Sitting of 29 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
    CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.

  CLYDE RIVER PURIFICATION BOARD BILL
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Clyde River Purification Board Bill shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than 4th August 1971 and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  That on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.
  That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration, signed by the Agents for the Bill stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill presented in the present Session.
  That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to
  754
  have been read the first and second time and committed.
  That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the same Bill in the next Session.
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceeding on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATION (ANCILLIARY POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Killingholme Generating Station (Ancillary Powers) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than 4th August 1971 and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a Declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a Declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time and committed.
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Address for Return,
"of the Report of the Advisory Group on Shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde."—[Mr. Ridley.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    School Leavers (ScotLand)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is his latest estimate of the number of unemployed school leavers in Scotland.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the latest employment prospects for school leavers in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): On 12th July, 6,739 school leavers were registered as unemployed in Scotland. About 40,000 young people left school for employment this summer and, although vacancies are fewer than in previous years, I am hopeful that the majority will find jobs within a reasonable period. Careers officers are doing everything possible to help them.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State use his influence, as a senior member of the Cabinet, with the Defence Secretary to reflect on the decision to contract the civillan training, which is of very high standard, at the naval dockyard of Rosyth and Caledonia to see whether it could be expanded, not contracted, in the present situation?
    Mr. Carr: This is a matter for my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence but I will take an interest in it. The hon. Gentleman probably knows not only that a number of hon. Members have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State but also that the rundown is not planned until 1979.
    Mr. Dalyell: No. Instructors are being paid off.
    Mr. Douglas: Does not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the figure of 6,000 is an under-estimate, because many of the young people have gone directly on holiday and have not registered? The true figure of unemployment among school leavers in Scotland is likely to be between 15 and 30 per cent. Will he take urgent steps to ensure that we do not lose these skills to Scotland, since when the next Labour Government are
    756
    in power we shall create the type of economy that employs them?
    Mr. Carr: What is needed above all is an expanding economy, and for the first time for more than six years we have a Government who have taken measures to see that we get it. In the meantime, I agree that the figure of 6,739 may not represent the full figure, for the reasons mentioned. While the House should take this very seriously, we should not spread unnecessary gloom. I believe that, with the planned extra career officers and the other measures we are taking, the position will be better than some people fear.
    Mr. Rankin: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, does he realise how important it is that he should not appear to be becoming the Secretary of State for Unemployment in Scotland?
    Mr. Carr: I realise how important the matter is. That is why I welcome so strongly the first major expansionary steps taken by any Government for over six years.

    Regional Prices
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he hopes to reach his decision on the report of his Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee on regional prices; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Paul Bryan): My right hon. Friend will announce his decision shortly when he has considered the full implications of the Committee's recommendations.
    Mr. O'Halloran: I am grateful for that reply. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cost of living in London is at least 15 per cent. higher than that in the rest of the country and that the quicker this report is published the better?
    Mr. Bryan: I understand the hon. Members concern with this subject. We are not trying to hold the report back, but it has proved a highly complicated subject, so much so that the Advisory Committee had to submit the problem to a technical committee, and so there is much to think about. But a statement will be made shortly.
    Mr. Scott: Will my hon. Friend avoid collecting and publishing statistics just for the sake of doing so? We have a special index for pensioners, and I am sure that that is right, but we do not want a plethora of indices to be published.
    Mr. Bryan: It has been the policy of my Department since 18th June, last year, to see that no unnecessary statistics are provided.

    Thorne
    Dr. Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to reduce the number of unemployed persons in the area of the Thorne Employment Exchange.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Howell): The Government's various measures to stimulate output, in particular the tax reductions and the large infrastructure programme announced by my right hon. Friends, will have a generally beneficial effect on the employment situation, which Thorne can be expected to share.
    Dr. Marshall: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that new employment opportunities at Thorne may be discouraged so long as there is the faintest likelihood that Thorne colliery will reopen and absorb manpower? Will he therefore press the Chairman of the National Coal Board for an early decision one way or another about the future of Thorne colliery?
    Mr. Howell: We are aware of the situation in Thorne and I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.
    Mr. Duffy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a stimulus to consumer expenditure of the kind announced last week, however welcome it may be in some other parts of the country, will not do much, if anything, to relieve the structural unemployment in my hon. Friend's constituency and in other constituencies in South Yorkshire?
    Mr. Howell: There is a special problem with coal mining. It was not just a stimulus to consumer expenditure which was announced last week. My right hon. Friend also announced free depreciation for plant and machinery in service industries in development areas, an increased
    758
    rate of first-year allowances on all capital expenditure, and many other measures.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Doncaster travel-to-work area, of which Thorne is a part, now has nearly 6,000 unemployed, a level of almost 6 per cent.? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend at the Department of Trade and Industry told me the other day that only 1,954 jobs would be in prospect in the area over the next few years? Is it not clear that the Government should have a crash programme to relieve the problems of South Yorkshire generally where unemployment is higher than the average for the development areas?
    Mr. Howell: The rate for the Don-caster travel-to-work area is 5·4 per cent., not quite 6 per cent., but still very high, as I concede.
    Mr. Harold Walker: It is 650 up since that figure was taken.
    Mr. Howell: The Government believe that the wide range of measures which have been taken will have a major effect on job opportunities.

    Training Centres
    Mr. Simeonsasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many short courses at lower levels of skill have been started within Government Training Centres since January, 1971: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bryan: Since this experimental scheme was announced in November, four courses have been started and another eight are planned by the end of the year.
    Mr. Simeons: Would my hon. Friend say how successful these courses have been, with a view to their expansion?
    Mr. Bryan: These courses are at semiskilled level and are a totally new departure for the G.T.C.s. Early experience so far has shown that they prepare people successfully for work, and another interesting development is that many of the trainees have qualified for skilled training in the same G.T.C.
    Mr. Rose: In view of the obvious difficulties in fragmented industries and the abrupt and rather unexpected manner

    759
    in which the Minister wound up the Hair-dressing and Allied Trades Industrial Training Board, would the hon. Member undertake to provide courses in those areas which are not covered by an appropriate industrial training board? Does he not agree that the Government have an important rôle to play in filling the gap?
    Mr. Bryan: This Question is about the G.T.C.s and what the hon. Gentleman has said hardly applies to them. However, we are encouraging opportunities for training by private employers with surplus training capacity, and what the hon. Gentleman said may apply in that direction.

    School Leavers
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a further statement on the Government's plans to deal with the problem of finding employment for the 500,000 school leavers who will be seeking jobs at the end of July.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have authorised an additional 20 career officer posts in areas of higher employment and career officers in all parts of the country are doing all they can to help school leavers find jobs quickly. The measures the Government are taking to stimulate the economy will progressively improve employment prospects.
    Mr. Johnson: May I say from this side of the House—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not say; he may ask.
    Mr. Johnson: May I put it to the Secretary of State that we are appalled by the Government's complacent attitude to this serious problem? Is he aware that there are tens of thousands of school leavers who will be without jobs for perhaps weeks and months, and that is not an exaggeration? Perhaps he would like to refute the statement by the Prime Minister in that respect. I am pleased to hear what the Secretary of State has said on this—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has asked two supplementary questions already, and I think that the Minister must now answer.
    Mr. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I am not complacent
    760
    at all about what is a serious situation, nor are any of my colleagues. In my Department we are concentrating on improving our service for getting people into the jobs which are available with the maximum speed. I have appointed extra careers officers for the purpose. I have publicly appealed to all employers who were cutting down their intake of young people for training to change their minds. But, above all, I repeat, the Government, for the first time for more than seven years, have taken major measures for the expansion of the economy.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of unfilled vacancies for young people, or older people, in Wales has fallen dramatically and that if he appointed 100 career officers, that would not provide jobs?
    Mr. Carr: I am well aware of that, but there is still much to do in getting people to the jobs which are available and doing so as quickly as possible and with as much skill and help as possible. The real need is to expand the economy. From 1964 to 1970 we had complete stagnation; we now have major expansion on the way.
    Mr. Normanton: Would my right hon. Friend care to recommend to the hen. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Walter Johnson) and his hon. Friends that one of the best ways in which to promote good prospects for employment in industry for these people would be through their co-operation with the Government about our entering the Common Market?
    Mr. Carr: As I have said publicly, I certainly think that the prospects of employment for all ages would be improved by our membership of the Common Market.
    Mr. Ted Fletcher: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report of the careers officer in the County of Durham saying that of 6,000 school leavers, 3,000 will be unable to obtain immediate employment? What are the Government to do about that?
    Mr. Carr: As I have made clear, I am aware of the present serious situation. What the Government are doing

    761
    about it is to expand the economy, and that has not been done for seven years.

    Code of Industrial Relations Practice
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will amend the Code of Industrial Relations Practice to include the suggestion that employers should actively encourage workers to join trade unions.
    Mr. R. Carr: I will give careful consideration to this and all other comments made on the consultative document.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the right hon. Genteman aware that industrial strife is often attributed to trade unions, but is due to the attitude of arrogant and ignorant employers, and that a survey shows that more than 40 per cent. of British employers are hostile to the trade unions? What proposals has he for changing the attitude of management, because that could do more than any repressive legislation to create good industrial relations?
    Mr. Carr: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's adjectives, but I agree, and I have made it clear, for example, in the Industrial Relations Bill and the consultative document, that the primary responsibility for good industrial relations rests on management. I have publicly, not only in the House but outside, expressed the belief that trade unionism ought to be encouraged. I think that that is right. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take account of what he said.
    Mr. Adam Butler: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that paragraph 6(c) on the first page of the consultative document says—[HON MEMBERS: "Reading."] I am reading from the document; it says—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not quote a document during Question time.
    Mr. Butler: I apologise. In this paragraph there is a statement to the effect that it is one of the responsibilities of management to encourage employees to join trade unions. Is not that the straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question?
    Mr. Carr: That is certainly so. The Code of Practice has to take account of all forms of employment, including places where trade unions are not as yet recognised. The Bill will be a strong encouragement to trade union membership.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it needed a major debate on the Industrial Relations Bill in Committee to get words into the Bill to prevent it from actively discouraging workers from joining trade unions? [Interruption] Hon. Members opposite have not taken part in these debates and do not know. It was the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and others who had to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that as it then stood the Bill actively discouraged workers from joining a union. That is why the Government had to move an Amendment. Then we awaited the Code of Industrial Practice—[Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members opposite do not like the facts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I have asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact —[Interruption.] Mr. Speaker knows that I am in order.
    Mr. Speaker: I know that the right hon. Lady is in order. But I was wondering whether she was anticipating later discussions.
    Mrs. Castle: I am answering— [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: In that case the right hon. Lady is not in order if she is answering.
    Mrs. Castle: I am dealing with the point—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and asking the Secretary of State whether it is not a fact that the Code of Industrial Practice in Section 6 carefully qualifies a management's duty to encourage trade unionism, limiting it to those cases where trade unions are already recognised? Is it not a fact that the gap in the code has already been commented on by the unions?
    Mr. Carr: I do not accept the right hon. Lady's interpretation over what happened to the Bill in Committee. What I do recall is that when an Amendment— which I accepted—was moved, to introduce a primary responsibility upon management into the Bill, it was opposed by

    763
    the first speaker from the benches opposite. As to the right hon. Lady's second point, it is true, as I have said, that since this code must deal with all forms of employment, including employment where there is no union, I must limit the substance of the code as I have done. In the foreword I make it clear that the principle of the code is based on employees being members of a trade union.
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many requests he has had from trade unions for copies of the Code of Industrial Relations Practice.
    Mr. R. Carr: Trade unions have so far asked for and received some 11,000 copies of the draft code through the headquarters and regional offices of my Department.
    Mr. Spence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that figure. Does not he agree that it demonstrates that, no matter what the initial reaction of the T.U.C. may have been to the publication of the code, many trade unions have found it very valuable, and of interest to them?
    Mr. Carr: I am certainly encouraged that we have had 11,000 requests for copies. I hope that the demand will continue. I repeat my hope that all trade unions will consult about this document.
    Mr. Orme: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the reaction has been from any recipients of the 11,000 copies? What representations have been made by any trade union affiliated to the T.U.C?
    Mr. Carr: As far as I know, no comments have yet been received.

    Employment Opportunities (Departmental Placings)
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will give, as a percentage of the total number of people who are placed in employment, those placed by his Department; and what estimate he has made of the percentage placed by agencies and through Press advertising, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The
    764
    best estimate we can make is about 20 per cent. A sample survey in 1967 suggested that, taking the employment field as a whole, about 35 per cent. were placed through advertising and 2 per cent. by private agencies.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not rather disturbing to hear that the Department is not having a great deal of success? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is obvious that unemployed people feel that there is much more chance of getting a job through advertisements in the Press and through agencies? Will he institute a commission of inquiry into this and bring some of the employment exchanges up to date, operating modern methods of placing people in work?
    Mr. Smith: The figure is as big as ever it was and it compares pretty favourably with the United States where they have between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. official placings, and 25 per cent. in Sweden where there is a total monopoly. We are not complacent about this. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that we are reviewing the whole of the employment services, and my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce his plans in the autumn.

    Robens Committee
    Mr. Scottasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he can now estimate when the Robens Committee will report.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: The Committee continues to make good progress but it is still too early to say when it will report.
    Mr. Scott: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Committee's findings will be so comprehensive that they will cover employees not at present covered by the Factories Act? Secondly, can he say whether the Committee is consulting with our future partners in the E.E.C. so that this new legislation, when it appears, can be a code of practice for all Europe?
    Mr. Smith: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Committee is considering the problem of employees not covered by the Factories Act. It is conducting a wide-ranging inquiry and has recently visited the United States, West Germany and Canada. I will draw the attention of

    765
    the Committee to my hon. Friend's remarks to make sure that it covers all the points he has put.
    Mr. Marks: Does that mean that the Committee's consideration will include teachers and other employees in schools?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, it covers a wide range, pretty well everyone whose safety and health comes into account when they are at work. It is well beyond the shop floor.

    Industrial Relations Bill (Implementation)
    I. Mr. Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Employment when the provisions of the Industrial Relations Bill on legally enforceable agreements will come into force.
    Mr. Bryan: My right hon Friend will be making an announcement shortly about the timetable for implementing the various provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. Holland: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to be more specific and to give an assurance that an announcement will be made before the House goes into recess? Can he say whether he will make an announcement on all aspects of the Bill and when each part will be implemented?
    Mr. Bryan: I cannot give any such assurance. The Government propose to implement the Measure as soon as the institutions and other arrangements can be soundly established. Of necessity this means that implementation must be progressive.
    Mr. Heffer: Has the hon. Gentleman considered what this is likely to mean? Is he aware that the Trades Union Congress is advising all affiliated unions not to agree to enforceable legal agreements? Is he aware that this can lead to a situation in which we are likely to have absolute chaos in industry as a result of this Bill because of the Government's stupid attitude in continuing with this concept of enforceable contracts?
    Mr. Bryan: I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No doubt the Secretary of State will take all these matters into consideration when he makes his decision.

    Employment Exchanges
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Employment what improvements in employment exchanges he has made since June, 1970.
    Mr. R. Carr: Forty-eight exchanges have been rehoused in better premises and major improvements to another 59 offices completed. The Occupational Guidance Service has been strengthened and six more units established. The number of exchanges offering self-service facilities has been doubled and computerised job banks have been set up for the London area and nationally for certain occupations.
    Mr. Osborn: To what extent has there been progress in separating the benefits side from the employment arrangements? Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent job banks are filling the vacancies in any of the service industries, where there is still under-employment?
    Mr. Carr: To answer my hon. Friend's first question, this matter is still under consideration although I would add that we regard it as one of the most important questions to settle. We are in no doubt that the job banks are of great assistance in speeding up the matching of jobs with the available people. Although this does not of itself create more jobs, it is of importance, socially and economically. In operating the system, I am following what was started by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), and I am very glad to be able to say so.
    Mrs. Castle: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the real improvement in our employment services depends on a fundamental reorganisation, outlined in the consultative document on the future of the employment service which I issued as long ago as May, 1970? Is he aware that the House has been waiting impatiently for the outcome of the consultations? Fifteen months have elapsed and we still have no date for the appearance of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. Does he not think that this should have had a higher priority than the Industrial Relations Bill?
    Mr. Carr: The two have not been competing. As I made clear to the House, while I accept the importance of the

    767
    review of the employment services, set in hand by the right hon. Lady, it is also important to look at the whole employment policy, including trainng—all in one—and to set our course for the future looking at it all in one.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if, in view of the increase in persons registering for employment at Coatbridge Employment Exchange, he will make arrangements to provide additional accommodation, as existing facilities are inadequate.
    Mr. David Howell: It is proposed to rehouse the exchange, together with other Government Departments, in a new office development in the town centre. Meanwhile, improvements are to be made to existing premises.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is it not ironical that we should be providing money for new employment exchange buildings instead of providing money for jobs which will give work to the unemployed? Is the hon. Member aware that since the General Election unemployment has soared so high that we have now the second largest rate of unemployment on the mainland of Scotland? Would he not be more usefully occupied in persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to get cracking on providing more jobs for the unemployed?
    Mr. Howell: Both are necessary. The hon. Member will realise that employment services, retraining, and finding job opportunities for people are continuing needs, high unemployment or not. We are doing everything we can to reduce the high rate of unemployment, and the Government's new measures will help considerably.
    Mr. Buchan: Is the hon. Member aware that the construction of employment exchanges is now virtually Scotland's only remaining growth industry, and that at some employment exchanges there are now 200 men looking for each vacancy? Will not he persuade his Department to get its finger out and do something about it? If the decision goes wrong at Upper Clyde today, is the hon. Member aware that men are saying that enough is enough, and that they will fight
    768
    in the yards? Will he make his right hon. Friend aware of the situation?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Member takes an absurdly gloomy view of the future situation, when new expansionary measures are being introduced. As for the Upper Clyde situation, my right hon. Friend will be making a statement later today.

    Training Grants (Older Workers)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many grants have been paid to employers for the training of newly recruited workers over 45 years of age, in intermediate and development areas since the introduction of the scheme.
    Mr. Bryan: Up to June, 1971, 628 applications had been received, and grants to employers in respect of 208 workers have been paid to date.
    Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate—I am sure that the House does—that this scheme is valuable in encouraging employers to take on older workers? As this will become an increasing problem in our society, will my hon. Friend take steps to expand the scheme—and certainly the publicity given to it?
    Mr. Bryan: I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of the scheme. This is one of the several schemes brought in by my right hon. Friend to help train unemployed persons. It deals with the narrow category of men and women over 45 years of age who have been unemployed for two months. The objective is to persuade employers to give preference to this difficult category. I agree that we must step up our publicity. Already we have issued explanatory leaflets to all employers and had publicity through the Press and local radio stations. I agree that the scheme needs the maximum publicity.
    Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members on this side of the House strongly support the scheme and its expansion? Will he explain, however, what is the use of training people in an area like the North-West, where unemployment has soared to frightening levels and is even catching up with the levels in the most depressed regions and,

    769
    by the end of the year, is likely to overtake them? Is he aware that if we are to have training it must go hand-in-hand with a policy to expand job opportunities?
    Mr. Bryan: I do not agree with the hon. Member's view that there is little point in training people at times of high unemployment. If a man is unemployed it is far better for him to receive training, because he gets far more satisfaction in increasing his skills, even if a job is not immediately available.

    Portsmouth
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the trend in the employment situation during the past year for school leavers and young people in the Portsmouth area, with particular reference to the number of job vacancies as compared to the number of job applicants.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: On 12th July, 1971, there were 112 young people, including 22 school leavers, registered as unemployed, and 264 unfilled notified vacancies. In July, 1970, the comparative figures were 109, including seven school leavers unemployed and 482 unfilled vacancies.
    Mr. Judd: No one suggests that the employment problems in the South-East Region are anything like as agonising as those in other parts of the country, but is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is severe concern among those responsible for the youth employment services in the South-East—especially in places like Portsmouth—about the types of job available and the types of young people needing jobs? Can he assure the House that he realises that this problem affects the whole country and is so serious that it demands radical action by himself and his colleagues in the Government?
    Mr. Smith: It is serious, and action is being taken, as my right hon. Friend has reminded the House. But in the hon. Member's area we do not expect that the rate of absorption—although it is rather slow—will present too great a difficulty; in fact, most school leavers will have found employment by the end of the year. I am encouraged to learn that
    770
    apprentice recruiting in the naval dockyard is at a higher level now than it was last year.

    Registration for Employment (Labouring Occupations)
    Mr. Boothasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will extend the system of occupational analysis to show the industries in which wholly unemployed persons registered for employment in labouring occupations last worked.
    Mr. David Howell: No, Sir. To do so would be too expensive in relation to the use such information would be for placing purposes.
    Mr. Booth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the definition of "labouring occupation" is so wide that more than half of those registered as fully unemployed at the moment are covered by it? Does he further agree that it is necessary to have a more precise occupational analysis to determine what sort of training or what type of new industry is needed to reduce unemployment in the many areas of high unemployment?
    Mr. Howell: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern. We believe that a detailed analysis of this kind is useful in the construction industry, but in many other industries there is a fair amount of movement of workers between industries, and our reckoning is that it would not be of special value in finding job opportunities.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will seek discussions with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress in an effort to increase the number of apprenticeships available for young people.
    Mr. R. Carr: It is the industrial training boards on which employers and trade unions are jointly represented who are primarily responsible for the volume of apprenticeship training. I have asked all the boards to review the situation in their industries and to consider any special steps that might need to be taken. I have also asked the C.B.I. to do what it can

    771
    to persuade companies not to cut back the recruitment and training of school leavers.
    Mr. Cox: In view of the seriousness of the matter, should not the right hon. Gentleman be doing something more than asking what is being done by the C.B.I.? Should he not be asking for urgent meetings at which this matter could be discussed? If he does not receive the amount of success that he would like in extending apprenticeships, does he not agree we should seek from the Government a greater willingness to spend money on and to extend training centres for apprenticeships throught the country?
    Mr. Carr: On the last part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, he may have failed to notice that only last week I announced a major expansion of measures, including financial measures, to encourage Government training schemes. I can assure him and the House that I am not merely asking the I.T.B.s and the C.B.I. for advice; I am asking them to do things.
    Captain Elliot: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the way to increase apprenticeship opportunities is to remain competitive, price-wise, in the export market? Has he had any reaction from the T.U.C. in answer to the initiative taken by the C.B.I. in the cause of price stabilisation?
    Mr. Carr: I told the House in the economic debate last week that we are looking forward to continuing discussions with the National Economic Development Council next week—discussions begun last month—and I hope that they will be constructive.
    Mr. Carter: Will the right hon. Gentleman carry out an investigation into the employment situation in terms of school-leavers? In spite of his urgings, large companies are cutting back on apprentices and in some cases cutting out apprenticeship schemes altogether.
    Mr. Carr: That is why I am not only making a general appeal to companies— and I have Birmingham in mind—but am asking industrial training boards to consider what should be done in each of their industries. I shall be keeping in close touch with them and supporting them in any action that they propose to take.

