book keeper, doorkeeper, minute secretary, money steward and sick steward and so on.
The duties are specified precisely and with a degree of detail far beyond anything required by the provisions of this Bill. For example, in relation to the post of doorkeeper they specify:
" a non-free member as hereinafter defined shall be eligible for election as Doorkeeper. He shall attend all meetings and assist the other officers in any business of the branch. The Doorkeeper shall at all meetings keep the door closed when any member is speaking. He shall not admit any member who is not known to him unless such member produces his contribution card or obtains some other member to answer for his membership, nor shall he admit any member in a state of intoxication, and on no account shall he take money from a member outside the branch room."
I do not criticise these rules. It is for a union to determine the way in which matters such as these shall be dealt with in its rules, but when a major union freely chooses to have requirements of this detail in its rules, it is absurd to claim that the logical and necessary requirements in the Bill relating to the powers and duties of officials are in any way burdensome or oppressive. The paragraph does not require the duties to be set out in minute detail. My Lords, I hope that the House will reject these Amendments.
3.9 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: Occasionally, my Lords, I have found the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, convincing when he is occupied in meeting arguments from this side of your Lordships' House; but on this occasion, although I listened most carefully, I found him most unconvincing. To support his contention he has just mentioned that the A.E.U. has five pages of rules defining and specifying the powers and duties of its officials. I should have thought that if a major union of the character mentioned has found it necessary to occupy five pages of rules specifying the duties and powers of officers, it is quite unnecessary to embody
14
something even stronger in the Schedule. That is my first point.
May I indulge in a personal note? In all my Parliamentary life, going a long way back, never once have I ventured to criticise a civil servant or any of the backroom boys who are unable to speak for themselves. But when I look at paragraph 7 of the Schedule—perhaps noble Lords would do me the honour of reading it—I am bound to say that the draftsman who compiled that language ought to be subjected to immediate dismissal. It is the most cockeyed contradictory, confusing paragraph I have ever read. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has done his best to convince your Lordships' House that an officer's duties should be specified. Who are the officers? Probably the noble Lord and other noble Lords are unaware. But, for example, in the miners' union a banner-bearer who on the infrequent occasions of demonstrations—sometimes only once annually—is appointed to occupy that position of high distinction (and it is regarded as such) is an officer. I understand from the Schedule that this banner-bearer, engaged in this infrequent but quite honourable occupation, must have his duties and his powers specified in the rules that are submitted to the Registrar. Was there ever anything so ridiculous?
The same applies to doorkeepers. I can recall my association with trade unions many long years ago when it was necessary to appoint as an officer a doorkeeper, so as to prevent any undesirable person entering—presumably somebody, who had not paid the whole of his dues, or perhaps somebody (it did occur occasionally; it probably does not occur now because trade unionists are much better behaved) claiming to be a member, who had imbibed too frequently and unwisely and sought to enter and had to be ejected. The doorkeeper is an officer, and I understand that this officer must have his duties and powers specified. How absurd! I am bound to say generally about this Schedule—I speak earnestly on this matter; I am not trying merely to make debating points; one is quite capable of that, but I am not seeking to make debating points—that apart from one item which I shall mention in a moment it is the most repugnant thing in the whole Bill. Nothing but a Govern! meat of nosey-parkers—I hope they will

15
not find the expression too offensive—would have ventured to probe and search and intervene in matters not the concern of a Government at all and of no relevance to the promotion of good and wholesome industrial relations. The only exception is this. I offer no opposition, take no exception at all, to that part of the Schedule which provides that officers must—I use the term contained in the Schedule—have their duties and powers specified in relation to the possibility of industrial disputes. That I accept. That is indeed the purpose of the Government: to try to prevent industrial disputes. But as for the rest, it is quite unnecessary, and why the Government have sought to introduce all these items I am unable to say.
I should like to say a word about the employers' associations. I cannot imagine members of the C.B.I. accepting this. So far as I know, they have no branches; there is only one organisation, the C.B.I., which is fully and wholly centralised. The duties and powers of the officers of the C.B.I. are well known. What is the purpose of introducing the reference to employers' associations? I will tell noble Lords why: because there is an element of pretence about it. If the trade unions are to be probed and ordered about and instructed and investigated—they shall do this and must do that—obviously it is as a sop to the trade unions that the employers' associations, who will not be affected in the least are brought in also. I am bound to say that if ever a Division was necessary during the course of our debates, it is on this item. It is only one of the paragraphs. All the paragraphs, I repeat, with the exception of the paragraph that is relevant to the possibility and even the probability of industrial disputes, should be rejected, and I hope that the Government, on consideration, will realise that this is going too far.
I venture a few final words on this subject. Here we have the A.E.U., and presumably the Transport Workers, the Blast Furnacemen and the very fine organisation presided over by my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, an old-time organisation which at one time was a number of organisations which have now been concentrated into one. These organisations have rules. They
16
know their powers and duties. What is the purpose of the Government? I understand the Government are anxious, and so is every Member on this side of the House, to prevent industrial disputes which are regarded as unofficial, so-called wildcat"disputes. Sometimes they come about for no apparent reason. The purpose of your Lordships' House is to try to prevent disputes and to promote good industrial relations. Is this the way to go about it? I think not, and I hope that on reconsideration the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will see that there is some point in the arguments I have ventured to put before your Lordships.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, may I support the comments of my noble friend Lord Shin-well and express a word of apprehension about how these requirements can be carried out in practice? Paragraph 5 of Schedule 4, for instance, makes provision
" for the election or appointment of officers and for the manner in which officers can be removed from office ".
That I can understand, and that can be operated. But we are dealing with paragraph 6 at the moment. This says:
" If the organisation has officials who are not officers…"
This is immediately going into a very difficult field. If one speaks about officials who are not officers, I myself am not clear who is meant, although they are specified in this way:
" shop stewards, workplace representatives or other officials ".
The impracticability of this provision, I think, relates to the extent to which you want to go. Because of the modernisation of trade union method and practice and administration, we are getting an interesting development. On the one hand, we are getting the people who serve in trade unions who are either popularly elected or appointed through the instruments of government of trade unions; on the other hand, there is emerging—and this is an interesting feature of the last decade, I would say—the employment of professional people, such as university graduates, in research departments who support the people who are popularly appointed or elected.
If we have to set out in the rules the conditions under which a person such as

17
a research officer, who under this wide umbrella might well be described as"an official ", has to be appointed, this is going a long way. I do not see the purpose of it at all, and I do not know where it will finish. There are professional people on the accounting side, looking after the finances. Again, one might call them officers. I do. My finance man is my finance officer. Must we define in the rules how a finance officer is appointed? This provision is going a long, long way. It mystifies me and I say, as a gentle criticism, that I do not know how it can operate.
3.22 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I was rather interested that the noble Lord was quoting from the A.E.U. rules—the A.E.W. rules, as they are now. Some of those rules are very old. The rules of the old A.F.C. go back into the last century and they provided for a specific purpose. They provide for a specific purpose even now. The noble Lord made great play of the fact that the functions of the branch secretary occupied six pages of the rule book. All right. What are the duties of the branch secretary? They are not only that he should act as a branch secretary. He is not only concerned with industrial disputes—in fact he is concerned very little with industrial disputes—but there are certain precise rules which he must obey with regard to entering the contributions of members. The cheque book keeper also has rules with regard to keeping a proper check on the procedure. Most meticulous records are kept in matters of this sort. He has certain specific duties regarding the payment of benefits, to ensure that members are entitled to receive benefit, and so forth, so that instructions may be given to the branch treasurer. The noble Lord might have gone further and referred to the rules of the branch treasurer as well, while he was at it. These matters are all very necessary. The noble Lord was quoting in the context of industrial disputes, but many of these matters have nothing whatever to do with the industrial activities of the union so far as branch officers are concerned; these rules are to a large extent concerned with the friendly benefit side of the union.
The noble Lord referred to the doorkeeper. The doorkeeper performs a very
18
important function. The noble Lord is concerned about ballots and their being properly conducted. It is the duty of the doorkeeper to ensure that nobody receives a ballot paper and votes unless he is entitled to. That is the position with regard to the doorkeeper, and surely it is not wrong to specify a matter of that sort which the union deals with within its own rules and for its own purposes—not for purposes connected with industrial disputes or matters of that kind.
Let us go a little further down the scale and see what happens to a shop steward. A shop steward's duties are multifarious, and from my experience and knowledge of shop stewards I believe it would be difficult to try to define those duties and put them in a schedule of rules. If that is done, only two things can happen. The shop steward would probably say that within the powers and duties which are specified he deals with A, B, C and D, but he does not deal with E, because it is not specified; and E may be a cause of a good deal of trouble in a particular factory or on a particular shop floor. These things just happen, and they cannot really he defined. One cannot define in a changing world, a world which is almost changing from day to day so far as shop floor practices are concerned, precisely what are the duties of a shop steward. If it is desired to put in a blanket provision, that is all right. It may be said,"A shop steward's duties are generally to look after the interests of the members." If you think that is worth putting in, then put it in in that particular form. But I cannot see the Registrar going much beyond that and I cannot see exactly how he would be able to, because in different unions and in different industries different rules will apply with regard to the functions of a particular official, who for this purpose we will call a shop steward. To understand the multifarious duties that shop stewards are called on to perform and to say that these must be set out in the rules is not practical.
Perhaps the noble Lord will go a little further and tell us what happens to a shop steward who does not obey the rules. There they are set out, but a shop steward says,"To hell with that! There is something here that needs to be dealt with and I will deal with it." Possibly the employer would say,"You cannot do that because it is not in accordance with

19
the rules of your union which have been issued regarding the duties of a shop steward." Well, that situation will not get us very far in industrial relations. It seems to me that this provision is going beyond any reasonable stage. It puts into the Schedule a requirement for the trade union to do something which the average trade union, I would say, would not treat with great seriousness. If such a provision is not treated with seriousness, it will be bringing the law into contempt. If unions try to operate what is laid down it will bring the law into contempt; and if they do not operate it the law will be brought into contempt. When Parliament makes laws which are brought into contempt because they are inoperable, I can only say such laws ought not to be made. That is a general opinion with regard to not only this Bill but many Bills. I suggest that the noble Lord should look at this question carefully before he puts something into a Schedule of this kind which sounds simple but which in practice is almost completely inoperable. I am not saying that every part of it is inoperable but it is very largely inoperable. And if it is inoperable it will necessarily bring the law into contempt.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I support the Government on the inclusion of this paragraph, but I have not much to say about that because the Government can look after themselves. But to hear a Socialist ex-Minister of considerable distinction call a Conservative Government"a Government of nosey-parkers"is something I shall treasure for a very long time. It is a real"high gamey"piece of Parliamentary life. What I think is a serious point which has been raised is the question of definition. Perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I have missed something. It is not the question of the definition of officials, who are defined, more or less, on page 123, but I refer to the definition of officers. The definition of officials throws us back on the definition of officers, which does not exist, so far as I can see. The whole of this Schedule contains what the officers should or should not do, but again, so far as I can see, without any definition of who or what are the officers. That would apparently leave the question under this
20
Schedule for the trade unions themselves to decide what the officers were to do in response to this particular paragraph. That might be exactly what the Opposition want, but I cannot believe it is what the Government want.
3.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I speak again with the permission of the House, because I have been asked one or two questions? The question which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has put is a very relevant one. The short answer is that officers of a union are those whom the union says are officers. It is for the union to decide who are officers—whether a banner-bearer is to be an officer or not. If people are designated as officers their duties will be prescribed and laid down in the rules in accordance with the Schedule. The second point I should like to refer to is the question of research officers. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, who, if I may say so, spoke with his usual moderation. Research officers are not in fact covered by the definition, under which a person has to be elected or appointed in accordance with the rules of the organisation to be representative of his members or some of them. So that research officers are not, so to speak, executive officers.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the definition says that an official is an officer or a person"elected or appointed…to be a representative of its members ". Surely it does not exclude a research officer if he is an officer or someone who is elected to represent the members.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is right in his reading of that definition, but the intention is that there should be a clear distinction between executive officers who are in contact with members in the normal course of their business and other kinds of officers who are not. In any case, as I have said, it will be for the unions to decide who are officers and who are not, but I suggest that a research officer would not be the kind of person who would be designated as an officer for the purposes of this Schedule.

21
My Lords, I do not know that there are any other questions that I have been asked. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that since the Donovan Commission made it quite clear that in their view it is very desirable that trade union rule books should be clear and unambiguous but they generally fall far short of a satisfactory standard in these respects, it is generally agreed that there should be rules and that there should be some means of seeing that they come up to the highest standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, proposed a different way of doing this, but obviously it would be much more objectionable from the point of view of trade unions if we were simply to say in rough terms to the Registrar that the rules must be of the highest standard and leave him to decide what are rules of the highest standards and what rules should be included in the rule book. Given this kind of system—registration with the Registrar; the requirement that he shall bring to the attention of a union any instance where the rules are defective, in the sense that a rule covering certain points is not included in the rule book and, if the trade union objects, may challenge the registration in the Industrial Court—one must plainly set out what points must he covered in the rules. That is absolutely unavoidable. It is equally certain, given that, that again one must lay down in some form what the rules must specify—the powers and duties of the governing body of the organisation. It will be for them to say who are the officers. The Registrar will obviously deal with this matter in the manner that I have suggested. Those who are non-executive officers will be disregarded from this point of view; it is the officers whose duties affect the working of the union in its representative capacity who will have to be specified in the rules.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has certainly been most obliging in the number of varying definitions and explanations he has given of these two clauses. Certainly unions now will be in the happy position that if they do not know what the clauses mean—and nobody now does know what these paragraphs mean—they can read Lord Drumalbyn's speech and extract whichever meaning they like from it. He has served an excellent purpose in liberating
22
unions very considerably indeed in regard to their rule-forming. First, I want to continue the noble Lord's excellent quotation from the Donovan Commission's Report. He quoted from paragraph 648. The Report goes straight on to say in paragraph 649:
" We think that the requirements can and should be revised with a view to ensuring better safeguards for individual members, but without impairing the freedom which trade unions ought to enjoy to frame rules to meet their own circumstances."
That was the conclusion which was drawn after taking into account the comment to which the noble Lord referred.
So, my Lords, I think that what the noble Lord has done is to attempt to answer the Amendment by using essentially two arguments. The first is that the provision is totally unnecessary. That is what we set out to demonstrate. He demonstrated that it is totally unnecessary by producing a rule book of a union and reading out the rules which are set out in such detail that nobody could find complaint or want them to be in any more detail. That was a typical example and so far as that particular example is concerned there is no need for Parliament to bother its head about unions making their own rules. They are quite capable of doing it and the example he gave showed how well they do it. The other argument was,"Please do not bother about these two clauses. The words do not mean what they say: ' Specify ' does not mean ' specify ', it means refer to in a general way ' or ' cover '. The detailed powers and duties do not mean detailed powers and duties; you either refer to them or do not refer to them as you prefer."
What the purpose is of putting in the paragraphs in those circumstances I do not know. I think that what the noble Lord has really done, if he will forgive my saying so, is to demonstrate our case to the hilt: that if you attempt this exercise of setting out in detail what the rules should provide in terms of the duties, responsibilities and authority of all these individuals you inevitably go into too much detail for some purposes and too little detail for other purposes. There is in fact no purpose, no need for these paragraphs; it is intervention, it is nosey-parkeriness of the highest degree.
I am grateful to the Liberal Party, too, for the way in which their arguments

23
supported this case. It is not for me to say how the Liberal Party should vote—that would be an invasion into their freedom of decision which I would not attempt—but I am certainly most grateful for the argument and the way in which the noble Lord demonstrated with regard to this one particular word and one particular case that the Government were talking nonsense again—namely, with regard to the research officer. A research officer means to the Liberal Party, and indeed to the Labour Party, a research officer. To the Government it means a person who is not a research officer. Those who have to read the Bill and decide what their duties are will no doubt write a letter to the General Secretary of the T.U.C. saying,"We cannot understand this. What does it mean? "
And the General Secretary will pass it on to whom?—to the research officer. And the research officer will say,"I do not know what it means. The best thing would be to turn up what the noble Lord, the Government spokesman, said it meant." He will read the differing, opposing meanings which the Government spokesman said it meant and then everybody will be perfectly happy. Everybody there may be perfectly happy, but we think this is a ridiculous way of trying to legislate, and we propose to vote against it.
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79Y) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 85.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Balogh, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bernstein, L.

Jacques, L.

Samuel, V.

Birk, Bs.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brown, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burntwood, L.

Leatherland, L.

Silkin, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Moyle, L.

Stonham, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Pargiter, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Peddie, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Airedale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Albemarle, E.

Dudley, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Allerton, L.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Alport, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Balfour, E.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Effingham, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Oakshott, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Blackford, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Bolton, L.

Grantchester, L.

Reay, L.

Boston, L.

Gray, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brock, L.

Greenway, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Burton, L.

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

St. Aldwyn, E.

Caithness, E.

St. Helens, L.

Camoys, L.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Hood, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonehaven, V.

Courtown, E.

Kemsley, V.

Strang, L.

Craigavon, V.

Latymer, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Swaythling, L.

Thomas, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Vivian, L.

Willingdon, M.

Young, Bs.

Wade, L.

Windlesham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

3.47 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79AA:
Page 151, line 3, leave out from (" action ") to end of line 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79AA. This amendment, if made, would affect paragraph 10 which reads,
" The rules must specifiy any body by which, and any official by whom, instructions may be given to members of the organisation…"
and then come the words which the Amendment seeks to remove,
" and the circumstances in which any such instructions may be so given."
The reason why we put forward this Amendment is because we think it is just impossible for that to happen: for anybody in framing the rules to be able to envisage all the circumstances in which any such instructions may be so given. The paragraph says,
" instructions may be given to members of the organisation "—
by any body and any official—
" for any kind of industrial action ".
That is just envisaging every possible detailed circumstance affecting the whole life of a trade union, and I repeat that we just do not think it is capable of being achieved. If the noble Lord is going to reply,"Well, the words don't mean what they say ", as he broadly replied on the last occasion, that is of some help, but I would hope he would find it possible to accept the Amendment and remove these words. I beg to move.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I rise to support this Amendment. I have made the comment on a number of questions, both on Committee and at Report stage of the Bill, about the necessity for clarity for organisations as a prelude to industrial peace. If you were to take many of the sub-paragraphs of Schedule 4 and roughly translate them into requirements to be put upon industrial organisations, in a close-linked company any industrial manager would discard them immediately. They are not viable requirements to put on an employment hierarchy, with its
26
close-knit working of managers and others. To try to apply these extremely searching rules to a more widespread body such as a trade union is a bit of organisational nonsense of the worst and most confusing kind. I beg the Government to have a look at all this. They are making an idiot of this Bill by going into all this detail. I wholeheartedly support the Amendment.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I, too, support this Amendment. But I should like to ask the Government what would have happened in the case of the Post Office strike, when I think workers in New York and in Belgium supported the strikers. Would the Government have brought an action against those people, and would the strikers here have been actionable? What is proposed is so utterly ridiculous that I heartily support this Amendment.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, earlier on I ventured to say that, when I took exception to items in the Schedule, I took no exception to paragraph 10. Nevertheless, I support the Amendment. I said earlier that I could understand that, within the purpose of the Government and within the principles embodied in the code of practice and in the Bill itself, it is essential, if there is an industrial dispute or if one is likely to happen, that the body responsible should be specified. That is a point to which it is very difficult to take exception. But I cannot understand what is meant by the reference to the circumstances. What does that mean? Does it mean that a dispute may occur after arbitration has been rejected, or after an arbitration award has been submitted? Why were those words added? Subject to any satisfactory explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I think we are bound to ask that they should be expunged.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, noble Lords opposite sometimes surprise me. If they read a provision in a Bill and it seems to them to make nonsense, then it is probably desirable that they should think how and in what way it might make sense, for the very good reason that these provisions are not put

27
into a Bill without considerable thought. Noble Lords might credit those who draft the Bills with some concept of practicality, especially as the Bills have also been subject to Ministerial examination. Noble Lords have given a meaning of the phrase
" and the circumstances in which any such instructions may be so given."
Quite obviously, they have given it a meaning that it was not intended to have. Of course it would be quite impossible to foresee all the detailed circumstances which might arise, so obviously that cannot be the meaning of the words. These words are simply intended to ensure that the rules of a registered organisation make clear not only who is to give the instructions, but in what circumstances those who give the instructions within an organisation are to act.
Let me give your Lordships an example. It would be quite acceptable if the rules made clear that local officials were authorised to take any action they considered necessary when an employer breached an existing agreement with the union but that they must refer other matters to a higher authority. Or, again, the rules might say that a district official had power to call a strike whenever the district committee decided that strike action was justified. I think those two hypothetical examples suffice to show that paragraph 10 of Schedule 4 will leave unions with the fullest discretion to decide to what extent they wish to circumscribe the authority to call a strike. The words in question are necessary because without them a union could satisfy paragraph 10 simply by listing the types of official authorised to pass on instructions. That would not be enough. If a shop steward, for example, can call members out on strike only with the approval of the district committee, the rules should make that clear. If the district committee is to have final authority to call a strike on a localised dispute about some subject but must get the approval of the national executive before calling for action in other circumstances, then again the rules should make that clear.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that the Registrar would permit a rule to be embodied
28
in the rules of any trade union which provided that a shop steward should be permitted to call a strike? Surely he would reject that out of hand. He would not allow such a rule—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am merely asking a question. The Registrar would not allow that to be embodied in the rules. Surely the person who is responsible for calling a strike should be the principal officer of the union or the executive of the union.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord was asking a question. Here again the noble Lord is confusing the content of a rule with the fact that there should be a rule about something. He said that the Registrar would refuse to accept a rule of that kind. I do not see any reason why he should not accept it. If a union specified any body—and I think it is a body that is mentioned in the Bill—and there was a committee of shop stewards, or something of that kind, which was authorised to declare a strike, then in that hypothetical case I do not see why the Registrar should turn that down.
The paragraph states:
" The rules must specify any body by which, and any official by whom "—
so that it could be a shop steward, or committee of shop stewards—
" instructions may be given to members of the organisation."
What noble Lords still cannot understand is that we are talking only about what must be in the rules; not about the content of those rules. Subject to the guiding principles, the content of the rules is for the unions themselves to decide. We are not concerned with that. We are simply concerned that the members of the unions and others should know who is in a position to give instructions, and the circumstances in which the people are in a position to give them. I made clear the sort of circumstances that we have in mind. If the district committee is to have final authority to call a strike on a localised dispute about some subject, but must get the approval of the national executive before calling for action in other circumstances, the rules should make those circumstances clear.

29
These are all matters which the union will decide for itself, and obviously it will frame its rules to meet its own circumstances in a manner which gives its officials the flexibility needed to cope with the unexpected.
4.0 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, am I to understand that in the terms of the word circumstances"in this subsection the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, is not referring to the conditions surrounding the decision to strike, the behaviour of managers or the particular type of subject over which they are claiming, but merely to the process by which it is decided who should call the strike? If he is doing that, I do not understand how he can possibly interpret the word"circumstances"in that way. That is the pith of the Amendment; the circumstances relate to the ambient circumstances around the decision, not to the process of making a decision.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, obviously it would be possible to interpret the word"circumstances"in general in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has interpreted it, but for the fact that if that were so this would make no sense at all. Therefore, the circumstances about which clearly we are talking here are those in which such instructions may be given. The instructions may be given to members, but the circumstances are laid down quite clearly as to who is competent to call a strike and that sort of thing at any particular level.
Paragraph 10, as I have said, leaves the power to decide policy and the delegation of authority clearly in union hands. It merely stipulates that the union decisions on these matters should be clearly set out in the rule book for all members to see. Paragraph 10 would be totally ineffective as a means of ensuring that if these words were deleted. It would make it not at all clear in what circumstances instructions could be given to members of an organisation by any particular body or any official. Clearly, that is why we need the term"circumstances ".
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, convinced that these are the only words by which his intentions—with which I should have thought there is 100 per cent. agreement—could be conveyed? It seems to me,
30
listening from the Cross Benches, that this is really a misunderstanding about wording between people of equal good will. What I understood the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and his noble friend to be objecting to was that detailed circumstances had to be enumerated, which certainly would be an absurdity. What I understood the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to be saying was that he wished to ensure that the broad conditions governing actions of a certain sort had to be observed. Is it not possible to find some form of words to meet both points of view?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so long as I have convinced the House that some provision of this kind is necessary, I am perfectly prepared to have the words re-examined. But I think it would be better at the moment to leave the words in than to take them out altogether, because then the paragraph in our view would be defective.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, it is a new principle of construction to me that one does not construe words in their ordinary sense because if one were to do so they would prove to be unworkable. I should have thought that a good deal of that applies to Schedule 4.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I would agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, if he were to add the words"if they could be construed in any other way ".
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, neither here, nor, I should have thought, in the preceding Amendment, is it possible to construe it in any other way when there are rules which are going to be much more difficult to alter now with the registrar's functions than they were before this Bill was in existence, although trade union rules are always difficult to alter. We are told in Clause 75(4):
"…the registrar shall not approve the rules of an organisation under this Act unless—
(a) he is satisfied that these are not defective as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section…"
and subsection (1)(c) says that they are defective if
" they do not comply with the requirements set out in Schedule 4 to this Act ".
So they have to comply with those requirements. In those circumstances,

31
how is the noble Lord able to say the words which read:
" The rules must specify the powers and duties of…its officers and of officials who are not officers of the organisation "
mean anything except what they say? It does not say that one must give a general idea what these bodies are to do; it says that one must specify their duties. As I ventured to say at the Committee stage of the Bill, no limited company or Government Department could possibly work if they could not change from day to day the duties of various employees without having to go through the paraphernalia of the registration with the registrar or amending the Memorandum of Articles of Association. So I should have thought that it was quite impossible for anyone to specify in their rules the circumstances in which somebody might call for industrial action because they must obviously vary in a way which cannot quite be specified.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has undertaken to look at this wording. I think it brings comfort to such of us—as, I suspect, my noble friend and myself—who support what the Government are trying to do here, but I think this Schedule is extremely badly and loosely drafted. The points which have been made from the Labour and Liberal Benches on this matter are not just debating points. If Amendment No. 79Z had been moved it would have been my intention to ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would undertake to look again at the definition of"officers ", and to point out that if all that he wanted to say was that the trade unionists should define their officers that could well be said in the Schedule. Again, in this matter there is quite genuine doubt as to what the Schedule means. I am a supporter of the noble Lord in his intentions on this matter, but I hope that the whole Schedule—certainly the early parts of it—will be thoroughly examined before Third Reading because I do not think that it is good enough as it stands.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I take those words,"we do not think it is good enough as it stands ". I am sorry if in not formally moving they removal of paragraph 7 I have denied
32
further opportunity to the Liberal spokesman to criticise the wording of this provision. Certainly so far as the words under discussion are concerned in paragraph 10 we are in the difficulty that we are advised in a contrary direction to that which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wishes to advise us. The noble Lord must not assume that I speak on these Amendments out of my own deep—indeed, I challenge any noble Lord to have a deeper—ignorance of the law than I possess myself, because we are often helped considerably. In this particular case, I am relying on the advice of a professor of law who has given enormous thought and care to this Bill and I am greatly reinforced by the view of my noble and learned friend who speaks, as does anyone who has held his high office, with great authority on this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says that there is a simple way out of this. If a normal interpretation—that is to say, reading the words in ordinary English to mean what one would think they should mean—produces nonsense, then one must know that that could not be the case because no Conservative Government—and this is the first rule of existence—could ever commit a nonsense. The noble Lord would have to sit on that Bench for a very long time before he could persuade me of that. Of course, he knows and I know that this is a matter of Ministers, and Ministers alone. Either a Minister has given instructions and those who advise him have done their best to interpret them, or else some adviser has put forward an idea and the Minister has accepted it. He may have accepted it with a very quick look or with a very long and slow look, but he has accepted it. There is only one person responsible and that is the Minister. So let us be quite clear about that; clear also that I cannot accept the proposition that no Conservative Minister is capable of putting a foolishness before your Lordships' House. This is one such; and were it not for the fact that the noble Lord has said that he will look at it again we would, of course, be compelled, having regard to the views expressed in many parts of your Lordships' House, to take it to a Division again. But the noble Lord has said that he will look at it.