    Derby
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for young people leaving school and registering as unemployed in the borough of Derby.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: At 12th July the provisional number of school leavers registered at the Derby Careers Office was 61.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the Minister aware that the number of juveniles unemployed in the Derby area has increased significantly over the last year, and what possible message of hope has he for the young people in my constituency who are coming on to the labour market at a time when unemployment has increased by 65 per cent. in the last year and when the only sign of the Government's dynamic economic policy has been the arrival of the receiver on the doorstep?
    Mr. Smith: The message of hope I have for the hon. Member's constituents is that the careers officers locally are not unduly worried about the position there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] A preliminary assessment of the school leaver position suggests that some 2,000 school leavers will be on the market and that about 300 of them will not have jobs, but it is hoped that by the end of September there will be only 150 of them who will still be a problem. I do not think that that is too bad.
    Mr. Urwin: Is the Minister aware that the concern of my two hon. Friends, the hon. Members for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) in asking Questions 15 and 19 is justified, and that the figures he has given starkly reveal the vivid comparison between different areas, and is he further aware that the situation which exists in the Northern Region, in my constituency and every other, now demands a great deal more urgent action?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, I am aware, of course, that there are discrepancies between areas, and that is a point to which my right hon. Friend has drawn attention in Answers to Questions today, and why we have taken action to expand training, and why the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment

    773
    have announced new measures which will expand the economy and improve the employment situation.

    Apprenticeship Training Centres (Lanarkshire)
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what were the grants given to apprenticeship training centres in Lanarkshire in 1969, 1970 and 1971; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bryan: Grants to such centres in Lanarkshire (excluding the City and County of Glasgow) amounted to £64,771 in 1969 and £276,091 in 1970. It is not possible to give a meaningful figure for this year as claims are not normally paid until late in the year.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a distinct possibility that, taking the present trend, the 1971 figure will show a decrease, and that in Lanarkshire, with the school leaving period of the summer time, 8,000 young people left school of whom 6,000 have not found jobs and 2,000 are taking further education? Is he further aware that because we do not have employment for craftsmen there is no need for apprentices and that consequently, unless something helpful is forthcoming, there will be a very serious position indeed for the people of Lanarkshire?
    Mr. Bryan: The unemployment position is very serious, but it is certainly correct to continue to maintain apprentice training, and that is what we are trying to do. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the general remarks made by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox). With regard to special measures being taken, the engineering industry training board is proposing to increase its grant for the first year for off-job training for craftsmen from £500 to £600 this year. The construction industry training board is increasing its grant as well by 50 per cent.

    Germany (Employment for Sheffield Workers)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he is satisfied with the services available at Sheffield
    774
    Employment Exchange to workers seeking employment in Germany; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: Yes, Sir. Applications received by the Exchange from such workers will be considered against vacancies in Germany under arrangements agreed between my Department and the Federal Institute of Labour which are now coming into operation.
    Mr. Duffy: If the Sheffield workers in Germany are not to suffer indignities and discrimination as Gastarbeïter, exploited by unscrupulous Landlords and paying taxes while not aware that they are entitled to social benefits, does not the Minister think that he ought to make available at Sheffield Employment Exchange appropriate literature, and consider the appointment of a liaison officer in Germany?
    Mr. Smith: I agree. That is why officials of my Department have recently had discussions on the spot in Germany. I can tell the hon. Member that leaflets will be issued giving full information of conditions of employment, and they will be issued at employment exchanges in Sheffield and elsewhere in the country. Also a standard form of contract will be issued for German employers of British workers.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Is it not regrettable that 17,000 British skilled engineering workers have been compelled by conditions in the United Kingdom to seek employment in Germany? Is not this a further indictment of Government policies which have created this lamentably high level of unemployment which means they cannot find jobs in their home towns?
    Mr. Smith: No. It is not an indictment of Government policy because this has not suddenly happened overnight but has been going on for some 15 years. When there is a temporary difficulty here about unemployment and an acute labour shortage in Germany, such movements of labour do nothing but provide mutual benefit.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is now a steadily increasing flow of skilled workers from: the Tyneside area, and is this not clear evidence of the dismal failure of the Government's regional policies?
    Mr. Smith: No. I do not accept that. There are a number of skilled workers who are still going, and that fact is not confined to one region. I do not think this will denude this country of our skilled workers.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Goldingasked the Prime Minister whether he will take special steps to ascertain the views of the electors in constituencies unrepresented in the House of Commons at the time of the decision on entry to the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir.
  Mr. Golding: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Macclesfield are anxious to elect an anti-Common Market Member of Parliament? Is the Prime Minister also aware that in the absence of a referendum or general election, every constituency in this country will be expecting to be represented in the House of Commons during October?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's realistic appreciation that the seat will return a Conservative Member—and as for his views, he had better wait to hear what they are. As far as the other seats are concerned, two were held by the Labour Party, and the responsibility for moving the Writs does not lie with me.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Does not the result of the public opinion poll published today, showing that 45 per cent. of the electorate sounded are in favour of entry, against 42 per cent. not in favour, show that the electorate are responding to responsible leadership?
  The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: In view of the fact that not the Prime Minister, nor his Government, nor this Parliament, have any mandate whatever from the British people, who in every area are against entry into the Common Market, and as he himself said at the general election that the only commitment was to negotiate, how has the Prime Minister the face to state that a vote of this Parliament,
  776
  whether with writs or no writs, will reflect the full-hearted support of the British people, without which he himself said— [Interruption.]—he himself said—he him self said—
  Mr. Speaker: That is the third or fourth time and is tedious repetition.
  Mr. Raphael Tuck: —entry would be unthinkable? But, of course, that was before the election.
  The Prime Minister: It is impossible to commit oneself to the outcome of negotiations before the negotiations have taken place. We said that if the negotiations provided acceptable terms we believed it right to enter the Community. We think that the terms are acceptable and, therefore, we proposed to Parliament that we should enter the Community.
  Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister what steps he intends to take to explain the implications of entry into the Common Market to the Scottish people during the summer Recess.
  The Prime Minister: I intend to make a number of speeches on this subject during the Recess, which will cover the implications for the United Kingdom as a whole, including Scotland.
  Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his credibility in relation to the people of Scotland is probably at the lowest ebb of any Prime Minister in living memory? How can he come to Scotland and don the mantle of "Mr. Europe" when he already wears the mantle of "Mr. Unemployment"?
  The Prime Minister: The people of Scotland recognise from my discussions with them in the past that going into the Community offers great opportunities to them as to well as to England and Wales
  Mr. Onslow: On the subject of credibility, will my right hon. Friend confirm that nowhere in the pre-election speeches of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) is to be found an indication that, should he have been lucky enough to win the election, and should his Government have succeeded in negotiating terms which he would have had the courage to call acceptable, the next consequence would have been another General Election?
  The Prime Minister: I think that is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman to answer.

  WEST MIDLANDS (OFFICIAL VISIT)
  Mr. Peter Archerasked the Prime Minister what invitations he has received to include specific areas in his itinerary for his official visit to the West Midlands on 30th September and 1st October.
  The Prime Minister: I have received a number of such invitations. As I told the hon. Member on 1st of July, details of my visit will be announced when discussions with local authorities and others concerned have been completed.
  Mr. Archer: Will the Prime Minister try to reserve some time for informal discussion with ordinary people in the Black Country who would like to talk to him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]— about what happened in the summer of last year which led in 12 months to an increase of 60 per cent. in the dole queues and the transformation of an area of relative affluence to one of redundancies, closures, short time, and financial privation?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to consider meeting informal groups as well as local authorities and official organisations, and if the hon. Member would like to make suggestions to me, I will consider them.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that on 30th September, the date mentioned in the Question, I am to be at a public meeting in Evesham Town Hall addressing the electors of South Worcestershire on the Common Market? Will not my right hon. Friend accept my hospitality and share a joint platform with me on this important topic?
  The Prime Minister: I am in some doubt whether we would show the unanimity I usually like to maintain with my colleagues on the platform.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he might be well advised to share a Common Market platform with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) rather than go to any of the major centres
  778
  in the West Midlands where, in Coventry, with unemployment over 6 per cent., in Wolverhampton, with unemployment nearly 5 per cent., and in Birmingham, with unemployment of 4·2 per cent., he will find his election promises staring him in the face wherever he goes? Is he also aware that the only achievement of his regional policies so far is to make the West MidLands a problem region, which it has not been for 50 years?
  The Prime Minister: The invitations I have received come from the major centres in the Midlands because the people there recognise full well the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman and his Administration for the situation which now exists.

  PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
  Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received asking him to make a Ministerial broadcast on Government policies.
  The Prime Minister: I have received a number of such letters over the past year. On 8th July I made a Ministerial broadcast on Britain and the European Communities; and on 19th July my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a Ministerial broadcast on the economy.
  Mr. Ashley: While I understand that the Prime Minister's preoccupation with Europe has caused him to shuffle off questions on the economy to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will he make a broadcast about poverty and admit that the family income supplements scheme is now widely recognised as a disaster? Will he also try to find out why 92 per cent. of the people living in poverty will not touch the Government's proposals at any price?
  The Prime Minister: More than 20,000 families will begin to benefit next week, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that that is a disaster.

  LANARKSHIRE
  Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister when he will next pay an official visit to Lanarkshire, Scotland.
  The Prime Minister: I hope to visit central Scotland on 9th and 10th September. Detailed arrangements for my visit have not yet been settled.
  Mr. Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply and assure him that when he visits Lanarkshire the true picture will be painted for him of what the people of Scotland think of him and his Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Lanarkshire 8·3 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed and that the sterling work of the last Government is now getting into a chaotic state because of redundancies? Will he tell the people of Lanarkshire that his regional policy is a disaster and that he will revert to investment grants instead of free depreciation?
  The Prime Minister: My visit to Central Scotland will enable me to set out clearly all the additional measures the Government have taken to improve employment in Scotland and to give Scotland a sound basis for prosperity.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: When my right hon. Friend goes to Scotland in September will he take care to remind the people of what, admittedly, they know well, that the sole result of the regional policies of the last Government was the loss of 80,000 jobs in Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right and is well known by those who study these matters in Scotland.
  Mr. Thorpe: Since the Prime Minister has indicated that during his tour of Scotland he will be discussing the merits of Britain joining the European Economic Community, and in order to have a fair and balanced debate, will he undertake to recognise and pay tribute to the warmth and sincerity with which between 1967 and 1970 the Labour Government pursued our application to join?
  The Prime Minister: I always endeavour to give credit where credit is due.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of the speech which he delivered at the meeting of the Central Council of the Conservative Party at Central Hall, Westminster, on 14th July.
  The Prime Minister: I did so on 16th July.
  Mr. Meacher: In that speech the Prime Minister said that his strategy included helping those who were worst hit by rising prices. In view of the publication today of the Government's report about the huge army of low-paid workers in full-time employment who are earning wages below the official poverty line, will he tell his eager Cabinet colleagues who are in the habit of bringing the Conservative election manifesto to Cabinet meetings and marking off in the margin the promises fulfilled, to write "failure" in large red letters against the promise to redress poverty? Will he also tell us what alternative pLans he has to satisfy his colleagues' itch for ticks?
  The Prime Minister: I have read the hon. Gentleman's article in The Guardian in which he challenges the statistics of this report. Even so, I do not think that gives him any basis for the argument he is now trying to adduce.
  Mr. Lipton: Without being unduly personal, may I ask the Prime Minister why it should take two days for a speech to travel from 10 Downing Street to the Library of the House of Commons? Cannot he speed up this process and show a bit more dynamic government?
  The Prime Minister: The explanation is that this was a party speech and had to come all the way from Smith Square.

  SHEFFIELD
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment over problems arising from unemployment in Sheffield.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister recall yesterday's report by Lord Melchett in which he feared that the deficit of the British Steel Corporation may reach £100 million in 1971, and referred to plant closures and other forms of cost saving? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in the event of accelerated plant closures, Sheffield is especially vulnerable and local workers are, therefore, extremely worried?

  781
  Will the Prime Minister say how far this is borne out by his correspondence?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a most important matter. It is one which, of course, rests with the British Steel Corporation for decision. I have not had a large number of letters about this, but that does not in any way lessen its importance. I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that during the debates on the creation of the British Steel Corporation great emphasis was put on the need for the Corporation to rationalise the steel industry and to make it effective in competition with Europe, America and Japan. I do not think, therefore, that in these very difficult problems one can interfere with the Corporation's approach to rationalisation.

  GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry on the salaries and working conditions of Government scientists.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, where co-ordination is necessary: but the salaries and conditions of service for Government scientific grades are handled centrally by the Civil Service Department.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is a zero pay award fair?
  The Prime Minister: The position was that the last Government decided—I do not in any way quarrel with this—that the scientific grades should be dealt with on the same basis of pay research as their non-scientific colleagues. The result was that certain grades were found to have salaries higher than comparable outside scientists. On the other hand, junior appointments were found to be below outside pay. The pay research conclusions were that the junior members should receive pay increases, but this was not justified for those grades which, so research showed, were receiving higher salaries than those outside. If one is to work on the basis of pay research and comparable remuneration, it does not seem justifiable—when the pay is already above those working outside—that those concerned should still have increases in salary.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Although I accept the force of my right hon. Friend's argument, may I ask him also to recollect that in the Fulton recommendations there was an intention to try to correlate the scientific Civil Service with other branches of the Civil Service? Does he realise that there is considerable fear among Government scientists that this proposal is being undermined? Although it is appreciated that it is difficult to intervene while arbitration is taking place, will he look at this matter again after the arbitration is over?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I have looked carefully at this matter because it is of great importance. Far from undermining the position of the scientists and non-scientists in the Civil Service, what happened was that the previous Government decided that these salaries should be dealt with by pay research on the same fundamental basis as those of non-scientists in the Civil Service. What I understand has caused distress to the scientists is that when the pay research came out with its findings, the conclusion was that their salaries were to some extent above those paid in science outside the Civil Service. Therefore it was not possible to come to the conclusion that their salaries should be increased. Since, as my hon. Friend said, this matter is now before arbitration, we had better leave it there.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: Will the Prime Minister undertake to make available the full pay research information to the people whose salaries are involved?
  The Prime Minister: I shall have to look into that question to see whether it is customary to make the information public. All the information is made available to the negotiators on both sides; they have full access to it, and it is a complicated matter. Their conclusions are drawn from facts provided by the pay research. I will inquire to see whether it has ever been made public.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): As the House

783
already knows, the business for Monday, 2nd, Tuesday, 3rd, and Wednesday, 4th August, will be consideration of Lords Amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill.
Mr. Speaker, it may be necessary to ask the House to consider also Lords Amendments to other Bills. Subject to this and to the progress of business, I shall propose that the House should rise on Thursday, 5th August and return on Monday, 18th October.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Could the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the arrangements for next Thursday? Since he has now announced that the House should adjourn next Thursday, which I believe will meet with bipartisan support, will he confirm the impression received from the Prime Minister a week ago that there will be a recall of the House if there is any substantial change in the position in Rhodesia? Secondly, recalling that about a year ago this week the Foreign Secretary made it clear that there would be no change in the position of arms to South Africa during the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman give a similar assurance that if there is any question of supplying arms to South Africa beyond what the House has debated and with which we do not agree the House will be recalled.
Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, I of course confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about Rhodesia.
In regard to the situation of arms to South Africa, if my recollection is right, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear that if anything was to be done in this regard an announcement would be made in the first place to Parliament.
As for the arrangements on Thursday of next week, I shall put down a Motion tomorrow for the approval of the House. If the House agrees, the House will meet at eleven o'clock next Thursday, take Questions until twelve o'clock, and adjourn at 5 p.m. I give notice—this is unusual, but I think it is fair in the circumstances—that I shall move that Motion tomorrow, but not the Motion for the Summer Adjournment, which I shall move on Thursday of next week.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although what is proposed for next Thursday and the date for the debate on the Adjournment is unusual—but certainly not unprecedented since we ourselves did this a year or two ago—I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should regard these arrangements as acceptable.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I regret that an exact announcement of the date of recess should have been so long delayed. I realise that it is of value to the House to make early announcements whenever possible.
Mr. Turton: Has my right hon. Friend noticed Early Day Motion No. 650? If there are sufficient hon. Members willing to sacrifice part of the recess in order to undertake this important work, will he consider, after consultation through the usual channels, appointing this Select Committee next week?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the evidence upon which were founded the conclusions in the White Paper, United Kingdom and the European Communities; that the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time, that the Committee have leave to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and that it be an instruction to the Committee to report before the House is called upon to give its approval of the White Paper.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted that point. It is fair to point out that although some tasks are right to be undertaken by a Select Committee, others are more suitable for a descussion on the Floor of the House. Some ten days having been allowed for the debate on the Common Market on the Floor of the House I believe that it is the best place on which to argue these points of view.
Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a statement next week, now that there is a substantial division between the major parties on entry into the E.E.C., that he will revise his previous ill-advised statement on the misuse of public money for political propaganda?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I have

785
already made the position clear and do not intend to make another statement.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Would the Leader of the House make absolutely certain that before the House rises for the Summer Recess there is a clear statement on the future rôle and development of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
Mr. Whitelaw: I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will wish to keep the House informed of any development on Northern Ireland. I cannot undertake that my right hon. Friend will make a statement, but I know that he will wish to keep the House informed.
Mr. Shore: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Foreign Secretary to see whether we may have a further statement before the House rises on the problems of refugees, relief and security in the Bengal area?
Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be answering Questions on Monday of next week and this subject may then arise. I will call the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would my right hon. Friend please not shut the door too definitively to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on Motion No. 650? Does he appreciate that the functions of a debate on the Floor of the House are complementary to a fact-finding ascertainment by a Select Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: I made the position clear, as I saw it, about discussion on the Floor of the House. I am on record as believing that the baLance between Select Committees and discussion on the Floor of the House should be carefully preserved. I personally believe that this is a subject which can best be debated on the Floor of the House.
Mr. John Mendelson: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill yesterday morning, on the right hon. Gentleman's behalf, that the Government have committed £647,550 to propaganda on entry into the Common
786
Market on the terms presented, and that £191,000 of that money is devoted to the shortened version which has been distributed through the Post Office? In view of the widespread comment in the country about this matter, would he now seriously consider making the same sum —£191,000—available to the Opposition to produce a shortened version of the Opposition policy on this matter, to be followed by a longer version also to be distributed? If this is done at least those who take the contrary view may have their views brought to the notice of the electorate, with the same facilities which are given to both parties in a General Election for the distribution of election literature. Will he give a serious answer to this question?
Mr. Whitelaw: In one instance, the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. He suggests that my hon. Friend made a speech in the course of the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill on my behalf. That is incorrect. My hon. Friend spoke on behalf of the Department responsible for the Vote then being discussed. I noted the hon. Gentleman's strictures upon me for not being present. Had it been my duty to be there, I should have been. In this case, it was not.
As for the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have made the position clear before, and I have nothing further to add to what I said on that occasion.
Dame Joan Vickers: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the findings of the inquiry into the Royal naval yacht race between Plymouth and Fowey will be known before the House rises for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall look into that matter. I cannot give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asks, but I shall make inquiries.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be no criticism of him for not attending the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. We all understand his sense of shame at having to defend an indefensible action of the Government in this respect. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on the occasion to which he has referred, consisting mainly of a quotation from a factory wall sheet, did

787
not in any sense deal with the precedents which have been broken by the Government on this occasion? Is he aware that it is an outrage for the Government to use public money for the propagation of a controversial document? Will he go into the matter again and make a statement to the House next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have no sense of shame—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have not. I do not regard it as an outrage. It was a perfectly proper action. I stand by what I said, and I have nothing further to add.
Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I listened to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) with something less than the normal feeling of satisfaction that my right hon. Friend's replies normally give? Will my right hon. Friend look at this matter again, realising that an early decision in principle should be announced?
Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend's remarks.
Dr. Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to allow time for the remaining stages of the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have made my position clear about providing Government time for Private Members' Bills. I have said that I cannot do so. I am afraid that I cannot do so on this occasion.
Mr. Fell: My right hon. Friend will recall that I asked whether he could consider lengthening the four-day debate if hon. Members who had been trying to get in had not succeeded. It is well known that many hon. Members were still hoping to speak when that debate ended. As the six-day debate will be the end of the entire discussion of the subject, and as we understand that there will be a three-line Whip imposed on this side of the House, can my right hon. Friend so arrange matters that any hon. Member who genuinely desires to speak on the House on the subject and who has not spoken on it already will be called? I hasten to add that I am not an inter-
788
ested party, since I was fortunate enough to be called in the course of the four-day debate.
Mr. Whitelaw: To go quite as far as that would be difficult for any Leader of the House. I think that the Leader of the Opposition has said that the arrangements for the debate in October are generous. However, I shall discuss them further through the usual channels. I shall try to do the best that I can.
Mr. Bidwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Lords Amendments to the Immigration Bill are likely to be before the House? Will it be on the last day before we rise for the Summer Recess?
Mr. Whitelaw: It will not be before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Marten: Reverting to the suggestion of setting up a Select Committee to consider the White Paper on the Common Market, will my right hon. Friend, before he closes the door, read through the whole debate to see how many questions raised in it went unanswered? Would not it be a pity if in the fullness of time the impression were formed that the White Paper would not stand up to examination by a Select Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot pretend to have read all the debate, but I have read a large part of it. I cannot go any further than what I have said already about my view as to the best way of dealing with the matter.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has the Leader of the House seen Early Day Motion No. 666, which he will appreciate represents the only way in which I can raise the subject with which it deals—[Interruption.] A matter like this cannot be raised by putting down a Question, because it makes allegations against the Chair. As it is the custom of the House to have an early debate when such a Motion is put on the Order Paper, and as the figures quoted in it come from an impartial source, will not the Leader of the House at least give an assurance that, if not next week, some action will be taken to see that what is complained of is not repeated when we come to the six-day debate in October? It is a statement of fact that of those hon. Members called 2 to 1 were in favour of the

789
Motion. That, surely, is not the usual custom adopted in this House?
[That this House, understanding the difficulties of the occupant of the Chair in selecting speakers to participate in debates in such a manner as to show complete impartiality, observes that for generations it has been the custom to select one for the motion under discussion followed by one against, on an alternating basis, but regrets that this practice was not followed with regard to the four-day debate on the Common Market White Paper, as a reference to the Official Report shows that 38 were selected in favour but only 20 against.]
Mr. Whitelaw: It might be said that the hon. Gentleman has now spoken to his Motion. I am sure that the point has been noted. In any event, I could not give time for his Motion to be debated next week.
Mr. Wilkinson: In view of an Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 27th July about airport development in the London area, will my right hon. Friend find time at the earliest opportunity for a debate on a national airports policy in the widest context, since these decisions affect not only London but the regions? Unless we have a debate, or at the least a White Paper, hon. Members cannot give the matter the full treatment that it deserves.
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has raised an important point. I cannot offer time for such a debate before the Summer Recess, but I note what my hon. Friends says.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recent announcement about large-scale redundancies in International Computers Limited? In view of the fact that this is in the key area of research and development, and in view of the fact that the Government have put a great deal of money behind the firm, will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement about the situation next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall be only too happy to call my right hon. Friend's attention to what the hon. Lady has said.
790
I shall investigate the position. I cannot guarantee that a statement will be made, but I shall call my right hon. Friend's attention to the hon. Lady's remarks.
Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question of Northern Ireland, is the Leader of the House aware that many of us would have appreciated a short debate, but in any event, would expect a statement from the Home Secretary? Secondly, while it will be the fervent hope of hon. Members in all parts of the House that there will be no deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland, should this unhappily occur during the recess, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will have no hesitation about recalling hon. Members to deal with the situation?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says. Again, I can only repeat that I shall call his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the provision for earlier meetings of the House during a recess under Standing Order No. 122 is always there. Consideration can always be given to it in the kind of situation to which he refers.
Mr. Callaghan: Reverting to the questions put to the right hon. Gentleman by the hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) which elicited the reply that the right hon. Gentleman will convey these views to the Home Secretary, will he also convey to his right hon. Friend the view of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House that, although we do not know what is going on behind the scenes, it would be a very serious matter if there were a re-creation in any form of a force which was disbanded two years ago? This might create a situation which I am sure that the Leader of the House would not want to see, and I know that he would not attempt to barter for votes. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that there are full consultations before any statement of this sort is made.
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he said. I have promised that everything that is

791
said on the subject will be brought to the attention of the Home Secretary, and it will be.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the subject of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
The Group which I invited to advise me about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders has reported. Their report is now available in the Vote Office.
Their principal finding are that Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited, as organised in 1967, was doomed from the start as a result of the faulty concept of structure within which it was organised; the burden of eventual loss with which it was saddled; and the inadequate management with which it was provided. The group therefore conclude
"that any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified".
The group also state that the present order book is dangerously thin for U.C.S. in its present size, particularly in view of the low level of orders coming into the industry.
Nevertheless, if the order book is concentrated at the Govan and Linthouse sites; if ship production is standardised; if the management is radically reformed; and if much more productive and realistic working agreements can be negotiated with the men who would be employed there—on these conditions, the group think it should be possible to form a new company which would retain a viable shipbuilding capability on the Upper Clyde with prospects of some eventual expansion.
The Government accept these conclusions. But the groups conditions are fundamental and the enterprise can go forward only if they are met. In particular, I must emphasise the need, if this venture is to succeed, for the first class management and for satisfactory undertakings by the unions in relation to working practices and wage rates.
If these conditions are met, the Government believe that private capital should
792
be forthcoming, particularly from Scottish sources, and the Government themselves would be ready to provide some of the initial capital.
If the new venture can be established on the basis I have described, some 2,500 men will have the prospect of continued employment there.
Mr. Buchan: Absolute shame.
Mr. Davies: Another thousand men, and probably more, should be able to find work with other shipbuilders on the Clyde. Some, too, may be retained in work by other interests acquiring U.C.S. facilities from the liquidator. For the rest, a considerable number are likely to be needed for the completion of ships already building.
Mr. James Hamilton: Bunkum.
Mr. Davies: Thus, only about 400 men in all will become immediately redundant, although others will do so at intervals during the months to come as ships are completed. The Government will, of course, do everything possible to assist those who lose their jobs.
If the court grants the company's application for a winding up order, the liquidation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited will proceed.
While we are seeking to establish whether the conditions for a viable shipbuilding enterprise can be created on the lines recommended by the expert Group. I will have their continuing advice. I am grateful to them for the work they have already done.
To ensure meanwhile that the liquidator has the necessary working capital, the Government propose to allow him to retain for a limited period the moneys advanced under existing arrangements with the provisional liquidator. If during this period further sums are needed, then, provided there has been satisfactory progress in fulfilling the conditions I have outlined, funds will be made available from the Consolidated Fund and Estimates will be presented to the House in due course. If Government money were to be provided for a continuing operation, legislation would have to be introduced.
Mr. Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware—he is, of course—that he has

793
announced the end of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, the closure of Clydebank and Scotstoun, direct unemployment of 5,000 to 6,000, which, allowing for suppliers, could rise to 15,000, and could bring male unemployment on Clydebank to 18 per cent.? This is a major tragedy for the men involved and for Scotland, and it has been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman without a single word of regret at any stage in his statement.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall want an urgent debate on this matter, that the Advisory Group report, now in the Vote Office, is a political document without a single figure attached to it, and that the House will want a Select Committee to examine the record of the Government in this respect?
I should like to ask the Secretary of State two questions. First, how many redundancies does he expect, where will they take place, when will they take place, and what effect will they have on the rate of male unemployment in Scotland?
Secondly, what is the cost of this policy to the Government in payments to the liquidator, the cost of reconstruction and capital to finance private persons to come in, in terms of redundancy and unemployment pay and the public assets of some millions of pounds which he has written off in the statement which he has just announced?
Mr. Davies: With characteristic exaggeration, the right hon. Gentleman seeks to cloak his own manifest responsibility for the situation. He criticises this Group, which is both expert and impartial —[HON. MEMBERS: "Tory."]—nonsense —as to the views which it expresses, largely to conceal the fact that its criticism is, quite properly, directed against himself.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions of merit. First, what redundancies do I anticipate? I have made it clear in my statement that redundancies immediately are unlikely to be more than 400. The ultimate redundancies will depend whether the project which this Group has outlined is sustainable and can be undertaken. They also depend on the ultimate disposal, with work continuing, of parts of the U.C.S. activity, particularly those to which he referred at Clydebank and Scotstoun. Therefore, any
794
endeavour to try to forecast at this moment the exact number or timing of redundancies would be irresponsible.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second question, the total cost which may be envisaged for Government expenditure clearly depends on what access there is to private funds to sustain this further project. Until such time as that is clear, it is impossible to say what the position will be. For guidance, however, it is right to say that up to the present £4 million has been advanced to the provisional liquidator, of which approximately £1¼ million is in the form of effective grants. The remainder, approximately £2¾ million, advanced to keep the labour force at work until 6th August in the recognition that a large part of the work involved is to complete ships for which payment will be made, is in the form of a loan to the provisional liquidator, and it is that loan which he will retain for the time being.
Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my questions. There must have been some figures before the Cabinet when it reached a view as to how many redundancies would be involved and what the cost to public funds would be. Will he tell the House what figures the Cabinet had? Will he also tell the House why the Advisory Group's report has been published without a single figure in it anywhere? If the right hon. Gentleman believes that responsibility lies elsewhere—[HON. MEMBERS: "You."]—will he agree to a Select Committee of the House examining the records of both Governments in this respect?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since this policy was forecast almost exactly in the Ridley Report, we do not believe a word that the Government say on the matter?
Mr. Davies: I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is pure evasion. The responsibility lies entirely with him. He resents the report because, quite rightly, it points the finger at him, and he should answer that responsibility.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the report of the wise men makes it quite clear that the overwhelming responsibility for this tragedy rests on the shoulders of the right

795
hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)? Is he further aware that just two years ago the right hon. Gentleman told a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs that to give an open-ended commitment to one shipyard would totally undermine shipbuilding policy generally? In the light of those two facts, will he treat the right hon. Gentleman's comments with the contempt that they deserve?
Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir. I heartily endorse every word of my hon. Friend's statement.
Mr. Small: This is the grimmest news that the Clyde has had in years. Connells in Scotstoun is in my constituency, and I know the concern of the workers there. This is a matter of judgment as to whether this group is viable or not. The loyalty to the group over the last 18 months by the workers there has been outstanding, and I repeat that this is a matter of judgment.
What guarantee has the liquidator for continuing wages to the men after the terminal date of 6th August, and for how long will these wages be continued during the phasing-out period?
Mr. Davies: I have made the point about funds being presently in the liquidator's hands, and I have described what they are. They will remain available to him to secure a continuation of employment in the terms in which my statement reads. The liquidator is in possession of such funds as will enable him so to continue. While he has specific responsibility to have regard to the interests of the creditors, it is essential that nothing he does, or that I do in support of him, should prejudice his legal responsibilities in that field.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: But is it not time that both the House and the country recognised that neither of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite is wholly responsible for this tragic situation? Was it not very fully predicted in the D.S.I.R. Report on the industry, published in 1960, and does the Minister not agree—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the question which the hon. Member is putting.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does the Minister not agree that there can be no effective response to the massive challenge presented
796
to Western Europe by the Japanese shipbuilding industry unless that response is now organised on a Western European scale? Is that not now our policy?
Mr. Davies: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that there is a problem for Western Europe at the moment. Despite all the polemics and hostilities which this matter may arouse, what seems to me to be critical is to try to get this residual element, which looks as though it might have a future, to work. It is essential to try to do so.
Mr. Rankin: If there has to be a residual effort, or any kind of resulting effort, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of creating confidence among the men who are working in the shipyards on Clydeside? Does he realise the importance of that?
Does the right hon. Gentleman further realise that his statement will destroy any little remnants that exist of that confidence? Does he realise that? Will he tell us one or two other things? How many shipbuilding yards on Clydeside are to be closed? He has not told us that yet.
Why is the action of Fairfields in the period from 1964 to 1967 exempt even from criticism, and why is it that the condemnation and the criticism starts only from 1967? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that Fairfields were functioning in the situation which he condemns for three solid years? Does he approve of how Fairfields were run then? If he does, will he seek to keep Fairfields going, as it could do, with whatever shipyards will be remaining on Clydeside when he has finished with it?
Mr. Davies: On the question of confidence, with all the uncertainties which have overwhelmed this concern from its inception, it is difficult to speak of confidence about its future at any time.
The number of yards that will be closed will depend upon the result of the various efforts that are now made. The first effort will be to try to get this proposed project going. If that happens, the Fairfields yard at Govan will be the central unit of the project.
Mr. Rankin: Which yards?
Mr. Davies: The Fairfields yard at Govan, which is the central unit of that project with Linthouse. The two other

797
main yards of U.C.S., Clydebank and Scotstoun, will be disposed of, perhaps for continuing work, by the liquidator.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Can my right hon. Friend say something about the procedure for bringing together those who may be able to give the assurances which might preserve these yards on the Upper Clyde? Second, can he say whether any apprentices will be involved in the immediate redundancies? As some of these youngsters may have served for three or four years, will he consider taking urgent steps to bring together the Confederation of Local Employers to see whether these young people can complete their apprenticeships?
Mr. Davies: The purpose to which my hon. Friend refers in specifically that to which I am addressing myself.
I am conscious of the problem of apprentices, and so, indeed, is the liquidator. Discussions have taken place between him and others concerned with a view to trying to ensure the eventual completion of their apprenticeships.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the House—[Interruption.]—I am not going to stop these questions now, but I must warn the House that there can be only a limited period for them.
Mr. McCartney: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, implied in his statement, there is the possibility, or perhaps the probability, of the whole of the shipbuilding unit on the Upper Clyde being disposed of? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that unless certain conditions were obtained in the immediate future in the negotiations that are taking place the possibility of a viable shipbuilding unit would not exist. Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman still has in mind the complete decimation of shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also say what he has in mind for those workers whom he has said will be made redundant? Is he making any provision for the employment of at least some of the redundant workers behind the desks of the employment exchanges to cope with increased productivity in the only place where it is happening in Scotland?
798
Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government have in mind when he tells us that the Government are concerned to do everything possible to alleviate the circumstances of these men? Remembering what one of his right hon. Friends said recently, that there were signs of improvement in Scotland, and immediately afterward the unemployment rate shot up by thousands, with disastrous results, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is following the policy that was followed when that occurred? Does this mean that not only U.C.S. workers are in peril, but that other workers face the same danger, too? Can the right hon. Gentleman spell out exactly what the Government propose to do to protect the interests of shipbuilding workers?
When my hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask a Question.
Mr. McCartney: I am trying to pose the questions and the reasons for them at the same time. Whey my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) said that this was the biggest disaster for years in Scotland, he was right. It is a great disaster, but would not the Minister agree that he is the biggest disaster of all time?
Mr. Davies: The answer to the first of the hon. Gentleman's questions is that the intention, if at all possible, is to get the project, which the group has recommended, to work. That will require a great deal of effort.
In answer to the second question, the help which can be given to those who are rendered redundant is that which is available through the Department of Employment and which is well known to the hon. Gentleman.
The third question relates essentially to the effect on suppliers and the work forces which are involved with suppliers. If it proves possible to work the project which has been recommended, it is the intention to transfer the bulk of the existing shipbuilding programme of U.C.S. to the new project. If this is so, the suppliers' outlets will be to a considerable degree preserved. This should give some reassurance on the subject of their employment.
Mr. Ross: Am I right in thinking that the present work force of U.C.S. numbers 8,300 and that the right hon. Gentleman under his reconstruction gives the possibility, and only the possibility, of continued employment for only 2,500? Therefore, this is not reconstruction; it is butchery.
Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the saddest days of my life was when I was in Maryhill Barracks with the H.L.I. and went through Clydebank the day after it had been bombed by the Germans? The blow that has been delivered to Clydebank by the Government is even worse than that. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of it.
Is he aware that there is no evidence that social considerations have been brought into this? This is a cold and callous manoeuvre such as was foreseen by the Ridley report. Will the right hon. Gentleman go up to Clydebank and then to Scotstoun and talk to the men and tell them why he is doing this? Exactly how are these men to find employment when the unemployment rate in this area is already nearly 10 per cent.? Will he tell us just exactly what hope there is of getting private capital into this project? What hope has he, on the basis of a statement such as the one he has just made, of getting a continuation of the co-operation that the unions have given to the management in recent years?
Mr. Davies: The hope I have is certainly not assisted by the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ross: Disgraceful !
Mr. Davies: The responsibility for this event lies squarely on the Front Bench opposite—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot allow this to continue. This is a matter which ought to be debated—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Other hon. Members: Butchery !
Mr. Speaker: Order—and it might be that I could help.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the callous and unfeeling attitude of the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Leader of the Opposition has to say.
Mr. Wilson: —which has been endemic in Government policy since the right hon. Gentleman's maiden Ministerial speech nine months ago, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is not from him that we want to hear and that in the debate that must take place—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— we have our own rights in this matter, but in that debate the House has a right to acquire the attendance of the Prime Minister?
Mr. Benn: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Government's decision on the future of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and its implications for those concerned, for Scotland, and for shipbuilding as a whole."
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the Government's decision on the future of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and its implications for those concerned, for Scotland, and for shipbuilding as a whole."
I am satisfied that the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman is one proper to be discussed, and I hope perhaps a little more quietly, under Standing Order No. 9.
Has the right hon. Gentleman the leave of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having risen accordingly—
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman's Motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business on Monday afternoon when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours under Standing Order 9(2).
Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This concerns a matter related to that which we have just discussed and is a matter which is before the courts. I had an urgent communication this morning from a constituent who has substantial interests in the proposed liquidation of U.C.S. I have informed the Secretary of State of this matter. My constituent in his turn has been in communication with, he tells me, 75 of the creditors.
I have quickly perused this short report. I understood the Secretary of State to say that he was accepting the recommendation in paragraph 3.1(1) that an end be made to U.C.S. How is it possible for us to prevent further developments, if the debate is not to take place till Monday and when the significant item in the court proceedings which are taking place is that the creditors are not willing to press their claims subject to certain agreement with the liquidator?
Mr. Speaker: It is quite clear to me from what the hon. Gentleman has already said that this can be nothing to do with the Chair.
Dr. Mabon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely this is a very relevant matter. It involves a great deal of money for many small traders, and Monday may be too late—
Mr. Speaker: That may well be so, but it has nothing to do with the Chair. I have given my decision about the debate and that must stand.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Lords Amendments considered.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    Clause 7

      APPROPRIATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRADE UNION IN LIEU OF MEMBERSHIP
      Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28th July] proposed on consideration of Lords Amendments, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment, No. 14A, in page 6, line 44, to leave out 'construction'.
      Question again proposed.
      4.20 p.m.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Last night we were discussing this Amendment and Amendment No. 14B, in page 7, line 4, leave out subsection (7). The Under-Secretary of State for Employment moved the Amendment formally and we had no statement from him. I understand that he was trying to make progress in the debate, but it seemed to us that there should have been some explanation of these Amendments. I want to make it clear that we recognise that the Amendments are a concession to the Opposition in the other place and that they arise out of discussions which originally took place in this House in the Committee stage.
      Reference to the construction industry has been eliminated from the Clause by this Amendment. It means that there can be a widening of the number of industries for which the Secretary of State can make statutory orders. But we believe that the hon. Gentleman should explain in some detail the thinking of the Government on what industries would be involved, in addition to the construction industry, because there are many industries where workers are employed on a casual basis and where the application of the provision of three months, or one month, after an agreement was arrived at would mean that many thousands of workers would not be involved in union membership because of

      803
      the casual nature of their job. I can think, for example, of musicians, seamen on short runs, members of Equity, television employees and so on. I believe that the Government are in duty bound to explain the situation a little more clearly. We are not making a big issue of this point. We on this side of the House consider these Amendments are concessions to points raised by the Opposition here and in the other place, but it in no way means that we are accepting the whole concept of the agency shop in principle. We are opposed to the agency shop. We think it is wrong and we believe that the Government have once again got themselves into this muddled situation because of the concept of the agency shop which they have put forward.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for what he has said. In a burst of somewhat misguided enthusiasm late last night I tried to assist progress by moving this Amendment formally. That is always a hazardous thing to do, and the hon. Gentleman has now asked me to give an explanation.
      This is not a major matter, but it is of some importance. As the hon. Gentleman has said, this Amendment has been requested both in this House and in another place. Therefore, I owe it to the House to give a short explanation of what these two Amendments are about. In doing so I entirely accept, although I do not agree with the hon. Member, that by concurring with Amendments to some of these Clauses this does not commit the Opposition to any concept of the agency shop. This was well deployed yesterday in debate and we are only too well aware of the hostility towards the agency shop of hon. Members opposite.
      We feel that these Amendments are an improvement because they enable the Secretary of State to make orders by Statutory Instrument to modify in respect of any industry, not only in the construction industry, the requirements of Clauses 7(5) by substituting shorter periods for those specified.
      If I may explain briefly, Clause 7(5) provides that a worker shall not be required by an agency shop agreement to
      804
      pay an appropriate contribution in respect of certain periods. In the case of a worker already in the employment of a firm when an agency shop agreement comes into effect, this period is three months from the date when the agreement takes effect. In the case of a worker engaged for employment with a firm where an established agency shop is operating the period is one month from the commencement of his employment. In the construction industry, where many workers are employed for periods of short duration and workers are rarely employed by the same employers on more than two successive occasions, and where a small permanent labour force is often supplemented by a large number of transient workers, the requirement of one and three months would often make the operation of an agency shop impracticable. Subsection (6) therefore, enables the Secretary of State to make an order to substitute shorter periods in agency shop agreements covering workers in construction. Subsection (7) defines a construction worker.
      Mr. Heffer: Could the hon. Gentleman indicate in any way the thinking of the Government as to the actual period when he says "a shorter period"? What does that mean? Does it mean two weeks, one week, or three weeks? What have the Government in mind?
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not think one could say at this stage, and it would certainly be wrong to commit my right hon. Friend because this would have to be judged on the cases. I think the position needs to be reserved. However, this is for a period shorter than those two periods which I have already mentioned.
      Representations were made about this problem of those on short duration employment. The movement of workers between employers is by no means confined to the construction industry. That fact is well appreciated. As I say, we have had representations both in this House and in another place. Such conditions occur, apart from in the construction industry—for example, in entertainment as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, in agriculture, in seafaring and other industries. While it would be wrong to delineate the whole lot, we will promise to consider any particular cases which are advanced.