33
At this stage, may I make a general point about looking at things? We assume that the noble Lord speaks with full authority when he says that he will look at these matters again. We naturally accept that completely and without hesitation. But we are at Report stage, and the next stage is Third Reading; we have a great deal of work to do to get through on the Report stage, which is a very long stage. It is a Herculean task, because the more you do the more there is left to do. It is a sort of monster: the more pages you cut off at the beginning, the more pages there are added at the end. Your Lordships will have noticed that though we have gone a long way through the Report stage the Marshalled List is much longer than it was when we started. So the longer we go on the longer the list grows, and it is going to be a difficult task to get through it.
There are many other things to deal with which the Government may be kind enough to say they will look at again before Third Reading. So I am making a point which I am sure the Government are taking: that we take these offers very seriously indeed, and there must be opportunity to demonstrate that the matter has been considered and a conclusion reached when we come to Third Reading. However, the noble Lord has been good enough to say that he will give the wording further consideration, and I hope that in that consideration he will have regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said. We are all saying the same thing, as far as I can see: that the words in their natural sense do not mean what we want. Therefore in the hope that ultimately the words will mean what we all want, I seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.13 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79BB:
Page 151, line 19, leave out paragraph 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment with a little less hesitation than some others. Paragraph 14 was a case in which the Opposition thought that, as the rule provided in the Schedule made nonsense, we ought to draw it to the Government's attention; and that we ought not to have regard to the fact that every rule the
34
Government propose must be full of good sense and empty of nonsense. We did, in our vain way, put this forward and it appears that we were not wholly mistaken because the Government have put down an Amendment to the clause which, in effect, achieves what this Amendment proposed at Committee stage. So I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not take it amiss if I say that the Opposition still regard it as their duty to examine Bills and not to assume that something which appears on the face of it to be nonsensical could not be nonsensical because it was the Conservative Party which put it forward. We are grateful to the noble Lord for having put forward an Amendment as a result of what we asked for, and for having put forward an Amendment to the clause itself. If the noble Lord tells us that when that Amendment comes forward he will move it then there is no need to spend any more time on this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. He will have spotted Amendment No. 79DDD to Clause 88(6), and that will make the matter quite clear. With respect, I do not think this was nonsense as it stood, but it was read by some to mean that it was not possible to give away the rule book free. That was not the intention, and it would probably be better expressed in the clause itself. So I would invite your Lordships to agree with the noble Lord in his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, is that the way the Government want it? Yes: this paragraph will have to come out if the Amendment to the clause is made. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I take it he is going to move his Amendment when he gets there.
4.18 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79CC:
Page 151, line 23, leave out paragraph 15 and insert—
(" 15. The rules must cover the questions of eligibility for and admission to the organisation.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph 15 sets out in detail the requirements relating to members of the organisation. It says:
" The rules must specify the descriptions of persons who are eligible for membership of the

35
organisation, and the procedure for dealing with applications for membership, including provision for appeals against decisions of the committee or other body responsible for determining such applications ".
We are trying to put forward something which will act as a check-list to remind those who are drawing rules that a rule must cover this sort of question, the question of eligibility for membership of the organisation and admission to it. We do not think it is necessary to do more than this. This is not a matter of supreme importance: it is really just another example of how the rules could be turned from a over-detailed list of regulations, which in practice I am sure will be ignored because there is too much detail for anybody to take note of, into something sensible which could be a help to new unions who are preparing their rule books. I beg to move.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replies, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to define what is meant by"descriptions of persons ". Does this relate to craft or skill, or to a particular occupation or vocation, or does it relate to behaviour or anything of that sort? What is meant by"descriptions of persons "? It does not relate, I suppose, to their height or their weight or their girth or anything of that sort, does it? What is it intended to mean?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, the words"descriptions of persons"are of course used throughout the Bill in trying to define a specified group. He will find those words constantly used, obviously referring to the kind of group of people suited to be represented by a single trade union.
My Lords, I think that the difficulty with the noble Lord's Amendment is that he is really seeking to replace a fairly precise definition of what is required with a more than usually vague description. To say simply that"The rules must cover the questions of eligibility"without in any way relating to the sort of questions that arise is, I think, a bit dangerous. We attach importance here, particularly to the provision for appeals against decisions of the committee or other body responsible for determining such applications. Indeed, I think it right also to
36
provide in the rules a procedure for dealing with applications; at what level admission is to take place, whether they need to be agreed at a higher level, and so forth. I should have thought that to be a reasonable provision, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am not going to waste time on this Amendment. It is merely an example of the way we think that the rules could be helpful to organisations; namely, by reminding them of the things which they ought to bear in mind, such as a check list, as opposed to the Government's method of specifying details at this unnecessary length. We cannot do more than put forward our views. The Government are not willing to change the rules and I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time, so I seek permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.22 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79DD:
Page 151, line 34, leave out (" procedure and penalties ") and insert (" penalties, if any,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, line 34 comes within Rule 16 which says:
" The rules must specify…the contributions payable in respect of membership of the organisation…"
A little later it says:
"…and the amount of any such contributions or the basis on which that amount is to be assessed…"
and finally:
"…the procedure and penalties in case of default in payment of contributions."
Why do we need a procedure"in case of default in payment of contributions "? I should have thought it was perfectly simple; in fact, it could be automatic. If you do not pay, you cease to be a member. Why should we have all this procedure laid down so that the Registrar could not admit a union to be a registered union unless it set out in its rules a procedure for dealing with default in payment of contributions? Presumably, the procedure is directed to the accountant who looks up the book, sees that the man has not paid, and puts a line through his membership card (or something like that) after a number of weeks,

37
or whatever the time may be. I do not think it is a necessary detail and I hope the Government will agree that on this occasion also the word"procedure"could be omitted.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think this is a case in which I hope to be able to convince the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that there is value in retaining the word"procedure"as well as the word"penalties ". When a member has fallen into arrears, or appears to have done so, it is important that there should be some proper procedure for warning him of that fact, and indicating the consequences to which his default exposes him. Its importance was brought out by the case Edwards v. SOGAT concerning a member's wrongful dismissal from his union for alleged non-payment of dues. That case prompted the T.U.C. to issue recommendations on the matter to affiliated unions. A reference in the rules to penalties is not enough to provide the member with an opportunity to pay his arrears. He must also know, particularly in these days when more and more contributions are being paid by check-off, what steps the union will take before terminating his membership. Clause 65(9) requires that at least he should get a notification of the proposal to terminate membership. One would expect to see some reference to this in the rules. For that reason I hope the noble Lord will agree that a procedure is necessary.
LORD DIAMOND: May I ask the noble Lord why it is necessary to specify the procedure in these rules if all that is really necessary is already contained in the Bill? If your Lordships will consider the similar provision with regard to the Companies Act, it will be apparent that we do not have to specify everything in the rules of the company, in its articles of association, which are covered by company law. You cannot breach company law whatever your articles may say; you have to comply with company law. Surely, when this Bill becomes an Act, the unions will have to comply with it? It is set out in the Bill that there has to be a notification. In any event, everyone would act in that way out of common sense alone. Why therefore do you have in addition to provide for a procedure under these rules?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should have thought the answer was quite simply in order that members may know, by reading their rules, what is the procedure to be followed in order to fulfil the guiding principle in Clause 65.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, aware that during all my life in trade unions it has been the case that on the back of a man's trade union card, and especially in the case of miners' it stated that if you were six weeks in arrears you were not in financial benefit. If at the end of ten weeks you still had not paid, you were struck off the books, and you became a non-member. This practice has been going on for years in all trade unions. Every union has a"non-financial"clause for a member, and also one which excludes a man from membership after a period of time if he has defaulted in the payment of his contributions. I see no reason why this should be embodied in the rules.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understand the sense of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to be that what is meant here is notification that a member is in default because he has not paid arrears, or something of the sort, and his membership is likely to be terminated? If that is all that is meant, my noble friend Lord Blyton has dealt with the point. As I understand it—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, would support this contention—almost all union rulebooks contain an item to the effect that if a member is in default, his membership may be terminated if the branch or the executive so decide. That was the position when I was associated with the trade union movement. There was also a notification that it was up to the member to see that his contributions were paid. If that is all that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, means, I understand it. But is anything else meant by"procedure ", apart from notification?
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is trying, out of the goodness of his heart, or if the Government are trying, to help trade unionists, why do not they listen to what trade unionists have to say about this Amendment? They say that the words

39
are not necessary, and surely they should know whether the words are necessary—unless the Government think that they are not capable of breaking the unions according to the Bill, and that it is necessary to put in these words. Otherwise, I fail to see the reason for them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may with the leave of the House, I will reply to the questions. I am a little mystified at the logic of what we are here being asked to do, or not to do. After all, it is not an answer to the suggestion that something should be put in the rules to say that it is being done already. We are here trying to make certain that the best practice is followed. Noble Lords have said that in some unions the best practice is being followed. I doubt whether it may necessarily be concluded that the best practice is followed in all unions. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asked whether this just means notice. It is not for me to say whether it just means notice. A particular union might want to have a more elaborate procedure. It might give notice and allow for an opportunity for a member to make representations and so on. I would think that"procedure"is the right word to use in these circumstances and that it might be left to the unions to say what the procedure should be in any particular case, so long as there is a procedure. As the noble Lord says, it might amount merely to notification; it might go further and amount to an opportunity to make representations.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I do not think that we need to press this Amendment any further. From the experience of my noble friends who have spoken it is clear that there is no difficulty about this in the present situation. Indeed, the normal situation, as I should envisage, is that every trade unionist has his card and looks at it and knows whether it is up to date. It is as simple as that. If it is not up to date he knows that he will cease to be a member. That is automatic, and unless"procedure"means an automatic procedure, then that would be a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the word. If it could be automatic that would be perfectly satisfactory. This is merely another example of how going into this
40
kind of detail does not help the unions at all and the whole of this Schedule, for practical purposes, will be ignored. In those circumstances, I will not waste your Lordships' time any further and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 78 [Entry of organisations in provisional register]:
4.31 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79TTT:
Page 62, line 13, at end insert—
(" (4) The registrar shall send to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a copy of such particulars entered in the provisional register as the Commissioners may from time to time require.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move a most important Amendment on which I seek to engage the close attention of your Lordships' House. First of all let me say what the short purpose of this Amendment is. It is to enable the Government to carry out the Secretary of State's undertaking to provide a special register so that non-registering trade unions can get the benefit of tax relief on their provident funds. That relief they get at present; they will not get it in the future if the Bill goes through unamended.
Let me read out what the undertaking was. It was given on March 23, and appears in column 335 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place. The Secretary of State, Mr. Carr, said:
" I assure the House "—
he did not say"I think ", but,
" I assure the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities, I would propose a special register."
That is very clear. He went on to say some further words to which I shall refer shortly. Your Lordships will appreciate that this was an assurance given in the House and it related to unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, that is to say, under this Bill, and it dealt with their activities which are known as their provident fund activities.
It is difficult to know why the Government have not so far implemented this

41
undertaking. It is difficult because it is necessary, but it is not so difficult to understand the point of view of the Secretary of State, because he went on to say:
"…it is not necessary. I have gone into this most carefully. I am told that there is no technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896 is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense. Therefore there is a special register in existence."
I think there must be a misprint there, for there is no special register in existence. The Secretary of State took the view that as there was an Industrial and Provident Societies Act, under which non-registering trade unions could carry on their provident fund activities or, alternatively, a Friendly Societies Act, under which they could do the same, there was no need to set up the special register. I therefore have the duty of explaining to your Lordships—because the Secretary of State has not, apparently, given these matters anything like adequate consideration—why the advice tendered was wrong; why it is not possible for unions, which do not register, to carry on their provident fund activities under the Provident Societies Act or the Friendly Societies Act, and why I am calling upon the Government, and the Secretary of State, to honour his undertaking.
There are serious difficulties. The Secretary of State said:
" I am told that there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty…".
My Lords, in fact there are serious difficulties, both technical and legal, which I shall explain to your Lordships. They are so serious as to make it impossible for the purpose to be achieved. Again may I say to your Lordships that what I am saying is not based exclusively on my own view of the matter, but derives also from the joint opinion of two eminent counsel whom the Trades Union Congress consulted so as to be quite sure that the advice given to their members was accurate.
First, may I deal with the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965? What is almost certainly the case is that the objects of Section 1 of that Act prevent registration by a trade union for these purposes. What is quite certain is that it is inappropriate to attempt to register
42
under that Act because there is no general tax exemption for industrial provident societies. It is as simple as that, and I hope it is quite clear that when the Secretary of State referred to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 he was wrong, and the reason I labour this point is in order to make it clear that if he was so clearly and absolutely mistaken on that matter, he might equally well have been mistaken on the next matters to which I am about to refer.
Having disposed of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, let us look at the Friendly Societies Act, which is a much more appropriate Act for this function. I will now detail the serious technical and legal difficulties, of which the Secretary of State said there were none but which make it impossible for a trade union to function in the way in which the Secretary of State suggested it could with regard to its provident activities. I am glad to say that on this point the Government have already gone a long way towards recognising these difficulties, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was good enough to write to me arising out of the question that I raised on this matter at an earlier stage. He does not take the view that there are no technical, constitutional or legal difficulties. I will read what he says, but I am always anxious not to read out too small a part of a letter, lest I should be charged with being selective. It is a three-page letter so your Lord-ships will not wish to be bothered with the whole of it.
In his letter the noble Lord says:
" I would not, of course, wish to imply that it would be a simple matter for a trade union to take this step."—
This is the step of transferring funds to friendly societies in order to continue to get the tax benefit—
" It might face problems depending on the provisions in its constitution "—
this is what the Secretary of State had in mind, no doubt, when he talked about no constitutional difficulty—
" and rules relating to the powers of its trustees, the nature of the provident benefit to be provided to members and the methods by which they are to be financed. At the very least it seems probable that the consent of members to major changes in union rules would be needed. In come cases it seems quite possible that complex financial and actuarial questions might arise over the division of union funds and assets

43
between those to be used for general purposes and those to be allocated to the friendly society taking over responsibility for provident benefits."
All that is quite correct. There would be immense difficulties of the kind outlined by the noble Lord, and I will now, if I may, demonstrate to him why those difficulties are not only immense but insuperable.
There are three major difficulties. There are many more, but three major ones, which is two more than is sufficient for the purposes of this argument. First, there is the rule under Clause 154 of this Bill that no organisation of workers can register under the Friendly Societies Act. The organisation cannot register. But, according to the Friendly Societies Act, the benefit paid to individuals must be provided,
" by voluntary subscription of the members thereof ".
The subscription has to come from the members; the subscription has to be voluntary. The members of the friendly society therefore could not be tied up with the members of the union. There is no way in which one could ensure that these two memberships would precisely coincide. And of course they would increasingly diverge. Even if they started off by being the same membership, there would be the circumstance, first, that trade union members would cease to subscribe to the friendly society, and therefore there would be members of the union who would not be members of the friendly society. Secondly, there would be the circumstance that members of the friendly society would cease to be members of the union but would continue to subscribe to the friendly society. So in these two respects there would be increasing divergence between the members of the friendly society and the membership of the union. There is no method by which the two can be tied and kept together. In fact, by virtue of the statutory provision it is impossible to have a friendly society on any basis other than that the subscriptions are voluntary. So it is perfectly clear in the first place that it would be impossible to achieve what is being achieved at the moment; namely, a union providing provident benefits for its members or their dependants. That is the first point.
There is of course the further difficulty (this is still within this major difficulty which I am speaking about) that members not willing to join the friendly society would need to have their existing rights assured. One cannot assume that it would be possible even to start with the two memberships coinciding. There might be a considerable membership of the union which would refuse to join a new friendly society; and they would say,"We have subscribed to this union provident fund, or to the union funds part of which are used for provident purposes, and will require our rights to be assessed and valued and set on one side." So the continuing funds of the union would, in effect, under the present proposals, be reduced because of the tax provisions. That is the first insuperable difficulty.
The second is that this same condition which I have read out means that a friendly society set up for the purpose could not rely simply on the existing funds in the trade union. The condition, may I remind your Lordships, is"voluntary subscription of the members thereof ". So there is a union with its own provident funds; members have been subscribing for years and years, and there are a number of annuitants and beneficiaries who are drawing benefits. The annuitants, the aged, the sick, the widows, the children who are dependent—all these are drawing benefits out of the union provident funds or the general funds which are also used for provident purposes. Those funds could not be transferred to a new friendly society because the friendly society has to be provided by funds by way of voluntary subscription from the members themselves. The most that could be done is that from time to time the union could give a donation to the friendly society. But it could not provide the funds. So there are two reasons, insuperable reasons, why the union and the friendly society could not be identical bodies and why the funds could not be used.
There is a third reason. It is not quite so crucial, but it can be very important for various unions. It is that the range of benefits which, on the one hand, are provided by trade union provident funds and, on the other hand, are allowed as proper for tax purposes when paid out by a friendly society, differ. To a great extent they overlap; they coincide. To

45
a large extent they differ. Not only do they differ, but in many important respects the friendly society range of permissible benefits is narrower than the trade union range of permissible benefits. When I say"permissible ", I mean, so far as a trade union is concerned,"permissible for tax purposes ", and so far as a friendly society is concerned"permissible for friendly society purposes ". So there will be cases where one or more kind of benefit cannot be continued if a trade union attempts to hive-off its provident activities to a friendly society.
So, my Lords, I am saying (I am sorry to have troubled your Lordships in some detail about this matter, but it is an issue of fundamental importance) that there are these three insuperable reasons, two of which are major and one is minor, in addition to many other reasons, why it simply is not possible for registration under the Friendly Societies Act to provide existing tax relief for the membership of the union in respect of their existing funds for their existing providential purposes. It is necessary therefore to set up a special register. I have demonstrated, first, that the reference to the industrial and provident society was merely a careless one; secondly, that the reference to the Friendly Societies Act has not been sufficiently thought out because it is incapable of achieving the purpose. Furthermore, I remind your Lordships of the undertaking, which I will now read once more.
" I assure the House "—
it was said—
" that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense "—
that is exactly our position—
" so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities "—
that is exactly what we are considering—
" I would propose a special register."
I am saying there should be a special register proposed, and proposed fairly quickly, if the Government and the Secretary of State are to honour his assurance given in another place.
I come now to the precise wording of the Amendment. Why do I propose that:
46
" The registrar shall send to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a copy of such particulars entered in the provisional register as the Commissioners may from time to time require "?
Your Lordships are well aware of the procedure, which is that every registered union (which at the moment means a union registered under the 1871 and subsequent Acts) is entitled to this tax benefit in relation to its provident activities. So, incidentally, is every other body which carries out this kind of activity. For at least 50 years it has been a matter of national policy, carried out by every Government during that period, to encourage by tax relief every individual who saves in this way for these purposes. It is obvious common sense and good national policy, and it is always done. The unions are not being favoured in this way; they are being treated exactly as every other body which carries out similar purposes.
Your Lordships are aware, first, that every trade union which is so registered at present gets relief on its provident fund activities; secondly, that under this Bill every such union will be transferred automatically to the special register; thirdly, that the people who will need to know about it are the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, because they have to deal with the tax side. Therefore, all that is necessary to provide a special register, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Secretary of State, is for the Registrar, who has the details of all those who are on the special register, to notify the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. They then set up their special register by administrative means. It is as simple as that. My Lords, I have explained the matter fully; I hope that the Government are persuaded. I beg to move.
4.52 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has argued that the assurance which my right honourable friend gave in another place cannot be fulfilled and therefore a special register should be set up. That is the burden of what he has said. It was never said that there would be no change, and I do not think it was ever suggested that it would necessarily be easy for the trade unions who do not register (that is non-registered organisations) to hive-off their funds so as to register under the Friendly Societies

47
Acts. I agree with the noble Lord that it would be inappropriate to register under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act; but, of course, it is recognised that there are differences between the Friendly Societies Acts and the present provisions. It is true, as the noble Lord says, that the range of benefits provided by trade union provident funds, and those allowed as proper for tax purposes, differ; that, although they overlap, they are not identical. I think those are roughly the words that he used. It is recognised that there will be some differences, but the basic principle of the Bill here is that those who do not register under the Bill when it becomes an Act will not be trade unions within the meaning of the Bill, and therefore they will not have the facilities open to them as trade unions.
In effect, this means that those who do not register will have problems, because they will be giving up the right to use their provident funds for any purpose they may think fit. Therefore, in order to get over that they will have to register under the Friendly Societies Act.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, who are"they "?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am speaking now of the unregistered organisations, those that do not register under the Bill. This is part of the essence of the Bill, and I do not think it would be possible for us to make any concession in this matter. The choice will be entirely open to the organisations themselves. If they choose to register, then they will be covered under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act; if they do not, then they will have to hive-off their funds and register under the Friendly Societies Act.
The statement made by my right honourable friend was quoted correctly by the noble Lord, and I think it is right to say that we still stand by that. There are no technical, constitutional or legal difficulties involved. I take note of the point made by the noble Lord, that it would not be possible to have existing funds transferred to a new friendly society because the funds have not been subscribed to voluntarily. All I can say is that this is not in accordance with the advice we have received. In the ordinary way there is no compulsion to be
48
a member of a trade union, and thus there is no compulsion to subscribe to what is covered by the rules of the trade union. In many cases it is a fact that the subscription of anyone who is a member of a union also goes to cover provident funds, and therefore the argument must be that these are voluntary subscriptions. This is a matter of legal advice. The noble Lord said that he had received contrary advice, but all I can say is that the advice we have received was reflected in what my right honourable friend has said, and there is nothing to prevent organisations of workers hiving-off their funds in order to set up provident funds for the range of benefits that friendly societies can cover.
My Lords, I think perhaps I should go further than this. It is the case that the Bill leaves in doubt the question whether organisations entered on the provisional register will be able to benefit from this facility. Obviously, one of the points the noble Lord must have had in mind was what was going to happen in the intervening period. Perhaps the noble Lord will not wish me to pursue this at the present time because he has a later Amendment—
LORD DIAMOND: Please do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes me to, I will certainly do so. This is obviously unsatisfactory because many of the organisations which go on to the register will be enjoying the appropriate benefits at the time of tax relief under Section 338. Of course this will apply to all the unions which are transferred automatically on to the provisional register, whether or not they decide to remain on it, for so long as they remain on the register. If they were to lose this benefit during the period when their eligibility for registration as a trade union was being considered, then the provisional register would have failed in its purpose of providing continuity for existing trade unions.
The proposed Amendment to Clause 78, together with the proposed new clause to follow Clause 80, would certainly provide one way by which the tax positions of organisations on the provisional register might be safeguarded, but obviously the noble Lord's intentions go

49
very much further than that. The proposed new clause would clearly give a very definite meaning to the term"registered trade union ". The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that both Amendments are totally unacceptable to the Government. The new clause, in particular, is nothing less than a new variant on the old Opposition theme that organisations should not have to be registered under the Bill to qualify for tax relief. Not only would this clause allow organisations on the provisional register to qualify for Section 338 relief whilst on that register—an objective which we support—but it would allow them to go on getting that relief even if they asked to be taken off the provisional register or if they failed to qualify for registration as trade unions under the Bill, or if, having been thus registered, they asked to be deregistered. Nor is that all—
LORD DIAMOND: May I interrupt?
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I first finish this point? If any organisation had at any time in the past hundred years been on the old register, no matter for how brief a period, it would under the Amendment qualify for Section 338 relief.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is speaking to an Amendment which has not even been moved. He asked me whether I should like him to deal with the position of the provisional register, not with an Amendment that has not been moved. I said that I should be grateful if he did so, although in fact the Bill makes that position absolutely clear. If the noble Lord wishes to deal further with the provisional register on this Amendment, to assist us on this Amendment, I shall be grateful. The time to deal with the next Amendment is when I put it forward.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was trying to meet the noble Lord's wishes. He will appreciate that to some extent his proposals cover transfer to the provisional register as well, because what he is suggesting is that a special register should be opened right away. What we are suggesting here is that there should be a transfer to the provisional register with the continuation of the existing benefits so long as anyone remains on
50
the provisional register. I was only saying that to that extent the proposals coincide, and I was going on to indicate what our proposals are. I fully agree with the noble Lord that what I was going to say would come more appropriately on discussion of his later Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I ask for clarification of what the noble Lord has just said? He has just said that the trade union should, while on the provisional register, be treated in the same way as it is treated at the moment on the 1871 register. May I ask him to go on to say whether that is the case, irrespective of what the union then does; that is to say, whether it then gets transferred to the permanent register or then gives notice to deregister?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as the noble Lord has indicated that he would rather deal with this matter later, I would rather cover that point at a later time.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask a question which I think is relevant? I am rather concerned about this provisional register. Suppose that in this age of automation, new machinery and the discovery of new tools, new skills are required with new types of industry and jobs; and suppose that I want to form a new group of trade unionists who have never been formed into a union and who have, say, in the field of bio-chemistry or electro-medicine new skills. Will this provisional register be kept open for me to enter a brand new Tory union in the brand new Tory world created by noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes far wider than the Amendment we are discussing, but it is open to anyone to apply to be a registered trade union at any time.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK:"At any time ". I thank the noble Lord.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given a most unsatisfactory and unconsidered reply to a most important question dealing with a matter of honour. I am going to make a suggestion to the noble Lord after I have gone through his speech. The noble Lord has made it perfectly clear that he

51
was not expecting me to bring up the arguments I have brought up. That is perfectly understandable, and he has repeated advice which has been given to him previously, except to the extent that that advice was shown to be wrong. The first thing the noble Lord was good enough to do was to agree with me that the Secretary of State was wrong, just simply wrong, when he referred in his assurance to the House to one way out of the difficulty being via the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. I emphasise that once more. I am grateful for the agreement of the noble Lord because it shows that this advice was hasty. No one blames a Minister for accepting advice on a highly technical matter, but sometimes the advice is hasty. What I say to the noble Lord is that I hope on reconsideration he will say to me that in view of the arguments which I put forward—many of which he has not dealt with and most of which are quite new—and in view of the fact that the honour of a Secretary of State is at stake, he will be good enough to consider what will be on the Record to-morrow—the arguments I have put forward—and good enough, if he is not clear about them, to invite me and my legal advisers to meet the Secretary of State and his legal advisers to demonstrate that the Secretary of State has been ill-advised.
The noble Lord did not attempt to deal with two of my three major arguments. He dealt with the third one which I specifically called a minor one, but the two major ones, which are insuperable, he did not attempt to deal with. Of course they are new points, but they are very carefully considered points. I have given reasons for them and I can gladly supply the joint opinion of the two eminent counsel who took this view. This is not a view concocted by the Opposition in order to make a debate at this stage; it is a considered view of the law. I am most certainly not responsible for the Friendly Societies Act 1896, but that Act has certain provisions. If the Government want those provisions altered they must bring forward a Bill to alter them, or say that they will, as they can, deal with the matter in the next Finance Bill or how they choose. What they cannot say is that the law makes it possible for a
52
trade union to register in the way in which the noble Lord said that it could. The noble Lord said that they can register, they can invest their funds, under the Friendly Societies Act. I asked the noble Lord who"they"were and he said that they were unregistered organisations. They would have to register under the Friendly Societies Act.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I interrupt?
LORD DIAMOND: I will give way in a moment. May I refer the noble Lord to his own Bill? If he will be good enough to look at his own Bill he will see that in Clause 154—
LORD DRUMALBYN: While the noble Lord is looking it up—
LORD DIAMOND: I will read this and then I will gladly give way. Clause 154 clearly says:
" No organisation of workers shall after the commencement of this Act, and no employers' association shall after being registered as an employers' association under this Act become registered—

(a)…

(b) under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896."