      805
      It would seem reasonable to extend the power of the Secretary of State to enable him to make an order to modify these requirements for the period after which the appropriate contribution becomes payable for work of any description where it would be appropriate to do so. In those circumstances, I suggest that it would be sensible to agree with this Amendment.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: Looking at this matter logically, where there is an established industry, whether one agrees with the principle or not, how will this provision be operated? In industries with an itinerant labour force which changes all the time, of which there are many, how can one get a stable trade union situation? It is beyond me.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not think that arises on this Amendment. I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Gentleman appears to be. I do not disguise the fact that there are difficulties because, as he says, work forces are moving around a great deal. But with this Amendment, which is a sensible one, there is more chance of establishing an agency shop situation than otherwise would be the case. It would be fairly impracticable, as it was realised at the outset, in the construction industry, and this would open it up to other industries, examples of which I have given, if an agency shop is desired by the workers concerned.
      In those circumstances, I commend this Amendment to the House, and again I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so brief in his comments and allowing me to make this explanation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 9

      REFERENCE TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF DISPUTE RELATING TO CONTRIBUTION
      Lords Amendment: No. 15, in page 7, line 28, leave out "person" and insert "worker".
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      806
      This is a minor drafting Amendment the need for which was pointed out in another place by several noble Lords, Lord Delacourt-Smith and Lord Hoy among them. It deletes "person" and substitutes "worker" in the agency shop process and thereby regularises the situation.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 7, line 33, leave out from "Act" to end of line 37.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Again, the Government are responding to a request made by the Opposition in another place. Clause 9 as it stood contained three sub-paragraphs to subsection (1), and it was suggested to us that what was required could be achieved by the retention of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b); this Amendment will have the effect of removing sub-paragraph (c). The Government supported a similar proposal in another place. This will achieve, by the use of appropriate words, what was desired by the Opposition in the House of Lords.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: As an agency shop agreement can exist only within the highly complex legal framework established by this Measure, the words which it is proposed to delete seem unnecessary and, to that extent, I agree with the Solicitor-General —but only in isolation, for I must again enter the caveat that we are opposed to the whole concept of the agency shop.
      In this case the Industrial Tribunal must decide whether a payment is in accordance with an agreement. Such agreements must have the sanction of law and one expects, in the normal course of events, that a reasonable sum—a sum that does not unfairly discriminate—is bound to be the outcome of the remaining subparagraphs (a) and (b).
      Accordingly—this is extremely unusual in our debates on the Bill—I see nothing in the Amendment which offends. In one respect it is to be commended; in so far as it may help to avoid some vexatious claims by what have been termed in our deliberations on this subject, members of the awkward squad.

      807
      Despite this tiny Amendment, the tribunal may become overloaded. The whole function of the tribunal is being changed. It is being effectively sabotaged and, as a result, is losing the confidence of the trade union movement. This tribunal has proved reasonably speedy, fair and informal in the past in dealing with such matters as redundancy payments. The Bill will render it ineffectual. But in so far as the Amendment might minimise the degree of sabotage, we welcome it. If it helps to avoid the retention of useless words, it will have done a little good in an otherwise extremely harmful context.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 10

      AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 19, in page 9, line 8, after "rights" insert "or rights corresponding to negotiating rights".
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I suggest that it will be convenient to take at the same time the following three Lords Amendments:
      No. 20, in page 9, line 14, at end insert:
      "(4) In this Part of this Act "rights corresponding to negotiating rights" means rights to partcipate, on behalf of one or more descriptions of workers who are not employees, in negotiations relating to those workers, with a view to the conclusion or modification of one or more collective agreements."
      No. 24, in page 9, line 38, at end insert "or rights corresponding to negotiating rights".
      No. 284, in page 120, line 17, insert new Clause M—(Power to limit certain provisions of Act to major undertakings.)
      The Solicitor-General: These four Amendments are grouped in this way to enable the House to consider more conveniently the important principles embodied in Amendment No. 284, which affects a later Clause of the Bill.
      I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is anxious to deal with Amendment No. 284 because, as
      808
      hon. Gentlemen opposite will no doubt point out, it raises an important new set of principles. It may be convenient, therefore, if, provided my right hon. Friend returns to his place with sufficient speed, I were to invite the House to reconsider the grouping that you have suggested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and limit it to the extent of discussing now, quite shortly, Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, and then, almost immediately, as the foundation for the substantive debate, Amendments Nos. 24 and 284.
      The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) will understand my purpose in suggesting this course, for if the grouping were split in any other way we would lose a peg on which to hang the important contribution which my right hon. Friend wishes to make in connection with Amendment No. 284.
      Mrs. Barbara Castle: I entirely accept the purpose of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are happy to agree to the course he proposes, as long as we do not lose the opportunity to discuss Amendment No. 284 at this stage.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I take it that it is the general wish to discuss Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 now, to be followed in due course by a discussion of Amendments Nos. 24 and 284?
      The Solicitor-General: That is so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, though we will, of course, have to postpone the projected debate on Amendments Nos. 24 and 284 until we have deal with Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
      To the extent that Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are Amendments to Clause 10, both are designed to have the same effect, namely, to introduce in the part of the Bill dealing with the agency shop the concept of extending the right to establish an agency shop agreement to a union which is representing workers who are not employees. This introduces, in addition to the concept of rights, the concept of
      "'rights corresponding to negotiating rights'."
      Amendment No. 20 defines those rights as
      "'rights to participate, on behalf of one or more descriptions of workers who are not employees, in negotiations relating to those workers, with a view to the conclusion or modification of one or more collective agreements'."

      809
      This means, in effect, that a union which is representing people employed on contract for services, such as in the acting profession, or people employed in other non-employed professions, will have the right, provided it has the negotiating rights, to set up an agency shop.
      A trade union which negotiates on behalf of workers who are not employees will, therefore, be treated for the purposes of this part of the Bill as having negotiating rights and, thus, being able to enter into an agency shop agreement. This is an extension which was recommended in another place by three noble Lords, members of the Opposition.
      Mr. Orme: Would this also apply to people who are on labour-only sub-contracting work and so forth, who might be working at a particular plant but are classed as self-employed?
      The Solicitor-General: There are a great variety of formulations of the labour-only sub-contractor. He is an animal classed in many sub-species. Broadly speaking, people who are engaged as individuals on contract for services, as opposed to those engaged as individuals under contracts of employment, qualify as workers and are covered by these provisions. Quite a number of labour-only sub-contractors, as opposed to gang masters in the same situation, would be covered by these provisions. Those directly engaged on individual contracts would be covered by these provisions.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: Would such workers be classed as part of the 51 per cent. eligible to vote because they were working in the factory at the time?
      The Solicitor-General: It would depend on the scope of the agreement. If a union had negotiating rights in respect of these workers, and was seeking an agency shop in respect of them, it would be seeking an agency shop in respect of the people covered by the collective agreement. There might be a situation where there was a collective agreement with the union representing only the employees or where the union represented both the employees and the self-employed. If it were that wide, and the union was seeking an agency shop, they would be included in
      810
      the 51 per cent. It would depend on the representation of the union.
      Mr. Orme: Let us take the situation where a firm has a large number of subcontracting engineering draughtsmen. I deplore the extension of this sort of thing, but it happens. Would they come under the agency shop? Would they be eligible to vote? I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has quite explained the point.
      The Solicitor-General: It would depend. There is an infinity of variation in this kind of situation. It would depend on the precise pattern. If the union was representing, and was recognised as representing, the self-employed and the employed, and was claiming an agency shop in respect of all of them, it would presumably be claiming it to cover the lot—all those it represented— and they would all be entitled to vote. If the self-employed draughtsmen were, of their own choice, or for some other reason, outside the scope of union representation—if they were deliberately standing apart from the union but were covered by the same agreement—then again the agency shop might extend that far.
      The point is that if—as I suspect is in the hon. Gentleman's mind—one is dealing with a situation where there is an underlying recognition conflict, where the union is recognised as representing the employed and the self-employed are standing outside, an agency shop cannot then simply be imposed or extended until the underlying recognition conflict has been resolved. An agency shop or closed shop or union shop could not be set up until it was clear how far the closed shop was to extend. If there is an argument about how far the union's right to represent the workers is to extend, that has to be resolved first. That does not affect the situation where everyone is clear, where the union represents employed and self-employed and merely wants an agency shop to cover all of them.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I would like the hon. and learned Gentleman to clarify several points. Lords Amendment No. 20 begins:
      "In this Part of this Act …"

      811
      As I read that, it means Part II of the Bill, so we are not merely talking about the scope of a particular union. It seems to me that we are talking about all those who may or may not be involved in a ballot in a particular establishment where a union is seeking to establish an agency. That means that we are talking about people who may not be members of that union or of any union. We are talking about people who will be involved in an agency shop situation irrespective of whether they are members of the union making the bid. That raises the question of whether the Amendment is extending the right to participate in a ballot to people who might otherwise have asked to be excluded. My hon. Friends have referred to one or two examples. Another is that of part-time workers, who tend not to be unionised. For example, a large number of young people still at school or college find part-time employment in the distributive trade on Saturday afternoons.
      4.45 p.m.
      One accepts that the intention is to extend the right to participate in agency shops to people who might otherwise be excluded—people like the Writers' Guild and so on. Perhaps that is the intention, but—and it may be inadvertent—the hon. and learned Gentleman is bringing in, for example, the group which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) is so concerned about, the professional engineers who do not necessarily have the same affinity with the principles of trade unionism in a professional organisational capacity as the A.S.T.M.S. does.
      The Solicitor-General: The scope of an agency shop agreement depends upon how far the proposing union wishes it to extend. Clause 10(2) deals with the situation where one or more trade unions desire to enter into an agency shop agreement in respect of workers of one or more descriptions. The union can say, "We wish to represent all those who work in this factory". It can say, "We wish to represent all those who work as employees and who do not work as self-employed". It could make its own proposals. As I understand the situation, the union, seeking to extend its representation of the range of people who have to subscribe to it in order to exclude the free rider, would normally propose that
      812
      everyone who worked in that shop, where it settled the collective bargaining terms, should be parts of it. Imagine that if the union felt that, by not seeking to extend to a great chunk of the self-employed or part-timers who were not enthusiastic non-members, it would normally win the ballot, so to speak, it would not seek so far to extend it. It is up to the union to decide how large an area it is proposing in order to continue or establish an agency shop.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Walker: I accept the point. It is not what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that concerns me, but what he is not saying. After yesterday's debate, we must bear in mind that we are not talking only about particular establishments but about industries. Supposing, for example, that the A.S.T.M.S. went to the Engineering Employers' Federation and said, "We want to enter an agency shop agreement in respect of all people engaged in supervisory or technical capacities in the engineering industry". In considering whether this union could have an agency, would the U.K.A.P.E., which includes amongst its membership a great many people not employed on contracts of employment but on contracts to provide services personally, be entitled to say, "In the reckoning for this, under the provisions not merely of Clause 10 but of the whole of Part II of the Bill, we assert our rights"? That could lead to some difficulty.
      I am in something of a tangled web here which is arising from the good intentions of the Government in accepting a legitimate and valid point of view put by their Lordships. I am puzzled as to why Lords Amendment No. 20 is needed. The agency shop, as I see it, deals throughout in terms of worker, not employee. The definition of "worker" is embodied in Clause 158 and caters not only for people engaged in contracts of employment but who are in other categories to provide services personally and so on. In other words, those for whom the Amendment is designed to cater are already provided for in the Bill. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will clarify this matter, as I am in some doubt. I wonder whether the Solicitor-General would have a go at clarifying that for me. I am not trying to be awkward; I am in some doubt.
      The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House; I have been trying to avoid seeking leave by intervening in order to answer questions. The hon. Gentleman is right: this is why the matter was raised in another place. The provisions of Clause 10 extend to workers and therefore in themselves cover the kind of people we have been discussing.
      But the Bill as drafted did not extend to a union which was representing workers who were not employees, because it gave the right to apply to the industrial court to a union which had negotiating rights, and those rights exist only in respect of employees.
      Clause 42 says that negotiating rights are rights on behalf of all or some of the employees. That is the only point of this provision. As the hon. Gentleman has said, workers are already covered.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Oh, what a tangled web we weave!
      The Solicitor-General: As the hon. Gentleman's noble Friends pointed out in another place, however, in order to give the union the corresponding rights in respect of workers as well as employees, negotiating rights have to be extended in the way covered by the Amendment. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's last question.
      The extent of a proposed agency shop agreement depends on the proposal. With the engineers, for example, if the situation now arises in which a union says that professional engineers ought to be required to belong to that union, it is making a bid in respect of them. It would be free under these provisions to make a bid for an agency shop agreement. Therefore, the larger the bid made by the union, the larger the number of people entitled to vote on whether it should be accepted.
      An hon. Member earlier mentioned part-time workers. If a union decided whether it wished to extend a proposed agency shop agreement to part-time workers, they, too, would have the right to vote on whether that agreement should exist. The foundation in respect of employees or workers depends on how wide is the bid by the union for an agency shop agreement. These are the mechanics
      814
      to make sure that workers come within the classification of employees.
      Mr. Ashton: The Solicitor-General is saying that the size of the umbrella is determined by the trade union, but the size of the umbrella could lead to dispute with the employer. What happens if the employer says that he should have some say in deciding its size?
      In the engineering industry, for example, there has been an amalgamation into one general union of staff and of workers on the shop floor, and D.A.T.A. has joined what was the A.E.F. It could be argued on the eligible-to-vote principle that management and staff employees, many not now in the union, should be eligible to vote simply because they were eligible to join the union. If the amalgamated union said that it wanted the umbrella to cover only shop floor workers, knowing full well that it would then have the vast majority, could not the management say that white collar workers were eligible to join the union and that the umbrella should cover them too? Is the Solicitor-General saying that responsibility for deciding the size of the umbrella rests solely with the union?
      The Solicitor-General: May I interrupt? The hon. Gentleman is saying that if the scope of the proposed agency shop covers an underlying recognition dispute, the union might have to include white collar as well as non-white collar workers. The recognition dispute would have to be resolved separately and first. The next Amendments deal with this issue and it may be convenient to discuss the matter then.
      Mr. Ashton: I accept that and I reserve my comments until then.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11

      BALLOT AS TO AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 21, in page 9, line 18, after "application" insert "(a)".
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following Lords Amendments:
      No. 22, in page 9, line 22, after ("ineffective") insert:
      ("or
      (b) such a question, although not yet in dispute, is likely to become the subject of a dispute if an agency shop agreement is made in pursuance of the application, and would in that event be likely, until settled, to make that agreement ineffective").
      No. 23, in page 9, line 23, after ("Court") insert:
      ("and to the trade union, trade unions, joint negotiating panel or employer who made the application").
      The Solicitor-General: As a result of the severance which I announced in the last debate, these Amendments now arise before we reach No. 24 and No. 284, and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) may reach that point when we come to it. I doubt whether the hon. Member ever actually relaxes, but he can relax comparatively for a moment or two.
      These three Amendments are linked. They are Amendments to Clause 11 and involve requiring the C.I.R. to postpone the holding of a ballot on an agency shop agreement in rather more extended circumstances than the Clause did originally. As Clause 11(1) stood, when a ballot for an agency shop agreement had been requested and it appeared to the C.I.R. that there was in dispute an underlying question about a matter of recognition, the C.I.R. was required to report to that effect to the court and not to proceed with the ballot until the recognition dispute had been disposed of.
      The Amendments require the C.I.R. to behave in exactly the same way if it appears to it that, although a recognition question has not yet actually broken out into dispute, it is likely to do so if an agency shop agreement is made as wide as is proposed. This to some extent meets the point made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). It would be pointless to make use of the machinery for deciding whether workers to be covered by the agreement wished to have an agency shop until one was clear about the proper scope of the agreement. The Amendments enable the C.I.R. to anticipate such a point arising and to ask, "What is the point of having this agency shop ballot until we are clear whether
      816
      the workers concerned will wear the proposal that they should be represented by this union?" They extend the situation in which the C.I.R. may postpone the ballot in that way.
      Amendment No. 23 is designed to meet a slightly different matter. If the C.I.R. reaches that kind of conclusion and is proposing to report to the court that a ballot is likely to be ineffective on that point, it should report at the same time to the trade union, or trade unions' joint panel, or the employer, making the application so that everyone knows that for the moment the matter is being postponed.
      I hope that that explains the underlying issue about which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw was concerned and the effect of the three Amendments.
      Mr. John Fraser: From what the Solicitor-General was saying it seems that the Commission for Industrial Relations will be able to substitute its own judgment for the judgment of trade unions about whether it is worth going ahead with an agency shop agreement. The Amendments, taken in conjunction with the other provisions necessary to obtain an agency shop agreement, remind one of the lines of Christopher Marlowe:
      "My men like satyrs grazing on the lawns, Shall with their goat-feet dance an antic hay."
      This is another antic hay which must be danced by the trade union before it can get what is now enjoyed by many trade unions and endorsed by many employers and working well.
      5.0 p.m.
      This is another twist to the quadrille to be deuced by trade unions so that they may get something which is a little like the present 100 per cent. membership. We have heard from time to time about "Alice in Wonderland." This method is yet another delaying tactic to prevent a union from getting an agency shop. If the Solicitor-General had to translate the lines from Lewis Carroll:
      "Will you walk a little faster" said a whiting to a snail,
      "There's a porpoise just close behind us, and he's treading on my tail".
      he would translate it as:
      "If a question arises as to whether the porpoise is about to tread on the whiting, it will have a sharp request to withdraw from the dance until that dispute is settled."

      817
      That is the ridicule which is being brought upon this operation.
      The Solicitor-General: Would the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that this is the purpose of the exercise? Suppose a large union makes a claim for an agency shop and there is a small union whose claim to represent the workers in the shop has not yet been disposed of. If the C.I.R. saw that by going ahead with the agency shop ballot it would be excluding the small union—[Interruption.]—where a recognition dispute was likely to arise—
      Mr. Orme: The Government are creating the dispute.
      The Solicitor-General: No, the dispute is there, underlying it. If the C.I.R. was satisfied that if it turned to the small union and said, like the Red Queen, "Off with his head !" the dispute would go underground and burst out again, then it would be entitled to defer the ballot. It is not creating a difficult situation, it is enabling the C.I.R. to avoid a difficulty which would otherwise be inevitable.
      Mr. Fraser: It seems that it is creating a situation whereby a premium is placed upon a trade union dispute. It might not be a trade union which is creating the likelihood of a dispute, it might be an employer who has decided that under certain circumstances if he encourages a group of people in the works to make a separate recognition application it would delay the application to the Court for an agency shop.
      I must take issue with my hon. Friends who say that this Bill is a lawyers' paradise. Practising lawyers do not like difficult law and difficult procedures. They would prefer simplified procedures because their experience is that when there are complicated procedures, such as those involved in discharging restrictive covenants, people do not use them. When there is a dispute about a restrictive covenant in property law the procedure is usually so complicated that people choose to take out an insurance policy, ignoring the lawyers altogether.
      This is not Amendment 22, it is "Catch 22". Anyone who knows about "Catch 22" knows that it is about Yosarian who wants to get out of the American Air Force and the only ground
      818
      upon which he can get out is that of madness. "Catch 22" is that if he applies to get out he must be sane. This is how the Bill operates.
      I can see the agency shop scene. It starts with the Minister telling a trade union, "I want strong and responsible trade unions" and the trade union saying, "We are a strong and responsible trade union, we have 100 per cent. closed shop and we want to continue operating that way, so we have no quarrel." "Ah !", says the Minister, 'There's a catch. You are not a trade union because trade unions are what I choose to call trade unions. You have to be registered under the Act, you have got to go through the hoop." The unions says, "Reluctantly we have become a trade union and now we will use the strength which we have, which is equal to the employers' strength and we will have a strike to get 100 per cent. closed shop." "Ah !" says the Minister, "there's a catch. You cannot do that because that would be an unfair industrial practice, because it might restrict someone's right under Section 5." The union says, "Fair enough, our members are so incensed by this situation that they will withdraw their labour, in breach of their contracts of employment." "Ah, Catch 22", says the Minister. I have amended the definition of a strike and even if you give up your work it still amounts to a strike." So the union says, "We'll do what you say, we'll apply to the Court for an agency shop." "Ah!" says the Minister, "you cannot do that, there is a catch. First you have got to be a recognised trade union and if the employer refuses to recognise you you have to go through the first procedure for recognition before you can make an application to have an agency shop." The union says, "We have done that already and we will now make an application to get something approximating to what we had in the first place as a responsible trade union—our 100 per cent. shop." "Ah," says the Minister, "Catch 22. There is likely to be a dispute as to whether someone will raise a recognition issue." That is the situation. We are in the realm of fantasy.
      Mr. Harold Walker: May I offer a quotation which I threw across the Committee a few minutes ago:
      "Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
      When first we practise to deceive!"
      Mr. Fraser: I agree. This has become legal fantasy, a legal quadrille. Let us get back to first principles.
      An Industrial Relations Bill is based upon improving industrial relations. Let us compare the procedure in the Bill with the basic recommendations in Donovan which was that we ought to have a speedy settlement of disputes. Does anyone imagine that the procedure set out here, terminating with Amendment No. 22 will lead to a speedy settlement of disputes? Donovan recommended that we should reduce the multiplicity of unions and it is clear that we will have better industrial relations when there are fewer unions dealing with employers. Once again a premium is being placed upon creating a situation where there is likely to be a recognition dispute. I can imagine the situation which might arise with a small group of workers over an agency dispute. They might get some advice from the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). She may say to her few "professional engineers", "Look, you can wreck this thing, you can raise the likelihood—you do not have to make an application—of there being a dispute and tell the C.I.R. and the matter will be put off." If hon. Members opposite believe the Minister when he says that this will improve industrial relations they are severely mistaken. This is a case of the bland leading the blind. We on this side are not blind to the problems that will be created. Let us contrast one case already dealt with by the Commission for Industcial Relations—the recognition dispute at B.S.R. Kilbride—which was solved by the intervention of the C.I.R. I do not think it was an agency shop problem. The C.I.R. intervened after a long and bitter struggle and, without the necessity of court intervention, was able to solve the dispute. Compare that as it operates at the moment on a voluntary basis, with the procedure outlined here and it will be seen that this is sheer Lewis Carroll madness.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if private parties are willing there is nothing to stop that happening again. This is when the parties will not use the simple procedure.
      Mr. Fraser: This is where the Minister is mistaken. At the moment, parties
      820
      can voluntarily agree on recognition procedures. Let us look at the Kilbride case. There the union had to strike to achieve recognition. Under these provisions they cannot strike to achieve recognition or to set up an agency shop. The Minister is encouraging employers to resist the approaches of the trade unions to get an agency shop. At the moment if there is no voluntary agreement, it comes to a trial of strength, and the union can come out on strike. But under the Bill they cannot. Under those circumstances the Minister is putting pressure upon the employer to resist the demands of the trade union for the agency shop—to make it possible for him to do so through this intricate legal procedure— and is thereby delaying agreement being reached—going back to the Kilbride case —which is the right way to do it.
      Mr. Carr: I am sure that the hon. Member is not intentionally misleading the House. We are providing an alternative means of pressure for the union in a case such as that which he has mentioned. In that case, because of the lack of any machinery such as this, a union felt it necessary to call a strike as the only means of applying pressure. The object of the Bill and the other forms of machinery that have been set up is to provide an alternative to industrial warfare for solving disputes that cannot be solved in other ways.
      Mr. Fraser: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer me by way of intervention. Is he now saying that a trade union can come out on strike to achieve an agency shop?
      Mr. Carr: No. I am sure that I have made it clear that if they cannot persuade the employer, instead of having to come out on strike, or feel that they have to come out on strike because there is no other effective machinery, the Bill provides machinery other than industrial warfare by which they can exert pressure.
      Mr. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question directly. I agree that he is creating some kind of machinery, but he is saying to the trade unions, "In future, you cannot come out on strike to achieve an agency shop". That is the correct interpretation, is it not?
      Mr. Carr: Of course—and is not it a good thing for the whole of the community, as well as for employees and for the prosperity of the firm concerned, that we should first have to try peaceful means —provided those peaceful means are available—before striking and doing all the damage that is caused by a strike.
      Mr. Fraser: I agree that we ought to achieve machinery that leads to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Most people would endorse that. Our quarrel is not with that objective. Of course it is better to have a peaceful means of settling disputes. That is why my right hon. Friend set up the Commission for Industrial Relations. What we object to is the long, elaborate, intricate procedure that has to take place before the Industrial Court, as an alternative to being able to come out on strike.
      The Solicitor-General: Does not the hon. Member understand the three-fold pattern? On the one hand, the parties can go, quite voluntarily—as they can now—to the Commission for Industrial Relations. Secondly, they can go through this machinery to get the dispute resolved as an alternative to strike action. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says that that involves delay, but delay is a small price to pay for the peaceful resolution of a dispute without unnecessary resort to industrial action.
      Mr. Fraser: I conclude by repeating two things. The Government are saying, "We are removing the right to put pressure on employers. The only sanction that a trade union has is to take the employer to court". The burden of my argument is that that sanction is not a very credible one when it can be frustrated by Catch 22; when it can be frustrated by the method of the ballot, which we shall come to later; when it can be frustrated by a whole series of things—frustrated even by a union's not being registered as a trade union.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the operation of the York Agreement over the years heavily underlines his point?
      Mr. Fraser: I agree entirely that the possibility of settling disputes speedily is lost. We are creating delay. All my experience leads me to believe that by creating this complicated and delaying
      822
      procedure we are likely to throw up a whole series of disputes, leading to people having a contempt for the law. That is why we reject the Amendment.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. James Tinn: The Amendment at least shows that the Government are becoming aware of the complexity of the field of industrial relations with which they are dealing— the question of relations between trade unions. To that extent, perhaps, the Amendment is to be welcomed, although the provisions that the Government are seeking to insert show a continued ignorance of the methods that the trade union movement has evolved to deal with these situations.
      I speak as a member of the National Union of Blast Furnacemen—a minority union among the production workers in the steel industry. We have heard little about that industry in our debates; perhaps I should take some responsibility for that. The way in which the steel industry has evolved has meant that in various parts of the country potential conflicts exist between my union—the blast furnacemen—and the largest union of production workers, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.
      The pattern that has grown up is quite illogical. In one part of the country my union will organise a group of workers, such as the locomotive drivers who take the iron from the blast furnaces to the steel melting shops; in another part of the country the other union may do so. To that extent the Government may feel that the provisions they are seeking to insert will give some protection to a minority union like mine, against the eventuality of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation seeking to obtain an agency shop that would exclude the rights for all or some of the categories of worker that my union has previously represented.
      I appreciate the difficulty. I accept that possibility. My point is that the very development of the movement has created that problem. But, similarly, the movement has developed its way of dealing with such problems. Our customary procedures, along the lines of the Bridlington Agreement—using the mechanisms provided by the T.U.C.—have been invaluable in the past, and have been

      823
      very speedy and effective for resolving the conflicts which have arisen from time to time between our respective unions, to their mutual satisfaction.
      I am disturbed and unhappy about the kind of legalistic procedure that is now being instituted. I do not think that it will contribute to the peaceful solution of such difficulties as I have mentioned. They have almost invariably been solved peacefully in the past, but they will now be subjected to delay.
      The Solicitor-General: I acknowledge that that is a real point, but does not the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the Bill leaves it free to the parties to continue as they have done, in the steel industry, for example, to resolve this kind of dispute through the T.U.C. by voluntary means in whatever way they like? In some situations, such as that of the white-collar recognition dispute two or three years back, the dispute has not proved capable of resolution by the T.U.C., and this machinery is now available as the next stage—as an alternative—if voluntary means fail. There is nothing in the world to prevent unions continuing to use voluntary means to resolve disputes, exactly as they have done up till now.
      Mr. Tinn: I welcome the Solicitor-General's intervention. I should like to feel that his assurance will work out in practice. If it does, he will have met my point to a considerable degree. But I do not share his confidence that it will work out in that way. I am registering my concern that far from contributing to industrial peace, in an industry like mine, which has been remarkably free from dispute, it may well do the reverse.
      Mr. Orme: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who, in a most witty speech, demolished the Solicitor-General's case. Where, on the second day of our consideration of the Lords Amendments, he found his literary form, I just do not know, but he certainly has a capacity for it and he put the case very clearly indeed. The "Catch-22" analysis was absolutely perfect in the circumstances.
      The Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State keep saying that the normal
      824
      negotiations will not be affected, but the point is that there are all sorts of difficulties in industry, and we gave some examples of them yesterday. For instance, the Toolmakers' Society within the engineering industry is not recognised by the T.U.C., and there is the Newcastle situation, and the problem of employees in insurance—and in banking, where there is conflict between a union recognised by the T.U.C and a company union. Such a union would be able to wreak havoc by preventing the setting up of an agency shop or normal negotiations or by delaying matters almost indefinitely.
      The Solicitor-General has not answered the point made from this side that his proposal will have a detrimental effect on industrial relations as we know them because it will openly encourage the very sort of thing we are talking about—delays and disputes between organisations. The T.U.C. has spent a great deal of time and effort trying to get rid of inter-union disputes. While it is agreed they have occurred, and will occur from time to time, they have been greatly reduced by the T.U.C and by its disputes committee in encouraging amalgamations. This proposal will not help that. There will be the problem of a major union in the T.U.C., and unregistered, and some small organisation which will be registered and which will claim to be representative of people at a plant and do so, perhaps, with the encouragement of the employers. This is one of the realities of life and it will be encouraged by the Government's proposal. Does the hon. Member want to interrupt me?
      Mr. Adam Butler: I apologise for intervening from a sedentary position. I was trying to point out to the hon. Member that the obvious solution to his dilemma is for the unions concerned to remain registered.
      Mr. Orme: Yes, but there could be a situation in which there would be two registered unions, one recognised by the T.U.C. and one outside its confines. I am thinking of organisations which can spring up overnight, and to which encouragement is given, and where sectional interests are pursued. The technical section of my own union, the A.E.U., is having this trouble at the moment with labour-only sub-contractors and craftsmen who, perhaps for selfish reasons, like

      825
      tax avoidance, are on short time. They are young and are not worried about sickness and security. Of course, when anything does go wrong they realise the problems and they come running back to the shelter of the castle walls. However, these are difficulties with which the trade union movement is dealing day in and day out. It only needs one or two employers to encourage such situations and we are in a real difficulty.
      The Solicitor-General has yet to explain to the House how these disputes will be resolved within the terms of his own Bill. There will be delay in recognition of an agency shop in the hope that somebody will resolve the difficulty legally. If there is a conflict between a recognised trade union within the T.U.C. and a union which is a company union or outside the confines of the T.U.C., the only way it will be resolved will be by the employer playing one off against the other. The employer will take sides with the one and play it off against the other.
      I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against both these Lords Amendments.
      Mr. Ashton: What we really need in order to understand the Bill are some instances of disputes which have occurred in the past and of how this Bill, had it been in existence, could have been used to resolve them. That is the one thing the Government have not done—shown how the Bill could have resolved disputes. We have been given not one single instance by any Government spokesman or by any Member on the Government side.
      I, too, would like to refer to the Tyne-side dispute and Parsons. We have never heard the point answered by the Government. It is a situation known as "U.K.A.P.E."—the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers, a non-strike, small, élitiste union of professional engineers, the top people, the cream responsible for running things. We in the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians Association have always said that members of the U.K.A.P.E. are eligible to join our union and that we would welcome them, but our members, being democratic and following democratic decisions, sometimes want to take part in industrial disputes, and very often the professional engineers do not want to do so, and very often U.K.A.P.E. is encouraged by the employers.
      826
      Under the Bill D.A.TA. may apply for an agency shop. D.A.T.A. represents some 95 per cent. to 96 per cent. of the people in the industry and it will get an agency shop; the people in U.K.A.P.E., the professional engineers, knowing D.A.T.A. will get an agency shop, will be in a very difficult position and not be able to demand any rights of recognition at all for the 1 per cent. of non-strike people. So we shall have a situation under the Bill that U.K.A.P.E. members can come along to the management and say, "If you do not recognise U.K.A.P.E. we shall look for other jobs." Those are key people in very high positions and they can exert a great deal of pressure on management simply by saying, "If this is to be a closed shop, if we are to abide by the rules of D.A.T.A. and we have to subscribe to it or pay charitable contributions, we will look for other jobs."
      The employer would then be justified in going to the Industrial Court and saying, "I shall be denuded of my chief engineers and professional experts. I shall not accept a ballot." One or another of the U.K.A.P.E. men may be in a key position, a critical job, in a factory. The employer would then be able to say, under the terms of Clause 11 and the Lords Amendment, that the agreement made with D.A.T.A. would be "ineffective" because he would be losing the cream of his executive staff who would be going to look for other jobs, unless U.K.A.P.E. were allowed to run things. Those people are very much in the minority in terms of numbers, but they can exert a great deal of pressure out of all proportion to their members, and they could render a ballot ineffective, despite the fact that the members of D.A.T.A. were overwhelmingly in favour of an agreement. That would be a case of U.K.A.P.E., the professional, non-striking union, putting in the thin edge of the wedge.
      Two years ago there was a major strike at Parsons because of this. The strike cost my union a lot of money, it lost the firm many orders and caused much distress. If this part of the Bill would stop these strikes, there might be some value in it, but it will not, it will tend to make matters worse. Because there was a strike at Parsons, every other firm in the engineering industry made an analysis of the situation and then

      827
      declared that they were not too keen on U.K.A.P.E. They stopped pushing the idea of an elitist union because they realised it was better for the elitist engineers to be in the existing engineering union.
      5.30 p.m.
      My white collar union has now joined with the union of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), which is a blue collar union, because it is to the advantage of everyone that all workers in the engineering industry should be in the same union. This not only gives them more strength but solves problems of recruiting, helps to stop disputes and encourages mutual help.
      The Clause does not cater for minority interests. It encourages minority interests to cause the maximum amount of disturbance, and leaves the door wide open to the fragmentation of unions. In Pilkingtons the men tried to form a breakaway union, and this caused a great deal of disruption in the General and Municipal Workers' Union, but in view of the shortage of time I will not go into this. Will the Minister come forward with case studies of recent strikes and point out how they could have been avoided by the provision of this Bill?
      Mr. James Lamond: I should like to supplement the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is a colleague of mine in the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association. If a union is told that to proceed with a ballot would mean a dispute between two unions in a firm, does the Minister believe that an organisation such as U.K.A.P.E. would have any interest in getting together with D.A.T.A. through the auspices of the T.U.C. and settling the dispute so that a ballot can be held?
      I was pleased to hear the Minister give recognition to the work the T.U.C. has done in settling disputes before they reached strike level. But neither the T.U.C. nor any other agency could resolve a dispute between two bodies one of which was resolutely against coming to an agreement with the other. Unlike hon. Gentlemen opposite, I have not found all employers to be responsible. Many employers would welcome this
      828
      opportunity to encourage small unions so that a dispute could be reported and no further attempt be made to resolve the difficulty.
      The Minister speaks of deferring the ballot, but how long does he think a ballot should be deferred to allow what could be a small minority of workers to come to their senses and recognise that their interest lies within a larger union?
      Mrs. Castle: The whole House enormously enjoyed the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) who stung the right hon. Gentleman to rise in a desperate attempt to convince the House that the elaborate apparatus of these Clauses was a simple alternative to strikes.
      I am the first to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a civilised society should be able to find an alternative to strike action when unions seek to enjoy the simple, basic right of combination, organisation and recognition by an employer. The right hon. Gentleman would have done far more to avoid recognition strikes if he had drawn up a Bill which reflected a passionate belief in trade unionism and which, instead of discouraging, had encouraged trade unionism and the recognition of unions. He would have done a great deal more if he had produced a code of industrial practice which set out as a head piece of its philosophy, as the Donovan Report did, that in a modern society a sane employer of course recognises trade unions and encourages trade unionism. We are still waiting for that kind of lead from the right hon. Gentleman.
      Instead, we have this apparatus which he tells us is a simple alternative means of settling recognition disputes and therefore avoiding strikes. But the more we study it, the more we realise that we are exchanging a simple situation under which if unions want recognition they can organise and use their collective strength against the employer to secure it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that very often the existence of that collective strength and the threat to use it brings many an employer to his senses and solves the problem.
      Unions are now being told that they are to be deprived of the use of that collective strength which has been the

      829
      simplest and most effective means yet of securing recognition. They will not, in exchange, be given what Donovan wanted them to be given and what I wanted them to be given—a straightforward right to recognition on the recommendation of the C.I.R. That has gone, and in its place a labyrinth of procedures has to be gone through when the employer is unwilling to recognise a union.
      Our starting point should be the denunciation by this House of employers who are unwilling to recognise trade unions. They are pre-Donovan, almost pre-Ark, and should be denounced as such. If an employer is unwilling to recognise a union, the union cannot take action against him. Instead, it must first apply to the industrial court for an agency shop. The industrial court refers the application to the C.I.R. and the C.I.R. has to hold a ballot to produce a majority which, even in the amended form we shall be discussing later, is a denial of democracy. If the union does not obtain the majority which the Government lay down, there can be no agency shop for two years. The union right has
      totally disappeared. Even if the union wins the ballot and the agency shop is established after two years, it is constantly at risk from any dissident group or any group of non-unionists, and once again the majority ballot has to be faced.
      The Amendment introduces a new and more elaborate impediment, a new delay. Now even the application to the C.I.R. and the Industrial Court can be delayed —not only if there is already a question in dispute, but if there is likely to be.
      This is the last proof that this is not a Bill to smooth the path of industrial relations. It is a Bill produced by a Government which have got lost in their own legal tangle. The more they elaborate the Bill, the more nonsenses are created; and we then have to have more legal elaboration to deal with those nonsenses. This is why we shall divide the House on both these Amendments.
      Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 284. Noes 253.

      Division No. 443.]

      AYES

      [5.41 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Alison Michaet (Barkston Ash)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Channon, Paul

      Foster, Sir John

      Amery, Rt Hn. Julian

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fowler, Norman

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Fox, Marcus

      Aster, John

      Churchill, W. S.

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

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Fry, Peter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Clegg, Walter

      Gardner, Edward

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Balniel, Lord

      Cooke, Robert

      Glyn, Dr. Aian

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Coombs, Derek

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Batsford, Brian

      Cooper, A. E.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Goodhew, Victor

      Bell, Ronald

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gorst, John

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Costain, A. P.

      Gower, Raymond

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Critchley, Julian

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Benyon, W.

      Crouch, David

      Gray, Hamish

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Crowder, F. P.

      Green, Aian

      Biffen, John

      Curran, Charles

      Grieve, Percy

      Biggs-Davison, John

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Blaker, Peter

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

      Grylls, Michael

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Dean, Paul

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Body, Richard

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Gurden, Harold

      Boscawen, Robert

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Dixon, Piers

      Halt, John (Wycombe)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Braine, Bernard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Bray, Ronald

      Eden, Sir John

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Brewis, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

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

      Hastings, Stephen

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Emery, Peter

      Havers, Michael

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hawkins, Paul

      Bryan, Paul

      Farr, John

      Hay, John

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

      Fell, Anthony

      Heseltine, Michael

      Buck, Antony

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Hicks, Robert

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Fidler, Michael

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Burden, F. A.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

      Moate, Roger

      Simeons, Charles

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Molyneaux, James

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Holland, Philip

      Money, Ernle

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

      Hordern, Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Soref, Harold

      Hornby, Richard

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Speed, Keith

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      More, Jasper

      Spence, John

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Sproat, lain

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Steel, David

      Hunt, John

      Mudd, David

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Murton, Oscar

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      James, David

      Neave, Airey

      Stokes, John

      Jessel, Toby

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Normanton, Tom

      Sutcliffe, John

      Jopling, Michael

      Nott, John

      Tapsell, Peter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Onslow, Cranley

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Kilfedder, James

      Osborn, John

      Tebbit, Norman

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Kirk, Peter

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

      Knox, David

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Lane, David

      Peel, John

      Tilney, John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Percival, Ian

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Trew, Peter

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Tugendhat, Christopher

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

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Longden, Gilbert

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Loveridge, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Luce, R. N.

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Raison, Timothy

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      McLaren, Martin

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Redmond, Robert

      Ward, Dame Irene

      McMaster, Stanley

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Maddan, Martin

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Madel, David

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Maginnis, John E.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wilkinson, John

      Marten, Neil

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Mather, Carol

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Maude, Angus

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Rost, Peter

      Worsley, Marcus

      Mawby, Ray

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Younger, Hn. George

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Scott, Nicholas

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Sharples, Richard

      Mr. Hugh Rossi and

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

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

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Davies, Denzil (Lianelly)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Allen, Scholefield

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

      Davies, Ifor (Cower)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Butler Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Ashley, Jack

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Ashton, Joe

      Carmichael, Neil

      Deakins, Eric

      Atkinson, Norman

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Barnes, Michael

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Dempsey, James

      Barnett, Joel

      Cohen, Stanley

      Doig, Peter

      Beaney, Aian

      Coleman, Donald

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Concannon, J. D.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Driberg, Tom

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Eadie, Alex

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Cronin, John

      Edelman, Maurice

      Booth, Albert

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arhur

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

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Bradley, Tom

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ellis, Tom

      Brown, Bob (N'c't1e-upon-Tyne, W.)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. Georgs

      English, Michael

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

      Davidson, Arthur

      Evans, Fred

      832

      833

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Richard, Ivor

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Foot. Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Ford, Ben

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Forrester, John

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McBride, Neil

      Roper, John

      Freeson, Reginald

      McCann, John

      Rose, Paul B.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Garrett, W. E.

      McElhone, Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      McGuire, Michael

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mackie, John

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

      Gourlay, Harry

      Maclennan, Robert

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Silverman, Julius

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

      Small, William

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Marquand, David

      Spearing, Nigel

      Handing, William

      Marsden, F.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hardy, Peter

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Harper, Joseph

      Meacher, Michael

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mendelson, John

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Millan, Bruce

      Strang, Gavin

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Hilton, W. S.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Horam, John

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

      Taverne, Dick

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Molloy, William

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

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

      Hughes, Rt. Hn.Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tinn, James

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Tomney, Frank

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Torney, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hunter, Adam

      Murray, Ronald King

      Urwin, T. W.

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

      Ogden, Eric

      Varley, Eric G.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Wainwright, Edwin

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

      O'Malley, Brian

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

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Oram, Bert

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      John, Brynmor

      Orme, Stanley

      Wallace, George

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Watkins, David

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

      Padley, Walter

      Weitzman, David

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Paget, R. T.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Palmer, Arthur

      wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Whitlock, William

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Judd, Frank

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Williams, ALan (Swansea, W.)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Pendry, Tom

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Kelley, Richard

      Pentland, Norman

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Kerr, Russell

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Lambie, David

      Prescott, John

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Lamond, James

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Woof, Robert

      Latham, Arthur

      Probert, Arthur

      Lawson, George

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Mr. John Golding and

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

      Leonard, Dick

      Lords Amendment: No. 22 in page 9, line 22, after "ineffective" insert:
      "or
      (b) such a question, although not yet in dispute, is likely to become the subject of a dispute if an agency shop agreement is made in pursuance of the application, and would

      in that event be likely, until settled, to make that agreement ineffective".
      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes 255.

      Division No. 444.]

      AYES

      [5.50 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Batsford, Brian

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Bainiel, Lord

      Benyon, W.

      Astor, John

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Biffen, John

      Gurden, Harold

      Mudd, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Murton, Oscar

      Blaker, Peter

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Neave, Airy

      Body, Richard

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Normanton, Tom

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Nott, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Haselhurst, ALan

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Braine, Bernard

      Hastings, Stephen

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Bray, Ronald

      Havers, Michael

      Osborn, John

      Brewis, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hay, John

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Heseltine, Michael

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hicks, Robert

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Peel, John

      Bryan, Paul

      Hiley, Joseph

      Percival, Ian

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

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

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Buck, Antony

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Holland, Philip

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Burden, F. A.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hordern, Peter

      Price, David (Eatleigh)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hornby, Richard

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francls

      Channon, Paul

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Raison, Timothy

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hunt, John

      Redmond, Robert

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Cockeram, Eric

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cooke, Robert

      Jessell, Toby

      Renten, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Coombs, Derek

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Cooper, A. E.