It is the Bill which makes it statutorily impossible for a union or an unregistered organisation to register under this Act.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I rather misunderstood his question, because I thought he was discriminating between registered trade unions and unregistered organisations of workers. It was made quite plain at the Committee stage that they would, of course, have to set up trustees; they could not register themselves. I took it for granted that the noble Lord realised that this was common ground here. All I was trying to say was that it was open to them to make the arrangements. Obviously it would have to be through trustees.
LORD DIAMOND: No, my Lords, it is not possible for unions to register. Now we are agreed about that, and agreed that the noble Lord did not follow my argument, as he said; I am also suggesting, in as kindly a way as I can, that the noble Lord did not follow the rest of my argument. We are not dealing merely with a matter of argument between two Members of your Lordships' House, but

53
with a most serious argument affecting 8 million people, producing something of the order of £6 million a year, and having direct eleemosynary relevance only, to people who are annuitants, or in need, sick, widows, mourners, injured, children. What we are discussing is: will the £6 million or so continue to be made available to them, or will it be withdrawn from them? That is what we are considering. What I am saying is that I have made the case and shown that in one respect we are agreed, that the Secretary of State was ill-advised—hastily advised, let us put it—when he made that statement and gave that undertaking. As to the rest of it, I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord, and the Government and their legal advisers, that what we are saying is right. The noble Lord has said,"It is true we never undertook that it was easy ". But the Secretary of State did not say that it was difficult. He said:
" I am told there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty ".
I do not know what other kinds of difficulty exist. I think I am right in saying that what the Secretary of State was saying was,"I am told there is no difficulty ". I do not think it is open to the noble Lord to say, in face of that,"Nobody says it is easy ". It is the kind of playing at the borderline that one does not want to do to a statement made by an honourable Secretary of State.
I hope the noble Lord will be good enough to consider that here is a very serious matter, here is a question of admitted partial ill-advice. Nobody could know the whole story unless he had considered it as carefully as the two eminent counsel and the T.U.C. have considered it, because of its effect on all their members. I hope the noble Lord will accede to the request I am making. I do not want to push the Amendment to a Division. I do not want to be in the position of charging a Secretary of State with acting in a dishonourable way. I am asking the noble Lord, quite firmly, to be good enough to say that he will consider everything I have said on what is one of the most important issues raised by this Bill, and that he will deal with it again at Third Reading—no promise or undertaking, beyond an undertaking to consider the careful arguments put forward.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has obviously made a very reasonable suggestion, and it would be ridiculous of me if I were not to accede to his suggestion that we should look at this very carefully indeed. Indeed, if he chooses to come and talk to us about it, we shall be very willing to see him and discuss it in depth—I think that is the phrase. It is our own view that, while a trade union cannot register itself under the Friendly Societies Act, it could quite easily set up a separate friendly society and that this is a solution which would be legally possible. Like all these things, it may be complicated, and therefore not easy. Before we start bandying accusations across the Floor of the House, I think it would be better if we do as I have said; that is, look at this point again very closely and discuss the matter with the noble Lord.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, may I appeal to the noble Lord, if he is going to let us have a copy of his legal opinion, to be good enough to send a copy to me. I can assure him it will be treated with all confidence.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am very grateful that the noble Lord has acceded to my request. I am sure it is right and sensible on such an important matter that both sides should undertake the fullest possible examination of the law and listen to advice about it. I am grateful for what he has said. I shall be very ready to attend any kind of conference which the noble Lord suggests, and discuss the matter after getting instructions—which I am sure I shall get, because nobody wishes these matters to be kept secret. Indeed, the T.U.C. has made it clear in a circular letter to its 8 million associated members that this opinion has been obtained and that it is on the basis of this opinion that it is saying the things it is saying, which are broadly, perhaps in less detail, what I have said. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for saying he will be willing to consider the written opinion; and after getting confirmation I shall, of course, consider it a privilege to send it to him. In those circumstances, and expressing my gratitude for the patience your Lordships have shown in listening

55
to a long debate, albeit about an important matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79 [Transfer from provisional register and cancellation of entries]:
5.18 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79UUU.
Page 62, line 19, leave out (' six months ") and insert ( three years ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I am sure refers to the Industrial Relations Bill, and it seeks to leave out"six months"and insert"three years ". This is a clause which deals with the period within which, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a union which is put on the provisional register either moves on to the main register or has its provisional registration cancelled. I recognise that these matters should be dealt with as quickly as is sensible and expedient, and that there are provisions in the same clause later on under which, if six months is not enough, the period can in suitable circumstances be extended. I feel that six months sets the target, and I think it is an impossibly short target.
There are a vast number of unions, all with their rules. They have all got to be examined by the Registrar. One wants to see careful examination, one wants co-operation if possible, or consultation and discussion with the interested parties. Everybody knows how quickly six months go by in attempting to deal with huge problems of this kind. I do not know what the staffing arrangements are to be, but one does not want to see the Registrar overwhelmed at the start of his function; he would need an enormous new staff to cope with it. I should have thought it in everybody's interest to provide a reasonable period. I am sure that six months is not a reasonable period; three years would be. If the noble Lord thinks another period would be adequate, I will listen to what he says. But at the moment, I think three years is a reasonable period during which one can envisage most of these matters being cleared up. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining
56
the purpose of his Amendment. As he said, the object of the provisional registration is to provide a transitional period during which the registrar can verify that an organisation satisfies the conditions of eligibility for registration. We have set the period of six months which we believe to be right. Of course, in many cases he will not need as long as six months to carry out this task and he will be able to transfer many applicants to the permanent register without any delay. But, my Lords, we have put the figure of six months for two reasons: first, the registrar will have a considerable number of organisations to deal with, certainly at the outset, and in a small number of cases he may require to make some inquiries to satisfy himself whether the organisations are eligible before reaching his decision.
However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is slightly in error over one thing; that is, when he said he thought that full examination of the rules of an organisation is involved to see whether they satisfy the requirements of Schedule 4 and Clauses 65 and 69. That is not so at this stage. That examination comes later after the certificate of registration has been issued. At this stage, eligibility alone is examined; that is, the question of whether the organisation is an organisation of workers or of employers and whether, if it is an organisation of workers, it is under employer domination or control, and whether in either case it is an autonomous body.
A large number of existing unions will clearly meet these conditions without any difficulty at all, and where an organisation which genuinely wishes to seek and to secure registration is unable to satisfy these conditions there is the provision in subsection (3) of this clause for extending this period of consideration further. I would reiterate that at this stage all that the registrar has to do is to satisfy himself that the applicants concerned are eligible for registration; it is only after the certificate of registration has been issued that complete and full consideration is given in detail.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, the Bill itself provides that:
" Where the registrar refrains from cancelling the entry…such further period as he may

57
consider appropriate for enabling it to make the requisite alteration in its rules ".
In view of that, why cannot my noble friend's Amendment be accepted, because in that case the transition period would be a reasonable one in view of the great changes that are taking place. That will need a great deal of consideration by the administrative staff of the entire trade union movement. Further down in subsection (3) there is a hint that a longer period might not be accepted. Why cannot the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench accept this, what I consider to be a constructive Amendment, moved by my noble friend?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may have leave to speak again, I would reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that we do not consider that this is not a constructive Amendment; we realise that it is moved in a constructive manner. All we are saying is that we believe it to be unnecessary because at this stage the registrar merely concerns himself with the provisions of Clauses 67 and 71 which, as I pointed out, are merely to satisfy himself that it is not under the domination of an employer and other such things which are relatively simple to ascertain. Only if the registrar finds that more detail is required and that a period of six months is not sufficient will he permit the union to have its period of provisional registration increased. But we believe that six months is an adequate period for this procedure. It is after the certificate of registration has been issued that Clauses 65 and 69, which contain the detailed considerations, will then be applied.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I would not press the Government unduly on this matter. After all, this is mainly an administrative matter and the Government are better administrators than I am and know more about their own business than I do. I had thought that six months was too short even from their point of view, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has made it clear that he thinks as I do that it is too short for many of the trade unions also. The noble Lord, in dealing with the position of the Government, did not deal with the position of the unions. Some of them may find it too short. However, we have made our point.
58
I am sure that the noble Lord realises that it is not a Party issue or a controversial issue. It is merely a question of which is the most sensible way of making a provision at the start; namely, the target date one should fix. I think the provision for extension is a discretionary one on the part of the registrar. It is not a discretionary one on the part of a busy general secretary of a trade union who has been away ill for three months with a further month's convalescence and then finds himself faced with a huge amount of work to be done in less than eight weeks. There is no discretion on the registrar there. We have made our point, and I hope that the noble Lord will give it consideration. I do not wish to press it any further and I seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.28 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendmeent No. 79VVV:
After Clause 80 insert the following new new clause:
Definition of registered trade union for tax purposes
". For the purposes of section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, registered trade union includes an organisation which was, on the 30th June 1971, or had been at any time prior thereto, registered as a trade union under the Trade Union Acts 1871 to 1964."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment provides very shortly that for the purposes of the relevant income tax section a registered trade union shall include not only unions registered under this Bill but unions which have been registered broadly as at to-day under any of the normal methods of registration; that is, the Trade Union Acts 1871 to 1964.
We are again on this issue of tax treatment but this is a very narrow point. The application of this Amendment is quite narrow. It refers not to the general proposition of registration at all, on which there is a great deal at issue between the two sides, but to the question of registration for the purposes only of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act 1970. That Act governs these matters,"and section 338"refers to a registered trade union. I have already explained and

59
therefore I need not repeat it, that the policy of providing tax encouragement to provident saving is a policy which, broadly, has been carried out by every Government over the whole of this country. Therefore, what we are concerned with is whether that policy should be continued or whether certain persons should be singled out for exclusion from that general treatment.
The Amendment I have put forward is not one to provide all unions at all future times with this continuity of treatment; it is only to provide for those unions which register under the new Act, as it will be, or those unions which have registered in the past. My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek sensibly referred to the probability of new unions having to be formed in order to organise those working with new skills. They might need an umbrella and, very properly, might form a new union. Such a union might not wish to register under the Act; such a union would not have been registered under the 1871 Act; and such a union would, therefore, know when it was starting its life that that was the state of the law. That is one thing. That is quite a different thing from a union which has, over the whole of its existence, benefited with regard to its provident funds from the tax treatment which is available to all who carry out similar activities. Quite a different issue arises there.
The attitude of the Government has really been made clear by the Secretary of State in the statement I referred to on an earlier Amendment. The Secretary of State's attitude is not a consideration of whether certain individuals should or should not any longer get a certain tax benefit. That is not his attitude. His attitude is,"You can get this benefit, if not under this Bill, in another way." He does not say,"You shall not get this benefit "; he rests his case on the fact that you can get this benefit in another way, and therefore why should it be made available in this particular way. We had a discussion on the last Amendment as to whether it can be made available in another way, and I do not want to go over that ground again. I only want to make it clear that that has been the attitude of the Government, as voiced by the authoritative person of the Secretary of State himself.
I also want to make clear—although it has been referred to before—whom we are talking about. We are talking about the recipients of provident benefits. The recipients are the annuitants, those who are old. I was much saddened—and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will also be much saddened if he is not aware of this—to find that, for the purpose of, I think, the Friendly Societies Act,"old"starts at 55, when I, at the age of 64, thought I was merely approaching middle age. At all events, the old are those who benefit; the ill are those who benefit; the widows are those who benefit; the mourners—the mourners in a Jewish ceremony of mourning the dead—are those who benefit; and the children of ex-union members who need provision are also those who benefit. These are the people we are talking about. The question is whether their benefits should continue in their present amount or whether, by the withdrawal of tax relief, they should be reduced, in round figures, by something approaching a half. That is the issue that is involved.
I have sought not to reopen the general question of registration, because that is a different political issue on which we are totally opposed to one another. I have sought merely to narrow the issue down to the question of the treatment for tax purposes, and the definition for those purposes. I am therefore suggesting this Amendment as being a simple method of dealing with the matter, and regarding the registration test as it is defined in this Amendment. I should remind your Lordships that registration is indeed necessary, as the noble Lord has said, but it is purely necessary as an administrative matter. The Inland Revenue must be able to keep their tabs on those who are the applicants; those unions which seek these benefits for their provident funds. This has nothing to do with funds which are used for strikes, for industrial action, or anything of that kind at all; it is purely that these provident funds have attracted a certain kind of treatment ever since they were registered in 1871—or, at all events, I think since the 1922 Act, which gave the benefit to these particuar organisations and relied on registration under the Act of 1871, and we are merely asking that this treatment should be continued. I beg to move.
5.36 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I hope sincerely that some attention in depth will be given to this question, because there are other aspects to the Amendment that my noble friend is moving. I may not be right—that I will acknowledge; but I will put the matter hypothetically. If, as the position now stands, trade union funds are liable to be reduced because some are not exempted from taxation, a whole string of people could be affected, and not only regarding death allowances but in other respects.
I shall not detain the House more than two minutes, but let me give an example of which I have knowledge. For many years, together with six or seven other people, I was on the Miners Welfare Selection Board, selecting students from all over Britain, sons and daughters of men and women who worked in and about the mines. We included an academic group of people from various universities, and we selected the children of miners from secondary schools, grammar schools, and even private schools all over the British Isles. The miners of Great Britain had collected and put aside a fund for scholarships for these people. Once we were delighted that we made a couple of orthopædic surgeons out of miners' sons. What would happen if there were no protection afforded to scholastic funds like that, which had been collected, for instance, by the miners? Some noble Lords will have had experience of the old Miners Welfare Act, by means of which swimming pools, sports fields, and other things were established throughout Britain.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question, for clarification? Is he talking about separate funds that were set up as charities, or is he talking about funds that form part of the general funds of the union?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, they are funds which have been subscribed by the men. I cannot define them accurately in the legal way. All I can say is that these funds have, for instance, been collected for generations at the pithead on pay days. At one time 1d. or
½d. on every ton of coal collected was paid (as my noble friend Lord Cooper will know), for these welfare funds. There
62
was also a fund for pneumoconiosis, which is an industrial disease. A miners' welfare fund was set up to pay a pound extra for pneumoconiosis and lung diseases for miners working on hard coal or at hard coal faces.
I have made my point, and I should be labouring it if I attempted to extend it. I should like the noble Lord to take into account that there is a kind of penumbra to this Amendment which my noble friend has moved, which affects other things besides mere funds for death and injury.
5.40 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I hope that consideration will be given to this Amendment. As the last speaker said, this is an extremely complicated situation. So far as I know, the direct funds are not taxed and the problem arises on investment income. Of course we should not be taxed. We are very much like co-operatives. The contributions of working men have already been taxed and ought not to be liable to taxation again. But, for good reasons, we accumulate large reserves—and the way things are going we shall have to accumulate more—in order to make ourselves capable of functioning. Those reserves, properly invested, yield considerable sums of money; the sum involved if this tax privilege is lost to us will be about £6 million, I sign document after document, and when I sign a document reclaiming about £100,000 of tax I sometimes feel that we are in a very privileged position. So long as we spend on certain friendly benefits amounts that exceed the tax, then we can reclaim it.
I think it is worth explaining the way in which we spend money which we reclaim. First of all, we have an accident benefit. It is a very small payment but it helps to bridge the gap, because very often when a man is injured his firm does not pay anything like his normal income. So we have this little benefit which helps to bring the amount nearer to his normal earnings. I think we spend about £900,000 a year on that. We also have a fatality benefit. In the old days when a man was killed, a cap used to go round for the widow. We have tried to formalise that and we pay £500 in a fatal case. We pay if a man is killed on the way to work.

63
Another benefit of which we are very proud is for the sons and daughters of any man in our organisation, which is essentially a labourers' and semi-skilled organisation; if they qualify for university they receive from us a bursary of £50 a year for two years. Those are very generous, necessary and important benefits and I shall be surprised if it is the intention to interfere with them.
This brings me to the question of registration. We have heard this afternoon that the choice between registering or not has not been left to the unions. As a protest against the Bill, I think the T.U.C. tried to encourage every union to indicate that it would not register, and in a very clever way the Government then said,"All right. You are all provisionally registered, anyhow ", and that goes on for six months. I have been surprised to hear this afternoon that, without any of the basic tests in this Bill so long as you are a proper organisation you will be registered after six months. So the question of a choice for the trade union between registering or not hardly arises until six months after the Bill has been passed. Therefore, I hope that the taxation position will be made perfectly clear. If the Government are going to register us provisionally or after six months, then they should make it quite clear where we stand in regard to taxation.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I gather from the part of the debate that I have heard that the Government are satisfied that the provident funds of the trade unions will be protected but that there are certain elements of finance associated with some trade unions which do not come within the category of provident funds. My noble friend, Lord Davies of Leek, referred to the miners' welfare fund. That was started many years ago—as far back as 1924, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Mines—and followed the initiative taken by the late Lloyd George, who was interested in miners' welfare. The miners' welfare fund is not part of the provident funds of the miners' union; it is a separate fund. There must be assurances by the Government that that fund will be protected because, as my noble friend indicated, it provides swimming pools and a variety of other amenities which the
64
miners have enjoyed for some years and hope to continue to enjoy.
But there is another matter which I think is much more important. The miners have a special pension fund which, again, does not come within the category of the ordinary provident fund. The provident fund provides death benefit or sick benefit and, in the case of some unions, unemployment benefit. But I am talking now about a special fund from which miners receive an addition of, I think, £1 a week to their State pension after a period of service in the mines. I think we are entitled to some assurance that these funds will be protected. Some years ago the seafarers had an education fund. That was provided by the seamen themselves and, to some extent, contributed to by the more enlightened and benevolent shipowners who were anxious to assist in the education of seamen and provide them with amenities. I imagine that that fund, also, is not within the category of a provident fund. So we ought to have assurances that these funds, which are associated with some form of provident benefits but are not an integral part of them, will be protected by Government legislation.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, can the Government take a more benevolent look at this clause? It seems to me that the position of the employers will be prejudiced, and I shall not have any of the benefits which usually come from industrial peace if the Government persist in keeping the Bill in its present form.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may deal with the various funds, I am clearly not in a position to speak about the position of any particular one. That must depend upon whether it is a charity or a discretionary fund within a provident fund. There are all sorts of considerations and I could not give an answer off the cuff. All I can say is that, so long as a union is registered under the Bill, it will continue without change in so far as Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 is concerned. Surely the point is that at the present time registered unions have this concession. Under the provisions of the Bill, registered unions will have that concession. As the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, indicated, the first

65
stage will be that those unions that are registered at present will be transferred to the provisional register and within six months—not more—if they satisfy the two tests, they will be transferred to the permanent register and will be incorporated. They will then continue to enjoy, as long as they choose, the remission under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act.
At an earlier stage we were considering what would happen so far as unregistered organisations of workers were concerned or any trade union which ceased to be a trade union registered under the Act. There is this slightly difficult transitional matter of unions on the provisional register. I must deal with this at the present time to clarify the situation. It gives rise to a slight difficulty, and we have carefully considered with Treasury Ministers how best to meet the difficulty at this stage of the Bill's progress through Parliament. We have reached the conclusion that the most practicable solution would be to include a suitable Amendment in the next Finance Bill. I am therefore able to inform the House that this legislation will be included in the Finance Bill to secure that a trade union on the provisional register under the Industrial Relations Bill will be a registered trade union for the purposes of Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 and that the relief will have any necessary retrospective effect irrespective of what decision may be made ultimately so far as they continue on the provisional register, and thereafter until they cease to be registered; once again, when they are registered, they come back under Section 338 again. That provision will ensure that organisations at present benefiting from the provisions of Section 338 by reason of their registration under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1964, will continue to do so while eligibility for registration as a trade union under this Bill is being considered.
On the broader question of making tax relief available to organisations which choose not to be registered under this Bill, I can only re-emphasise the Government's view that that would be totally unacceptable. This point was debated at length in another place and I should be taking up valuable time if I were to do more than briefly remind the House of the
66
Government's key points on this issue, without prejudice to what I said to the noble Lord. It is a normal feature of this legislation that tax relief should be conditional upon the recipient organisation conforming to specified registration requirements relating to the character of the organisation and of its activities. There is no justification for making an exception to this rule simply because some organisations object to the idea of being registered under this Bill. It will be open to organisations of workers which choose to withdraw their registrations as trade unions to set up separate registered friendly societies to run their activities and thereby obtain similar, though not identical, tax relief—I emphasise once again to the noble Lord that we have always said,"similar, but not identical tax relief—although at the cost of giving up control over their provident funds and access to them. This Amendment seeks to overturn that principle and I can only invite the House to reject the Amendment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, a question before he sits down? I may be completely wrong, but I should hate to see the draconic effect upon a student, for example, taking medicine in his fifth year, in receipt of some welfare scholarship from a trade union, when suddenly his grant is cut off. May we have some assurance from the noble Lord opposite that whatever happens an effort will be made to see that students, either about to take a course or in the middle of a course, if receiving grants from trade unions, will not suffer as a result of Government legislation? Will they try to find some formula to give that guarantee?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, listened carefully to the noble Lord's first intervention, and now to this. I do not think that he was being sufficiently precise to formulate a question which was capable of answer. But, as I understand the matter, on the assumption that a fund is a charitable fund—and I remind him from recent debates, if he does not otherwise know, that education is one of the main objects recognised by the law as charitable—in that sense there is no change in its status proposed by the law. Obviously, as my noble friend said, until one has seen the status of a particular fund it is impossible to give an assurance

67
carte blanche. But the objects of charity are the relief of poverty, the treatment of and assistance to the sick and the education of both young and old. All the things which he has said indicate to me that he is talking about a charitable fund. Obviously, I cannot give a legal opinion on that basis, but that is what he has conveyed to my mind. If it is a charitable fund, it remains a charitable fund.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: May I ask a further question on that point? In my own union, we run the administration for friendly society benefits under a completely different name from that which does the negotiating, although the money is given by the administrative side which collects the money. The British Iron and Steel Trades Confederation is responsible for collecting all the money from members and handing over a certain amount to the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, which is responsible for negotiating. This was conceived as a method of merging, not for any other purpose at all. It worked very well some 30 to 40 years ago. But it does leave us in a very interesting position now because all our funds that are for friendly society benefits are governed by one section of the union under a completely different name from that part of the union which negotiates. Here I suggest that we should be free from any penalties of non-registration, whatever the union decided to do. Is that the case?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am reluctant to give instant law, because instant law is almost always bad law. But I listened as carefully as I could both to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in a previous debate. My impression was that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, was not correct in saying that there were insurmountable difficulties. One of the very reasons I thought he was not correct, probably wrongly—because he is going to show me he has got another opinion if he receives clearance to do so—was precisely that it was within my general knowledge that friendly societies often do exist side by side with negotiating bodies as separate entities in law. I do not believe, therefore, that it was correct to say that the difficulties of creating such friendly societies were insurmountable. I did not interpose because I was afraid of speaking as the
68
noble Lord, Lord Diamond, put it, ill-advisedly; but my guess is that the noble Lord is incorrect in what he says. If he would like to communicate with me, or with my noble friend the precise situation in which those two particular entities exist, one could go into the point in depth. But all that is dealt with in this Bill, as I understand it, and under this Amendment, is the particular immunity which trade unions have hitherto been able to acquire for their invested funds under Section 338, as it now is; and that was tied to registration under the old Act.
What is covered by both the existing Amendment and the substantive clauses to which it applies is precisely that immunity, and only that immunity. What is provided by the Bill, as I understand it, is that registration under the Bill is substituted, in effect, as a condition of acquiring the immunity prospectively for registration under 1871 legislation, but that Treasury Ministers have agreed to insert into the next Finance Bill a provision retrospective to the extent necessary to cover the provisional register which is being created to deal with the transition period. But as I understand it, nothing is affected either by the substantive clauses in the Bill or by the Amendment which is proposed, which is not directly related to and comprised within the existing immunity under Section 338. In other words, if, by reason of some arrangements which are now in existence, the noble Lord's organisation has acquired an immunity which is not that of Section 338, so as far as I know that will continue. But if he would like to communicate with me further, or after what I have said rather"off-the-cuff"has been checked by my advisers—in either of those two events—I should like to write to the noble Lord, but I think that what he has said is quite right.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, if I may continue on the same topic for a moment, with great audacity, in order to assist my noble friend, as I understand the position it is not all that difficult. You either have a charity set up as a charity which is not affected by this clause or what we are considering at all, or you have the same kind of treatment that is given to a charity for the same kind of reasons in respect of its provident funds as is given to a registered trade union. The way my noble friend was

69
describing it, it will be one or the other, but it sounded as if it was a union. However, there is a close affinity between the two, and I am grateful to those who have brought up the question of charity because, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has made clear, charitable purposes comprise educational or, broadly, eleemosynary purposes, and it is the eleemosynary powers which are involved in provident funds that we are discussing now. So if it seems to your Lordships' common sense that it is right that funds which are acquired by a union for these charitable purposes should get the same tax treatment as funds which are acquired by a charity for these charitable purposes, then, with respect, I would say to your Lordships that your common sense is well founded. Of course that is the case, and of course it happens, and of course it has been the policy of every Government for at least half a century—every Government: Liberal, Conservative and Labour.
Now, my Lords, what we are considering is whether that treatment be withdrawn from a particular category of persons in order to exert improper pressure on somebody else—what I ventured to call blackmail, what Mr. Victor Feather ventured to call blackmail, what I have carefully looked up in every dictionary I can lay hands on and, I repeat, I regard as blackmail. The question is: is it right for a Government to exercise what has been called in some quarters duress, what has been called in other quarters objectionable treatment, what has been called in other quarters blackmail and what has been called intimidation? The question is whether these are fair appellations; and the Government are getting themselves into a bit of difficulty when a number of noble Lords find themselves compelled to use language of this kind and when a person of the responsibility of the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress finds himself compelled to use language of this kind. The question is whether these descriptions are accurate, or whether the Government propose to do something different.
The noble Lord did not deal with the arguments; he said that they had been dealt with before. Let me explain to your Lordships, therefore, what is pro- 70
posed in the continuance of the provisions of the present Bill. I recognise that the noble Lord has moved some way in the interim period as to the provisional register. He has altered the provisions in the Bill itself so far as concerns the provisional register, because the provisions made it clear that while you were on the provisional register you did not get tax relief because you were not a registered union. The Government have realised the nonsense of that and have moved at all events to cover the position of the provisional register. But I am on the much more serious issue of the permanent situation. Who are the Government picking on, and why? The Government are picking on a particular category of beneficiaries from eleemosynary charitable subscriptions. Who are they? They are not members of unions. They are not even members of particular unions, because—it the noble and learned Lord seeks to intervene, I will gladly give way. Let me demonstrate why they are not members of particular unions. It is because, as my noble friends, or many of them, have made clear, it is the older unions who have these provident funds, and the newer, white-collared unions do not, or many of them do not. It is the older unions, formed in the tradition of the period when these provident funds were an essential part of trade unionism, who provided these funds for their members in their difficulties.
So what the Government are proposing, if they continue with this undesirable, objectionable, punitive attitude is that certain beneficiaries of certain unions should cease to get this benefit; that is to say, their relief should be reduced by about a half—not their tax relief, but that their relief in poverty should be reduced by about a half. Why? The Government have nothing against these particular individuals. It is because the Government are seeking to pressurise other bodies: not these individuals, but other bodies. The Government are seeking to pressurise certain trade unions, their officers and their committees who take the decision not to register for reasons which have been made very clear. The Government are seeking to pressurise them by saying,"If you continue with this attitude we will see to it that certain beneficiaries no longer get half their benefits ". If that is not blackmail, I do

71
not know what blackmail is. It is exerting improper pressure on a body of persons or a person unconnected with the argument itself.
Now it is fortunate that the trade union movement knows how to deal with blackmail, as we all do. There is only one way to deal with blackmail and that is to ignore it. The trade union movement has democratically decided, and has made public its decision, that notwithstanding that it runs the risk of getting its tax benefits for its poor, its old and its sick extinguished, it is not proposing to be bullied and blackmailed by this Government into making the unions register. They are different bodies of persons: one is the union, and the other the beneficiaries. They are not the same, and they are not the same for all unions. They have decided to ignore the blackmail. So the Government should realise that this attempt to pressurise them has failed. It is no use the Government's saying,"We believe that once this Bill is law it will be all right." It will not be all right, and the Government will be saddled with this act of vindictiveness—which is greater than any that any other Government have ever perpetrated—in respect of a matter over which I am ashamed to think that noble Lords opposite should support the Government. I hope that they will not; I hope that we shall remove this blot on the Gov-
ernments honour and this provision from the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to leave the matter where it is—
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I intervene because it is a matter of procedure? There is a procedure in your Lordships' House that whoever moves a Motion or an Amendment has a right of reply. This has been virtually denied to me throughout the Report stage of this Bill, because every time I have said something, using my right of reply, the reply has been turned into a non-reply by someone opposite getting up and making yet a further speech.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I certainly will not insist if I do not have the leave of the House—
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, has the Minister any further information to give? I would never attempt to deny to a Minister the right to give further information. But if he wants to continue the debate, he must realise that he is denying the Opposition the right of reply, which is part of your Lordships' procedure.
6.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 79VVV) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 91.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Peddie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Fiske, L.

Popplewell, L.

Balogh, L.

Fletcher, L.

Royle, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rusholme, L.

Birk, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Hall, V.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Henderson, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Sorensen, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hoy, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Crook, L.

Jacques, L.

Stonham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Maelor, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Auckland, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Birdwood, L.

Albemarle, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Allerton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bolton, L.

Arran, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Boston, L.

Brentford, V.

Greenway, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hacking, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailes, L.

Redesdale, L.

Burton, L.

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

Rothermere, V.

Carrington, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Lv.

Clwyd, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hatherton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Courtown, E.

Hood, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Selsdon, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sherfield, L.

Daventry, V.

Kemsley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

de Clifford, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Denham, L.

Latymer, L.

Stamp, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stonehaven, V.

Dundee, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Strang, L.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Falkland, V.

Monsell, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Vivian, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gray, L.

Oakshott, L.

Wrottesley, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 81 [Application to registrar to investigate]:
6.20 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79WWW:
Page 63, line 32, at beginning insert (" Subject to the provisions of the following section ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is, as the words indicate, a paving Amendment to a proposal, which appears as Amendment No. 79BBB, arising out of a discussion we had during the Committee stage when the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was good enough to undertake to look at the matter again because he had inadvertently given the case away by his own argument. We do not want to make much of that; we recognise that his argument was a telling one (in fact it was the one we were using) and he has been good enough to look into the matter and, I believe, subject to what he advises, provides exactly the same point, only much more neatly, as we would expect from his expert draftsmen. I refer to Amendment No. 79ZZZ. I am moving this Amendment merely to provide an opportunity for confirmation of that fact, and then I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment in order to give way to his much more neatly worded Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly right. Amendment No. 79ZZZ will bring the Bill into
74
line with what I thought it meant, and what he wanted it to mean; so I think we will be happy on both sides of the House.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I ask your Lordships' agreement to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79FF:
Page 63, line 35, at end insert (" for non-payment of any contribution which under the rules of the organisation he is required to pay, or ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79FF. The clause at the moment reads:
" Any person who—

(a) is a member of an organisation to which this section applies, or

(b) was a member of such an organisation and has ceased to be a member of it otherwise than by voluntary resignation,…

shall be eligible to make an application…"
We think that those persons are properly described as being eligible to make an application, and that one of the persons who is not so eligible, as provided by the Bill, is a person who has ceased to be a member by voluntary resignation. We think there should be a further exclusion; that is to say, a person who has ceased to be a member for nonpayment of any contribution under the rules. In short, if the member resigns he

75
cannot complain. If he does not pay his dues he cannot complain. If he pays his dues and continues to be a member, and satisfies the other conditions, he can complain. We think that that is a sensible way of organising matters, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are really almost back on to a point that we have already discussed this evening. I agree that it is undesirable to give a perpetual right of complaint to former members who have let their membership lapse because they have failed to pay, or deliberately withheld, contributions. The difficulty with this Amendment—as with the previous one—is that it would exclude not only those people, but also those whose membership lapsed through no fault of their own. I quoted before the case of Edwards v. SOGAT. If I may remind your Lordships of the circumstances there, Mr. Edwards was deprived of membership because, unknown to himself, he had fallen into arrears following the failure of his branch secretary to forward to the employer a form authorising the deduction of union subscriptions from his wages. Fortunately such cases rarely occur, but it would be unsatisfactory if another Mr. Edwards was prevented from complaining to the Registrar and had instead to seek redress in the courts. It is for this reason alone that I cannot recommend your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
If, however, the noble Lord looks at the next two Amendments in my name, to this clause and to Clause 82, he will find that these go a long way towards meeting his criticism of the defect of this subsection. Their combined effect, if accepted, will be to restrict the right of complaint to an action taken against the complainant, whereas at present any person eligible under subsection (1) of Clause 81 can complain against any breach of rules or guiding principles. Taken together, with the four-week time limit imposed by subsection (2) of Clause 82, these will restrict severely, but appropriately, the right of complaint of ex-members. I hope that the noble Lord will agree not to press this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, there is not a tremendous issue between us, and I agree with what the noble Lord
76
has said about the other aspect, that the member should be an interested member before he starts complaining. But I am in a little difficulty because I did not think that the case of Edwards v. SOGAT presented a problem any longer. Although I cannot refer to the part at the present moment, I thought there was a provision in the Bill already which made it clear that when a member has paid by deduction, even if the intermediate party who was responsible for passing the payment on had failed to do so, or there had been a delay in the post, or something like that, the payment still counted as having been paid. I thought that was already provided for. If that is the case, then there is no application of Edwards v. SOGAT to my Amendment, because my Amendment deals with a person who has not paid, not with a person who has been erroneously thought not to have paid because there was a slip between the payment and the receipt by the secretary or accountant of the union.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks it matters very much if a man is thrown out of a union in a case like this if the cause is alleged non-payment, although he has really paid? Does he think it matters very much what he is thrown out for? He ought in either case to have the right to come back if there is justification.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has made two speeches: the first confused me; the second added to the confusion. Let me start all over again. This Amendment refers to a member who has not paid, not to a member who was alleged not to have paid. If he is erroneously alleged not to have paid through some slip-up in the post, or by an official, or by the cashier of the company which deducts the payment, then it does not count. I am dealing only with a man who has not paid and who knows he has not paid, and about whom there is no dispute as to the facts that he has not paid. All I am saying is that a person who has paid should have the right to complain. A person who is a member should have the right to complain, subject to these other provisions. But a person who is not a member—the Government say—who resigned voluntarily, should not have the right to complain. Absolutely right. I am also

77
saying that a person who carried out the act which is the normal method of resigning voluntarily—namely, not paying the subscription—also ought not to complain. If he wants to complain he should have paid. If he has paid up, well and good; if he has not paid up, then that is the normal method of resigning voluntarily and he should not be one of the complainants. I hope, therefore, if I have now made the position clear, that the Government will depart from their previous view, which was clearly based on a misapprehension of what the Amendment intended, and will either accept the Amendment or say that they can accept it in some more polished wording.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not wish to complicate the matter any further, because there is already a good deal of confusion about it, but the Amendment provides for non-payment of any contribution, not necessarily the ordinary, normal trade union contribution within the normal rules of the union, whichever union it may be. But from time to time unions require—the executives decide and it is accepted generally by the members in general—to have a levy in addition to the ordinary trade union contribution. A member may resign voluntarily because he objects to paying this levy, or he may refuse to pay the levy yet still claim to be a member. Surely in that situation—if he has not acted in accordance with the rules of the union—he has no right to complain. The union rules may provide, without specifying any particular sum by way of levy, that a levy can be imposed. What would be the situation in such a case? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, could explain what would be the situation if a man refused to pay an additional contribution, apart from the normal contribution, by way of a levy not specifically provided for in the rules although the rules provide that the executive may decide to impose a levy at some time or other.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, misunderstood what was said by my noble friend, as I understood him. The case my noble friend quoted would result in the member's not having paid; that would be the result of the non-forwarding of the document instructing that
78
the deduction should be made. In the case cited it would result in non-payment within the meaning of this clause.
LORD DIAMOND: But of course, my Lords; I am not disputing that for one moment. The noble Lord is right, as he always is. All I am saying is that I thought there was a provision in the Bill which specifically said, in effect, that, notwithstanding Edwards v. SOGAT, or whatever the case is called, anybody who has paid, even if the payment has not reached the union, shall be regarded as having paid.
LORD CONESFORD: But he would not have paid, my Lords; that is the point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.34 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 97ZZZ:
Page 64, line 11, after (" taken ") insert (" against him ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the Amendment to which I have already referred and which meets the point of the last Amendment but one. It adds a condition to the grounds for complaint which must be satisfied; that the action complained of, being a breach of the rules or guiding principles, has been taken against the complainant. The new emphasis is that the complainant must be the injured party. It might be convenient for your Lordships if we considered at the same time the Amendment to Clause 82, page 64, line 32, at end to insert:
" and that the application is made on grounds falling within subsection (3) of that section ".
This is tied up with the same matter. On this Amendment during the Committee debate, noble Lords opposite pointed out that, as drafted, the provisions gave very wide access indeed to the complaints procedure. Ex-members of a trade union would retain a perpetual right of complaint to the Registrar against any breach of rules or guiding principles by the organisation, whether or not they were affected. Clearly this could lead to serious abuse by malcontents and cause great inconvenience for the organisations concerned and for the Registrar. This Amendment will have the effect of excluding extraneous parties. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord once more for meeting our point of view on this, and for narrowing the grounds for intervention as we suggested on the other Amendment which he discussed at the same time.
Clause 82 [Action by registrar on application under s. 8I]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79AAAA, to which I have just spoken.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 32, at end insert (" and that the application is made on grounds falling within subsection (3) of that section ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79GG. Your Lordships are word perfect on every clause in this Bill and will therefore recollect that in these circumstances it is right that the Registrar"should"defer consideration, not that he"might"defer consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 12, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").—(Lord Diamond.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, because throughout this Bill great emphasis is placed on the settlement of disputes without need to resort to the statutory machinery, we are happy to accept this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am happy to repeat my gratitude on this part of the Bill.
Clause 83 [Investigation initiated by registrar]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79HH:
Page 65, line 44, after (" persistent ") insert (" and substantial ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79HH. Clause 83 deals with investigations initiated by the Registrar, and provides that where the Registrar
" has reason to suspect that there has been a serious breach, or have been persistent breaches, of its rules ",
80
then he shall investigate the matter. The Amendment relates to the question of persistent breaches of rules, and seeks to add the words"and substantial"so that in order for an investigation to be permitted the breach must be both persistent and substantial. The point is a simple one. One does not want investigations into trivial matters to be triggered off too readily. It can be a minor breach for which it is not worth setting up the whole machinery of investigation. There can be a very minor breach which is persisted in. It still does not matter. The important thing is that it should be a substantial breach as well as a persistent breach. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment, although I do not want to give the impression that there is much difference of principle between ourselves and noble Lords opposite. Noble Lords will remember that we debated this same point during the Committee stage, and my noble friend Lord Belstead undertook that the Government would look at it again. We have done so, and we have concluded that the present drafting of subsection (1) satisfactorily achieves what we intended to achieve.
Noble Lords have argued that in any organisation, however well run, there will inevitably be minor rules which are sometimes disregarded. But where there is a series of these persistent but minor breaches of rules, noble Lords opposite have pointed out that the Registrar will be bound by subsection (1) as it stands, to investigate the matter.
Perhaps I may first explain why we do not expect any difficulties or inconvenience on this score under the clause as it stands. Then I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to certain undesirable consequences of the Amendment. The fear of noble Lords opposite is that a good deal of unnecessary fuss and formality will take place on a matter of no consequence, and that there will be an unnecessary interference with the running of trade unions. But this is unlikely, on three grounds: the first is that the Registrar has to have reason to suspect persistent breaches of rules; in practice, he will rely on correspondence from union members, on his own close knowledge of registered organisations and

81
on a variety of other sources of information. But where the breaches are so minor as not to worry or harm any member they are not likely to come to the Registrar's attention, and the question of investigation will therefore not arise.
Second, the breaches have got to be persistent. This word imports a degree of discretion, since it is left to the Registrar to decide when a breach has been committed often enough to fall into the"persistent"category. Third, let us suppose that the Registrar investigates breaches of a minor nature and of little or no consequence. Even in such a case his investigation need not be an affair of any great formality or weight, or anything even approaching a semi-judicial process. The Registrar will have to satisfy himself that the matter has been cleared up and that the breaches are unlikely to recur; but that can be done quite informally, perhaps by correspondence. Much will depend upon relations between the Registrar and the trade union or the employers' association, but where the matter is of no consequence the investigation may be correspondingly brief. We feel that subsection (1) would not require the full scale or frequent investigation of minor matters which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, seems to envisage.
I think I should add that even if we wished to amend the clause the present Amendment would not be a satisfactory way of doing so. One reason is the use of the word"substantial ". Although the word has a clear enough meaning to the layman, its previous use in Statutes has given rise to considerable litigation and judicial interpretation. We do not wish to open up the possibility of wrangling of that kind, especially since the similar word"serious"is used in the previous line. But whatever the exact meaning of"substantial ", if the Registrar was in doubt about his power to investigate it would of course be difficult in some cases to determine without investigation whether a breach was substantial or not.
What is perhaps more important, the Amendment would probably be interpreted to mean that each of the persistent breaches must be substantial. The Registrar could therefore not investigate a series of breaches where one of them might be relatively unimportant in isola-
82
tion but where their total effect was substantial. There might, for example, be a series of incidents in which branch officials had independently taken action for which union rules required them to seek approval from a more senior official—for example, in calling an overtime ban. Each incident might be less than substantial in its importance, but if they continued unchecked the Registrar might consider it a symptom of a deeper problem. He would need to investigate in order to establish whether the union was operating in the way its rules intended, or whether some branches were effectively outside the control of the union as a whole. In these circumstances, we do not wish to put in any peril or to hamper the Registrar's power to investigate, and this is a further reason why we cannot accept this Amendment. I hope I have given a fairly full explanation. I thought I ought to do so because we did undertake to investigate the position.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has clearly given this matter careful thought in accordance with his undertaking, and as he said at the start there is not a great deal of difference between us. My anxiety was the same as his, that these investigations, with a good deal of formality, should not be triggered off too lightly. The noble Lord has said a great deal which may be helpful to those who find themselves faced with what they consider to be an unnecessarily formal approach to a minor matter, and no doubt the Registrar would feel it appropriate to have some regard to the spirit in which the noble Lord has spoken. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ROYLE): My Lords, I would point out that if the next Amendment, 79JJ is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 79KK.
6.49 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79JJ:
Page 66, line 4, leave out from (" Act ") to end of line 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are always grateful for the assistance which comes from the Woolsack. I was going to move this Amendment—and

83
indeed I now do so—and I was hoping that it might be convenient for your Lordships to discuss Amendment No. 79KK at the same time. These are, in fact, alternative methods of meeting the same problem that we have already discussed. I move the Amendment because on a previous occasion the Government were good enough to say that they would give it consideration and—one never knows!—they may have given it consideration and may have something helpful and accommodating to say. In those circumstances, I beg to move Amendment 79JJ, and would say to the Government that if they prefer 79KK I will withdraw the first Amendment and move the second.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think I can say much more than I said on Amendment 79HH. The point really seems to be a similar one and I do not think it would be worth developing at any length. I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I understand that. I moved the Amendment because, as I said, the noble Lord had promised to give it consideration, it is broadly the same point. But I seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 79BBBB:
Page 66, line 23, leave out (" and ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a paving Amendment. This and Amendments Nos. 79CCCC and 79DDDD are necessary consequential Amendments following on the acceptance of Amendment No. 79LL in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to leave out paragraph (b) on page 66, line 24.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I accept this Amendment. When Amendments are accepted your Lordships may think that they are not important, but indeed this one is. This is an acceptance by the Government in a slightly tidier form of the Amendment in my name, Amendment No. 79LL, to leave out paragraph (b)in a most important subsection. We made this point in Committee and I will not repeat it now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, both for accepting our Amendment and
84
for using the good offices of the Government draftsmen to tidy up the wording a little.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79LL.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Diamond.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 31, leave out (" paragraph (a) of ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this Amendment again is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 34, leave out (" paragraph ") and insert (" subsection ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79MM.
Page 66, line 34, leave out (" considers ") and insert (" is satisfied that ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this occurs in subsection (4) of the clause, which provides that where the Registrar gives notice about the investigation we have been discussing but is unable to secure such action or undertaking as is mentioned in the Bill and considers that in default it would be appropriate for him to present a complaint to the Industrial Court, it is open to him to do so. In other words, this is a subsection dealing with the discretion of the Registrar to present a complaint to the Industrial Court. As the Bill is worded, he can present the complaint if he considers that it would be appropriate. We think it is not adequate that the Industrial Court should be invoked merely on his consideration. We should much prefer it to be on his satisfaction. Therefore we propose to strengthen the clause by removing the word"considers"and inserting the words"is satisfied that."
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that this will have a world-shaking effect, but it may have the effect

85
of addressing the Registrar's mind to the question in a more positive manner and for that reason I invite your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I think that is a worthwhile effort. I hope that the noble Lord will not think me ungenerous if I say that if it were likely to have a world-shattering effect it would be a bit odd for the Government to accept it.
6.56 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79NN:
Page 66, line 35, leave out (" it would be an appropriate case ") and insert (" the only way of achieving either or both of the purposes described in the said paragraph (a) is)".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the same subsection. At the moment the Bill provides that where the Registrar is satisfied that it would be an appropriate case he presents the case to the Industrial Court. Again to strengthen the clause still further and not to trouble the Industrial Court except in cases of real necessity, the Amendment proposes these words, which would mean that the Registrar would present a complaint to the Industrial Court only if he were satisfied that it was the only way of achieving either or both of the purposes described in paragraph (a). Paragraph (a) deals with securing a remedy to, or mitigating the consequences of, breaches in the rules.
The Government have said time and again that reference to the Industrial Court should be only a long-stop and that first one should negotiate, consult and try to deal with the matter in a civilised way. Only if no progress is made on those lines should the Registrar be armed with these powers. We do not think that this is the way to deal with the matter generally. It should he a long-stop and here is an Amendment to make it a very long stop. I hope this will be acceptable to the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that what is immediately apparent is that what Clause 83 provides is in the nature of a reserve power which, almost by definition, will be invoked rarely. I accept that the investigation may, of course, reveal no breaches but where it
86
does I expect that the organisation will almost invariably agree to put the matter right. What we are possibly left with is a very small volume of cases in which the organisation refuses to take action or to give an undertaking to remedy a serious or persistent breach of rules or guiding principles.
As the Registrar has no power of enforcement, he must have means of refering such cases to the N.I.R.C. and that is the purpose of subsection (4), together with Clause 104. Once this point has been arrived at, I think that quite a strong argument can be made for requiring all cases to be referred to the Court. However, this will be a very serious step and we think it is in an area in which the Registrar should have some discretion. For example, it may be that the organisation has given an undertaking in terms that, while not completely satisfying the Registrar, are such that he would not feel justified in asking the Court to issue a mandatory order.
What this Amendment seeks to do is to remove that discretion—which to my mind can work only to the advantage of registered organisations—and instead to restrict complaint to those cases which cannot be resolved in any other way. Although the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in moving the Amendment is clearly to restrict reference by the Registrar to essential cases, in practice I think that our formula will be to the greater advantage of organisations. The Registrar's investigation may, for example, reveal quite minor breaches of rules but, if the organisation refused to put the matter right and no other remedy were possible, under the terms of the Amendment reference to the Court would be mandatory. As subsection (4) stands, the Registrar would have discretion not to present a complaint.
I think there is not a great deal between us on this point; it is a very narrow one. We are both seeking to avoid unnecessary references to the Court. On balance, I think this is best achieved by giving the Registrar discretion which in these circumstances can operate only to the advantage of organisations rather than by narrowly defining the conditions for reference, which may have the opposite effect to that intended. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to agree with me and to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. The noble Lord has obviously given the matter great consideration. Here again, there is not a great deal between us, and I recognise that my Amendment might not give quite as much discretion to the Registrar as the way the Bill is drafted. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for the noble Lord's point of view. I still think that it is a pity to refer to the Industrial Court unnecessarily but I do not think that it is a matter that I should wish to press. The Government have latterly been quite accommodating in the number of Amendments which have been accepted. Although there is not a great deal between us, I think it would be extremely timely if we were to devote our attention to other matters. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there appears to be a natural break, and I hope that it will be convenient for the House to postpone consideration of this Report for an hour. I beg to move that the considerations on Report of this Bill be adjourned to enable the consideration of the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill in Committee.

HIJACKING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.

LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL
7.3 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: 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 WindleshamWitllesham.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE LORD ROYLE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of restrictions on sale and supply of intoxicating or exciseable liquor in certain districts]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, leave out (" are hereby ") and insert (" shall be ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in the names of my noble friends and myself. I hope it will be convenient to the Committee if with this Amendment I discuss also No. 31. The purpose of the Amendment to line 19 is to give the Government much-needed time in respect of the declaratory part of Clause 1. The words"are hereby repealed"mean that the Secretary of State will relinquish his powers immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent. This may have most unfortunate consequences. On the other hand, if this Amendment is accepted, the words will be"shall be repealed ", and this will provide an opportunity to put in a date with relation to the timing of the Bill, which we propose to do by means of Amendment No. 31. That provides that the Act shall come into force one year from the date when it is passed.
The Amendment does not mean that the Home Secretary's monopoly cannot be broken; it can be broken by administrative action, if the Home Secretary agrees that licences approved by the justices should be allowed and not vetoed—but that has been possible all the time. But it is expedient to the public interest, if I may coin a phrase, if this matter is to be decently and properly concluded, that the Home Secretary should have discussions with the employees, through their trade unions, and also with the justices and with many other people concerned with, and interested in, the break-up of the State scheme. They have the right to be consulted; and it is necessary. The opportunity for these consultations will vanish if the Bill operates immediately the Royal Assent has been given, because Clause 1 flatly states that the Home Secretary's powers and rights"are hereby repealed"immediately, although, of course, other

89
sections of Part V of the Bill must remain to allow the administration to continue, because increasing the grant of licences, which must occur if the Home Secretary's powers are taken away, will reduce the value of the licensed properties in the scheme. That is inevitable. I think that in Scotland, where the scheme is very small, the licensee board has already approved the grant of 19 new licences. It would be no good, unless this Amendment is accepted, for the Secretary of State for Scotland to say that he did not want them to become operative, because his powers to say,"Yea ", or"Nay ", will go. He will not be able to say anything—a nice change.
It may be that the Government will regard our Amendment as insufficient in point of time; they may want longer. I think that this may be so in the public interest, rather than the full year that we propose. I certainly do not mind altering the Amendment' accordingly; but as we have it now it allows a full year and creates a definite date: the chopper will not come down immediately we finish with the Bill. If the Government are adamant over this Amendment, they may find themselves with empty unsold properties on their hands, because no one will be interested in them. The valuation and the negotiations for sale will take time, and the negotiators will do much better business to the public interest if they are not working all the time desperately with this pressure on them. There are 1,500 employees to consider who are working in areas which already have high rates of unemployment, and the unions surely have the right to discuss with the Home Secretary arrangements for the redeployment of their members. This, too, must take time.
For all these reasons I hope the Government will accept that this is a helpful Amendment. As the Bill stands, the monopoly powers under Section 103 of the 1964 Act will cease on the day the Bill receives the Royal Assent, which may be next month. By accepting the Amendment the Government will gain a whole year extra in which to close down the management scheme and sell the assets to private enterprise while they still retain their value. Indeed, the Home Secretary has the duty placed on him by the Bill to conduct the sale in a manner which
90
is expedient in the public interest. That interest inevitably demands sufficient time, and this will be afforded by the Amendment which I invite the noble Lord to accept. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The Government have announced their decision to abolish State management of the liquor trade, and we do not think there is any advantage to be gained from continuing the system for any substantial period after the appropriate legislation has been passed. The effect of these two Amendments (Amendment No. 1, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, explained, is really a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 31, the Amendment of substance) would be to delay the process of sale by a year. We believe that during such a period it is highly probable that members of the staff would begin to leave and could not be replaced because it would be known that the scheme was coming to an end; that the condition of the properties would deteriorate because it would be difficult to justify spending capital on improvements; and that turnover would diminish. If this were so, the ultimate sale value of the properties would decline as well as the service provided by the State Management districts. This would not be in the interests either of the taxpayer, who will benefit from the sale, or of the local population making use of the public houses and other facilities offered by the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has argued in the same way as was argued by the Opposition in Committee in another place: that there might be some advantage in delaying the repeal of the Secretary of State's monopoly powers. He claimed that if the immediate repeal of these powers were announced the effect might be to reduce the value of the properties to a buyer. We believe that this argument must not be put too strongly. The danger of a fall in values can be exaggerated. The fact is that at the moment a buyer knows that the monopoly will come to an end: that is the basis of this Bill and it has been stated by Ministers. He is aware of that. If he were bidding for the scheme on the basis that the monopoly was to continue, then that monopoly would be a property right, something of value in its own right. But in the present case he knows that not to be so; the fact that there used

91
to be a monopoly situation will be discounted by the buyer because that situation will not continue. We think therefore that it would be inconsistent for Ministers to have to enforce such a prohibition on private persons trading in the districts in the light of our announced intention of abolishing State Management. If any private person should seek in the meantime to provide new facilities in the area after the monopoly powers have ended we think the licensing justices are the proper people to decide the matter.
The noble Lord said, quite correctly, that there were a number of licences which had been granted but not implemented—that is,"frozen ". Now it is true that after Royal Assent those licences which have been granted, either by the licensing justices or the courts in Scotland, will be unfrozen and it will be possible for the applicants concerned to proceed. There are a number of other applications which have not yet been decided and in these cases the normal practice would be followed. The applicant would go before the licensing justices and make out his case and if the Secretary of State, before the Scheme was wound up, saw reason to object the applicant would have the opportunity to enter an objection in the normal way.
These are the main reasons why, having studied with some care this argument which was put forward in Committee in another place, we do not feel that an Amendment on these lines would be desirable and that is why it is necessary to ask your Lordships to reject it.
LORD HOY: Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words on the Scottish issue. I do not think that this is a very momentous Bill. Indeed, in Scotland there is great regret that the Government should have introduced this Bill at all, and when it follows a Bill about fee-paying schools we think that the Government are simply tampering with the situation in Scotland and this makes no contribution to our economy. It is true that, as my noble friend said, the Scottish part may be small, but it is extremely important; and we think that the Secretary of State for Scotland has considerable power, residual if you like, by which he never grants licences in these par-
92
ticular areas. If we are going to repeal these provisions immediately on the passing of this Bill, I do not think that the noble Lord could deny that we should be reducing the present value of the licensed premises in these areas. For that reason, we thought that if the taxpayer is to get money out of this it might be a good thing if the power was retained by the Secretary of State until such times as these properties were disposed of. If the Government are determined that they should be disposed of, I think the noble Lord will agree that that is bound to have the effect, whatever else happens, that the present-day value of the properties will decline. But I am extremely sorry to think that, after all the argument in another place, the noble Lord should find it impossible to accept it this very modest Amendment that my noble friend has put down.
LORD STONHAM: I am very disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, cannot accept my Amendment, but I am astonished at the arguments he has used for rejecting it. After all, he sees no advantage in delay because the properties themselves will deteriorate and lose some of their value; the staff, knowing what is to happen, will melt away. But this is precisely what will happen in any case. Some of them have already"melted ". This is a straight proposition. The greatest deterioration in value of these licensed properties will occur because more licences are granted. In fact, those which have already been granted in Scotland outnumber those that are in the scheme. The increase in licences must inevitably considerably reduce the value of the existing ones. Nothing will diminish the value of this national asset more than throwing open the whole field immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The noble Lord said that the value of the monopoly was overstated. Is that why successive Governments have clung to it for 55 years?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No; I did not say that it was overstated, and the noble Lord would not want to misrepresent me on this. What I said was that he must not overstate the argument he is seeking to use. The potential buyers know that there will no longer be a monopoly situation. If they buy some of the properties

93
they will be in a free market situation, just as they would be if they were in another part of the country.
LORD STONHAM: Yes; and I also know that if the distinguished agents whom the Government have appointed to do this business carry out negotiations for sale they will negotiate on current figures. They will not say,"The monopoly position is going anyway, so we will halve the takings and negotiate on that." Of course they will not. The noble Lord said that the licensing justices are the best people to decide. I agree with him. But it has always been the view of the Home Office—it is not a question of politics—and successive Home Secretaries have always taken the view that if they said Yes, to licences recommended by the licensing justices, the value of the property would be affected; consequently they said, No. Suddenly to jettison this whole argument and say, as soon as we have finished with the Bill and lost monopoly powers, Yes, it is every man for himself ", is nonsense to me. It certainly does not allow the Home Secretary to dispose of the property in a manner which is expedient in the public interest. It is expedient in the public interest to accept this Amendment.
LORD BURTON: Before the noble Lord sits down: he referred to the Scottish part as small. I should have thought that it was pretty extensive. I admit that the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said it was an important part but I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Stonham is talking about a small part. Secondly, I could not appreciate why he referred to the trade unions. That seems to be a complete red herring. It seems to me that the Opposition are trying to rake up any dispute, because they dislike the immediate denationalisation of this part of the industry.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: May I intervene for a moment to try to dispel an impression which I believe to be entirely wrong'? I know from my own experience that both at Invergordon and at Gretna the people have wanted to get rid of the State interference, this monopoly. I know very well the Invergordon area, with which I was connected so closely during the First World War, and the great munitions factory at Gretna. The reasons for introducing this monopoly
94
disappeared many years ago. The people in these areas of Scotland have wanted to get rid of it for years, and to my knowledge it has been held up time and again, not by Scottish Ministers but by the Home Office in England. We should have got rid of it years ago, but for the wish of the Home Office to maintain it, and I am glad that Scotland is now to get what it has longed for for many a long day.
LORD STONHAM: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, may I say, first, that I appreciate that nothing in Scotland is small. I was referring to the relative sizes and values of the schemes in Scotland and in England. It is the case, unfortunately, that the relative values are very much different. I do not doubt that the hostelries run by the scheme are highly valued in Scotland. With regard to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which seemed to me more appropriate to a Second Reading speech, all I say is that I would not enter into any dispute between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Office. Certainly I was not aware of it during the five years I was at the Home Office. Whatever the popularity or otherwise of the scheme in Gretna, successive Secretaries of State, including, the noble Lord himself, have continued the scheme until now.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Before the noble Lord concludes, I should say that there have been discussions with the unions and with the staff associations concerned. I think that we should be clear about this. These discussions are going on now and will continue after the Royal Assent, so it should not be thought as a result of our discussion to-night that there has not been sufficient time for proper consultation. We have taken great care in consultations of this kind. Despite the way in which the noble Lord has argued his case, this Amendment goes a great deal wider than he has suggested. The Amendment would not simply have the effect of preserving the Secretary of State's monopoly power but would provide that the Act shall not come into force for twelve months. In other words, the process of sale could not be begun at all; and the whole purpose of Parliament would be held up for twelve months.
LORD STONHAM: I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said

95
about consultation and the discussions now taking place. There are several unions concerned, and they have acted very responsibly for many years. My only point in this Amendment was to create more time. I believe that it would not alter the effect, because eventually the property is going to be sold, but it would
7.33 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert—
(" (2) For the purposes of this Act"intoxicating liquor"means, in the case of beer, that the original gravity of the beer shall not be less than 1038 degrees.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. During previous dis-
give more time to do the whole thing decently.
7.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 77.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Gardiner, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

White, Bs.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Royle, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Allerton, L.

Falkland, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Balerno, L.

Geddes, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Gray, L.

Reay, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Boothby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hacking, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

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

St. Helens, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

St. Just, L.

Burton, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandford, L.

Caccia, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clwyd, L.

Hatherton, L.

Selsdon, L.

Colyton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Courtown, E.

Latymer, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigavon, V.

McFadzean, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Teynham, L.

de Clifford, L.