      Jopling, Michael

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Costain, A. P.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Critchley, Julian

      Kilfedder, James

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Crouch, David

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Rost, Peter

      Curran, Charles

      Kirk, Peter

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Knox, David

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

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

      Lane, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Dean, Paul

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Sharples, Richard

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Le Marchant, Spencer

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

      Dixon, Piers

      Lewis, Kenneth (RutLand)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

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

      Simeons, Charles

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Longden, Gilbert

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Dykes, Hugh

      Loveridge, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Eden, Sir John

      Luce, R. N.

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

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Soref, Harold

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Spence, John

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

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sproat, lain

      Emery, Peter

      McLaren, Martin

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Steel, David

      Fell, Anthony

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Fenner, Mr. Peggy

      MacmilLan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Fidler, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stokes, John

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Maddan, Martin

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Madel, David

      Sutcliffe, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      Maginnis, John E.

      Tapsell, Peter

      Foster, Sir John

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Fowler, Norman

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Fox, Marcus

      Maude, Angus

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

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

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Gardner, Edward

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Glyn, Dr. ALan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Tilney, John

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

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

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Trew, Peter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Moate, Roger

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gorst, John

      Molyneaux, James

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Gower, Raymond

      Money, Ernle

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gray, Hamish

      Monro, Hector

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Green, Alan

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Grieve, Percy

      More, Jasper

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Grylls, Michael

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Walters, Dennis

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      836

      837

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Wilkinson, John

      Younger, Hn. George

      weatherill, Bernard

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Mr. Keith Speed and

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Worsley, Marcus

      Mr. Walter Clegg.

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mackie, John

      Allen, scholefield

      Foot, Michael

      Maclennan, Robert

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Ford, Ben

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Forrester, John

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Ashley, Jack

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Ashton, Joe

      Freeson, Reginald

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

      Atkinson, Norman

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

      Garrett, W. E.

      Marquand, David

      Barnes, Michael

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Marsden, F.

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ginsburg, David

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Barnett, Joel

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Beaney, Alan

      Gourlay, Harry

      Meacher, Michael

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Mendelson, John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Millan, Bruce

      Bishop, E. S.

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

      Booth, Albert

      Hamling, William

      Molloy, William

      Bottemley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Moyle, Roland

      Buchan, Norman

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mulley, Ronald King

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Ogden, Eric

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Horam, John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Malley, Brian

      Carmichael, Neil

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Oram, Bert

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Orme, Stanley

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Castle, Rt Hn. Barbara

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Padley, Walter

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Paget, R. T.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

      Hunter, Adam

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Concannon, J. D.

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

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pendry, Tom

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Pentland, Norman

      Cronin, John

      John, Brynmor

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Crosland, Rt. Hit. Anthony

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

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

      Prescott, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Davidson. Arthur

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

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

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jones, Gwvnoro (Carmarthen)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Richard, Ivor

      Davies, S. O. (Merthvr Tydvil)

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kelley, Richard

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kerr, Russell

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

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lambie, David

      Roper, John

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lamond, James

      Rose, Paul B.

      Dempsey, James

      Latham, Arthur

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Doig, Peter

      Lawson, George

      Sandelson, Neville

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Driberg, Tom

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Silverman, Julius

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lipton, Marcus

      Skinner, Dennis

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Small, William

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Ellis, Tom

      McBride, Neil

      Spearing, Nigel

      English, Michael

      McCann, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Evans, Fred

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stallard, A. W.

      Faulds, Andrew

      McElhone, Frank

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McGuire, Michael

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      838

      839

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Varley, Eric G.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Taverne, Dick

      Wallace, George

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

      Watkins, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Weitzman, David

      Woof, Robert

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

      Wellbeloved, James

      Tinn, James

      wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Tomney, Frank

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Mr. James A. Dunn and

      Torney, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Mr. John Golding.

      Tuck, Raphael

      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 24: In page 9, line 38, at end insert:
      ("or rights corresponding to negotiating rights")
      6 p.m.
      Mr. R. Carr: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I understand that it will meet the convenience of the House if with Lords Amendment No. 24 we take Lords Amendment No. 284: In page 120, line 17, at end insert new Clause M—Power to limit certain provisions of Act to major undertakings).
      Mr. Carr: I agree that it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 284 with Lords Amendment No. 24.
      I think that I need say nothing about Lords Amendment No. 24 as the point has been discussed earlier. I will, therefore, move straight to Lords Amendment No. 284. The new Clause embodied in the Amendment is designed to enable the Secretary of State to phase the coming into operation of certain provisions of the Bill relating to firms of a certain size. The object is to avoid overwhelming the National Industrial Relations Court and the Commission on Industrial Relations with a flood of applications in the early days.
      Subsection (2) contains the provisions covered by this regulation-making power. They are provisions for an application to the court for an agency shop ballot, provided in Clauses 10(2) and 13; application to the Court for remedial action where a procedure agreement is either nonexistent or defective, provided in Clauses 35 and 41; application to the Court for reference to the Commission on Industrial Relations of questions relating to the
      840
      recognition of a sole bargaining agent, provided in Clause 43; application to the Court with a view to withdrawal of recognition, provided in Clause 49; and complaint to the Court of failure to disclose information, provided in Clause 98(1).
      Those are the provisions which, in the proposed new Clause, give the Secretary of State power to regulate, by Order, the various provisions which apply, according to the size of an undertaking.
      I wish to make a number of other points clear. Subsection (3) provides, in effect, that, having made the original Order, subsequent Orders may only reduce, not increase, the minimum number which has been specified. A Secretary of State would be prevented from removing from companies the right to these provisions which they already enjoy. The sole purpose is to fix the number of applications to the C.I.R. and the Court at a level which we believe will be manageable. As soon as that has been achieved, we shall be in a position to lower the threshold. The Secretary of State does not have power to raise the threshold.
      Subsection (4) provides that the Orders shall be subject to affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, the power can be used only after positive approval by this House and another place.
      The reason for the Amendment is our concern that the Court and the Commission should not in the early days of the operation of this legislation be overwhelmed by a large number of applications under the provisions specified in subsection (2). It is bound to be a matter of guesswork what the case-load will be; but, in order to build up the caseload under these provisions at a manageable rate, we concluded that the best course would be to take the powers contained in the new Clause to limit applications initially to firms above a

      841
      certain size. When it becomes clear that the danger of overloading at any level is past, the Secretary of State will progressively be able to reduce the threshold to permit applications by smaller firms. I assure the House that this is the sole purpose of the new Clause.
      It will be my intention to make all the provisions in the Bill available as widely and as quickly as possible. For the sake of good order, I believe that it is right to have this controlling mechanism over the number of cases and applications which may come forward and then to release that as we judge what the volume of applications will be. I hope that I have made it clear that that is the sole purpose of the new Clause.
      Mr. Rose: For convenience, Lords Amendment No. 284 has been linked with Lords Amendment No. 24. The only thing that they have in common is that, to some extent, they both affect Clause 10. Other than that, they have nothing in common. However, the right hon. Gentleman has accepted that this is the only way, given the guillotine, that we on this side of the House can be sure of having time to debate this particularly important Lords Amendment.
      I do not know whether I should warn the Government in advance, but it seems that the wide-sweeping powers given to the Secretary of State in the new Clause allow for the virtual repeal of large sections of the Bill in the likely event of the early election of a Labour Government. This would allow us to take action in advance of the repeal of the Bill, to which we all look forward. This may be classified information—I may be in breach of the official Labour secrets act —but I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to realise how wide-sweeping the new Clause. If only for that reason, one might be tempted to welcome it with loud applause, but there are serious reservations, and a good deal of explanation to be given by the right hon. Gentleman, when he talks about it being designed to phase the coming into operation of various provisions of the Bill.
      During the debate in another place Lord Stow Hill said:
      "If I read the Amendment correctly, there is nothing in it to limit the operation of this order to a transitional or specified time. If
      842
      I have correctly understood its purpose, I imagine that a strict constitutionalist like the learned and noble Lord the Lord Chancellor would be disposed to agree with me that this is a sort of provision that we should accept only with great hesitation."
      He went on to say:
      "If that is the case, surely it would be right to say that these powers, by statutory order, should not be exercised after say, a period of one year, eighteen months or two years."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, l0th June, 1971; Vol. 320, c. 4856.]
      I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, whatever his intention may be. That does not seem to be the effect of the Amendment as it has been drafted.
      I think that the Amendment reveals a number of weaknesses in the Government's case and I propose to pinpoint three fundamental ones. First, the Government are clearly concerned, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, "to avoid overwhelming the National Industrial Relations Court and the C.I.R. with a flood of applications". The right hon. Gentleman is worried about a flood of damaging and irrelevant complaints to a body which is ill-equipped to deal with the delicate fabric of industrial relations. He knows, and he must now acknowledge, the worst fears of this side of the House, that it will be the less enlightened employer, the old-fashioned employer, perhaps the antediluvian employer, who will take advantage of the Bill to make complaints to the Industrial Court. I have a shrewd suspicion that it is with that in mind that the right hon. Gentleman has reserved these powers, because they were not in the original Bill. There must be some good reason for their inclusion now, and the right hon. Gentleman confesses to this fear of overloading the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R.
      The second weakness that it reveals is that there are apparently some magic figures. We heard a remarkably witty speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in which he quoted from "Alice-in-Wonderland". We had "Catch 22", and now we seem to be going into the realms of bingo, because the magic figure in the Order is not known, and it will not be known, and below that magic figure, in certain respects, the Bill will not apply.
      The third criticism follows from that, that the magic figure itself may change, so that what is a magic figure one day

      843
      will not be a magic figure on another, although it can change in only one direction, increasingly to bring within the ambit of the Bill those very sections of industry, those very employers, which the right hon. Gentleman is loth to include ab initio because he knows that the danger of including them is they are precisely the kind of employers who could wreck good industrial relations by overwhelming the court with a flood of applications.
      A number of questions arise on this, and perhaps later on the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the matter in greater detail. So far, he has treated this as though it were a minor debate. This is a major debate of widespread importance, and the right hon. Gentleman has a number of questions to answer.
      First, the right hon. Gentleman must tell the House what he has in mind as the criterion for the numbers in an establishment which it is proposed to examine when the Bill comes into operation. What figure has he in mind as the minimum appropriate for specific industries?
      Second, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that that will be changed? Third, can he give us some indication of what he has in mind about the Clauses that are to be exempted. I should not say infinite, but certainly there is a large permutation of possibilities with regard to numbers on the one hand and Clauses on the other. One does not need to be an expert in filling in football pools to know that a large permutation is possible here.
      6.15 p.m.
      Who is to benefit from the right hon. Gentleman's magnificent gift to the trade union movement, as he seems to term the Bill? If the Bill is so beneficial, why exclude anyone from its benefits? It is said that the Bill will bring industrial peace, and yet the right hon. Gentleman feels that the benefits of this Measure ought not to be given to everyone. It seems unfair that some sections of industry are to be excluded from this wonderful Bill. It is a curious commentary on the Government's confidence in their own Measure, and although I accept that a draft Order must first be laid before the House, there is always
      844
      the disadvantage with this sort of procedure that, by delegating the power, when the ultimate Order comes before the House—and I agree that it is subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure —one is not able to amend it in the way that one is able to amend a Bill in Committee and on Report.
      The provisions apply over an astonishingly broad field and give wide powers to the Secretary of State to exempt or to include, in an arbitrary fashion, whole sections of workers from various areas of industry, according to the size of the enterprise. The quotation which I read to the House from Lord Stow Hill's speech undermines the contention that this is no more than a phasing in.
      I now propose to deal individually with the Clauses to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The first is Clause 10(2). As the right hon. Gentleman said, this Clause covers an application by a trade union, a joint negotiating panel or an employer to the industrial court for an agency shop agreement, and the hostility of this side of the House was expressed only too well yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and many others. There is no doubt where we stand on the agency shop issue. We reject the damaging effect of substituting the agency shop for the closed shop principle. If the agency shop is so beneficial, it is odd that there is this provision in the Bill. Why make it possible to deny the benefits of the agency shop to unspecified sections of industry by means of this machinery? Does it mean that the Government have doubts about the effect on the stability of industry, and particularly the smaller establishments, of the agency shop principle?
      If that is not the case, why have any exemptions at all? There is more than a little concern on the part of the Government, having heard the cogent arguments of my hon. Friends who understand the day-to-day workings of industry, about the disruptive effect of denying the right of representation by the union of their choice to many workers, which in effect is what the agency shop will mean.
      I do not want to reopen the whole question of the agency shop. I should probably stray beyond the bounds of order if I were to do so. But I should like an explanation of how the right hon.

      845
      Gentleman intends to use the powers given by the Amendment in relation to Clauses 13 and 10(2), because the two go together. Clause 13 refers to the possible exception of the application for a ballot, and it follows naturally from Clause 10(2). Basically the same questions apply.
      The Amendment applies also to Clause 35, and this, surely is fundamental to the Bill. During the Second Reading, in Committee and on Report there was bitter opposition from this side of the House because we were opposed to what we referred to as the fictitious agreement clauses. I welcome the fact that it would appear again, even if veiled and disguised, that the Government have woken up to the danger of trying to impose fictitious procedural agreements upon unions against their wishes and, what is more, adding insult to injury by asking them to monitor or police them.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will use this power to apply the Clause to Clause 35 to exempt all enterprises with less than 100,000 employees, because then in one fell swoop he would be doing away with the principle, which is enshrined in the Bill, which I as a lawyer find the most objectionable, although I recognise that many of my hon. Friends will find other Clauses which they will choose as their prize for being objectionable.
      If the fictitious agreement procedure is good for Henry Ford—we all know what is good for Henry Ford—why is it not good for Joe Bloggs who runs a small workshop in my constituency? The Government say that it is necessary. Why is it more necessary for some than for others?
      I rather suspect that what is happening is that the Government are now recoiling from the results of their own decision to ride roughshod over this most delicate field of industrial relations, and perhaps we are witnessing—I put it no higher than this—a suppressed desire to repent before it is too late in respect of enforced proceedings.
      The Amendment similarly applies to Clause 41 which extends in turn
      "The provisions of section 35 to 40 of this Act … to a composite unit".
      The same observations must apply. [Interruption.] I think that I heard one
      846
      of my hon. Friends mutter, "What are Sections 35 to 40?" This is typical of the labyrinthine nature of this legislation. It is worse than the Hampton Court Maze. We have to indulge in the most remarkable exercise of cross-references. For a Bill dealing with industrial relations, a Bill which is supposed to be intelligible to ordinary people in industry who are not trained lawyers, I find the whole structure remarkable.
      Clauses 35 to 40, which are the paving of the way for the fictitious agreement which culminates in the final imposition of the fictitious agreement, are extended to the composite unit by Clause 41. One could go on all day in this way.
      I should have thought that this was precisely the area where the Government would have wished to apply the power, if at all.
      I again ask: if this provision is so beneficial, why allow it to be excluded from those who, the Government hope, will benefit the most? I find the Government's whole position on this entirely illogical.
      The Amendment applies also to Clause 43 which is entitled—
      "Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent."
      Again it seems that the Government are turning their backs on the abyss of the agency shop. I do not blame them for for that, in view of what we have heard in these debates. Why do it in this administrative manner with these imposed exceptions by Order? I should have thought that the manner of dealing with this would be for the Government to acknowledge here and now that the agency shop in its entirety should be scrapped, it is entirely inappropriate to British industrial relations and has no place in a Bill dealing with them.
      I think, though, that the Amendment, because it gives us opportunities when we become the Government to take advantage in this manner, poses a dilemma for this side of the House. We cannot oppose the Amendment in its entirety, because it allows for some mitigation at least with regard to smaller, and then smaller and smaller, units, of some of the most offensive parts of the Bill.
      Clause 49, which must follow logically —I admit the Secretary of State's logic here—is headed—
      "Application to Industrial Court with a view to withdrawal of recognition."
      In theory it would be possible to apply the Clause to Clause 49 alone. If it were applied in isolation, it could ossify an existing agency shop if it were invoked after an agency shop had been created. Let us assume that an agency shop had been created under the Bill and that then the Government invoked the power. If they invoked it merely in relation to Clause 49, this would negative the intention of the Bill. I hope that it is not the Secretary of State's intention that it will be used in that way, but he knows that, whatever his intention is, it could be used in that way. This is another example of shoddy drafting, because it would seem to me that Clause 49 ought to be referred to only after the original Clause was covered by the Amendment. I should therefore like an assurance from the Secretary of State that there is no intention of using the Clause in that way.
      The Amendment applies, finally, to Clause 91(1)(b)—again the usual labyrinth that we have come to expect in the Bill. This refers to the contravention of the duty under Clause 54 to disclose information to trade union officials and representatives. In this case again there is a danger that, if this were to be taken in isolation, the application of the Amendment to Clause 98(1)(b) protects only employers, and it will protect employers below a certain size—as yet we do not know what size that will be —from the duties and obligations imposed by Clause 54(1). Those duties are to provide information without which the trade union representatives would be, to a material extent, impeded in conducting collective bargaining. This also concerns information which the employer ought to disclose in accordance with good relations and good industrial practice.
      Lord Gardiner said this about the matter:
      "This is simply stopping the employees of the small man from getting information from him at all. I should have thought that Clause 98(1)(b) perhaps stands in a rather different case. I am only a little surprised by it all because I was not envisaging people going
      848
      to the Industrial Court. I think they would all go to the industrial tribunal, but no similar provision is made for that."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 10th June, 1971; c. 487.]
      I think that the very appropriate remarks of Lord Gardiner, although I came to an independent conclusion of my own accord, are correct, that invoking the Amendment in relation to Clause 98(1)(b) would be damaging to the small man in respect of his getting information, which is one of the very few positive features which we on this side accept.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has noted that there is already a restriction in Clause 55 about the size of the undertaking. Does it not strike my hon. Friend as odd that there should be this further restriction, all of which tends to go against what we were led to believe was one of the constructive and beneficial aspects of the Bill, namely, the requirement to disclose information?
      Mr. Rose: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I noted what seemed to me to be a duplication. I think my hon. Friend will agree that it is a duplication of two Clauses which allow for precisely the same thing. I did not want to expand the point at great length because we ourselves have an Amendment dealing with this very matter when it arises on the other Clause.
      It seems that there are now two ways in which the smaller employer may be exempted from the obligation to provide certain items of information. This provision was in a Bill with which my hon. Friend was connected when he was at the Department, and I know that my hon. Friend was particularly concerned about the question of the right to information. As this is one of the few aspects of the Bill which are constructive and which we were prepared to accept in that spirit, we should have an explanation.
      Finally, although the Amendment may be for administrative convenience, it makes no sense. There is no logic in the application of what are supposed to be deeply held principles on the other side of the House. The principles are being applied to some employers but not to others. It seems to allow a quite arbitrary power. Since in all but one of these cases the arbitrary power can only diminish the generally harmful effects of the Bill, we on this side of the

      849
      House will not oppose it, although we find it a very strange Amendment indeed. To my mind, an Amendment of this kind is calculated to bring the Bill into even more ridicule and contempt, if that is possible, than the ridicule and contempt in which it is now held not only by hon. Members on this side of the House but by the trade union movement.
      6.30 p.m.
      If I have taken some time to speak on this Amendment it is because I believe this Clause underlines the fundamental fallacies over the whole range of items in a Bill which is entirely damaging, although it may be used to mitigate some of the damaging effects of this Bill, and it is for that reason that we do not oppose it. Nevertheless it helps to underline the fact that this Bill is unnecessary.
      I only wish the right hon. Gentleman would apply this provision to all enterprises below a very large figure. Then we would be able to get rid of some of the most offensive aspects of the Bill.
      Mr. Ashton: This is a remarkable Amendment. We have often heard the Secretary of State refer to the Bill as a highway code. Yet we have a situation in which the Government bring in an Amendment because the courts will not be able to handle the volume of work which the right hon. Gentleman expects to exist when the Bill becomes law. Suppose we had a highway code, 15 paragraphs of which related to speeding and drunken driving; the right hon. Gentleman would have power to ignore those offences from a certain date because the courts could not handle them. In the case of many other Bills we have had this initial volume of problems, but never have we had this situation in which the Minister has had the power to say "We shall ignore these problems. The courts will not handle them because there are too many."
      Is this to be the situation in relation to the Government's White Paper on rents, when rent officers will be snowed under with applications for fair rents? Will the Secretary of State say, "This will not apply to certain houses"? This gives the right hon. Gentleman a tremendous amount of power. I do not say that the power will be abused, but justice ought to be seen to be done. There is no justice in saying that these cases will
      850
      not be handled because the courts will not find it possible to do so. If the courts cannot handle these cases immediately, obviously we need more courts.
      Amendment No. 284 states:
      "The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that the Industrial Court shall not entertain any application …".
      That is a definite statement. If it had said that the Secretary of State had power to delay an application for three months because of the volume of work or that the Secretary of State would give priority to certain cases, we would understand. But it is not a question of delaying for three months after which, the Government having got rid of the problems at Fords, at the docks and at Halewood, they would be in a position to deal with the cases which had been delayed. The Amendment does not say that at all. It says that the Industrial Court shall not entertain this sort of dispute because the courts will be overloaded. This is a dangerous situation to get into.
      A firm may employ only 50 men and, therefore, it would be regarded as a small firm. But it might be a chain link firm supplying a tiny component for the motor car industry. About two years ago there was a firm, Girlings, in which there was an argument as to who was going to turn a handle; it involved seven men, but it affected thousands. If it be that in a case involving a firm like Girlings, in which perhaps 100 people work, the Secretary of State had the power to refer the matter back so that the application would not be entertained at all, what sort of situation would we be in?
      Amendment No. 284 says:
      "No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
      It does not say that the Resolution has to be debated. We have many instances in this House of a Prayer being put on the Order Paper against a Statutory Instrument. It happens frequently. I understand that two or three years ago when a Prayer was entered against a Statutory Instrument or an Order, it automatically had to be debated in this Chamber—for instance, the matter of judges' pay.
      Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the Amendment. It says