Monck, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Monsell, V.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Dundee, E.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Effingham, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

cussions on this Bill it has frequently been stated that the Carlisle State Scheme brews the best beer in Britain. This statement has not been challenged, and I assume that it is accepted as a fact. This Amendment is directed, so far as one can do so, to preserving the quality, strength and reputation of the Carlisle beer. Customers know by now that they will have to pay more, but they will not have to pay more for inferior stuff if we can help it. I am not a judge of these matters. So far as I am concerned,
the beer is good if the customers like it. Apparently they like the taste, and that liking has to have a foundation, such as, what is in the beer. The test of strength and quality is the original gravity which this Amendment seeks to establish.
I understand that the original gravity is recognised as the yardstick for determining the quality and strength of different beers. That is the view of the Consumers Association, which published a report on the subject in 1960. The brewers do not accept this view. They said recently that it matters hardly at all when the Britisher comes to choose his pint. He wants the beer he likes and which suits his palate. Having achieved this, he will stick to it through thick and thin—" thick and thin"sounds a little ominous. But we must regard this judgment as partial, especially having regard to the brewers' habit of selling their very thin beer as powerful stuff.
The original gravity is the measure of the ratio of the raw materials to the water that goes into the beer. That ratio determines the body, flavour, condition and the stimulating characteristics of the beer. The original gravity is measured at the work stage of production, that is, the stage of brewing when all the ingredients except the yeast have been added, and before anything has been lost through fermentation. Brewing of course starts with the barley, which is turned into malt. Hot water is then added to the malt, which is thereby turned into mash, and the enzymes in the malt become reactivated by the hot water and release a sweet extract which is filtered out of the beer mash. This is the wort; and the original gravity of the beer is that of the wort before the hops are added.
Your Lordships will appreciate the importance of the original gravity: it depends upon what is put into the beer. And they do the job properly in Carlisle! The specific gravity of water is 1,000 degrees, and the extent by which the gravity of unfermented wort exceeds 1,000 degrees indicates the combined quantity of malt and sugar which has been added. So the gravity of the wort is the original gravity of the beer. For example, if the"o.g."of the wort is stated to be 1,040, it means that 100 gallons of it would weigh 1,040 lb, and
98
the extra 40 lb. would represent the sugar, malt and proteins which have been put into it.
Clearly the"o.g."is an important measure of strength, and it is understandable that it is a measure which determines the excise duty. The duty is now £10·35 per barrel of 36 gallons of beer with an"o.g."of 1,030, and it increases by 8s. per barrel for every single degree above 1,030. The Which? report, published in 1960, gave particulars of draught beers sold in the North. They stated that the"o.g."of Carlisle bitter was then 1,038.2, and that is the reason for the figure"1,038"in the Amendment: it has not been selected haphazardly.
Of course, the average original gravity of other brewers' brews is much lower. One London firm has a widely advertised product the gravity of which is only 1030, only just qualifying as beer at all. In fact, some of the highest priced beers are those with the lowest original gravity. It is a large-scale swindle practised on the British public which certain brewers perform. Some beers, I am astonished to find, are so weak that if they were 1 or 2 per cent. less they could be sold as non-alcoholic, just like Coca Cola. This particularly applies to certain keg beers, which the brewers have the effrontery to advertise as strong or powerful. Your Lordships may have seen an advertisement on television with a charming barmaid being asked to taste a particular keg beer. She sips it and says,"It is too powerful for me ". For obvious reasons it would be unfair to name this particular beer. But your Lordships may have noticed yourselves that it is the weak ones, keg beers or not, which are advertised extensively as powerful. One advertisement I saw coming along to-day was,"Are you man enough to take it?" It should be,"Are you fool enough "-that would be more sensible. Indeed, that particular one is only a trifle over 1,030, and of course the brewer pays on that the minimum excise duty. It is scarcely surprising that The Times on April 26 this year quoted a brewer as saying:"The public will drink what we so-and-so tell them to drink ". Well, perhaps they will, but we ought not to allow them to get away with it. These keg beers are high in price and high in gas and water content. We do not want them

99
foisted on to the people of Carlisle, who are accustomed to a good quality wholesome brew, and we can ensure this by this Amendment, which I invite the Government to accept. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The intention of this Amendment, similar again to one put down in another place, is presumably to provide that any beer sold in the Carlisle district, whether before or after the sale of the scheme, shall be of a stated minimum gravity. There are a number of objections; some of them I will come on to in a moment. Let me start by saying that the Amendment would not be acceptable as a matter of principle. There are no national regulations governing the strength of beer at all. The Licensing Act 1964 itself, taken with the Customs and Excise Act 1952, merely excludes from the definition of intoxicating liquor beer with an original gravity not exceeding 1016 degrees or a strength not exceeding two degrees of proof. The strength of beer is a matter left to the laws of supply and demand, and it would be anomalous to prescribe a minimum strength for a particular geographical area.
Next, the Amendment is irrelevant to the Bill and would not achieve its purpose. It proceeds by way of defining"intoxicating liquor"for the purposes of the Bill, but the noble Lord will find that those words are used only in Clause 1(a) as part of a factual description of the effect of Section 103 of the Act of 1964, and in Clause 2(7) in a way which would make the Amendment of no effect. The Amendment, therefore, would not have the result intended. Nor would it apply to Scotland, because these words are not used in the part of the Bill which applies to Scotland.
There is another point. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said that the figure of 1038 had not been selected haphazardly. Maybe not haphazardly, but very carelessly. He did say the figure dated back to 1960, and things have changed since then. If he had consulted the source of information quoted to us with such vitality by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, the Sunday Mirror report in March of this year—incidentally, this concerned a series of tests carried out by an independent analyst—he would have found that
100
the original gravities of the Carlisle beers were all below 1038. If we take the results of that table as being the most favourable to the noble Lord's case, the figures were as follows: bitter 1036·3—below 1038; keg, 1036·6—below 1038; and mild 1033. So all the beers in Carlisle are already under the figure of 1038. This Amendment would not have the effect the noble Lord wishes and for these reasons among others I must ask your Lordships to reject it.
LORD JACQUES: I thought the Minister did not accept the Sunday Mirror report.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I thought I would give the figures quoted in it because they may carry more weight than any assertion from me. But the information I have in front of me is that the average original gravity of beer sold in this country is between 1037 and 1038. That of the present Carlisle beer is less than the minimum of 1038 sought by the Amendment. The report of the Monopolies Commission on Beer contains a table on page 10 giving the national average original gravity over the years, and since March, 1957, this figure has been under 1038 across the whole country.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: The good people of Carlisle surely could put the results in their stomach right by taking a"chaser ", as we do in Scotland.
LORD BALERNO: As a whisky-drinking Scot, I venture with some trepidation to embark on this particular subject. But I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that while he was right in saying that the gravity was a quality of the beer, it is only one of the qualities of a beer. Therefore you cannot measure the total quality of a beer by the gravity alone, and many beers of lower gravity are, to the drinker, of high quality. One of the things that astonishes the Scot beer drinker is the liking of the English for what we regard as a rather thin beer, and it always upsets the Scot who emigrates to England. So it is not only the gravity that comes into the question of the quality of the beer.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I was aware that original gravity is only one part of the

101
total quality of the brew; there are the alcoholic content, and other things. But I felt that original gravity not only was the determining factor of the other things, but technically was quite enough for me to manage without enlarging the field.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that there are only two references in the Bill to intoxicating liquor, and he specified particularly subsection (7) of Clause 2, which reads:
" In this section premises ' means premises used for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail."
If we fixed the original gravity it would mean that those premises would have to sell beer of this quality, otherwise they would not continue to be"premises"within the meaning of this Bill. I am not the least perturbed by the fact that the original gravity of Carlisle beer has been slipping to some extent, to a minor extent—1038·2 to 1036·6. If they had been slipping, they could pull their socks up, and it shows that this would apply not only to Carlisle but to all of them. As to there being no national standard, I am suggesting that we should seize this present opportunity to make a beginning. The noble Lord is perfectly right to enjoy himself as a Scot and to talk about the weak English beer—and indeed it is quite disgraceful. I think it is disgraceful not only to have a weak thin stuff but actually to advertise it in such a way that the fools who drink it take the gas in which has been previously taken off during an earlier process and pumped hack into the beer under the impression that it is strong and powerful and they are"he-men"if they drink it.
LORD BALERNO: Surely a large proportion of the natives like it that way.
LORD STONHAM: That is exactly right; they have been told on television that they have got to like it that way; that they are manly and powerful if they like it that way. It may be absolutely horrible stuff, but this is what the brewers say. It is good beer if the customers like it; all we have got to do is to educate them—or uneducate them, if you like—to swallow the stuff and think it good. I think it is wrong to practise that kind of deception and that it is much better to sell a good honest drink. That is why we have tabled this Amendment. I am
102
sorry that the noble Lord does not feel able to accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Disposal of property in England held by Secretary of State for purposes of State management]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 1, leave out (" The Secretary of State ") and insert (" There shall be constituted a body to be called the State Liquor Trade Management Agency (hereinafter referred to as the Management Agency) which ")
The noble Lord said: I hope that with this Amendment it will be possible for us to discuss the remaining Amendments, Nos. 4 to 16, that I have put down for Clause 2. They are all either consequential or related to this particular Amendment. On Second Reading, considerable concern was expressed that the Bill, as drafted, saddled the Home Secretary with the onerous and unsuitable job of haggling over the sale of properties comprising the State scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, by implication, in effect agreed with this because he said that the Government had decided to seek the highest professional advice in the appointment of valuers and estate agents who would conduct the sales on the Home Secretary's behalf. He also told us that it had been decided to sell 40 of the smallest public houses as individual units and to offer them, in the first instance, to the present managers; and in response to a question that I put to him he told us that it might well be done with the remaining public houses.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have not got Handsard in front of me, but I do not think I quite gave that impression. I said that we should want to hear the recommendations from the agents as regards the other properties.
LORD STONHAM: I said that it might be done with the others, and I think that is implied in the noble Lord's remarks. My Amendments are designed to create the framework to make all this possible. Clause 2(1) gives to the Home Secretary two powers. The first is to,
" dispose of property held by him for the purposes of…the Act ".

103
That is the power to dispose. The second power is indicated in the words:
" or shall use such property for other purposes ".
That is the power not to dispose of the properties. In short, under the Bill the Home Secretary does not need to dispose of them and he is not compelled to use them as licensed premises: he can use them for something else.
I am proposing in the Amendments that both these powers should be handed over to a State Liquor Trade Management Agency which would consist of three persons, qualified and experienced in the valuation of land and property, to be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This impersonal, impartial agency would completely free the Home Secretary of what I regard as the odium of dealing in this matter. It would carry out expertly the transactions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and satisfactorily perform the essence of the function of the local trust which was originally imposed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but the Home Secretary would remain in the business the whole time until he decided, under Clause 5, to get out of it.
What we are proposing is exactly what the Government want. They decided to abolish State management because they considered it inappropriate for the Home Secretary to be running a brewery and managing pubs. Very well. But it must be equally inappropriate for the Home Secretary to have to haggle about the disposal prices. The management agency would relieve him of all this in a manner satisfactory to the public. This proposal follows the pattern which was followed with iron and steel when there was set up a realisation and disposal agency; it follows the pattern followed in 1963 with transport when a holding company was set up, as we suggest here, with power to dispose of the undertakings. The fact that it did not dispose of them showed that the holding company had a better set of values than the Government had. Of course this might happen again with the Trade Management Agency. That would not matter at all. What does matter is that we should have an expert body which would act objectively and impartially in a manner expedient in the public interest. I am naïve enough to
104
believe that everybody wants an impartial public body to do this job. That can be accomplished in the manner in which we have proposed to amend the Bill. I think that is what the Home Secretary wants, and what we want. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships for acceptance. I beg to move.
LORD LEATHERLAND: As it is now 8 o'clock, ought not someone to call,"Time gentlemen, please!"so that the other debate can be continued?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am in the hands of the Committee. It is 8 o'clock. Some time has been earmarked, through the usual channels, on Wednesday next at 8 o'clock, and since the noble Lord moved his group of Amendments to Clause 2 only, I think we would, in any event, have to carry on with our proceedings to consider the Amendments to Clause 3. Therefore, perhaps I may delay my reply until Wednesday, if that is convenient to members of the Committee, and move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the consideration on Report of the Industrial Relations Bill be now resumed.
Moved, That the consideration on Report of the Industrial Relations Bill be now resumed.—(Lord DrumalbynDruntalbyn.)
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I wonder whether this would be a convenient opportunity to put one request to the Government. We now have a very long Marshalled List, and a number of Amend ments have been put down. I do not want to go into the arguments now, but I should like to make a request to the Government that they should provide us, at some early stage, with a schedule, or with the answer to the question of how many Amendments, all told, the Government have put down at Report stage and, of these, how many were in response to Opposition requests. I think that information would have to be made available sooner or later, and we should be most

105
grateful if the Government could see their way to providing it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to give me private notice of that question. The information has already been prepared, but unfortunately I have not got it with me at the moment. However, I shall certainly let him know.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 84 [Organisations eligible for entry in special register]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79PP:
Page 67, line 13, after (" its ") insert (" principal ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79PP. The clause in relation to which this Amendment appears deals with a special register and defines the organisations which are eligible for entry in it. Subsection (3) says:
" any organisation shall be eligible for entry in the special register if—…
(b) its activities include the regulation of relations between workers of…those descriptions…"
The Amendment seeks to add the words"principal activities ", so that it would then read,
" any organisation shall be eligible for entry in the special register if—…
(b) its principal activities include the regulation of relations between workers…and employers…"
The purpose of the Amendment, as is plain, is to strengthen the subsection and to make it clear that, in our view, there should go on to the register only those organisations which are (what shall I say?)"professionals"and not"amateurs"in this field of regulating relations between workers and employers. These organisations are, of course, in competition with one another. It is only right that the field of competition should be a fair one, and that those which are on the special register should have, as one of their principal activities, the regulation of labour relations and of negotiation so that they can compete on fair terms with those who are not on the special register. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that, so far from strengthening this subsection, the Amendment would
106
" bust"it. The trouble is that the purpose of the special register is not to accommodate organisations looking after particular kinds of workers. I am afraid this is an Amendment that I must oppose, and it is important that noble Lords should be clear why, because it strikes at the very heart of the reasons why the special register was added to the Bill. The special register affords a means of making the benefits of registration, together with the associated obligations, available to registered companies and chartered bodies which have some concern with industrial relations matters, but which are not eligible to register as trade unions in the normal way. The reason why they are not able to register as trade unions is precisely that the regulation of relations is not one of their principal objects. If it were a principal object they would have been unable to register as companies by reason of Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 1871, which is reproduced in full by Clause 151.
Similarly, no chartered body could hope to keep its charter if it had developed the regulation of industrial relations in its members' interests as a principal activity. Chartered bodies, as noble Lords will know, are, by definition, those which have several public interests. The Amendment would, therefore, preclude from admission to the special register the very organisations it is designed to accommodate; namely, companies and chartered bodies which are engaged in industrial relations as a subsidiary activity. The creation of a special register is indeed an important concession to these organisations, as my noble friend Lord Windlesham made plain during the debate on this part of the Bill in Committee. If there were no such register, such organisations which wanted to enjoy trade union status would have to give up their existing status, and in some cases might have to dissolve themselves and start all over again. In our view, the concesssion is entirely justified, and it would be wrong to remove it by this Amendment. I must therefore ask noble Lords to reject this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I see that there are difficulties in having this Amendment here. On the other hand, there are difficulties of the kind which I explained, which were the reason for moving the Amendment. I

107
shall simply have to see what other method is open to us to try to achieve fairer competition, which is what we are anxious for. I see that this is not the right place for this Amendment, and I therefore ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.9 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79QQ:
Page 67, line 16, after (" concurrence ") insert (" of any person who is not a member or ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment again is in this same clause, and indeed in the same subsection. Subsection (3), as your Lordships are now aware, refers to any organisation being eligible for entry in the special register if its activities include the regulation of relations between workers and employers, and if
"(c) it has power, without the concurrence of any parent organisation, to alter its own rules ".
It is that second provision with which we are now concerned. That is one definition of independence. In order to make this independence even clearer, we seek to add words which would make the subsection read:
"(c) it has power, without the concurrence of any person who is not a member of any parent organisation ".
Independence can be destroyed, either by having a parent organisation upon whom an organisation depends, or by having members who exert a special power—and that is the case in certain house unions. Therefore, we propose the Amendment to ensure and establish the independence of the organisation seeking entry in the special register. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will probably recall that a similar Amendment to Clause 67, Organisations eligible for registration as trade rations, was rejected as unnecessary; exactly the same considerations apply here. Unless the noble Lord is able to show that there are different considerations, it would save the time of your Lordships if we did not pursue the matter further.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I gather that what the noble Lord is saying
108
is that he is satisfied that the Amendment is not necessary, because the independence is assured?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is right, my Lords.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, that was the purpose of moving the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 79J:
Page 67, line 18, leave out from (" funds ") to end of line 19.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is identical to earlier Amendments to Clauses 67 and 71 which have already been approved by the House. In moving the Amendment to Clause 67, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, explained that, on reflection, the Government had reached the conclusion that the words proposed for deletion were not an essential prerequisite of registration and might prevent organisations from registering. The same is true with regard to organisations seeking entry on the special register, and it is desirable that the same tests should apply here as apply to registration as a trade union or employers' association. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 79RR:
Page 67, line 19, at end insert—
(" and
(d) does not receive, directly or indirectly, financial assistance from any employer ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which is similar, if not identical, to one that we discussed earlier. The purpose of moving it is to obtain—it may sound a little Irish, and I hope I offend nobody—the Minister's assurance that it is not necessary. My Lords, I beg to move.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, if an employer or an organisation is contributing towards a provident fund, through an organisation which is eligible to be entered in the special register, would the acceptance of this Amendment prevent such a contribution?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if the Amendment were accepted I do not see how it could possibly prevent what my

109
noble friend wants to see continue. The whole purpose of the clause is to allow that to continue. There may be ways in which financial assistance is made available by an employer for good industrial relations, and one would not want some minor case of that sort to interfere in any way with the test of independence. We are still satisfied that the test of independence is sufficient. Therefore, I do not think it is necessary for me to reiterate the reasons why this Amendment is also unacceptable, except to say that it would give rise to precisely the same dangers in the context of organisations seeking entry upon the special register as did the earlier Amendment in relation to the registration of trade unions. It could be an embarrassment to good industrial relations and to organisations, either on the register of trade unions or on the special register.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, in effect, the noble Lord has kindly given me the assurance which I was seeking. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 [Annual return, audit, annual report and members' superannuation schemes]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 79DDD:
Page 70, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert (" either free of charge or on payment of a reasonable charge ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on one which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, moved earlier and which was accepted by the Government. That change has relieved registered organisations of the obligation to specify in their rules the charge to be made for supplying a rule book to any person. Subsection (6) at present requires that the charge should be specified in the rules, and we propose to remove the words in question and replace them with a provision which allows the organisation either to make no charge at all or to make a reasonable charge. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, all I need to do is to thank the noble Earl and the Government for meeting our point of view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Power for Chief Registrar to inspect and apply for winding up order]:
8.18 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 79XXX:
Page 71, line 15, leave out (" in accordance with the Companies Act 1948 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment formally, and I do so really in order to give myself an opportunity of thanking the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, for writing me an extremely helpful letter on certain points that I had raised on this clause (which in the previous version of the Bill was Clause 88) and on two other clauses which are really allied to it. They are Clause 74 of the present version, which was Clause 72 of the previous version; and Clause 152 of the present version, which was Clause 148 of the previous version. The House may remember that when it last met to consider this Bill, I moved an Amendment to Clause 74 and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, indicated to me that a letter was on the way from the noble and learned Lord which dealt with the points I had sought to raise. At that time I had not received the letter, but I have now received it and am extremely grateful for it.
The Amendment which I move formally—and I shall explain in a moment why I say"formally "—is really to call attention to what seemed to me a defect, in that no indication was given in Clause 90 of the machinery under the Companies Act 1948 that was to be brought into action in the event of the Registrar seeking to wind up a registered trade union or an employers' association. The noble and learned Lord indicated to me in his letter that that matter had been fully taken into account and that it was the view of the Government that the best way to deal with it would he to make Part IX of the Companies Act 1948 applicable and that an Amendment would he put down for that purpose. That Amendment is now down as No. 93W. I have done my best to study both Part IX of the 1948 Act and the various changes introduced into Part IX by Amendment No. 93W. So far as my study goes, it seems that those arrangements would be absolutely satisfactory

111
and would provide the necessary machinery to wind up a trade union or employers' association registered under this Bill.
With regard to contributories, about which I expressed some doubt, if I understand the position rightly, I think the situation is adequately safeguarded in that they could not be called upon to contribute in a liquidation except and to the extent that they might be liable to do so under any rules of the organisation which, upon its incorporation under Clause 74, become the rules of the incorporated body. Once again, I should like to thank the Government for having given this such careful thought and for having moved that Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord's letter points out, some other matters which I raised on the other clauses to which I referred are still under consideration. I think I am right in saying that no Amendments have been tabled to those other clauses—no doubt they are still being considered. Perhaps they will make their appearance on the Marshalled List later if the Government, on reflection, think that some change is necessary. Having said that, and expressed my thanks, may I explain what I meant by"formally moving the Amendment"by now saying that, having formally moved it, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Relaxation of restrictions on changeschanties in rules]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 79EEE:
Page 73, line 7, leave out (" (2) ") and insert (" (1) ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am sorry that I have to move this Amendment. It arises from a mistake on an earlier Government Amendment considered by your Lordships in Committee as Amendment 263EEEE. Line 7 in subsection (3) refers to the purposes specified in the clause. Those are set out in subsection (1) and not subsection (2). I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord. This is obviously an error. The only comment I have to make when I see the multitude of noble Lords who have added their names to the Amendment is to say how
112
pleasant it is to think of the number in your Lordships' House who read the Bill with such assiduity as to pick out that:
" One is one and all alone, And ever more shall be so."
I do not know why these things arise in the way they do but in fact I think our Amendment was down first and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, added his name; the courtesies of the House require that the noble Lord's name should come first, but I am delighted that we are in agreement.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.26 p.m.
Clause 96 [Inducement of, or threat to induce, breach of contract]:
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 73, line 22, after (" dispute ") insert (" knowingly ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 80B:
Page 73, line 23, leave out (" or threaten to induce ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in what I am sure is the very temporary absence of my noble friend Lord Archibald, I beg leave to move this Amendment. It relates to the Part of the Bill which deals with unfair industrial practices. This clause sets out to deal with inducements, or threats of inducement, to breach of contract. There was discussion at ane earlier stage, which I recollect not with quite the same complete clarity that I would have wished, on the meaning both of inducement (which the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was good enough to explain) and also of threatening to induce. It seemed to us that the inducement itself presented a complex part of the law, but that was much clarified by the discussion which took place. However, the question of threatening to induce seemed to us to produce a situation which was almost incomprehensible.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack explained, so far as I recollect, the various elements that go into the legal definition of an inducement to breach of contract, and when one came to consider those elements it seemed to us that one of them was completely incompatible with a threat of inducement, because inducement had to

113
have a certain effect and one could not know in advance how a threat could be sure to produce that result. Therefore it seemed to us that threatening to induce was a concept which was very difficult to understand and no doubt would be very difficult for those whose function it would be to interpret, particularly in courts of law. Therefore we put down this Amendment, in the hope that we could receive further clarification and understanding of this matter. When I say"we"put it down, I mean that some of us put it down. It so happens that it was not I who did so, but my noble friend Lord Archibald, who, if he were here, would be able to explain the matter in far greater detail and with much greater authority than I can attempt to do. As I have explained to your Lordships on many occasions, I am no lawyer. I listen to these matters with great interest and am much encouraged and enlightened by what transpires. But in the circumstances Ido not wish to delay your Lordships unduly, especially as we have lost Lord Archibald. I merely move the Amendment, and hope that we shall receive a full explanation from the Government. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, shortly to supplement what my noble friend has said, I have re-read the argument, and I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be able to confirm that my recollection is correct when I say that my noble friend's point was this. The noble and learned Lord had indicated that in the view he held, if one construed the word"induce"it had five separate elements. There was a certain controversy as to whether it was four or five, but in point of fact the noble and learned Lord has on a number of occasions told the House what he regards as the necessary elements in the word"induce ". If I remember correctly, my noble friend Lord Archibald's argument, which was put in the form of a question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, it was in substance this. If you accept that the word"induce"involves certain things, at least there must be a contract and at least there must be a breaking of it as a result of the inducing. Upon the assumption that those are prerequisites before the word"induce"can be said to be in operation, how does one fit into that
114
situation a phrase like"threatening to induce "? In other words, you can utter a threat which may be completely ineffective and go no way towards producing the result that there is an inducing with the components that the noble and learned Lord indicated in his view it contained. I think that was the substance of my noble friend's point. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord has his argument in front of him, but I thought it might be helpful to the House if I gave at any rate what was my recollection of his argument.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am still in some doubt as to the purpose of this Amendment. Clause 96, which we are discussing, makes it an unfair industrial practice in certain circumstances for any person, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, to induce another person to break a contract to which that other person is a party. The clause says that, as well as to induce, a threat to induce that result is an unfair industrial practice. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, who raised the question rather interrogatively on Committee, moves to omit the words,"or threaten to induce ". But I still do not know why. Therefore, it is rather difficult for me to reply to the Amendment. It seems to me to be every bit as bad to achieve something by threats as to achieve something by action. In a previous, somewhat intemperate speech the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, characterised something as blackmail—a phrase which I had always understood to be against the tradition of this House. But I cannot understand why a threat is not as bad as carrying out the threat if it achieves its results. I defined the word"induce"in accordance with the textbook definition on a number of occasions at the Committee stage; and I have accepted an Amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in order to remove doubt and allay anxiety, to insert the word"knowingly"before the word"induce"wherever that word appeared in the Bill so that there could be no doubt at all that a person so acting would be acting in knowledge of what he was doing. I am now asked to remove from the sphere of unfair industrial practice a threat to commit the knowing inducement of a breach of contract, and

115
nobody can explain to me why. I should advise the House to reject the Amendment.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords I think, with respect, that the noble and learned Lord has himself underlined the difficulties in which some of us find ourselves, for if I understood him aright he based the justification of these words upon the argument that to achieve an object by a threat was as bad as achieving that object by carrying out the actual act which had been threatened. This is the difficulty in which I think some of us find ourselves: that it is an unfair industrial practice to threaten to induce without it being established that the threat itself in fact produces any effect. The noble and learned Lord, if I understood him aright, seemed to make the assumption that the threat referred to in the wording was a successful threat.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
8.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 80A:
Page 73, line 29, leave out (" section ") and insert (" Part of this Act ").
The noble and learned Lord said: I rather suspect that once again I am standing in for my noble friend. I ought to explain that this Amendment is the first of quite a number of Amendments which can really be understood only if they are read together. If I may briefly list them, they are Nos. 80A, 81A, 81B and 81C. The purpose of this Amendment to Clause 96 is to extend the references to trade unions and employers' associations in the new subsection (3) which is contained in Amendment No. 81C, which is to page 74, line 9, so as to include organisations which are on the provisional register. It is a consequential Amendment to the Amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 97.
The Amendment to Clause 97 has three purposes: first, to make it clear that the unfair industrial practice in Clause 97 applies to any person whether or not he was the person who committed the original unfair industrial action which his secondary action is intended to support; second, to make it clear that a trade union is not to be made liable under this clause for giving official sup-
116
port to an initial unofficial act—for instance, calling a strike in breach of contract, which is an unfair industrial practice under Clause 96; and, third, to carry out the promise which I made at the Committee stage to omit the horrible words"aid and abet ", which in any event have criminal connotations. This is done by substituting the verb"to further"for the double verb"to aid and abet"in relation to the taking of secondary action.
My Lords, when we discussed Clause 97 in Committee, I pointed out that the Government regarded it as defective in the form in which it has hitherto appeared and that an Amendment would be put down for Report. I also made it clear that when the time came to put down the Amendment which I had promised I would take what advantage I could of the observations made during the debate on the Committee stage. I do not think I need say anything more in criticism of the phrase,"to aid and abet ". Everything that need be said was said on Committee stage and on the whole I agreed with it, if I could find another phrase to do as well which had civil and not criminal implications and which could be described as contemporary English. I think we have succeeded, by the aid of the official draftsmen, by the use of the word"further ".
At the Committee stage we also discussed the position that arises when a trade union makes official industrial action which originally was unofficial. I put forward the view that I did not believe that there was any real danger to a trade union that such action would in itself be considered an unfair industrial practice under the clause. But I explained to the Committee that in another place there had been those who had expressed anxieties on this score and who might still fear that the clause might bear unfavourably upon legitimate union recognition of industrial action. Subsection (3) as amended will, I hope, eradicate any remaining doubt, whether well-founded or ill-founded, about the intention and scope of the clause in this context.
My Lords, the clause as it stands deals with the liability of any person for taking or threatening to take steps specified in subsection (2) for the purpose of aiding

117
and abetting another person in doing anything which is an unfair industrial practice by that person under the Bill. As I said in the Committee, we also wish to amend the clause to make clear that it will be an unfair industrial practice for someone to organise industrial action to further an original unfair practice committed by himself as well as one committed by someone else. It would obviously be quite illogical, and at variance with our intention, if the person who committed the original practice were at liberty to seek to further his original action, if that action was an unfair industrial practice, by organising secondary action in support of it; but would be liable under the clause if he supported an unfair industrial practice of the same kind as originated by someone else; or alternatively, that another person would be liable if he supported the original action originated by himself.
The Amendment to Clause 96 is really paving to, or consequential upon—whichever way one looks upon it—the Amendment to Clause 97 which takes account of an objection made by noble Lords during the Committee stage debate and the promises that I have made and that I hope I have now redeemed. Therefore, I beg to move the Amendment No. 80A standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
8.45 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, technically we are discussing what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has described as a paving Amendment; and in moving that Amendment he has also explained to the House very clearly the re-cast of Clause 97 which appears in the Amendments in the Marshalled List to which he has referred. I think it would probably be for the convenience of the House if, in answering, or in making such observations as I think may be of use on the paving Amendment, I also make observations in reply to the observations by the noble and learned Lord on the Amendments for which this paves the way. If that is the general wish of the House I will proceed accordingly. The only slight disadvantage about that is that the House will see that there are on the Marshalled List Amendments Nos. 81J and 81K in the name of my noble friend Lord DelacourtSmith. He may wish to move them in
118
due course, although I would apprehend that if Amendments 81A and 81B were carried, that would automatically involve the result that his own Amendments could not be moved. Therefore while I am making some observations on the new form Clause 97, the House will perhaps permit me to give a general indication about what, as I see it, would be the effect of the two Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith. If that is a convenient course I propose to follow it, because I think that it will occupy the least amount of time.
We had a very full discussion in Committee on this group of clauses, which, obviously, are central to the Bill. I am sure we are all agreed on that. In the course of them a number of questions were raised, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated, as he has reminded us to-day, that he had some doubts about this form of what is now Clause 97; and that he would seek to re-cast it so as to take account of the doubts which he harboured about it. I should like to test his wording to see how far it has gone and what are the changes that are made and then to offer one or two observations on the re-cast clause which I think probably the Government will not be able to accept, because it has been clearly indicated by Ministers that here we are at the parting of the ways. Noble Lords on this side of the House take one view as to what should be the content of this group of clauses; the Government take a different view, and both views are strongly held. Therefore there is limited room for concession on both sides. I believe that both sides of the House would accept that that stage must come in the case of any major difference and here we are right at the very kernel of it.
On that basis may I take the successive Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained? I am sure that we are all indebted to him for having removed the criminal taint of the words"aid and abet ". He has substituted for them,
" further any action which has been taken, whether by him or by any other person."
The submission that I would make to the House is that the words substituted

119
are very much wider in scope than the original words"aid and abet ". Noble Lords will notice that in the two Amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, the effect of the words"aid and abet"in their restricted sense is sought to be reproduced in the wording which he has suggested—namely, take any material action in support of ". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may agree or disagree with me, and in any case I am sure that the House would be grateful to hear his view whether I am right in suggesting that the expression,"further any action which had been taken"is much wider in scope.
After all, my Lords, something which one does and which, even in a minimal sense, permits the consequences of an action previously taken by somebody else, or by oneself, could, I should have thought, come within the scope of the words,"further any action which has been taken ". By contrast, I should have thought that one does not aid and abet unless one does something such as is described in the language of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith. You take some material action in support of it. You do something which is identifying you with it. You almost take part in it. That I should have thought, was the normal connotation of aiding and abetting. If I am right in thinking that the words have been expanded in the language that the noble and learned Lord has chosen, personally speaking, I should regret it, and I think that my noble friends would share that regret. These are extremely important clauses, and they put upon unions which are not registered what I hope it is not an exaggeration to describe as the severe disabilities imposed by Clause 96. For this reason we on this side of the House very much regret an extension of the ambit of the words,"aid and abet ".
The second point I should like to put in the form of a question to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor: what is precisely the scope of new subsection (3) which he is proposing to introduce into Clause 97? He has already explained it, but I should like to be certain that I followed his explanation accurately. The exclusion that subsection (3) makes is a very restrictive one. I be-
120
lieve that that was the intention of the noble and learned Lord. He indicated that his intention was that where there is unofficial action which is subsequently made official by a registered trade union, the official action thereafter taken shall not itself constitute an unfair industrial practice. The reason for that was that the question had been raised in Committee as to whether official action by a registered trade union, following upon unofficial action, could itself constitute an unfair industrial practice. I have been trying to think of what other circumstances could be brought within the scope of the exclusion, and I have not been able to think of any. There may be others.
If I may, again following the course that I have adopted, refer my comparison to the language in the second Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, that would be the language which I should prefer and which I imagine my noble friends would prefer. I say that in the knowledge that probably the Government find it unacceptable because it conflicts with a basic view they hold. I hoped that the change in Clause 97 would prevent the consequence which I thought might be possible during the course of the Committee stage, that if a registered union took action to assist a union overseas, that automatically would constitute an unfair industrial practice. Without going into the minutiae of the language, that would be the result of the language chosen by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith. When I put that point, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that in his view, there was not much reason for that. He thought that in the whole concept of the Bill, and bearing in mind the general principle of its interpretation, actions described in a Bill, unless by necessary implication it is otherwise indicated, relate to actions which take place within our shores and not overseas. I did not feel wholly convinced by the argument, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord's view on that is right. I am not saying that it is wrong. Any danger would have been removed by Amendment 81K. I feel I am on safe ground in saying that the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord in the new subsection (3) is not designed to achieve that wide exclusion and is carefully framed so as not to go so far as that.