      851
      that a draft of the Order has to be approved by a Resolution. There is no question of having to pray against an Order. The Order has to be subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses. There is no question of its getting through without debate.
      Mr. Ashton: I am glad to have the Minister's assurance on that point. The fact remains that if some of us in this House cannot understand it, there must be many people on the shop floor who are in a far worse state.
      The heaviest burden will arise in connection with unfair dismissals. The right hon. Gentleman never mentioned this at all. If there is to be a backlog clogging the courts it will arise from unfair dismissals, when everybody will think that he is being victimised and sacked by the boss because of his trade union activities.
      The right hon. Gentleman's reference to such matters as the withdrawal of recognition and disclosure of information is very important. Because a factory employs only 60 people, are we to say that they shall not have the information given to them if the factory is going to be closed down? There are many examples where the closure of a factory affecting 100 people may not be of major importance to a place the size of Birmingham or London, but in a small mining town the dismissal of 100 people could be a very major event indeed. If people were to say "We are going on strike because of a merger and because of these redundancies, and we shall strike unless somebody comes forward with information", they would be justified in taking this sort of industrial action. Yet under the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in the Amendment he would have the power to say "This is not important. The courts are already bogged down with cases involving Fords and the conditions at the docks and, therefore, it will not be possible for the union to make an application to the court for disclosure of information."
      I am making a very serious allegation, and I do so because the information that we have had is not comprehensive. Some of us are rather suspicious that in certain cases—as we have seen this afternoon in relation to the Upper Clyde shipyards—
      852
      we shall get no information whatever from the management. Matters of major importance may affect our trade unions and yet apparently we shall not be able to get a hearing at the court because, although there is no way of blocking the application going to the court, the excuse will be made that the courts are overburdened with work.
      It is not good enough to bring in legislation to which we are opposed and then to say that the channels of protest embodied in the legislation will not apply to certain categories of firms because not enough people work there. If the Minister says this is a highway code, it should be treated as a highway code. It should apply to everybody from the date of its operation, whether a person is riding a bicycle or is driving a heavy lorry.
      In the mid-'sixties we had a fair rent system under which rent officers, courts and other machinery were available to everyone who wished to apply for assistance. I admit there was a great deal of pressure at times, but at least people knew that they could have their cases heard. If it was possible then, it should be possible under this Measure. In other words, if special courts are being established, they should be applicable to and at the disposal of everybody from the moment the Bill becomes law.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: The Secretary of State was less than fair to the House in not giving the slightest explanation of why he has chosen certain parts of the Bill to be deferred for the time being as distinct from other parts, which will come into effect as soon as the Measure becomes law.
      While I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will reply in greater detail, it was unfair of him to expect us to have this debate without a proper explanation of his reasons for taking this step. He has left us very much in the dark. We in Lancashire are becoming used to a bit of fast bowling in the dark in our cricket matches these days, but we cannot sustain an intelligent debate on this subject unless we are given far more information.
      The right hon. Gentleman has always insisted that when the Bill becomes an Act it will not have an immediate effect on industrial relations. But he has all

      853
      along claimed that its long-term effects will be beneficial. We are left asking for how long we must wait for those beneficial effects. Apparently we will have to wait a considerable time, but the length of that time nobody seems to know.
      Does the right hon. Gentleman know that he is not being fair to the Prime Minister either? Last weekend the Prime Minister claimed that the contents of this Measure had already had a huge effect on the dimunition of days lost through strikes. Indeed, he said that the Chancellor's third Budget would not have been possible but for this Bill. Do we take it that the Prime Minister knew nothing about this latest proposal of the Secretary of State and that the Chancellor will withdraw the measures in his mini-Budget?
      Frankly, if there was any relevance in what the Prime Minister said, and I have serious doubts about that, that relevance has now disappeared. In this connection, is the Prime Minister aware that many of the Opposition Amendments which the Secretary of State refused to accept when the Bill was going through its Committee and Report stages were nothing like as drastic in their effect as this one?
      Mr. John Fraser: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to misrepresent either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State, who have never spoken of the number of days lost through strikes having been reduced. They never speak of "strikes" but of "stoppages".
      Mr. Lee: I accept that.
      As I have said previously, this Bill will not have much effect on large firms which, by and large, have their own code of conduct. I recall that we even cancelled out the effects of the York Memorandum; we would not entertain such nonsense for many years. Any large firm with proper negotiating arrangements will never entertain this Measure but will use its own internal negotiating arrangements.
      If there are areas of industry which might be affected by the Bill, I assume that they are not to have the so-called benefits of the parts of the Measure which are now going into abeyance. It seems, therefore, that even before the
      854
      Bill becomes law the right hon. Gentleman is going back on at least two-thirds of the claims that he and his colleagues have been making about the effects that this legislation will ultimately have.
      6.45 p.m.
      We must conclude, therefore, that the firms which will be for the most part affected by the Bill—this is according to what the right hon. Gentleman said earlier—will be the smaller ones, which are being held back from making application. Thus, we are left wondering what this exercise is all about. I would be surprised, in any event, if many applications were received from those firms which are to be deferred.
      We must consider Clause 98(1)(b), which will prevent small employers from giving the information on which their employees will rely for negotiating purposes. These will be the very firms from which this information will be needed. As I said, we in the bigger firms have our own ways of ensuring that we have the necessary information. We have facilities to obtain the information we need. I am left wondering whether the Prime Minister was aware that his right hon. Friend—
      Mr. Orme: Speak of the devil.
      Mr. Lee: My words must have struck home. The Prime Minister has joined us. To avoid tedious repetition, I will summarise the few remarks I made about him. I said that he was undoubtedly misled before making his speech in which he said that the third attempt at a Budget, the so-called mini-Budget, in nine months had been made possible only because of the provisions of this Bill.
      I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman had been misled or whether we could now expect the Chancellor to withdraw the contents of his mini-Budget, bearing in mind that we have been told that many of the provisions in the Bill are not to be enforced for a time that is yet to be specified. No doubt the Prime Minister will be making another speech this weekend saying that when he made his earlier remarks he was in complete ignorance of what his colleagues were planning behind his back.
      It seems that the firms which, for the time being, will be excluded—
      Mr. Orme: The Prime Minister is leaving.
      Mr. Lee: I thank my hon. Friend for keeping me informed of the Prime Minister's movements. I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to prepare the speech which I suggested he should make.
      Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend is mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman is much more likely to be sailing round the coast next weekend than making speeches on this subject.
      Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend must be fair. The right hon. Gentleman occasionally takes time off from that exercise.
      I would have thought that if the Secretary of State really believed in his Bill, he would be doing precisely the opposite to what he is doing now. I do not believe in the Bill, though I am all in favour of employers giving information to their employees. We campaigned for this for years. I could understand the position if the right hon. Gentleman had said that no firm over, say, 500 employees would have these benefits for a period of time. But to say the opposite and to rob people in smaller firms by not enabling them to have this information seems to make a nonsense of a great deal of what he has said during the passage of the Bill.
      I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to put a figure to the time factor. We have had no undertaking from him. We do not even know his thinking in this respect. Is he thinking in terms of weeks, months or years, or on what kind of basis must we calculate? What kind of thing must the firms calculate upon? If I were on the management side of one of the smaller firms, I would begin to wonder where I stood.
      We know that many smaller employers are genuinely trying to get into line on negotiating techniques. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a point about the enormous importance of small firms which undertake subcontracting and other work for bigger firms. We know that great industries can be held up by disputes in very small firms upon which they depend for essential components. If there is a dispute in one of those smaller firms, we know how it snowballs and eventually many thousands
      856
      of people can be laid off because of the lack of components. I am surprised that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman is differentiating between smaller and larger firms. He knows well from his knowledge of industry that one cannot these days differentiate between the firm which has 100 or 200 people and a bigger firm when there is this interconnection of the final product for which the bigger firm is responsible.
      When all this becomes more widely known, there will be misunderstanding and amazement. Industry knows that the Government are trying to get the Bill on to the Statute Book within a week or so from now. They have said so. The truncated remains which will be operative after these Amendments have been made to the Bill will affect a very large proportion of the smaller firms. It should not be forgotten that the party opposite are always telling us that industry still depends upon the small firms. Small employers have been swotting up the Bill or have had their legal advisers explaining it to them. Some of them, indeed, had the benefit of the Solicitor-General's advice on the matter. They have based themselves on the fact that the Bill would become an Act before the House goes into recess. Now, they learn that although it will soon become an Act, large and important parts of it will not apply to them until a later date which is unknown to them.
      There has already been great confusion in industry in consequence, not only among trade unions, but among employers, Now, we are to have this added impost upon a large section of employers. Had we on this side moved Amendments of this sort—I think we did, but they were rejected out of hand—they would certainly have been described as wrecking Amendments. I am not complaining that the right hon. Gentleman is having second thoughts on large parts of the Bill—I wish he had had second thoughts before he introduced it—but as he has come a little nearer to what we and the Trades Union Congress have been saying, the logical consequence of what he has said is that he should, at the very least, defer the operation of the Bill until the whole of it becomes operative. It would please my right hon. and hon. Friends and me far more, however, if he would follow the

      857
      logic of what he is doing one stage further and withdraw the Bill altogether.
      Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us the numbers involved in applying the orders. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) has said, the Minister badly wants the Bill within the next seven days. He expects it to receive Royal Assent next week. If that is so, he must have an idea when he will bring the different parts of the Bill into operation. I doubt whether we shall reach the last Clause of the Bill, which deals with the time when its different parts are to be brought into operation, but I should like the Minister to say during this debate what dates he has in mind for bringing in the different parts of the Bill. His powers in this respect are far-reaching. He has the power by Statutory Instrument even to change the provisions of his Bill. He ought to tell us when he proposes to bring its various provisions into effect.
      Under the powers that the right hon. Gentleman wants under the Amendment, presumably the Court may operate without any limitation as to numbers and later he can introduce a restriction concerning the numbers. After that, he can gradually bring down the number even further. The restrictions on applications to the Industrial Court will relate mainly to claims for an agency shop and claims for recognition.
      The right hon. Gentleman told us on an earlier Amendment that it would be an unfair industrial practice to go on strike to seek an agency shop because he said, the right would exist to make a peaceful application to the National Industrial Relations Court. If, however, people are debarred from applying to the Court because they are members of an undertaking which, because of its size, the court will not entertain, they have neither right nor remedy. In these circumstances, they could commit an unfair industrial practice. They could be mulcted for damages but, at the same time, they cannot make their application to the Court. It would be interesting, therefore, to know whether the disability parts of the Bill concerning unfair industrial practices will be removed in respect of employees who do not even have the remedy of applying to the Industrial Court.
      858
      Thirdly, there is a problem of achieving social justice and equality for people who work in small undertakings. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise—perhaps not on this Bill, but he is Minister of Employment—that low pay and poor conditions of employment often relate to very small undertakings. He knows that wages councils often apply in areas where trade unions cannot organise strongly and where even the law has to create a kind of agency shop with minimum conditions of employment and minimum remuneration.
      There is a real problem in redressing the balance of power between those who work in large undertakings, where there are powerfully organised unions which get a good deal for the workers, and people who work in small undertakings, where union organisation is difficult and, consequence, low pay can be—although not always—a feature of their employment. It would be a mistake to leave small undertakings of that kind out of account, because they are often the places where social justice needs to be done and where strengthening of the trade union movement is badly needed to achieve social justice.
      One of the purposes of the wages council regulation provisions can be removed where the Minister is satisfied that there is strong trade union representation. It should be the job of any Minister of Employment to encourage trade union representation and organisation and to encourage union sponsorship of minimum conditions of employment in small undertakings which often suffer from low pay, suppression and repression by employers.
      I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not fall into the error, although he will fall into other errors, of thinking that large undertakings can be allowed to go ahead but that these rights should not extend to small undertakings.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I do not wish to detain the House much longer but we have had a rather full debate, as is quite proper, and the House is reluctant, without full explanations, to give to a Minister enabling powers of so far-reaching a nature in such an extremely important Measure as this.

      859
      I have two questions which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer. My hon. Friends have largely confined their remarks to the exclusion, if only temporarily, of certain parts of the Bill from the N.I.R.C. The right hon. Gentleman said that the purpose was to prevent both the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R. from being overwhelmed by the initial case load, and I can see his problem. Can he indicate what the future capacity of the C.I.R. will be, particularly taking into account its present imbalance and weakness arising from the refusal of the unions to participate in its work because of the introduction of this Bill? The introduction of the Bill has had a crippling effect on the C.I.R., of which we once had, quite legitimately, such bright hopes. Indeed, in a short time, it had justified those hopes.
      Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman has obviously been selective in picking out certain provisions in the Bill which will be temporarily restricted from the operations of the N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R. What criteria did he use in determining them? He seems to have selected some while leaving others fully exposed.
      Mr. R. Carr: By leave of the House, I will try to deal with some of the points raised, beginning with the closely connected questions put by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker). He asked me to indicate the future capacity of the C.I.R. Its capacity to do a certain volume of work is not affected by the regrettable and, I believe, totally misguided decision of the T.U.C. so far to advise its member unions not to allow any of their members to serve upon it. I have already appointed the chairman and deputy chairman designate of the C.I.R. in its new form, and I intend to appoint other members as soon as possible. There will be plenty of room left within the maximum membership permissible for the day, which I hope will not be long delayed, when the unions decide to let their members serve on it and their membership to participate, therefore, in the fullest sense.
      The size of the C.I.R. and its staffing will enable it to play a full part in tackling the volume of work. I agree that, to get the most out of the organisation for the good of the country, and above
      860
      all for the good of the trade union membership, it will benefit from trade union membership. The sooner that happens, the better it will be for everyone, not least for the 10 million trade union members throughout the country.
      The capacity will be related to the complexity of the tasks which the C.I.R. is to undertake. But that, of course, is difficult to forecast. We are moving into new procedures. They are certainly complicated. We believe that the complication is necessary, although no doubt that is a matter of debate. But because they are new and complicated, it is difficult not only to judge the number of cases which will come before the C.I.R. but how long each will take and the volume of work which each will require.
      Secondly, the provisions selected in the Amendment have been chosen because they are, by and large, possibly without exception, ones which will involve the C.I.R. It is the overloading of the C.I.R. that I am most concerned to avoid. I believe that it is in the interests of all that I should do so.
      I do not know whether I please or disappoint hon. Members opposite in saying that the Amendment is not a means of delaying the implementation of the Bill but a means of expediting it. There is nothing in the Bill at the moment which would prevent the Secretary of State from delaying the bringing into force of any provision in the Bill as long as he chose. The Amendment is an instrument to enable the delay period to be shorter than would otherwise be necessary, because if the Secretary of State can implement in stages and not be faced with the prospect of all or nothing, he can make a start on implementation more quickly than if it is an all-or-nothing provision. I must be sure that the machinery is sufficiently well established and worked in to be able to cope with the load which the C.I.R. will eventually get from everyone. Thus, if I have greater flexibility in being able to say that, to begin with, this provision will only apply to firms above a certain size, I can introduce the procedure in stages rather than have to wait until there is an all-or-nothing situation.
      Mr. Rose: Therefore, in this Amendment, does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he would be able to delay to a less

      861
      extent the implementation of these Clauses? If that is the case, I am sure that my hon. Friends would be strongly tempted and would decide to vote against the Amendment.
      Mr. Carr: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman frightens me very much by that. I regard the Amendment as enabling me to speed up rather than delay the implementation of the Bill.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: It can be used to expedite, as my right hon. Friend has said, but it can also be used to delay if he is inclined. Surely it is a matter of the glass being half full or half empty. It might save a vote if he said that it could be used to delay as well.
      Mr. Carr: I would rather run the terrible risk of a Division than create any suggestion that there is any intention on our part to delay the implementation of any part of this Bill. As I have said, it is our intention to make all the provisions of the Bill available as widely as possible and as quickly as possible because we believe this to be good for all sizes of undertakings. I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), but we are not having second thoughts. We are not renegging in any way—quite the contrary.
      Listening to some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite, realising that we were told at the beginning that the Opposition apparently did not wish to oppose the Amendment, and recalling all we heard, yesterday and today, about the urgent need to get to the really important things, I have wondered exactly how serious hon. Members opposite are. The artificiality, the triviality, the inconsistency, the unnecessary prolongation of long arguments by hon. Members opposite bear all the stamp of a party which does not know what to say next and is deliberately trying to play out time.
      Mr. John Prescott: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point but I do not agree. Yesterday, I dealt exclusively with an Amendment which was extremely important to my union, the National Union of Seamen. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give an answer to it. Even when I asked him why he had not given an answer, he still refused to give me one. That is an unproductive way to debate Amendments.
      Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice, Mr. Speaker. We are taking Lords Amendment No. 24 and Lords Amendment No. 284. Could the Division on the latter take place tonight and not on Wednesday night?
      Mr. Speaker: The Division on No. 284 cannot take place until we reach that Amendment, and that will be after we have disposed of those before it.
      Mr. Ashton: But we may discuss it now?
      Mr. Speaker: Yes, hon. Members may discuss it with Amendment No. 24.
      Mr. Carr: I do not know the matters to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was referring. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was discussing the matter with the hon. Gentleman, but I was not myself concerned. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I was in the House for the great majority of yesterday, but he made the speech which he has mentioned at a time when I was not in the Chamber, and I am therefore not sure about the points he was making, but I know that they did not concern the Amendment which we are now debating.
      The remarks which I have just made were directed at speeches about these Amendments and not to other Amendments which may have been discussed earlier. The inconsistency was marked. What is it about which the Opposition complain? That I am proposing to apply these powers, or that I am not? They keep saying that these powers are objectionable, that they are all bad, and yet they complain because in the first place I shall apply them only to larger companies and take some time before getting to the smaller companies. I should have thought that if they regarded the powers as bad, they would want me to be as slow as I could.
      Mr. Rose: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's intention, why does he not include a time limit? If he inserted a time limit of one year or two years, or whatever, one would accept his argument, but without a time limit he knows that five years from now he would have the power to exempt a whole number of Clauses from operation. What we are

      863
      saying is that there is a basic inconsistency in his argument. As I said earlier, why is what is good for a large company not good for a small company when it is the small companies in particular that need help in industrial relations?
      Mr. Carr: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not as stupid as he appears to be wishing to make out at the moment. I have said several times that it is good in our view for all companies of all sizes. I want to make all the provisions of the Bill available as widely as possible as quickly as possible. There is no time limit in the Amendment, because if I knew how long it would take, what the case load would be in advance, I should not have to have these flexible powers; powers could be written in. It is because nobody can forecast that it is right to have flexibility.
      We will start by making these provisions available to companies above a certain size. [Interruption.] With due respect to the hon. Member for Don-caster and to the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr), who, as usual, talks from a sitting position, we must start from the top and work down, because the largest numbers of companies are of the smallest size. I want the Bill to be available to the smaller companies as quickly as possible, but we must start with the fewer and work down to the broader base of the pyramid, to the larger numbers, as quickly as we can manage.
      Mr. Orme: It is a political decision.
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Member, speaking from a sitting position, says that it is a political decision. That shows the inconsistency of hon. Members opposite. When a decision is left in the hands of courts, they say that it is wrong and that it should be taken not by the courts, but as a political decision. Whenever it is left in the hands of the Government and Parliament, that is to say, it is a political decision, they say that that is wrong, and that it should be somebody else's decision. No matter what one says, they say it is wrong. One of the great features of all these debates is that whereas the Opposition are very good at saying what they believe to be wrong, they never, never, say what they would do and never, never, give a positive suggestion. They are completely destructive.
      Mr. Roland Moyle: Could we leave it to the employers and trade unions?
      Mr. Carr: That is what we have been doing for a very long time. It was because in certain areas of our industry that was failing in its old form to such a large extent that the Labour Party when in power itself introduced legislation, itself introduce the White Paper "In Place of Strife", although we know that it did not go on with it and we know how much the country has suffered because it did not go on with it.
      Mr. Russell Kerr rose—
      Mr. Carr: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Kerr: But I am standing now.
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman cannot, by occasionally rising to his feet, suddenly acquire the right to make me give way.
      Mr. Prescott: Lie down.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Carr: It is the Government's intention to make all these provisions available as widely and as quickly as possible. It would not be serving the interests of those who wish to make use of the provisions to allow an enormous waiting list to pile up.
      Therefore, we believe that we should start gradually and, as we see the case load that builds up, and as soon as we see that it is manageable at one threshold of size of company, and I assure the House that the original threshold will be measured in hundreds and not thousands, we shall bring in another Order—and amending Orders can only reduce the threshold and not increase it—and make all the provisions available to a larger number of smaller companies. As soon as we see that the caseload is manageable at that lower threshold, we shall bring in a further Order and reduce it again. It is the purpose of the Government and our firm intention to make all these provisions available to everybody as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Rose: In the past the Secretary of State as always argued the case on the basis that there would be very few cases when there would be recourse to the courts. He is now saying that he expects

      865
      a flood of cases of such magnitude that he has to have sweeping powers of this kind to make exemptions over a period. What does he have in mind? Is he saying that there will be such a volume of cases before the courts that this provision will be necessary? If not, will he explain why is it necessary? Would he please say whether he intends to use some of these powers in isolation, or only across the board?
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is a little difficult to make understand today. This provision is not because I expect vast numbers of cases. What I am saying is that I cannot forecast, and nor, I think, can anybody forecast. I do not believe that a vast number of applications will be made, but it is important to make sure that when applications come forward, the capacity of the institution is such that it can cope with applications with reasonable despatch. It would not be a good thing to have long waiting lists and long delays. I believe that the new institutions, new procedures and new laws are much better, and in the interests of the whole country should be introduced as quickly as possible, but gradually and under control. When I can see the rate at which the applications come forward in respect of the first threshold I can judge how to reduce that threshold. That is the orderly and sensible way to proceed.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: May we have the Minister's thinking clear on the matter? Does he or does he not agree that most of the problems, pro rata, occur in the smaller firms rather than the bigger ones, who have learned better ways?
      Mr. Carr: Anyone who has studied the history of industrial disputes in this country in recent years will have found that most of the serious troubles—where the ordinary voluntary arrangements have unfortunately failed to find a solution— have cropped up in the larger companies. On the whole it is in the larger companies that the most intractable disputes have occurred.
      Mr. Orme: That is why the right hon. Gentleman wants to attack the unions.
      Mr. Carr: If the hon. Member will consider some of the most intractable disputes that have arisen—the while collar recognition problem was one, and it
      866
      occurred in its most acute form in the steel industry—he will realise that they arose in the big organisations and not the little ones. It is wrong to imagine that the sort of problems with which these provisions are designed to deal occur most frequently and in their most intractable form in the smaller companies.
      Mr. Ashton: On building sites.
      Mr. Carr: The hon. Members says "On building sites". They are the sort of building sites where large firms and not small firms are engaged. The submission that the major trouble occurs in small firms is not justified.
      Nevertheless, I want the provisions to be available to firms of all sizes as quickly as possible. I repeat that it is our intention to make them available to all sizes of firms as quickly as possible, and to reduce the threshold limit. These are not arbitarary powers; they require affirmative Resolutions of each House. Each Order can only increase the number of firms to which these powers are available, the Amendment specifically excludes the possibility of decreasing them.
      I fear that hon. Members opposite will be disappointed if they believe that they can use these provisions to repeal the Act bit by bit, one day—which I feel will never come about.
      I commend the Amendment. It is sensible for good order, and it is in the interests of those who will want to use these procedures to make sure that there will not be long waiting periods, but we must introduce them gradually, in the way provided for in the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 12

      EFFECT OF BALLOT UNDER SECTION 11
      Lords Amendment: No. 25, in page 10, line 13, leave out from "that" to "have" in line 14 and insert:
      "either a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot or not less than two-thirds of those who voted in it".
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Heffer: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, leave out 'either'.