121
There is a difference of adoption and approach, and that is where one has to leave it.
Those are my general comments. I should like to add an expression of thanks to the noble and learned Lord for obviously having considered carefully the arguments advanced and the criticism of this group of clauses during the Committee stage, and for producing, as a result of his further cogitation, this new clause which does not contain some of the defects that he felt might be inherent in the old one. I regret that he did not feel able to go further in reducing the rather draconian and adverse consequences to Clauses 96 and 97 as they now will appear in the Bill. Having said that, I would add that I do not feel able to advise the House to oppose the Amendment.
8.56 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, there is little which I can or would wish to add to the clear observations of my noble friend. I should like to add my appreciation to his for the steps which have been taken to remove some of the phrasing from this part of the Bill which some of us found objectionable. When one looks at the two clauses which are now under consideration it does not seem that what has been done by the Government has removed the unfairness of Clause 97 as it will stand even when amended. It was to this which my noble friend was referring when he spoke of the difference of approach between the two sides of the House which comes out clearly in the consideration of these clauses. He went on to speak of the poor prospect of the Government being disposed to modify these clauses in a way that would make them a great deal more acceptable to my noble friends.
I can bring this out best by looking at Clause 97 as a whole when the Amendments to which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has referred are embodied. The embodiment of these Amendments will not remove the unfairness of Clause 97, which tells so much more heavily against workers and trade unions than against employers and employers' organisations. The two sides in industry have now a much more varied and sophisticated armoury of weapons than at one time they had, when there
122
was a strike on the one hand and a lockout on the other. The Government have recognised that on the employees' side, in the case of trade unions, there is a range of actions that can be taken in the course of an industrial dispute which fall short of a strike. The Government have defined these as organising, procuring, or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike. But so far as the employers are concerned they refer still to the sole weapon of a lock-out. That is the only employers' weapon to which reference is made at any rate in this clause of the Bill.
I should have thought that it was widely recognised that employers now, in the exercise of their industrial authority and their economic power, had similarly a whole range of action open to them short of a lock-out in an industrial dispute which can be used particularly against individuals: restriction of normal promotion expectations, removal from one factory to another location which would be much less convenient to the individual; reallocation to a new job which may be much less favourable and satisfying; limitation or reallocation of overtime, and of course various other kinds of victimisation such as a concerted refusal to employ a particular worker, or one employer in some way or other making a suggestion to another employer that he should either dismiss or refuse to employ a worker whom the first employer has dismissed and perhaps, as he would be able to under this Bill, refused to reinstate despite the decision of a tribunal.
It is interesting that in the Press only this morning there is reference by one sizeable trade union to an anxiety that the employers are compiling black lists of workers who, for one reason or another, are not looked upon favourably. It would surprise me very much if there did not exist in quite a number of places black lists of workers who have committed no offence and who indeed may well have done nothing which would be even an unfair industrial practice under this Bill. I make these observations to draw attention to the fact that, even with the Amendments which are now being proposed, which as we recognise, and as my noble friend has recognised, go at any rate some way to taking account of the views which were exnressed, there still remains a basic inequity, as we see

123
it, in the clause which we have particularly under consideration at the moment. I must further emphasise the point which was made by my noble friends, that it appears to us that the expression"to further any action"is a wide term. It would be helpful to know whether the Government are fully satisfied that that term really is the appropriate one in these circumstances.
9.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I begin by making one general observation'? I must say that one becomes rather saddened by the somewhat grudging attitude of the Opposition when we carry out our undertakings. If I had given no promises and made no concessions on Clause 97 (as it now is) in Committee, and had put down no Amendments at all, as I should not then have been bound to do, but had simply used our majority to succeed in dealing with it, we should have got through this clause without very much discussion. But because I went out of my way to be conciliatory, to make promises and to carry them out, I am greeted with a deluge of rather deprecating remarks. I do not suppose that that will break my bones; I only draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the end, perhaps, Ministers will be found who do weary of well doing; I hope that I shall not.
The first criticism which was made was that I had carried out my undertaking to get rid of the words"aid and abet ", which had at any rate the merit of having behind them a long legal history, by introducing the words in the proposed new subsection,"to further any action ". I am asked to say whether those words are not wider than the words"aid and abet ". I am inhibited from giving an absolute assurance about that because, as I tried to explain on Committee, I have never been able to understand what the word"abet"means. It was precisely because I was unable myself to understand what the word"abet"means that I was eager to get rid of it. All I can say is that we went to the draftsman and said,"Look; can't you translate this into modern English which people will understand?", and he came up with the Amendment which I am now
124
proposing. I think it more or less covers"aid and abet "; I cannot think of anything which is different in it, and I am not prepared to say that it is wider.
Nor did the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, say just how far he thought it was wider. He contrasted it unfavourably with the rival Amendment No. 81J—" take any material action in support of ". I should have thought that the draftsman had said"take any material action in support of"rather more elegantly by using the word"further ", and I prefer it. But I cannot honestly say, not knowing what the word"abet"means, which is the wider. It seems to me they are pretty well identical, and I prefer the professional draftsman to the amateur draftsman; and as I was not a professional draftsman I can say that without immodesty.
The next point made was that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said he hoped I was right about the non-extraterritorial application of an Act of Parliament. Well, so do I, but I do not think much of that by way of criticism. It was all right to say he hoped I was right when I said, in answer to his question across the Floor in Committee, that this was the answer to his criticism. But if he thinks I am wrong, I should like him to tell my why. He has had a month to think about it since, and one becomes rather tired of people saying a month later, when they have all the resources and expensive legal education and a most notable legal practice and experience behind them,"I wasn't altogether sure whether the Lord Chancellor was right." Cannot he do better than that? If he cannot, I shall assume that I am right because I thought that what I said was pretty elementary law.
The next point was that contrast was drawn between the new subsection, which carried out exactly the terms of my undertaking, and, again, the rival put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in Amendment No. 81K. The point about No. 81K is that it would defeat altogether the whole purpose of Clause 97. If we adopted Amendment No. 81K, there would not be any purpose in having Clause 97 in at all because, obviously, if the second reaction complained of is itself an unfair industrial practice, there is no need for Clause 97 at all. But those of us who supported

125
Clause 97 in the first place did so precisely because we visualised a situation in which an unfair industrial practice was undertaken and then a number of more damaging actions, not in themselves unfair industrial practices, were undertaken in support of it. That is what Clause 97 is about. That is what Amendment No. 81K would take out again. So much for that.
My Lords, I turn now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, who talked about the underlying unfairness. The argument he presented to the House was that the poor old employer has apparently only one remedy, the lockout; and that the unions, in the white heat of technological revolution, have devised a wider range of weapons (or of clubs in the bag) to bring pressure to bear on the employer. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, then suggested a number of nasty things, short of a lockout, that the employers could do to individual workmen whom they did not like: black lists, and all the rest. The trouble about that is that it loses sight of the purpose of the clause. It is one of the many arguments that have been presented from the Opposition Front Benches during the course of these protracted debates in which the wood is completely lost sight of by an ingenious catalogue of trees in a totally different plantation. This clause is about unfair industrial practices; and before you get started on the clause you must assume that something has been done which is an unfair industrial practice. The unfair industrial practice in this case is inducement of breach of contract. If the employer does that, the Clause bites on him. If the trade union does it, the clause bites on them. But in order to get the clause to bite on anybody you must get the original unfair industrial practice started. Once you have done that the clause can bite.
The fact is that this clause is thought necessary in order to prevent a whole sequence of actions starting from an illegal origin, an origin which would be illegal under the Bill if it becomes an Act. The new subsection (3) covers the case—I think unnecessarily for the reasons I gave in Committee. But, for the reason I gave at the outset of these remarks, I wanted to be conciliatory and so I explained that if there was any doubt about this matter we would put it beyond
126
the range of doubt by introducing a new subsection. That is what we have done. We did it in order to cover the case which we thought was substantially just and which was presented in Committee—where officials of a union or members of a union take illegal action which would bring them within the range of an unfair industrial practice by virtue of Clause 97. Our action in support of our undertaking is to exclude the liability of the union if all they had done was to render official an action which had previously been unofficial. That was the case presented to us in Committee. That was the case with which we undertook to deal. That is the case with which we have dealt in the third proposed Amendment.
I hope that, without undue cantankerousness, I have replied to the not very generous welcome which has greeted the fulfilment of the undertaking given by me and by my noble friends. I hope that, with these explanations and answers, the House will be prepared to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.13 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 80E:
Page 73, line 39, at end insert (" other than any part of a collective agreement which is a procedure agreement as defined in subsection (5) of section 162 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment which I beg to move is really—I will not say on Report"of a probing nature "—to ask the House to consider whether or not the expression"contract"in subsection (3) of Clause 96 has been drawn too wide. I hope that I do not repeat unnecessarily that Clause 96 is crucial to the whole thinking of the Bill. It is obviously of great importance to trade unions to be as precise as possible in ascertaining the obligations which are put upon the unions and what they have to fear if they intend to embark upon industrial action.
Before the Bill was introduced it was only actionable if you induced a breach of a contract of employment under the 1906 Act. Now, in accordance with the Donovan recommendation, the expression"contract"in subsection (1) has been enlarged so as to include contracts other than contracts of employment. Then one looks to see what contracts are included

127
within the scope of Clause 96, and one finds in subsection (3) that, without being I hope, too technical, a collective agreement is not included in a contract the breach of which one must not induce. But then paragraph (b) introduces a qualification of that general exclusion:
" notwithstanding anything in the preceding paragraph, includes so much of any contract of employment as is implied or incorporated in that contract by reference to a collective agreement."
The submission upon which the Amendment is based is that the incorporation into the contract of employment of terms in a collective agreement should not include any terms in a collective agreement which constitute a procedure agreement as defined in subsection (5) of Clause 162. Clause 162 is a new and comprehensive clause which gathers together all the elements which go to define a collective agreement, and subsection (5) of that new clause describes what is meant by"procedure agreement ". Quite clearly, you can by a course of conduct get terms gathered from a collective agreement and made part of a contract of employment.
A collective agreement specifies certain terms and conditions. A worker goes to work upon terms that his contract of employment will be upon the basis of those conditions. They thereby, I should have thought, on ordinary principles of law, become part of his contract of employment; and that indeed is intended by paragraph (b). But I do not find it easy to see how the particular features of a collective agreement which constitute a procedure agreement and which are set out in paragraphs (a) to (g) of subsection (5) of Clause 162 could very well be incorporated into a contract of employment. Therefore the Amendment is really designed to elicit an answer from Ministers as to what types of provisions contained in a procedure agreement they envisage becoming part of a contract of employment. There may be some. I find it not too easy to see that any of those described in paragraphs (a) to (g) of Clause 162(5) could very well be incorporated; but I daresay I am wrong.
My reason for moving this Amendment, as I have said, is that I think it is of such critical importance that one
128
should be clear in one's own mind as to what contracts one is referring to in Clause 96. Therefore, I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, or whoever is going to reply, would be good enough to give us some examples—there may be many, and I may be asking a question which is easily answered—of a procedure agreement which could become part of a contract of employment. As your Lordships will know very well already, the parties to a collective agreement are not the individual workers but the trade union and the employer. It is for that purpose that this Amendment is put down, and I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 96, as by this time we know, deals with inducing a breach of contract and, with certain exceptions, makes to induce knowingly a breach of contract an unfair industrial practice. Subsection (3) of Clause 96, with which this Amendment is concerned, defines or at any rate gives a line on the meaning of the word"contract ", excluding from the word"contract"in paragraph (a) collective agreements or any part of collective agreements. They are not contracts, the knowing inducement of a breach of which constitutes an unfair industrial practice. But subsection (b) makes it plain that included in the word"contract ", knowingly to induce a breach of which is an unfair industrial practice, is
" so much of any contract of employment as is implied or incorporated in that contract by reference to a collective agreement ".
The noble Lord proposes a new Amendment, which puts an exception to that exception by using the words
" other than any part of a collective agreement which is a procedure agreement as defined in subsection (5) of section 162 of this Act."
The effect of that would be to remove from the scope of the definition of contract for the purpose of Clause 96 any terms of an individual contract of employment which were incorporated by reference to a procedure agreement between an employer and an organisation of workers. Bearing in mind that the terms do not include a collective agreement of any kind or any part of it and, of course, a procedure agreement is a collective agreement, we now look at

129
what it includes. The answer is that it includes among other things an individual contract of employment. That is put in because we do not want to create a situation where unofficial strike leaders could induce a number of individual workers to commit breaches of their own contracts of employment, for which the individuals would remain liable, while the instigators of the whole affair could get off scot free because they were not guilty of an unfair industrial practice.
The whole philosophy of the Bill as regards unfair industrial practice is that the instigators are those who primarily must be held responsible, and not the individual. The real criticism of the noble Lord's Amendment is that it reverses the whole philosophy. If I may come back to the question he asked, since he described this as a probing Amendment, I can say that individual contracts of employment which are inside the definition of contract for the purpose of Clause 96 are all made up of terms which are incorporated as a result of collective agreements reached between an employer and a trade union. A substantive example is rates of pay. When a trade union makes a new agreement with an employer, the individual contracts of employment become amended by the new rates of pay and such terms are substantive terms in contracts of employment by reason of those collective agreements. But some are procedural. For example, take agreements which might be negotiated between an employer and a trade union providing that any employee who has a grievance shall, in the first instance, refer the grievance to his immediate supervisor or union representative: this is not altogether unreasonable and it is not at all unusual.
It seems to me—and I believe it will seem to the House—both inconsistent and illogical to suggest, as the Amendment does, that the substantive terms incorporated as a result of collective agreements should be within the scope of the definition of contract while procedure agreements should be excluded. That would largely nullify the effect of procedural terms incorporated in individual contracts, and thereby reduce substantially the range within which an unofficial strike leader who chose to break a contract within the clause, which is a contract right across the field, would become liable for what he did. I am
130
bound to say that I think it would have a deplorable effect upon the authority of responsible union officials, since it would make it so much easier for unofficial strike leaders to call strikes without running the risk of proceedings under Clause 96.
I think the Amendment is also illogical, because to my mind it draws a wholly illogical distinction between the substantive clauses in an individual contract of employment, made by reference to negotiation arrived at in collective agreement, and those which are purely procedural. I should have thought that was one-sided and lacking in logical reasons to support it. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue this Amendment; but if he does, then my advice to the House would be to reject it.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am grateful for the answer. Of course, on the general merits I am not arguing in a contrary sense from that of the noble and learned Lord. What I was seeking to do was to try to obtain precision; if I may say so respectfully, I do not think the noble and learned Lord quite answered that part of the argument. He did to some extent. He said:"Well, if you look at a collective agreement, that part of it which relates to rates of pay would probably, by implication, become incorporated into the contract of employment." I agree: and so it should. I am perfectly content that the contract of employment we are talking about should be one which, by implication, incorporates that part of the collective agreement which relates to rates of pay. But the point I put to the noble and learned Lord—which I think he only partly answered, perhaps by reference to procedures relating to grievances—was that it seemed to me that, if you look at the content of a procedure agreement, ordinarily that does not become part of the terms of a contract of employment. Take, for example, paragraph (d):
" facilities for officials of trade unions or other organisation of workers; "
That does not become part of the contract of employment of the individual worker, though no doubt it is a useful provision. As I have said, my whole objective in moving this Amendment was to try to get clearly stated in Clause 96 what is the contract, or what are the contracts, that one is talking about when one applies the provisions of Clause 96. I should have thought that by including

131
the procedure agreement as part of a collective agreement you are including something which is unlikely to be incorporated in the contract of employment, and therefore you are making for uncertainty; you are moving away from precision and engendering doubt as to what is the scope of Clause 96. That is the point. Obviously it is not worth while pursuing. The House is in possession of the arguments on both sides, and, having said that, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.28 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 73, line 39, at end insert—
(" (4) Nothing contained in this section shall render it an unfair industrial practice for any person to publish any matter upon an occasion privileged within the meaning of the Defamation Act 1952 as amended by any subsequent Act or to publish, whether orally or in writing his honest opinion on a matter of public interest.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure that anybody moving a further Amendment to this Bill ought not to begin by expressing an apology. I do not propose to do so in this case, for two reasons. The first is because after 19 days, and having completed more than half of the Report stage, the Government at half-past two this afternoon were still going to move a further 76 Amendments, of which 16 appeared on the Marshalled List for the first time this morning. Secondly, we are not on this clause discussing trade unions or employers' associations. This is the one clause on which we are not; it is the one clause which excludes trade unions and employers' associations, or persons acting for them. Here we are discussing you and me and the whole of the general public. What we are dealing with is freedom of speech; and experience has shown that Parliament has, rightly, always been extremely vigilant in the whole field of freedom of speech.
I start from this point of view. Our law is not as well arranged or as systematically arranged as it should be, although it is improving; but, of course, when a lawyer is asked anything about the law the first thing he has to do is to ascertain what is the category of law in question.
132
If the client says"If I do this, shall I be committing a criminal offence?"then the lawyer knows where he is: he is in the field of criminal law. If there is a contract concerned, or a possible breach, then he is in the field of contract and he knows that he is dealing with the law of contract. If it is a question of a tort, the law saying that you must not defame your neighbour or trespass on your neighbour's property, then the lawyer says,"Well, I know the principle of the law of tort, and I know where I am ".
But I think it is essential to realise that in this Bill we have a wholly new thing which no lawyer has ever seen before, which he knows nothing about and which does not fall into any known category. It is a thing called an"unfair industrial practice ". It may concern a contract or a breach of contract, but it is not part of our law of contract. It may result in the man's being sent to prison for not obeying an order. It is not called an injunction but a new thing,"an order in the nature of an injunction ". But it does not create a criminal offence, and it is not part of our criminal law. Knowingly to induce A to break his contract with B, so that B suffers damage, is under our law an actionable tort. This unfair industrial practice is not a tort, and by a later Amendment the Government are making that clear by saying that the Industrial Court shall not be entitled to hear any action of tort. So it is something quite new and something to which none of the existing rules applies.
It was in these circumstances that during the Committee Stage fears were expressed about your right and my right to freedom of speech, and the particular risk which might attach to the Press. There are two things to be said about this. The right to express your honest opinion on a matter of public interest is not, and never has been, a special right of the Press. It is your right, and my right and everybody's right. Of course it applies to the Press, but it applies to everybody else as well. But the statement made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor last time, to the effect that he did not really think the Press ought to have any special privileges, is certainly not a view that has ever been taken by Parliament.
The foundation of the right of the Press to report proceedings in Parliament, however damaging it may be, however defamatory, or however much it may cause people to break contracts, depends on the Parliamentary Publications Act 1840. The right of the newspapers to publish fair and accurate reports of what goes on in court, no matter what the consequences to third parties may be, depends on the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act 1888, and for the rest, it depends very much on the Defamation Act 1952, which largely codified the law in this field, much of which up to that point had been case law. The Act relates to existing defences of justification and fair comment, but in Section 7, newspapers are given, subject to certain conditions, a qualified privilege, and Parliament thought it right that newspapers should be in that special position. The section says:
" Subject to the provisions of this section, the publication in a newspaper "—
it applies only to newspapers—
" of any such report or other matter as is mentioned in the Schedule to this Act shall be privileged unless the publication is proved to be made with malice."
Part I of the Schedule relates in the main to reporting proceedings of other legislatures and reports of proceedings in courts—international courts and so forth. Part II includes these words—I will not read them all:
" A fair and accurate report of the findings or decision of any of the following associations, or of any committee or governing body thereof, that is to say…
"(b) an association formed in the United Kingdom for the purpose of promoting or safeguarding the interests of any trade, business, industry or profession, or of the persons carrying on or engaged in any trade, business or profession, industry and empowered by its constitution to exercise control over or adjudicate upon matters connected with the trade, business, industry or profession, or the actions or conduct of those persons;"
So, whatever inducement that may cause to other people in defamation—but, of course, not in relation to the hitherto unheard of"unfair industrial practice"the Press—was protected in a publication of that kind.
Then there is this passage:
" A fair and accurate report of the proceedings at any public meeting held in the United
134
Kingdom, that is to say, a meeting bona fide and lawfully held for a lawful purpose and for the furtherance or discussion of any matter of public concern, whether admission to the meeting is general or restricted."
Then it goes on to include fair and accurate reporting of the proceedings of local authorities, tribunals and general meetings of companies and so forth. But of course this protects a newspaper only from proceedings in defamation and certainly does not cover what in this Bill is called"an unfair industrial practice."
It was in those circumstances that in Committee my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, put down an Amendment for the protection of the Press. He raised a perfectly simple case, which was of this nature. A local reporter goes along to a factory where a public meeting is being held at the gates and a small number of employees are being addressed by a man who, rightly or wrongly, is saying,"Our working conditions in this factory have become so intolerable that we really have no alternative except to walk out." The journalist reports this and makes a fair and accurate report of the meeting. He says,"I went into the factory myself. I saw that the working conditions were exactly as this man had described them. I sympathised with them, and if I had been one of them I would have come out myself." As nine-tenths of the workers in the factory read that local newspaper, this has the effect of inducing them to come out.
My noble friend Lord Stow Hill, said that he did not think it right that in such a case the journalist should be liable for an unfair industrial practice. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in replying did not deal with this example in any way at all. He did not say that any man who reports a speech like that which leads to a strike ought to be penalised in damages, or what is called"compensation ". You cannot bring an action for damages, but you can make a complaint the result of which is that you are awarded compensation. The terminology is entirely new; but it seems to come to the same thing and if the result were a strike tens of thousands of pounds might be involved. The noble and learned Lord did not say,"I think it is right that in those circumstances that man should be ruined for life ". He did not say,"Oh no, such a man would not be liable at all ", nor did he explain why. What he said was that he did not think the Press

135
should be in a different position from the rest of us and any Amendment which dealt simply with the Press would not have his approval. He then proceeded to make a number of objections to the drafting of the clause.
It is in those circumstances that I have ventured to put down this Amendment to provide that:
" Nothing contained in this section shall render it an unfair industrial practice for any person to publish any matter upon an occasion privileged within the meaning of the Defamation Act 1952 as amended by any subsequent Act…".
These, after all, are the occasions on which so far Parliament has thought that, so long as what is said is fair and accurate, there should be a measure of privilege. In order to meet the noble and learned Lord's point that it should not relate solely to the Press, it goes on:
" …or to publish, whether orally or in writing his honest opinion on a matter of public interest."
Later on the Marshalled List, my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, has down Amendment No. 92. This is again dealing only with the Press, and I can save the time of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, by telling him that it is exactly the same as my noble friend's Amendment at Committee stage, except that he has carefully taken into account every objection to his draft made by the noble and learned Lord, and removed every one of them; so it is the same as it was except that it has not now got any of the objections with which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, answered. No doubt it might be convenient to discuss to some extent No. 92 at the same time. I do not know; that is a matter for your Lordships.
But there is here, I think, a real threat, not merely to the freedom of the Press but to the freedom of all of us to say what we think on a matter of public interest. The freedom which hitherto has been given by Parliament to the Press in circumstances in which it is not given to anybody else is not given to the Press for the purposes of the Press. Privilege in defamation is never given for the benefit of the defendant. Privilege is almost always what is called qualified privilege; that is, the right to say what you honestly think, without malice, on a particular kind of occasion. Some-
136
times it is absolute privilege, which is a terrible power because absolute privilege means that even if you know that what you are saying is untrue, even if you say it maliciously and even if you damage other people, there can still be no action. We have—I think quite rightly—limited this privilege to two classes of people: Members of your Lordships' House and of the House of Commons for what they say in Parliament; and all those in our Law Courts, whether judges, lawyers or witnesses, for what they say in court. That is not for their benefit, but because we thought that in those two special cases it was so important in the public interest that people should be absolutely free to speak their minds without having to worry whether there could possibly be a libel action.
The qualified privilege which has been given to the Press provided that 'they do not act maliciously is not for their benefit but because it is to the advantage of all of us that we know what is going on. We should get fair and accurate reports of what is being said at public meetings and if there is controversy—even industrial controversy—we should know accurately what is being said on both sides. For that reason I submit that some protection is necessary here both for the Press and for ordinary people who are saying what they honestly think on a matter of public interest. I beg to move.
9.44 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment which has been so admirably moved by my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner. After the debate we had in Committee on the new clause moved by my noble friend, Lord Stow Hill, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, pointed out that the clause as then proposed really weakened the position of the journalist. Several comments were also made about the privilege of a journalist. As a journalist myself, I would point out that while there is a great deal to be said—and I think it is right in concept—against journalists' having a special privilege, nevertheless they must be more at risk by reason of their profession. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at Committee stage that the freedom of the Press to report events is the freedom of the man in the pub to talk about

137
them; that it is not different in character and does not depend on a man's acting as a professional journalist. But, of course, the journalist is more at risk, first because it is his work, whether in television, broadcasting or writing; and, secondly, because he hopes, if lie is at all a successful journalist, to reach a rather larger audience than the people scattered about a pub, otherwise he probably would not last very long as a journalist. I have been reading carefully what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said at the Committee stage, and have also discussed once again with the Secretary of the National Union of Journalists the feeling that there is still a risk in the Bill as it stands at the moment.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner explained—and it needs no elaboration from me—the introduction of the unfair industrial practice which brings a new concept and again a new risk to freedom of speech. I think that an improvement has been made in the Bill, and I personally am grateful for the Government's acceptance of the word"knowingly"throughout the Bill before the word"induced ". Nevertheless, doubts still remain. Until the Bill, when it becomes an Act, has been working for some time we shall not know whether the law as it stands in the Bill at the moment can be used against journalists, or indeed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner says, against any person. We have at the moment a very distinguished ex-Lord Chancellor taking the view that there is a risk; we have the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack (unless he has had a change of mind) now taking a different view. I do not think it will be possible every time a journalist—in this case an industrial correspondent—is about to write an article to 'phone up the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to ask,"Do you think I am at risk about this? ". Having read the noble and learned Lord's predecessor's paper on the work of the Lord Chancellor I should have thought he had enough to do without giving advice to journalists.
What I think is also a great source of worry is the effect this can have even though there may not be in fact any practical result. This is the aura of caution that it will spread, and this is
138
something on which a great many responsible journalists who are industrial correspondents feel very strongly. The fact that there is this law, if the Bill is left as it is at the moment, in operation will inhibit editors, will encourage them to take a more cautious view, and one could get (which I think would be unfortunate) in the future a situation in this country where it is all right to"have a bash"at the unions or at strikers but quite wrong to criticise employers and to show up any faults which they may have. This would seem to me to be a dangerous development of what we like to feel is our freedom of speech in this country, and I think it is something that needs to be watched and, indeed, needs an Amendment in this Bill.
I personally should be quite prepared to accept either the Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner or a later Amendment, No. 92, which, with its alteration, is to be moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill. Both deal with the same point but in a different way. The Amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner is shorter and it also widens the concept because it includes"any person"rather than restricting it to journalists. Whether the last part of it, following the word"Act"in line 4, may be considered by some noble Lords as taking rather too wide a view, I do not know. If so, it may be possible to amend it again by shortening it. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill's Amendment, No. 92, seems to me now to have answered some of the criticisms of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. If I may say so, with great respect, as someone who is semiliterate legally, it seemed to me clear when he moved a similar Amendment at Committee stage that the onus was not put on the defendant, but now (and I think this must be one of the main points of the noble and learned Lord's opposition to the Amendment) this has been spelled out. Whatever is decided, I hope that noble Lords will recognise the anxiety felt about this particular matter. Something should be done in this Bill to allay that anxiety, and whether it is done by way of one Amendment or another, the main thing is that the situation should be clarified and the concern mitigated.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, may I ask a question here? Are not the protections which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is seeking in his Amendment covered by Clause 132? I thought that in this Clause the words,
" act…in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute…"
gave the Press the protection they need. I do not quite understand this, and it is the reason for my question.
LORD GARDINER: No, my Lords. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will agree with me that that clause does not afford any cover in respect of freedom of speech.
9.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at all to Amendment No. 92, which has a number of built-in arguments of its own which are quite peculiar to it, and which we can deal with when we come to it. There is nothing more hopelessly boring than for two lawyers to start contradicting one another in public, nor anything more confusing to either House of Parliament. But some of the things the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said were so inaccurate and so misleading—and they succeeded in misleading the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—that I must try to get rid of some of them.
In the first place, he said that this was a totally new thing coming on the law. With respect, this is approximately the opposite of the truth. Under the Common Law of England, inducing a breach of contract is a tort; it always has been rather more so than now, but it is a tort at Common Law. Under the Trade Disputes Act 1906. this was restricted by eliminating from the ambit of the tort contracts of employment if the inducement was in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute; but otherwise it was still a tort at Common Law, and it is now. The Government, in the course of this Bill, have decided to remove that tort. That is to say, the Bill does not impose a new liability; it removes an old one: and that (although I think my noble friend Lord Balfour misread the clause) is the purpose of Clause 132. The removal from the field of tort applies not merely to the old limitation, as it was enacted in 1906, to contracts of employ-
140
ment. You cannot sue now for inducing a bearch of contract in furtherance of a trade dispute, whether it is a contract of employment or not, if the Bill goes through. That is the old law. It has been known from time immemorial; that is to say, since inducing a breach of contract was recognised as a separate tort. And in its limited form—that is to say, excluding contracts of employment in relation to acts done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute—it remains the law until this Bill becomes law.
What this Bill does is to eliminate that from the field of tort, and to impose a liability of a much more restricted kind under Clause 96. It is limited to actions which are defined and restricted under Clause 96, and it is limited in the further way that when you come before the Industrial Court to complain you are not, as you were previously at law, entitled to your remedy as of right. You are entitled to your remedy only if you can establish to the satisfaction of the Court that it is just and equitable to get it. Thus what we have done is not to impose a new liability, as the noble and learned Lord led the noble Baroness erroneously to suppose, but to take away an old one and substitute a much more restricted one, which results in a discretionary remedy and not an automatic remedy. So let us get that absolutely plain at the beginning.
Secondly, contrary to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said, I was at great pains to point out during the Committee stage that, whether or not it be true that journalists are in the law of libel peculiarly vulnerable to actions—which I think is manifestly the case—that is not true in relation to actions for inducing a breach of contract. Although actions for inducing a breach of contract are actions to which journalists and everybody else have been liable, and from the year dot, over the whole field, except the restricted one, since 1906, not one action could I find in which they had been subjected to the law, in contrast to the vast catalogue of actions which appear every year in cases of defamation. I presume that, had I been wrong or insufficient in my researches, one of the noble and learned Lords opposite would have been only too pleased to point out my error. So the evidence is that far from being

141
particularly vulnerable to this kind of action, journalists are not more vulnerable than any ordinary human beings. In fact, they are not vulnerable at all.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, none of this was done within the context of the Industrial Relations Bill, and the sort of legislation that is now going through. This is a different situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Baroness is wholly misunderstanding the trend of my argument. Journalists have always been vulnerable to far more extensive actions for inducing a breach of contract, most of which we are removing except in this restricted sphere; but the fact is that they have never been sued. Not only is the case that they are particularly vulnerable to actions of this kind not made out at all, but the presumptive case against it is absolutely overwhelming. I am not going to deal any further with the specific position of journalists under this Amendment (although I shall have to refer to them again under Amendment No. 92 when it is moved) because this Amendment is not restricted to journalists. So far as I can make out, it applies by reference—and a more extraordinary proposal for legislation by reference I have seldom seen—the whole of the law of defamation in relation to qualified privilege and fair comment to everybody, whether journalists or not. That is the proposal which is solemnly put before the House. Why it should be thought that the particular defences, the logical criteria, which are available in an action of libel or slander should be particularly relevant to actions under this Bill before the Industrial Court for inducing a breach of contract, I am not able to understand.
The next thing which emerges from this particular Amendment is that, quite contrary to what the noble and learned Lord said in his opening speech, I was at particular pains to attack the underlying philosophy of an Amendment of this kind at its root. Once one has accepted that"inducing"means"knowingly induce "—which it always did, but which in order to avoid the smallest degree of doubt I have willingly had inserted in the Bill so that we now know it beyond peradventure—the whole of this kind of defence becomes superfluous because no fair and
142
accurate report of what is said at a public meeting, whether it is by a journalist or a member of the public, is an inducement to breach of contract.
In order to achieve that result, we now know that it has to be done knowingly and with the intention to produce the result. No comment can be either and be a fair expression of opinion on a matter of public interest. If, on the other hand, it is established that what is done is done deliberately to induce a breach of contract, within any meaning for the purposes of defamation so far as it is applicable to this Bill or can be applied to this Bill at all clearly, the defence of fair comment"would disappear in smoke, because if one thing is certain about the defence of fair comment it is that it must be in good faith and without an oblique motive. There the oblique motive would be established by the complainant before the start. The point about this Amendment is that it is both unnecessary and objectionable, and I advise the House to reject it.
10.3 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but merely to comment on what has been said. Certainly I did not understand my noble and learned friend—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for a moment. I do not complain in the least, I am only pointing out that what he is about to do—that is to say, after the Government's reply to make another speech—is exactly what was complained of about my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn earlier in the afternoon.
LORD STOW HILL: Certainly I considered I was winding up the debate. That is what I thought I was expected to do, and if the House is prepared to listen I should very much like to address the House.
I did not understand my noble and learned friend to be saying anything other than that there was a new concept—namely, that of an unfair industrial practice—introduced by this Bill. He is not criticising it; he simply says it is a fact. With that new concept introduced a state of some uncertainty exists as to how the position of the journalist is left. I should have thought that that was obviously

143
right. In my view, my noble friend Lady Birk put her finger upon a very important point, that we are anxious not to inhibit journalists from freely exercising their profession. It would be a great misfortune if uncertainty spread as to whether a journalist could be at risk if he were somewhat too outspoken and if, as a result, over the years editorial offices started issuing cautions and saying to their staff,"If you wish to bash strikers "—that was the noble Baroness's phrase—" go ahead; you are perfectly safe so long as you have regard to the law of libel. If, on the other hand, you feel in honour bound to support them, if you feel that they have a very strong case indeed and you cannot conscientiously, and having regard to your responsibility, write without expressing a strong opinion that they ought to do what their leaders say and strike, then you are on dangerous ground. Watch your step."
Now the difficulty in this sort of situation is that these results creep in insidiously. They do not creep in in six months; they creep in in a year. What happens is that after some time the matter is perhaps tested in the courts, and it may turn out that a particular journalist, because he has used rather extravagant language in perfectly good faith, and well within the bounds of what we accept as the normal limits of free speech in this country, has gone to the length of saying to them,"I think you ought to strike ". I do not want to go again through the elements of"inducing"and"knowingly inducing ": we have had them over and over again, and it would not assist your Lordships to rehearse them still once more. I have submitted to the House before, and I feel I must submit again, this case. Suppose you have a journalist who honestly thinks that they ought to strike and says so; who says so in editorial comment, who says so in no unmeasured terms and who may be absolutely right in saying so, who may be saying perfectly justly what they ought to do. It may be the case that he is knowingly inducing them to break their contract of employment, and that by so doing he renders himself liable under the Bill to pay what may be to him a perfectly crippling sum by way of compensation. I know that this is a new and discretionary jurisdiction, but the courts must administer it as they find it formu-
144
lated in the text of the Bill. That is what my noble and learned friend was saying, I thought so cogently, in moving his Amendment.
I hope that the Government, even at this late stage, will realise that here at least there is a danger; and if there is a danger I would have thought the logical result would be that someone should do something to try to provide a special protection for the journalist. I have had another try, as my noble and learned friend has said, in the Amendment which I have put down, to take account of the criticisms that were made; but whether it will be useful to take up your Lordships' time by moving that Amendment when its turn comes I very much doubt in view of what has been said. However, I do ask your Lordships to give further thought to this attempt by my noble and learned friend to which I have added my name.
I should like to say this to the Government. One criticism which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made was that this Amendment went too far, and I think he was referring to the words
"…or to publish, whether orally or in writing his honest opinion on a matter of public interest."
The gravamen of the argument is that we should protect journalists, and, if I may say so with respect, it is a point that the particular words I have just cited give protection to people who cannot claim to be journalists or to be writing as such. I would simply ask the Government to consider between now and Third Reading whether, unless they think that really this risk is wholly elusive, which I do not, they could not accept the Amendment leaving out those last words. In other words, could they not accept that the privilege which is available to a journalist in terms of the 1952 Act should be made expressly available to him so as to protect him from any risk under Clause 96 of the Bill?
I want to say just one other thing. Some years back members of the Bar discovered, much to their dismay, that they might be held liable in negligence for the work that they did as barristers. So far as I know, no action has been brought against barristers for a century; and I would submit that it is not really conclusive at all to say that actions

145
have not been brought against journalists. Things were different in the last century. People's ideas were quite different. Legislation dealing with industrial action had not got very far. It did not get to a key point until 1906, when one had the Trade Disputes Act. I would submit that the mere fact that there were no actions in very different circumstances, when thinking and social conditions were utterly different from what they are to-day, is not really a reliable indication that journalists are safe. That is what I should like to say in reply, and I hope the House will take it. I do not know whether my noble and learned friend wishes to add anything. I hope, therefore, that the Government, if they feel they cannot accept the whole Amendment, will accept at any rate that part of it which incorporates the relevant provisions of the 1952 Defamation Act.
10.10 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, we shall have an opportunity to consider this matter again when discussing Amendment No. 92. I do not therefore wish to take up further time, but as a matter of courtesy—no: I need not trouble the House; I was going to make a further reply to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, but I see that he is not in the Chamber.
I am naturally disappointed. My Amendment is not limited to journalists. Perhaps for the Record I should refer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that we are all protected by Clause 132, and point out that is not so, because that deals with a tort. We all understand the position about torts. That is now removed. That will be further made plain by Amendment 91H, a Government Amendment:
146
" The Industrial Court shall not have any jurisdiction except that…expressly conferred on it by or under this Act; and accordingly that Court…shall not entertain any proceedings in tort…"
So we are not dealing with tort at all. We are not dealing with inducing a breach of contract as such; we are not dealing with a breach of contract. We are dealing solely with this new thing, an unfair industrial practice, on which a complaint can be made and on which a court can make, not an injunction, we are told, but an order in the nature of an injunction, and award not damages but compensation.
It is different from the old tort of inducement of breach of contract because there you always had the defence of justification. If in all the circumstances the court thought you were justified in doing what you had done you were not liable. That defence has been taken away in relation to this new unfair industrial practice. My Lords, I am disappointed. It is a matter, I should have thought, of serious consideration whether there should not be occasions on which, not in the interests of an individual but in the public interest, there should be a measure of protection, particularly for people who are doing no more than honestly saying what they think on an important matter of public interest, even though perhaps, because that person is in a particularly influential position, or is writing in a local newspaper with a wide circulation, it has the effect of leading to men saying,"I really cannot put up with these working conditions any longer." Having settled that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 97 [Industrial action in support of unfair industrial practice]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is one of the sequences that I explained fully and that we discussed fully before. I beg to move Amendment No. 81A.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 40, at beginning insert (" Subject to subsection (3) of this section ".)—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is the next in the same series. I beg to move Amendment No. 81B.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, leave out lines I to 3 and insert (" further any action which has been taken, whether by him or by any other person, and which, in accordance with any provision of this Act, constituted an unfair industrial practice ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment 81D.
Page 74, line 5, leave out (" procuring or financing ") and insert (" or procuring ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment occurs in the clause dealing with industrial action in support of unfair industrial practice, the first subsection of which states that
" It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person…to take any of the steps specified in the next following subsection,".
The next following subsection states
" The steps referred to in the preceding subsection are—

(a) calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike."

The Amendment proposes those four steps should be reduced to three; namely, calling, organising or procuring a strike. We are told by the Government—and we accept it—that a mere contribution to a strike does not constitute an unfair industrial practice.
I do not wish to be unfair with the"sub-committee"going on on the Front Bench opposite, but this House is so ill-equipped for that kind of thing. There is over-close proximity, and I do not want to overhear, by mistake, what the
148
noble Lord is saying. As I was saying, it has been established that contributing to the funds of a strike is not an unfair industrial practice. But it is an unfair industrial practice for a person to pass the hat round for that purpose. This is carrying the matter too far. It is objectionable that pressure of this kind should be used in order to prevent a strike taking place. One offers no comment on the strike itself; the mere act of passing the hat round is itself an unfair industrial practice and one wants if possible to have that removed. I dwell upon this matter also because each of this series of steps, calling, organising, procuring, financing, constitutes an unfair industrial practice. If this Amendment were accepted one of those would be eliminated. The act of calling would still be an offence of this kind whatever kind it is. Organising would be one; procuring would be one.
It is because of this that I refer to the total number of these new offences created by this Bill. They were first calculated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, who said there were at least 179. I have always accepted his calculation. I like to get figures right in anything I say; if my figures are wrong I offer my apologies to the House. The figure is wrong and I offer my apologies to the House. The figure is not 179, it is 218. A list has been prepared and is available for checking by noble Lords opposite. This Bill introduces 218 different steps, each one of which constitutes an unfair industrial practice. It is not for me to say whether or not that is a tort. It is a new offence and that is apparently what the Government mean by their legal framework for industrial relations. There are 218 steps, each one of which constitutes an unfair industrial practice. It is one too many, and therefore I seek to persuade your Lordships to accept this Amendment which would reduce it to 217. I beg to move.
10.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must ask the pardon of the House if on this Amendment I show myself slightly more incoherent than I normally like to be. The reason is that I was given this block of Amendments to deal with but this particular one was marked as having been dealt with under

149
Clause 65 and no additional information was vouchsafed to me; and so I have had rather rapidly to procure the former brief which was supplied to my noble friend. I will not go into the, to my mind, absurd enumeration of possible unfair industrial practices in which the noble Lord has just indulged. It is achieved by an extreme form of pedantry which bears no relation to reality. Let me give an example. If a strike is called by a strike leader for one unfair industrial practice—let us say, to compel somebody to join the union to which he does not belong—that is one unfair industrial practice and that set of circumstances will constitute only one, however often it is redefined.
Quite obviously, when one is putting in a Bill the various steps which will constitute the instigation of a strike one will put in"procure ", one will put in"organise ", one will put in—which this Amendment seeks to take out"finance "; but it does not make three different sets of actions in relation to concrete circumstances. Only the most pedantic lawyer, familiar with the oldest and most obsolete forms of enumerating the counts in an indictment, could possibly start seriously to enumerate things in that way. When I gave, in a much earlier state of this Bill—so long ago that I am an older and a wiser man—the figure of 25 as being about right, I gave what was much more like the reality of the case. The difference is based on a difference of enumeration; it is based on the fact that my figure is a realistic one while the other is a fanciful one which could have been invented only by a follower of the Mediaeval School and the counting of angels on the point of an imaginary needle.
It might help if I were to start by explaining the reasons why financing industrial action imposes a liability upon those responsible. Liability for the unfair industrial practices which are enumerated is imposed on those responsible for initiating and furthering industrial action in the circumstances with which the various clauses deal. Instituting, calling, organising or procuring industrial action are various ways of describing the means of getting it under way. On the other hand, financing industrial action once it has
150
started is a means of ensuring that, for instance, the strike is effectively maintained and carried on. In practice, of course, some or all of these activities may, as I have already pointed out, be interrelated in point of time, and it is not possible to say whether or not one follows the other. The point is that, although each can be described as a separate activity, they are all directed to the same end: ensuring the effectiveness of the action in question.
Therefore it follows that where the promoter of industrial action is made liable under the Bill for proceedings before the Industrial Court, the person or organisation responsible incurs that liability whether he or it takes one or more of the promotional actions or whether they do so at the same or different periods of time. Thus, for instance, a trade union which supports a strike by paying out strike pay is just as much responsible for the strike as the person who called it or organised it.
Similarly, an employer who gives direct financial help to another employer to enable that other to institute and carry on a lockout is responsible for financing the lockout. At the Committee stage, doubts were expressed about the meaning of finance"in relation to the what are now Clauses 97 and 139. My noble friend undertook at that stage to write to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the points raised. I understand that my noble friend has carried out this undertaking. But from what I have said I hope it will he clear that the interpretation of the word"finance"in the context of these clauses, and in others where the same principle applies, cannot extend to cover anyone who is merely a source of funds or is participating in the supply of funds, whether or not he knows for what purpose they will be used. The person or organisation responsible for financing is the one who makes use of the funds to finance industrial action. He alone will be liable, if such action is liable, to proceedings before the Industrial Court as an unfair industrial practice or in respect of contravention of an emergency restraint order. In his letter to Lord Diamond, my noble friend gave two reasons why the National Insurance Act which was mentioned at the Committee

151
stage was not a relevant precedent in respect to the interpretation of"financing ". In the first place, that Act is concerned with assessing the rights of an individual employee to unemployment benefit where there is a strike at his place of work arising from a trade dispute in which he is assumed to have an interest. Secondly, it relates to the involvement of the individual employee in the trade dispute causing the stoppage of work, whereas this Bill is concerned only with those responsible for promoting the industrial action.
In the context of the Government Amendment to Clause 65(7), which I think has been passed, there are additional reasons for resisting the Amendments to delete"finance ". Clause 55(7) as amended will in part prohibit an organisation of workers from disciplining any of its members who refuse or fail to take part in a strike or other irregular industrial action that has been called otherwise than in support of an industrial dispute or the inducement which constituted an unfair industrial practice. The Amendments would have the effect of enabling an organisation to take such disciplinary action against members, provided that it had merely been given financial support for the strike without actually organising or procuring it. For example, a group of its members might unofficially cause a strike for purely political motives for which the organisation gave tacit support by subsequently granting strike pay to the participants. In this situation, the organisation will not be precluded from disciplining members who chose to ignore the strike call, but such an anomalous situation is clearly undesirable since it would encourage unofficial action as a way of getting round the restriction.
I hope your Lordships will therefore agree that there are sound reasons for asserting that those who finance industrial action must bear responsibility for the effects of that action. I have also tried to show that in the context of the relevant clauses, the word"financing"cannot be interpreted to include those who are not themselves responsible for initiating or furthering the action in question. I would ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
10.29 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long; but it seems to me that some indication should be given of what seems to me to be the effect of the inclusion of these words in the Bill in the light of the explanation contained in the letter which Lord Drumalbyn so courteously sent to my noble friend (and of which he was good enough to give me a sight) and in view of the explanation of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. If I understand the position aright, we may well have the situation after the passage of the Bill, in which (shall we say for the purposes of the argument?) an unregistered organisation of workers embarks upon a dispute and other groups of workers—in the same trade union, the same organisation or possibly in other organisations or in registered trade unions—arrange collections for the assistance of those who have withdrawn their labour. That would be, as I understand it, an unfair industrial practice. It would be the case even if the collections were organised—as indeed such collections are organised—primarily for the humanitarian purpose of minimising the family suffering to which the strike gives rise. We have been told—and indeed it is not surprising because it was put fairly clearly in the Bill—that those who organise such assistance to fellow workers can themselves be regarded as guilty of unfair industrial action and proceedings can be initiated against them. This seems to be an extraordinary situation to find in a Bill which is supposed to be dealing with the amelioration of industrial relations. I should have thought that such a development, if I have correctly understood it, far from ameliorating industrial relations would do much to embitter them.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships unduly at this hour of the night, but what my noble friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has said echoes my own views on the matter. I can only repeat that I think it is objectionable in the extreme to include passing the hat round as"an unfair industrial practice ". It means, as my noble friend has said, that the rest of the argument cannot take place except under duress and hardship of one kind or another.

153
I must return for one moment to the 218 steps. From what the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack has said, there is no doubt that if we remove this further offence by accepting the Amendment then the number of steps would be reduced by one. There would still be all these others. It makes it perfectly clear that we are right in what we say—not pedantic, not counting angels but just counting the steps created by the Government as creating offences. It is too late to pursue the matter unduly and we still have an enormous Marshalled List in front of us, so I shall not seek to take up time by dividing your Lordships' House. We are totally unsatisfied with the position, but all I can do in the circumstances is to seek permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 81C:
Page 74, line 9, at end insert—
(" (3) Any steps taken or threatened to be taken by a trade union or an employers' association for the purpose of furthering any action which—

(a)has been taken by one or more officials or members of the trade union or employers' association; and

(b)constituted an unfair industrial practice by virtue only of section 96 of this Act,

shall not be an unfair industrial practice by virtue of this section.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. This is the last of the series which I explained some time ago on Clauses 96 and 97, and is in fact the one I have described which makes it plain that a union which endorses officially an unofficial action does not thereby become liable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Industrial action against extraneous parties]:
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82:
Amendment moved—
Page 74, line 19, after (" is,") insert (" knowingly ").—(Lord Gardiner.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.35 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 82F:
Page 74, line 20 leave out (" or to prevent him from performing it ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. At an earlier stage we indicated our general views on Clause 98, and a short while ago I referred to what appears to us to be the inequity of this group of clauses and the way in which the balance is tilted in the direction of the employer and against the employee. In those circumstances, and at this stage of the Bill, it can be our main objective only to try to remove from Clause 98 some of those phrases which make it as wide as it is. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to limit somewhat the effect of subsection (I) (b). I think its effect is clear enough from the wording. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 98 has a different purpose from Clause 96 or Clause 97. Clause 96 attacks inducing a breach of contract, subject to the limitations of that clause; Clause 97 renders unfair actions done in furtherance of actions which are already unfair industrial practices; but Clause 98 renders unfair as an industrial practice any specified steps taken in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute against an extraneous party to the dispute—that is, a person who has no direct interest in the dispute. The conditions for the application of the clause are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and this Amendment to line 20 is to omit part of paragraph (b), which says:
" his purpose or principal purpose in taking or threatening to take those steps is to induce that other person to break that contract or to prevent him from performing it;…"
The reason why we have these words in Clause 98 and not in Clause 96 or Clause 132 is explained by the different purpose of Clause 98, which is designed to protect extraneous parties. We think that it should be maintained in the clause, because it provides more protection in respect of inducement of breach of commercial contract in contemplation or in furtherance of an industrial dispute than the law as it now stands. For this reason we cannot accept the Amendment, which would destroy the balance of Clause 98 that we have set out to create.

155
Apart from that, there is a sound reason for making interference in a contract, by preventing its performance, an unfair industrial practice under this clause. There are contracts, many of a long-term nature, whose execution can be stopped completely at a given point in time without, technically, any breach having occurred. However, the loss to the parties to the contract can be just as great as if the contract had actually been breached. Since we have given specific protection to this type of damaging interference in Clause 132 and have not made it an unfair industrial practice under Clause 96, we would indeed be remiss under this clause if, in seeking to protect innocent third parties against industrial action directed against their commercial contracts, we were to exclude a deliberate act of interference which prevented the execution of the contract merely on the ground that no breach had actually resulted from that act. I would therefore ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD DELA COURT-SMITH: My Lords, I feel that my noble friends and I cannot withdraw this Amendment, but we do not propose to divide the House upon it. I think it is quite clear from the speech that has been made by the noble and learned Lord that the observations I made earlier upon the general effect and balance of these clauses were quite justified.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 82H:
Page 74, line 27, leave out from"not"to"taken"in line 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82H. It is consistent with the view which I expressed on the earlier Amendment that we on this side of the House regard the definition of"extraneous party"given in this clause as an excessively wide one. In particular, it is hard to see the justification for the particular phrase which the Amendment seeks to delete from the Bill. In the circumstances in which this paragraph would have application, there would be a dispute between a trade union and an employer. It would be a dispute in which each side would be
156
using such resources as were available to it, and in which each side would no doubt be anxious to maximise the support which it could receive from other parties.
Subsection 2(b) deals with the situation of a person who has taken action in material support of a party to the dispute. It does not seem to us to matter whether that action has been taken in contemplation or furtherance of the trade dispute or not. The action, by definition, with which we are concerned is action which is in material support of a party to the dispute. In those circumstances, it would seem to us quite logical and proper to omit these words which the Amendment seeks to delete. The material question before us surely is whether in fact action which is taken by another party does or does not support a party to the dispute. It is not the motives of the individual who takes the action but whether indeed his action does or does not bring support to a party in dispute. For it to be said that for an individual whose action does give such material support to a party, to be an extraneous party merely because he has not taken the action which objectively is a factor in the situation, specifically in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute, is quite illogical and unreasonable and we would ask your Lordships to delete these words. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a new Amendment, being a starred one, and I am a little surprised to see it put down on the Marshalled List. The subsection with which the Amendment deals is subsection (2). Clause 98, as I explained in relation to the last Amendment, renders it an unfair industrial practice to take action of the specified kind against parties who are not parties to the industrial dispute, referred to in the side note as"extraneous parties "—innocent third parties. For the purposes of that subsection a person is regarded as an extraneous party or innocent third party in relation to an industrial dispute if he is not a party to that dispute and he has not taken, in contemplation or furtherance of the dispute, any action in material support of the parties to it.
The noble Lord solemnly proposes to leave out the words"in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute ". The

157
effect of that would be that anybody who at any time had given material support to a party who happened to be a party to the dispute would not be regarded as extraneous; and it would involve all those who had commercial contracts, or who perhaps at some time had lent money to a party to the dispute even though they had no bearing on the dispute at all, to be hit out at blindly, and if it were passed the Amendment would be a licence to hit out blindly against absolutely innocent third parties.
Anyone who, by means of a normal commercial contract to supply goods or services, has taken action materially to support the activities of an employer—or, I suppose, a trade unionist—who is a party to an industrial dispute, might be regarded as involving himself, even though the contract has no bearing whatever on the industrial dispute in question. A customer of the party in dispute, who has undertaken to receive goods from that party, might be regarded as being involved in the dispute and so legitimately liable to industrial action, even though the contract has nothing to do with the dispute and he has no interest one way or another. I suppose it could mean that any person who had given financial assistance to a party to a dispute could also be regarded as being involved when, quite obviously, that kind of assistance might have no bearing at all on the dispute in question. That is what the noble Lord has proposed, and I do not advise the House to accept the Amendment.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, we are of course dealing with situations, as I sought to describe, in which an industrial dispute is taking place. I think it is a travesty of the facts to suggest that in such a situation it is the custom of trade unions to strike out quite wildly and indiscriminately. It has been their custom in certain sets of circumstances, either through their own trade union or, in some cases, through the action of friendly trade unions, to take action against parties other than those who are direct parties to the dispute.
What this Bill seeks to do in this particular section is to circumscribe the freedom of action in such situations as narrowly as possible. I am bound to say that I believe the form of words which we have before us does circumscribe trade
158
union activity quite unreasonably in this way, and I would still urge your Lordships to delete the words which are specified in the Amendment. However, again I recognise that this is not a matter on which it is profitable in the light of our time-table to divide the House. Although I do not feel able to withdraw the Amendment, I shall not divide the House upon it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 74, line 31, after (" section ") insert (" as a party to an industrial dispute or ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that an employer who is an associated employer in relation to a party to a dispute, or who is a member of the same organisation of employers, or who contributes to an indemnity fund, shall not for those reasons alone be considered to be either a party to a dispute or to be materially supporting a party to a dispute.
Your Lordships will by now bear in mind that the purpose of Clause 98 is to make unfair the calling of industrial action against someone not in any way involved in the dispute with the purpose of interfering in a commercial contract between him and a party to the dispute. Subsection (2), which we have already discussed in connection with an earlier Amendment, makes it clear that to qualify to be considered as an"extraneous party ", the person concerned must not participate in the dispute either as a party to it or by giving material support to one of the parties in contemplation of it.
During the Committee stage an assurance was given on behalf of the Government that the mere fact of association between two companies does not necessarily mean that each of them must automatically be regarded as participating in a dispute to which the other is a party. Similarly, the mere general contribution to an indemnity fund not related to a specific dispute should not imply interference in a dispute merely on the ground that at some point in time someone who is a party to a dispute can take advantage of the fund.
The three conditions set out in subsection (3) as now drafted do not for that reason alone imply that material support

159
is being given to a party to a dispute. It was thought reasonably self-evident, for reasons that I have given, that none of these conditions could raise any presumption that someone was participating in a dispute, as a party to it, unless the facts showed this to be so. For instance, a member of a large employers' association would not be presumed to be a party to a local dispute—perhaps on some matter of internal policy—involving another member in a different part of the country. Or, to take another example, a member of a large conglomerate organisation would not be presumed to be a party to a dispute affecting another member in a different industry, perhaps in another part of the country, when the dispute did not concern his industry or his company.
All that the Amendment does is to make this clear. It sets out that an associated employer, a member of the same employers' organisation, or an employer who makes a contribution to a general indemnity fund, shall not for that reason alone be unable to claim the status of an"extraneous party"to a dispute, that is someone who is not actually involved in the dispute nor is materially supporting one of the parties to it. Obviously, if a person is participating in the dispute in either of these ways subsection (3) will not protect him, and it will be perfectly legitimate for a union (or for that matter anyone else) to organise a strike against him for the purposes set out in subsection (1). I hope that this Amendment clarifies the Bill without really altering its sense, and for that reason I beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, as I have explained on earlier Amendments, my noble friends and I regard the terms of this clause, and particularly those of subsections (2) and (3), as too wide. In those circumstances we can hardly welcome any Amendment, however modest, which can have no effect but to widen them still further. In those circumstances I am afraid we cannot on this side give a welcome to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.56 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 82C:
Page 74, line 33, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although in the interests of saving the time of your Lordships' House I have abstained from moving a number of Amendments which we had on the Marshalled List bearing upon this clause, I feel that Amendment No. 82C is one upon which I should state the case to your Lordships. If we turn to the definition of associated companies in the definition clause, which has now reached the number of 163, we find that in subsection (6) of that clause on page 125, it says:
" For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control; and in this Act associated employer' shall be construed accordingly."
We are dealing here with a situation in which an industrial dispute has arisen with an employer who has associations as close as this definition indicates with other companies. It is a most reasonable expectation that with companies so intimately associated assistance of various kinds will be made available in various ways to the employer who is the direct party to the industrial dispute. It may not be easy for any outsider to establish precisely what steps are being taken within this close association of companies to bring assistance to the employer who is directly involved in the dispute; but it would hardly be surprising if trade unions made an assumption, or if trade unions, upon some evidence which appeared to them to be sound, took the view that this close association between the companies concerned was leading to some assistance being given to the employer who was directly involved in the dispute. It appears to us to be almost an academic step to seek to suggest that an associated employer is entitled to be regarded as a person extraneous to the dispute and as not having taken any action in material support of the employer who is party to it. In those circumstances we believe it would be reasonable to omit this paragraph from the subsection. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we have threshed this out so thoroughly on Committee—and to some extent I did anticipate a little the merits of this proposed Amendment when I was

161
proposing my own clarificatory Amendment a few moments ago—that I almost hesitate to say anything by way of amplification; but I must just summarise our reasons against it because it is in fact a complete reversal of the presumption that we are seeking to make in this paragraph (a), the association of employers, for the purposes of this clause. Clause 98 makes unfair industrial actions against parties who are extraneous to the dispute. That, I am afraid, I have said too often, but it is a basic conception in approaching any of the Amendments on this clause. Subsection (1) gives the conditions in which the subsection bites; subsection (2) gives the definition of"extraneous party "; subsection (3) is for the purpose of establishing that three classes of person do not in fact, by reason only of belonging to that class, become parties to the dispute, and the first class is that of an associated employer.
The Amendment seeks to overcome this presumption in relation to the associated employer, and to say that, notwithstanding that the associated employer is working in perhaps quite a different industry, notwithstanding that he is working in quite a different part of the country, he must, by that fact alone, be regarded as a party to any industrial dispute in which that employer became involved even though he had no connection with the dispute in question. That is the proposition to which we are asked to subscribe as"almost academic "—I think those were the noble Lord's words. We regard it as not only not academic but singularly perverse to make that the case, if, as I suppose, this Amendment is to be read with the new subsection (4) which is to be proposed later in amendment 82E—which I think is a legitimate assumption. I have repeatedly made it plain that if an associated employer does take action of the kind specified in subsection (2)(b) of the clause he is not protected by this subsection. On the contrary, he will then be involving himself in the dispute and thereafter any union will be entitled to take action against him of the kind which would otherwise be prohibited. So long as he does not involve himself in the dispute, we regard it as perverse to say that he is to be regarded as being involved, when in fact he is not, by reason solely of the fact that he is an associated employer
162
within the meaning of the Bill, and for that reason, which I have explained more than once, I would press the House not to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
11.5 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 82D:
Page 74, line 37, after (" contributed ") insert (" but has ceased to contribute ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82D. I hope that this may reasonably be regarded as an Amendment to clarify the present purpose of subsection (3)(c). Subsection (3)(c) states that a person shall not be regarded as having given material support to a party to a dispute merely by reason of the fact that he has contrbuted to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief. As at present drafted, the Bill does not say,"is contributing to a fund ", it says"has contributed to a fund ". We are therefore perhaps entitled to assume that this means that this is an act which has taken place and has been completed in the past. But there is, of course, an element of ambiguity here in the phraseology as it stands at present in subsection (3(c). Our Amendment seeks to clarify this by insisting that for a person to have the benefit of the exclusion which (3)(c) confers upon him from being regarded as in any way a party to a dispute, it should be clear that his contribution to the fund in question has ceased and that he is no longer contributing to the fund, that he is not engaged, for example, in some arrangement for periodic payments to the fund. I hope that your Lordships' House will feel able to accept this as a necessary clarification of subsection (3)(c). I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that again this is not entirely an unploughed field. The seed I am about to scatter upon it has been scattered before, although apparently it has failed to germinate in the minds of the Opposition Front Bench; but I will not weary in well doing. This Amendment raises an issue which we discussed at some length at the Committee stage. For our part, we cannot accept that a person who has contributed in the past to an indemnity fund, which had no bearing upon a current

163
dispute at the time when he made the contribution, should create any presumption that the contributor must, by that reason alone, be involved in a dispute to which some other contributor to the same fund is a party; and this must apply, in our belief, whether or not any further general contributions into the fund will be made.
The question of retrospective funding does not affect the merits of the case. I cannot imagine that there could be any need to give specific protection to somebody who at the time of the dispute is not even contributing to the fund which might be used to help an employer who is, or has been, involved. The question arises only in relation to payments which have been made at some time into a fund which was established without reference to a particular dispute, and we think that such contribution ought not, for that reason alone, to involve the contributor in any dispute for which the fund might thereafter be applied. I should have thought that this was fairly plain sailing. After all, the contributor cannot know at the time of the payment how the fund will be applied, or if it is applied at all. Nor can he get his money back if it is used in relation to a particular dispute in which he is not involved, and of which he may easily disapprove. He is in the same position in relation to the dispute as a member of a union who has paid a general contribution to a strike fund.
It is important to make it absolutely plain that the subsection does not protect a person who contributes to a fund raised specifically for the purposes of a particular dispute, and in that situation it will not even be necessary to know that he knows about the purposes of the fund, nor to establish that he is not an extraneous party. It is also important, in my respectful submission to the House, not to be led away entirely by the airy remarks from the Opposition Front Bench, suggesting that people do not hit out blindly in these cases. There are at least two reported cases in the last ten years—Stratford v. Lindley and Torquay Hotels v. Cousins—where the most blind hitting out took place. We are not talking about academic possibilities; we are talking about actualities. The fact that the noble Lord wants to
164
omit the protection given to contributors to a general indemnity fund, when the contributors cannot affect the outcome of the particular dispute and have parted with their money before they knew what the dispute was about, indicates that what we are talking about is not an academic possibility but a reality. For the reasons I have given, I fear more than once now, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friends and I are hardly likely to find that reply a very convincing one. As the noble and learned Lord has said, this is not the first occasion on which we have traversed this ground and I am sorry that the seed which he has sown so lavishly has on some occasions fallen on such stony ground. I think that this is an unworthy subsection. It clearly opens the way to a group of employers who have a fund for mutual self-defence. It may indeed be a fund deliberately launched in contemplation of a series of disputes with the trade unions, although when the employers launch the fund and make their contributions to it they cannot say precisely which employer will be involved at any time or what the issue of the dispute may be. But this subsection allows the employers who have established such a fund to be regarded, when the dispute actually arises, as parties extraneous to it. I think that is stretching common sense a little far. I think individuals should show that they have ceased to contribute to a fund and are not merely in the process of making their periodical contributions, as they could be if I read this subsection aright. Surely our Amendment, to ensure that they should show that they have ceased to contribute before they can he regarded as extraneous parties, is reasonable, and I am sorry that it does not commend itself to the Government.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 82B:
Page 74, line 42, at end insert (" or
(d)supplies goods to, or provides services for, a party to the industrial dispute in pursuance of a contract entered into before the industrial dispute began, or is a party to such a contract under which he is or may be required to supply goods to, or provide services for, a party to the industrial dispute.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to introduce into subsection (3), which we have been discussing, a new paragraph, (d). The intention of the Amendment is to make it plain that a person who has entered into a contract to supply goods or provide services, or who may be required to do so with another person who afterwards becomes a party to a dispute, shall not be regarded for that' reason alone as a party or as giving material support to the party, provided the contract was entered into before the dispute began. There has been continual and considerable discussion about the circumstances in which the actual performance of a commercial contract might be regarded as participation in the dispute. The Amendment seeks to clarify the position while maintaining a fair balance between the right of parties to the dispute involving secondary industrial action. Broadly speaking, its effect is that it will be unfair for a union to organise strike action against a contractor for the purpose of interfering with a contract made by him with the party to the industrial dispute before the dispute began, unless that contractor is involved in the dispute as a party or has been giving material support to the party otherwise than by the existence of the contract. Conversely, it will be legitimate for a union to organise action against a contractor who has entered into a contract with a party to the dispute after the dispute began unless the contractor can show that he is not in any way participating in the dispute.
We think this is a fairer balance as between the various interests than exists at present. There is at present no protection at all under the Act of 1906 against liability in tort for inducing a breach of contract other than a contract of employment, whether or not the action was done in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. There have been a number of cases in recent years involving what might be called secondary activities by unions; there have been a number of injunctions or awards for damages against them. The point is that the answer to the unfair industrial practice in Clause 98, that the person induced to break the commercial contract was giving support to the party to the industrial dispute, would not be available as such to the
166
respondents at common law, apart from this section. Therefore, we think it is reasonable to make it clear that the protection should not be available under the clause merely by reason of the fact that a contractor has entered into a contract with a party to the dispute before the dispute began. It will still be open to a union to show that, apart from that fact, he is indeed interfering in the dispute, and for that reason strike action against his contract is legitimate. In these circumstances, I beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: As I have said on earlier Amendments, I am conscious of the hour, and it would not be appropriate for me to speak at any length upon this Amendment. My noble friends and I have addressed ourselves to this question and we have put down a later Amendment, No. 82J, which in our view is a more reasonable way of dealing with this problem. In those circumstances although we cannot accept the terms of the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has proposed, I am not going to discuss it at length, nor to divide the House upon it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.20 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 82J:
Page 74, line 42, at end insert—
(" (4) A person shall be regarded as having taken action in material support of a party to an industrial dispute if such person enters or has entered into any arrangements with such party for the transfer to such person of the production or supply or any goods or the provision of any services theretofore produced or provided by such party, unless it is shown that such arrangements are or were made, as the case may be, on purely commercial considerations and independently of the existence of such industrial dispute and not with the intention of assisting such party in any way in relation to such industrial dispute.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg shortly to move this Amendment. It follows a path similar to that followed on the occasion of the last Amendment. It is, again, an attempt to give precision with regard to a person who is not involved in a dispute. It envisages the situation in which strike action has been taken against a particular company and then it is ascertained that another company, a second company, has had transferred to it the production of services or goods theretofore produced by the first

167
company. It is of course difficult for the union to ascertain in a situation of that sort whether the transfer of the production of goods or services is undertaken by the second company in order to assist the first company in the conduct of the industrial dispute or whether it has nothing to do with it.
What the Amendment seeks to do is to provide that where that has happened the onus should be upon the companies concerned to show that really that transfer had nothing to do with the industrial dispute, that it was arranged on purely commercial considerations and independently of the dispute, and that it was not undertaken with the intention on the part of the second company to assist the first company in the conduct of the industrial dispute. I submit that that does not conflict with the broad scheme of Clause 98. It simply isolates a case in which it is difficult in given circumstances to draw a conclusion as to whether the second company (in the example I have taken) should be regarded as having nothing to do with the dispute; and to make available, by shifting the onus of proof on to that company, information to show whether the transfer was for the purpose of assisting the company engaged in the dispute or had nothing to do with it. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this somewhat involved Amendment appears now on the Marshalled List for the first time; but in my submission we have already done what is just in this matter by the existing terms of Clause 98(2), for we have provided there a definition of an"extraneous party"which excludes a party who, in contemplation or furtherance of a dispute, has taken any action in material support of a party to it. It will be, I would have thought, for the Industrial Court before whom a complaint is made to decide whether the party is extraneous in that sense; in other words, to decide on evidence whether he has taken any action in material support of a party to the dispute. The effect of this rather involved subsection (4) which the noble Lord has proposed is to provide a presumption which would take away the discretion of the Court, in circumstances which are really not adequate, to define the meaning of"material support ".
168
Whether it is intended or not, the Amendment seems to give a definition of the meaning of"material support"for the purposes of this clause. If it does, and in so far as it does, the definition is quite defective, for it makes no mention of other forms of support which might be given, such as direct financial assistance by various means. For that reason alone I should have thought it was unacceptable. It is no benefit to try to shackle the court which is to decide a question, which is fundamentally a question of fact, by defining the words"material support ", even if it were possible to give an exhaustive definition of those words. Surely the sensible course must be to leave it to the court to decide the question in the circumstances of the case and on the evidence before it.
Secondly, and from our point of view more important, we cannot accept the presumption, whether couched in adequate terms or not, that a person is to be regarded as a party to any dispute, irrespective of the circumstances. We do not think it possible to legislate in those terms. What we have done in subsection (2)—I think it is all that we can do—is to make clear that a person will not be regarded as a participant if he is neither a party to the dispute nor has taken action in support of a party which clearly involves him in a dispute. The effect of the clause as it stands might very well be that which underlines the noble Lord's intention in moving this Amendment, but we think that should be left to the discretion of the court and to a full investigation of the circumstances of the case. For those reasons I do not find it possible to advise the House to accept this Amendment.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, it is a bit late in the night to enter into a duel with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, especially as he appears to want to use tractors or ploughs for duelling instead of words or pistols. But he said at the beginning of his remarks,"We think we have done what is just." I always thought that what is just ought to appear to be just. The suggestion of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith makes clear the meaning to people like me who have eventually to pass information to people down the industrial line. I suggest that if the

169
Government cannot accept the Amendment which we should like them to accept, at least they should find words which are clearer than those in Amendment No. 82B
LORD STOW HILL: My Lord, I do not think it would assist the House to prolong the discussion. I cannot accept for a moment that this shackles the Court in the least. It simply shifts the onus of proof in a given set of circumstances. The clause has been discussed, we have heard the answer, such as it is, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 [Complaint to Industrial Court of unfair industrial practice]:
11.29 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 83A:
Page 76, line 11, at end insert—
(" and
(d) is the person intended by the respondent to be directly affected by such action and has suffered loss as the immediate and proximate result of such action not being loss occasioned in any way indirectly as a consequence thereof.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment very shortly indeed. It relates to a point that I raised on Committee as to the words in Clause 101:
" the person against whom the action was taken."
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor felt that the Amendment that
I then suggested was not satisfactory and he undertook to reconsider the language. Our objective, I think, was exactly the same. Since then he has been so good as to reconsider the language and to write me a letter on it. I tried a"Mark II"Amendment which he dealt with in his letter and this really is a"Mark III"Amendment. I am not quite sure whether the noble and learned Lord has been able to consider this, and I simply put it before him. The characteristic which is introduced is that besides requiring that the complainant shall be the person against whom the action was taken, it requires that he shall be not only intended to be directly affected but also that he shall have suffered loss as the immediate result of the action, and not indirect loss. The merit of the Amendment is that it provides a second safeguard. The general
170
objective is a common one of both sides of the House—to avoid, in a given situation, a number of awards, all up to £100,000, being made in proceedings to different people who joined in those proceedings. I simply ask the noble and learned Lord, if he has been able to consider this"Mark III ", to say whether he thinks it is acceptable or not. If he has not yet had an opportunity of considering it—it was put down rather late—perhaps he would be so kind as to say that he will look at it in due course.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this Amendment was put down rather late and therefore I am reluctant to exclude altogether the possibility that I might think on it again, as the noble Lord has so plausibly asked me to do. I am anxious to keep any Amendments on Third Reading down to the absolute minimum, and I do not think that at the moment this Amendment is acceptable, for the reason that I am about to indicate. I do not think there is anything in substance or principle between the noble Lord and myself. I said this in Committee, and I still hold the same view after having heard the noble Lord again. What we all want to ensure is that a complaint under Clause 101 can be presented only by the party against whom an unfair industrial practice is directed. As I promised the House in Committee, I have looked again with the draftsmen at the wording of subsection (1)(c) of this clause. I have looked at it very carefully, and having done so I am bound to say that I think the present wording is preferable to that proposed by the noble Lord.
As regards Amendment 83A, in particular, I freely admit that the matter is not altogether easy, but I am not convinced that the Amendment adds to the clarity of the subsection. It still seems to me that the example I quoted in our earlier debate of the railway passengers still has a certain relevance. Moreover, Amendment 83A would, I feel, be rather too narrow, for two reasons. First, I do not think it can be for the complainant to prove what the respondent intended. The respondent may plead that his action was not intended to be directed towards the complainant; and that might well be a reason why the Industrial Court, after hearing both sides, might think it just

171
and equitable not to grant any remedy on the complaint, or to grant a declaratory order under Clause 101(3)(a). But it must surely be for the respondent to plead and argue that in answer to the complaint, and not for the complainant to establish the respondent's intentions.
Secondly, the reference to loss in the Amendment might be appropriate if compensation were the only remedy available to the Industrial Court. But that is not so. The remedy can be a declaration; it can be an Order in the nature of an injunction. For instance, where a trade union complains that an employer has broken the terms of a collective agreement, and that this constitutes an unfair industrial practice, if it establishes its case the trade union ought at least to be able to obtain a declaratory order under Clause 101(3)(a), or perhaps, and in suitable circumstances, a mandatory order under Clause 101(3)(c), even though no loss can be proved at the time it pursues the matter in court. My own view and that of my advisers, who include Parliamentary Counsel, on whom on matters of this kind I am bound to rely up to a point, is that in the present form paragraph (c) of subsection (1) achieves what both the noble Lord and I wish to do, and achieves it adequately for the purpose. I have, I think, pointed clearly to a number of problems that could arise from the Amendment suggested, and I would hope that the noble Lord would not pursue this Amendment but would rather seek leave to withdraw it.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I rise for the purpose of thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Obviously there are difficulties about it; it is a difficult piece of drafting. I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 76, line 42, at end insert—
(" (5) In any proceedings on a complaint under this section, an official of a trade union shall be deemed to have acted within the scope of his authority if his actions are subsequently ratified by the trade union of which he is an official.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Your
172
Lordships may remember that when we were discussing what is now Clause 96 an Amendment in almost exactly the same terms was put down to that clause on the Committee stage. The object was to try to protect a trade union official, even though he had acted outside the scope of his authority from his trade union, if his actions were subsequently ratified. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave reasons for saying that that could not be accepted. They were not the basic reasons which divide the two sides of the House on the general content of the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord said that in any event the trade union official surely should be able to obtain clear authority.
I do not revert in this Amendment to the same argument because noble Lords will observe that it is put down, not to Clause 96, but to Clause 101. I venture to move an Amendment in the same terms this evening because in my submission when it is put in Clause 101 it has a rather different and, from the point of view of the Government, perhaps a more acceptable result. In Clause 101 one is being told what the Industrial Court can do by way of granting relief in the event of a complaint's being presented to the Industrial Court. If noble Lords will look at subsection (4) they will see that it is there provided that compensation shall not be ordered to be paid by an official of a trade union if it is shown that he was acting within the scope of his authority.
What the Amendment seeks to do is simply to provide this. Supposing in the course of those proceedings the trade union are in effect ready to take the official under their wing and say that they ratify his actions for the purpose of the proceedings, then the trade union official should not be liable to have an award made against him personally; it would go against the union. In my submission, that is a very different context from Clause 96. In Clause 96 one is specifying the action which is to constitute an unfair industrial practice. In Clause 101 one is simply saying what is to happen when a complaint actually comes before the Court. The Amendment would seek to provide that where proceedings are actually taking place before the Industrial Court, if a trade union is prepared to take responsibility

173
for what the official of the trade union has done outside the scope of his authority, then the award of compensation should be made against the trade union and not against the official. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is another Amendment which was in fact discussed very fully in Committee. Subsection (4) of Clause 101 provides for the limitation of personal liability of a trade union official. In order to secure the protection of subsection (4), it must be shown that he acted within the scope of his authority. But when he gets that protection the Industrial Court cannot make an award against him either for compensation or a mandatory order in the nature of an injunction. The only order that can be made against him is a declaration determining the rights of the parties. That is a very substantial protection. The limitation of the protection is based on the fact that he is a trade union official and by Schedule 4 the rules of the organisation of which he is a member which is a trade union or an employers' association registered under the Act—must satisfy certain requirements which we consider reasonable requirements. There must be set out the powers and duties of officials (paragraph 7) and there must be specified when and by whom industrial action can be recommended (paragraph 10).
The policy underlying all this is threefold. First, we want to protect officials who have acted according to the rules of their union. Secondly, we want to buttress the authority of those rules. Any official will think very carefully before breaking the rules of his union as he knows that there is the possibility of a court order if he breaks them. Correspondingly, unions will wish, I would hope, to consider very carefully the degree of discretion which they allow to their officials, since a union which gives to its shop stewards the authority to call strikes will run a greater risk of liability than a union which limits their authority to do so. Thirdly, the provision constitutes an incentive for officials and unions to ensure that their union is registered and thus to obtain protection for officials in respect of their personal liabilities. It is clear that although the Amendment, to some extent, would not affect the first, it would undermine the second and third
174
of the objectives which I have described. It would remove from union officials most of the incentive to act within their authority. They would be far less reluctant to exceed their authority if they knew that subsequent endorsement of their actions would place them in the clear. A shop steward might, for example, easily induce workers to walk out without notice—a"wildcat"strike—if he thought he could thereafter obtain a posteriori ratification by his union. If the union rules said that all officials calls for industrial action must be approved by district officials of the union, the shop steward would run the risk of a court order if the employer complained. But if this Amendment were adopted it would be open to the union to release him a posteriori from the consequences of his action by ratification of his conduct. I think that that must inevitably encourage shop stewards to act similarly in future. For that reason, we cannot accept this Amendment.
I do not think that, with the provision as drafted, officials of unions ought to act timidly or with lack of decision—not, that is, if they are acting within the authority they are given by the rules and not, that is, if the rules are reasonably clear in giving them the authority. They might think from acting irresponsibly they might shrink from breaking the rules. I do not think that one would necessarily regret that. We cannot accept this Amendment. It was debated before. I recognise that the noble Lord has stated his position. I have stated mine.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am obliged for that full answer. May I in justification of myself say that I think my recollection is right when I say the full debate was on Clause 96? I simply moved it formally on what was the equivalent of Clause 101, which was then Clause 97. That was why I thought it reasonable to take a short time to move it rather more fully this evening. In view of the answer, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.46 p.m
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 76, line 42, at end insert—
(" (5) It shall be a defence to any proceedings under this section that the matters complained of took place in circumstances in

175
which, had the proceedings been in tort, there would have been available the defence of justification.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It is not one on which I intend to take up the time of the House and still less to divide the House, but it is a point on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I have expressed the same views. Under the tort of knowingly inducing a breach of contract, which generally will continue, the onus is entirely on the plaintiff to prove his case. If the plaintiff proves his case the defendant still has a legal right to be absolved if he can satisfy the Court that in all the circumstances what he did was justified. The defence of justification has nearly always been impossible to define because circumstances vary and it must depend entirely on the facts of the case; but if the plaintiff satisfies the Court on it then the Court has no discretion; it is bound to absolve him. Under this new animal of the unfair industrial practice, the onus again is naturally on the plaintiff but the defendant has been deprived of his defence of justification which every other citizen except the trade unionist will have, and he has to rely on the Court not to make an order against him unless they think it fair to do so. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor expressed the opinion that he thought as a whole he would be just as well off in that way as if he had not been deprived of his defence, but at the conclusion of the debate which we last had on this subject on May 27, col. 1363, the noble and learned Lord said:
" I regard this as a continuing debate. I do not say, ' No, we cannot look at it again ' or ' I am certainly right '…I think this is the best I can do at this stage."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said:
"…there is a lot of difference between being entitled to an acquittal as of right and being entitled to an acquittal at the discretion of the Court and if this defence were expressly provided in the Bill it would save a great deal of anxiety among trade unionists and would prevent a great deal of misrepresentation. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making it clear that he has not said the last words upon this subject and that he will consider it again." [col. 1365].
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, said that he would withdraw his Amendment in view of what the noble and learned Lord had said. He continued:
" I take it that he has not closed his mind to looking at this problem again." [col. 1366.]
My Lords, I put down this Amendment so that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who has now had time to consider the matter further, may tell us of any further views which he has.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again, my Lords, I do not think this is a case where there is any difference of principle between the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and myself; that is to say, I think we look to the Bill to achieve the same result. But however often I come back to his defence of justification, the more certain I am that my original approach was right. Nobody knows what the defence of justification is. We all accept that the books say that it is open, but nobody knows what it is. Although it has been mentioned in all the books and from time to time in a number of cases, the whole thing depends upon a single authority, that of Brimelow v. Casson, which we debated at the Committee stage, and which I went into at great length then. Therefore, I shall not trouble the House with it again.
I simply cannot conceive of any set of circumstances in which the defence of justification could be raised even plausibly by a respondent to a complaint under this Bill which would not be rendered unnecessary by conversion of the remedies under the Bill into an equitable remedy rather than a legal remedy, because before a complainant can succeed he must establish that his application for an order is just and equitable. So far from taking away something from the respondent's legal defence, we are erecting a barrier for his defence against a complainant succeeding, which must protect him before he reaches it. So far from being not so well done by under the Bill as he will be if he had this mysterious defence of justification, which no one can define, I am satisfied that he is a great deal better off. Far from being deprived, he is given something.
I do not want to be dogmatic, but however often I approach this problem, this is the result I get. For this reason I think that the Amendment is a misguided

177
one. Who am I to attack the Common Law and the common lawyer, having been one of that school all my life'? But there are times when equity has the last word. I am bound to say that I think by making the rule in equity, we have done a far, far better thing than by reintroducing into the law of industrial practice this mysterious Boojum, the defence of justification, in the tort of inducing breach of contract. That Boojum exists in the textbooks, but what it is, where it would be available and who would be able to claim advantage of it, I do not know, and for the purpose of this Bill I would hope that it would softly and silently vanish away in the bright daylight of equity and justice.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. I am bound to say that for my part I still agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan. But I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for being good enough to give consideration to the point and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102 [Complaint of breach of duty under s. 13(1) or s. 56]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 84B:
Page 77, line 9, at end insert (" or to confirm any such information in writing when requested by them to do so ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment simply extends the grounds for complaint to include cases where the employer fails to confirm in writing information which he is required to disclose to a trade union under Clause 56. It is consequentially on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, No. 79HHH. I beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Diamond, may I express his appreciation to the noble Lord for having met this point and introduced this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Special provisions as to certain complaints to Industrial Court]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 85:
178
Page 79, line 36, leave out (" section 55(1)(b) of this Act ") and insert (" paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 55 of this Act, or by virtue of that paragraph as modified by any of the provisions of subsections (2), (3A) and (3B) of that section ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this looks a complicated Amendment but it is simply consequential following on Amendment No. 77 to Clause 55. Your Lordships will recall that Clauses 51 and 55 were amended with the purpose of carrying the concept of"associated employers"right through the recognition procedure. Amendment No. 85 is a consequential Amendment following on those Amendments. It is necessary because the new subsections (3A) and (3B) which have been inserted into Clause 55 have the effect of modifying Clause 55(1)(b) to deal with the case where a recognition order has been made against more than one employer. I beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, this is a formidable looking Amendment. We are happy to accept the explanation that the noble Lord has given.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on June 23 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
ETON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) BILL
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
House adjourned at four minutes before midnight.