      867
      At this point I want to make it obsolutely clear that if we reach Amendment No. 284 we shall wish to register our opposition to it.
      We heard earlier from the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill would develop new and complicated procedures. Nobody in the House or outside it would disagree with that statement. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in a speech which was brilliant and funny at the same time, showed clearly the hurdles that trade unionists will have to overcome before the stage is reached at which the agency shop can be put into operation. The provisions in the Clause concerning balloting represent a further hurdle for the trade unions.
      In the other place this issue was debated at some length. The Government have some justification for arguing that the Lords Amendment represents a concession to the various arguments and debates on Amendments in respect of which promises of consideration were made. We believe that a very important principle is involved. We are debating a method of voting that Lord Beaumont of Whitley said, in the other place, was unprecedented in British public life. The proposed voting system is unique. It goes against what we have always understood to be the British democratic system.
      The provision concerning those eligible to vote and the provision concerning the proportion of two-thirds do not apply in any other important constitutional situation. The right hon. Member may fall back on the argument that the miners' union now has a proposal for a two-thirds majority—which, incidentally, it has recently changed. We could seek around and look for examples of that kind, but we could not say that our whole system is based upon any such principle.
      If we consider our own parliamentary system we must, from the word "go", admit that it does not apply to our getting into the House of Commons. No one has to obtain a majority of those eligible to vote for him, or even two-thirds of those who do vote. I suggest that the number of hon. Members who would be here if they had been elected by the majority of those eligible to vote could be counted on one hand.
      Mr. Ashton: There are 17.
      Mr. Heffer: All right then—three hands, or four hands. Certainly it would be a very small number. I am glad that my hon. Friend has worked out the figure. Out of the 600 or so Members, only 17 would be in this House on the basis of the proposals put before us by the Government.
      Mr. Ashton: And they are all Labour Members.
      Mr. Heffer: Let us consider the position in local government. This proposition does not apply there, either. If it did, with some of the low polls that we have in local government we would not have city councils or local authorities. The proposal does not apply to the election of the Leader of the Conservative Party. It does not apply to the election of the Leader of the Labour Party. In most organisations it does not apply. Only when it comes to the question of the formation of an agency shop, of a sort of semi-closed shop organisation which would give the workers some protection —we believe, in the wrong way and in a very limited way—do we have this proposal.
      7.30 p.m.
      Of course, it is quite clear why it is proposed—to make it more difficult for the trade unions.
      Mr. Ashton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this Chamber itself, during the whole course of the Bill and the dozens —hundreds—of votes we have had on the Bill, the Government have never had 51 per cent. of eligible voters here? Their highest vote was 309. To have the sort of eligible vote they are insisting upon in this Lords Amendment they would need to have something like 420.
      Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on that observation.
      Mr. R. Carr: Would not the hon. Member agree that at least we do not have a closed shop? We do at least have two or three parties.
      Mr. Ashton: It is a closed shop.
      Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is the greatest closed shop in this country.
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member must be speaking for himself.
      Mr. Heffer: If hon. Members did not take the oath they would not be in the House; and hon. Members opposite should not try to kid the general public that we have not got a closed shop, for we have a type of closed shop.
      The point I am making is that this proposed method of voting does not apply in any of our organisations—in our parliamentary system, in our local government system. Apparently, however, it must apply to the agency shop, and so the apathetic, the 35 per cent. or 45 per cent., who would be a minority, could have the effect of the majority and the agency shop would not come into existence.
      I put this to the right hon. Gentleman. We are in this House about to take a very important decision about entering into the European Economic Community. I have not heard the Government say that before we enter the European Economic Community there must be a two-thirds majority in favour of that, or a majority, even, of those eligible to vote. I have not heard that suggestion made. I have not heard the Government say outside this House that we should get the opinion of the people of the country or of a two-thirds majority of the people of the country. Of course not. The two-thirds majority proposal does not apply —only to the trade union movement when it comes to a question of the establishment of an agency shop.
      The truth is that the simple majority is the democratic, traditional method which has always been used in this country. The Government are departing from this principle in order to make it more difficult for the trade unions to get an agency shop.
      In effect, our Amendments to the Lords Amendment propose the basic, democratic concept of our country in relation to voting, that there should be a simple majority of those who vote.
      In this country we have never had the idea of a compulsory voting system. It has often been suggested. Many people have asked, "Why do not we have what they have in Australia so that everyone must be forced to vote? We have never accepted that principle, and I personally would be very much opposed to it, because if some people have no
      870
      wish to vote on any issue they also have the democratic right not to participate.
      If the majority of workers in a factory wish to vote and decide to have an agency shop and there is an apathetic section of the workers not concerned with it one way or the other, then the majority of those who vote, on the basis of the system which is to be brought into operation, should have the majority right, as there is the majority right in elections for Parliament and local government, and in all our other organisations.
      Mr. Frederick Lee: I know something of this kind of thing. Would not my hon. Friend agree that there could be shops which are now closed shops in which a very large number of very keen trade unionists would refuse to vote on an agency shop issue as a protest against losing the closed shop?
      Mr. Heffer: Yes. What my right hon. Friend is saying is absolutely true. There would be so much opposition to the whole concept of an agency shop that a situation could well arise in which workers would say, "We will not participate in the ballot" and have nothing to do with it, and we could find that they could lose even the opportunity of having an agency shop.
      The proposals of the Government are designed to help the interests of the employers and that is why these proposals have been brought in. On the basis of the Government's proposals an employer could exercise a considerable influence in one way or another on certain sections of the workers not to participate in such an election. We were not born yesterday; we have all been involved in industrial life and we have seen the subtle and the not so subtle means used by employers in industry to influence certain sections of the workers. An hon. Member opposite says that it works both ways. My experience has always been that the workers in industry who fight an organisattion, a trade union, do it by standing up for their rights, sometimes in extremely difficult circumstances and under immense pressure from hostile employers. Therefore, the situation is not equal as between workers on the one side and employers on the other.
      We believe that the concept in the Government's proposal is totally wrong

      871
      and we believe our Amendments to be right and necessary.
      It could be construed from our proposing our Amendments to the Lords Amendment that we are accepting the idea of the agency sthop. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the reason we propose our Amendments at this stage is that, although we do not like the agency shop, although we are totally opposed to the whole idea of it, at least we want to try, since it is the only thing we can do at this stage, and since this Government proposal is being forced on us, to see that there is some element of democracy in it. That is why we make our proposal at this time, but I wish to stress that we are against the whole concept of the agency shop and that we think it is an alien concept which has no place in British industrial relations.
      The point was made earlier by one of my hon. Friends: why not leave it to the unions and the employers? Why not leave it to the unions and the employers? It reminds me of the situation which has developed now in the United States of America. In the United States the agency shop system, or something similar to it, exists, and there they have found that, despite the years of operation of the Taft-Hartley Act, it still does not stop disputes, it still does not stop industrial action, it still does not stop all forms of activity on the part of the workers. We now find that various people, including Landrum-Griffin, are proposing further changes in the law which are very much against encouraging workers to organise themselves.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that it has been announced on the radio today that the United States of America is facing its biggest industrial eruption for 20 years?
      Mr. Heffer: I am glad that my hon. Friend has reminded me of this. In the last few days since I have been on the Bill I have not had time to hear the radio.
      We believe that the proposals we have put forward in the Amendments are sound, serious, good proposals in the sense that they make the best of a bad job. We ask that the normal democratic voting procedure which has been well tried
      872
      and accepted by the overwhelming mass of people in our local government system and in our parliamentary system should be applied to the ballot procedure for the agency shop.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend's case is a good one. Where does this proposal for a two-thirds' majority come from? It does not come from the British Constitution. If this procedure were operative in our parliamentary and local government systems we should have neither a Parliament nor local authorities. An abstention in a sense is a positive vote, but an abstention in the terms of the Bill is a vote against the coming into operation of an agency shop.
      We discussed this subject briefly, not on the agency shop proposals but on other Amendments, and it has been more fully discussed in the other place, where Labour Peers put down an Amendment that the majority should be 55 per cent. This is in line with the decision taken by the National Union of Mineworkers when it altered its ballot procedure from a two-thirds' to a 55 per cent. majority. That decision was democratically taken by the union.
      In the other place the Government would not accept 55 per cent. When we discussed this obliquely in the House the proposal then was that there should be a majority of those eligible to vote, but this was ruled out because included in those eligible to vote were all the employees of a firm, including management. This point was met in the other place by substituting a two-thirds majority. I do not know where the two-thirds majority came from, there is no constitutional basis for it. I remember the famous remark of Winston Churchill that "one is enough". and many results have been decided on that basis. Had the procedures in the Bill applied, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and many other hon. Members would not have been in the House of Commons. The Minister should tell us why a simple majority is not sufficient, as it is elsewhere.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman said that the National Union of Mine-workers democratically arrived at a decision that the majority should be 55 per cent., yet I assume, contrary to what he considers to be a democratic decision,

      873
      that it would require a majority of two-thirds of those voting to approve the change to 55 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman say why the union decided on 55 per cent., which is entirely contrary to the argument of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)?
      Mr. Orme: No, it is not contrary. The rule was made by the rules revision committee, which is the annual conference of the union. The decision was taken following a national ballot which resulted in a clear majority but not a two-thirds' majority. After seeing how its wage claim had been dealt with by the Government, the union decided to revert to a more democratic form of balloting. The N.U.M. is a very democratic organisation and it was thought that this rule would never be operated. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) could perhaps tell me what was the majority achieved in the national ballot on that occasion. I think that it was about 57 per cent. of all miners voting.
      Mr. Adam Butler: Representing as I do a mining constituency, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the figure was 57 per cent.
      Mr. Orme: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming the figure.
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not like to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I am prepared to disappoint the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), with his knowledge of the mining industry. In fact, the figure was 55·5 per cent.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has experience and knowledge of this matter, so that, although I am sorry for the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), I shall have to take my hon. Friend's word for it.
      The bias of the Government against trade unions comes out in these agency shop proposals. The Government are making it as difficult as possible for a union to achieve the necessary majority to set up an agency shop. A trade union shop does not become a 100 per cent. shop overnight. It takes many years to build up the organisation and to gain the confidence of workers within the factory.
      Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has great experience.
      874
      Will he say roughly what percentage membership one would normally expect before being strong enough to claim not recognition but a closed shop situation in practice now?
      Mr. Orme: That is a very difficult question to answer. It is a problem of human relations, and one employer might be more easily persuaded by a certain percentage than another employer. I have known an employer to recognise a strong trade union group within the factory and to co-operate with it. I served 15 years on the Manchester district committee, and I have known instances where the employer would not co-operate although the firm was 80 or 90 per cent. organised. There is the case of the Roberts Arundel strike, and the American-owned firm in Stockport, where for nine months the firm was 100 per cent. organised but the employers would not recognise the union.
      Mr. Carr: Under this Bill the union would have been able to get recognition.
      Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman keeps telling us that, but I am not sure that would operate.
      Mr. Ashton: Is not the Secretary of State confusing the situation in thinking that a closed shop means one union to that shop? It does not. It means one union to the job. It is possible to have five unions in a factory and still have a closed shop, and not one union will have 55 per cent. of the vote. A closed union will operate for that shop. That is the distinction in regard to the Roberts Arundel case.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is making the issue more complicated.
      Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is complicating an already complicated matter. The more we go into these agency shop proposals, the more trouble we shall have. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have spent a great part of their lives trying to iron out industrial problems and seeking to organise workers and get employers to negotiate. They have not looked for strikes, but have been forced into them. The agency shop situation will set one union against

      875
      another which is a different situation from having a sole bargaining agent. This proposal will involve recognition and the taking of ballots when an employer is being difficult about setting up an agency shop.
      The right hon. Gentleman is anticipating resistance on this matter. He was not prepared on the previous set of Amendments to say whether these proposals would come into operation. These are the difficulties with which we shall be faced. In a large well-organised firm such as that in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) was convenor for a number of years, Metropolitan Vickers— which is now General Electric and English Electric—there were some 39 confederated unions. All that work had to be co-ordinated by my right hon. Friend. It involved matters of organisation, membership, poaching of members, and problems involving different skills and trades.
      All that was done in negotiation between employer and employees. The management of Metropolitan Vickers set a very high standard. It set up a works committee comprised solely of trade unionists, and that committee became extremely powerful. The works convenor in that factory was probably on a parallel with the general works manager. He was an important man. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newton was at one time the works convenor, as was the previous secretary of my own union, and Hugh Scanlon was the convenor for a number of years.
      The aim of those convenors was not to start strikes. It was to stop them and to start proper negotiations. If the Government try to put on top of that system all the paraphernalia of the agency shop, and if we have to consider the nonsense of the voting figures which may involve 55 or 66 per cent., there are bound to be difficulties. I am opposed to the proposals which were accepted in the other place. I regard the figure of 66 per cent. as too high. I am opposed to the conception in any case, and it does not improve the situation to move to a figure of two-thirds.
      We are seeking to test whether the Minister is working on an anti-union or
      876
      pro-union basis. If he is on the side of the unions, let him show his good faith by accepting our Amendment. I doubt whether he will. I hope that at least he will endeavour to give us an answer on this matter.
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is on a serious point, but did not answer the question. We got bogged down on the majority which took the decision to change the voting rule. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) made a strong plea, but it was a repeat of what was said in Committee when the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) made the same point. The hon. Member for Salford, West thought only four hon. Members would be returned to the House under this procedure. He made the strong plea that the basic democratic right should never be infringed and that one vote was enough—quoting the words of Disraeli.
      Mr. Orme: Winston Churchill.
      Mr. King: Disraeli started it and Churchill followed it up. The hon. Member for Salford, West is following a fine tradition.
      The hon. Member made the interesting observation in his speech, that for some reason the National Union of Mine-workers had decided that in some industrial situations 55 per cent. was more appropriate. The House is entitled to know why since this is a relevant matter. One hon. Member opposite said that in no circumstances should one depart from a figure of 51 per cent. in the voting. Now we have an instance where a union has decided that that figure is not appropriate to its situation and has adopted a figure of 55 per cent.
      Mr. Orme: As somebody who is not directly concerned with the National Union of Mineworkers, which took this decision democratically, I must say that I disagree with it. I think the simple majority should apply to all union rules. The union has taken that decision, but I am openly criticising it. I understand that in a choice between 51 and 55 per cent., 55 per cent. was decided upon after a vote. I believe that the simple majority should operate in that union as in every other.
      Mr. King: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties because the N.U.M. is not his union, and it is unfair to expect him to justify that decision. Presumably when the vote was taken the two arguments were put forward as to which alternative should be followed, and presumably the members voted on those alternatives. Is it not possible for some hon. Member to inform the House what arguments were put forward on the proposition that it should be 55 per cent. which persuaded the majority of members of the N.U.M. that that was the right course to adopt?
      Mr. Loughlin: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I reverse the argument—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not clear what is happening. Has the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) given way or has he finished?
      Mr. King: I had finished, but I am willing to give way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot do both. Mr. Ashton.
      Mr. Ashton rose—
      Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It has been the custom for the last 11 years in which I have been in the House that if when one hon. Member is speaking another hon. Member says to him "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down … ", provided there is no objection by the Member concerned that is a legitimate intervention. Since I prefaced my remarks with the words, "Before the hon. Gentleman sits down", I cannot see why you should rule me out of order.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma. I was trying to clear it up. I was asking the hon. Member for Bridgwater which course he was taking. If he had said that he was giving way, then the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) would have had a right to speak. But as the hon. Member told me that he had sat down, I decided to call the next speaker.
      Mr. King: Further to that point of order. I am in a slightly difficult position. I had already virtually sat down,
      878
      but I am willing to give way to the hon. Member.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It cannot be done like that now. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) must accept the situation. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said that he had sat down. However, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West need not worry. I shall call him.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Ashton: Before the points of order arose, I thought that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) had become a little confused about the two-thirds majority and the decision reached by the N.U.M. All trade unions have the tradition that a two-thirds majority is necessary to change the existing rules. That is a legitimate safeguard. The same happens at the Labour Party conference, and, for all I know, at the Conservative Party conference as well. The simple reason for it is that chaos would result if rules were changed every six months on a simple majority verdict.
      I am not a member of the N.U.M., but I represent a mining constituency. I understand the difficulties of the N.U.M. when it comes to conducting ballots at pit heads, for example, and it may be that the union's delegates decided on 55 per cent. because of those difficulties.
      However, that is by the way. I was anxious to make two points. The first is that the drafting of the Amendment has not been done very well, like the drafting of the Bill itself from the very beginning. The Secretary of State talks about those eligible to vote. I should have preferred him to have talked about those eligible to join the union. The two are vastly different. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the words should be amended to read
      "… those eligible to join the union".
      unless we are to take it that "eligible vote" means that.
      Let us consider the case of two competing unions. One, the Transport and General Workers Union, takes literally anyone into membership. Its rules provide for it. There are hon. Members of this House who are journalists and who, as a result, are members of that union. If the Transport and General Workers Union were trying to establish

      879
      itself in any place of work, quite legitimately, it could take in 100 per cent. of the workers. It could say that 100 per cent. of the workers were eligible to join the union and, therefore, eligible to vote.
      Mr. R. Carr: "Eligible to vote" means those in the bargaining unit as agreed voluntarily or, if not voluntarily, by the C.I.R.
      Mr. Ashton: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, though I am not sure that that answers the point. The Transport and General Workers Union would be eligible to take everyone into its bargaining unit from the manager down to the office cleaner. Its rules accept entrants at all levels.
      Then let us consider another union, perhaps an engineering union. By virtue of these rules, it does not admit office cleaners. Clause 5 refers to the right
      "… to be a member of such trade union as he may choose".
      An office cleaner might say that he wished to be a member of the engineering union. It may be that there is no section in the rule book of the union which caters for that kind of membership. I do not know whether such a case would have to go to the C.I.R.
      If it means that the rule book has to be changed before registration can be made in order to accept any member, again there is a dispute. But certainly "eligible to vote" and "eligible to belong" to that union can be interpreted in the courts as being two different things. "Eligible to vote" is an extremely loose, vague phrase which ought to be defined more accurately. In my view, anyone who is eligible to take part in a vote should have the necessary qualifications to do the job involved.
      Earlier, the Solicitor-General spoke about how big the umbrella was to be which would cover the people for whom a union wanted to negotiate as sole bargaining agent. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that, if the union only wanted to act as sole bargaining agent for a few workers, that would be the size of the umbrella. However, the management might say that it should cover everyone and, therefore, that everyone should come in.
      There is also some confusion on the benches opposite as to the meaning of
      880
      a closed shop. A closed shop is not a system where everyone in a factory belongs to the same union or must have a union card before he can get a job. Before I came to this House, I worked in a factory which was big enough to hold two "Queen Marys". There were dozens of trade unions and many thousands of workers. All the unions operated a closed shop in that factory.
      Occasionally, there are power struggles. Last week, for example, A.S.T.M.S. said that it intended to train and recruit bank employees. The National Union of Bank Employers said that it would not allow it. In such a case, there will be ballots to decide whether that is to be the position at an individual bank, at all branches of National Westminster throughout the country, for example, and so on. This is the sort of area into which we are moving.
      Mr. Moyle: Although we are debating a fairly narrow point, we are touching some of the fundamental issues which divide the two sides of the House. I thought that it was very significant when the Secretary of State interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to ask what percentage of the work force should be in the union before my hon. Friend would advocate a closed shop. It was clear that the right hon. Gentleman was seeking a mechanical, rigid rule of law, and it was quite easy to see that my hon. Friend realised that a decision about a closed shop had a lot of subjective and psychological factors which varied from plant to plant, union to union, and place to place.
      There could be a very substantial union membership in a plant or factory, yet the conclusion might be reached that an agency shop or closed shop was quite inappropriate. On the other hand, in the mining industry, once there is a union going, the pressures for an agency shop or closed shop must be tremendous, because of the necessity to introduce discipline for safety reasons.
      One great divide between the two sides of the House concerns the concept of simplicity. All great ideas are simple. When one is dealing with large bodies of people, as, inevitably, one is in industrial relations, the simpler the idea is, the greater it is. That is why this Bill

      881
      will never become a great Act. Nothing in it is simple.
      We must sympathise with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are trying to apply an instrument in the form of a rule of law to industrial relations. It is completely inadequate for the job that they give it. What they are doing is illustrated by the history of the provision that we are discussing. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have the idea that an agency shop should be introduced on the basis of a majority of those eligible to vote voting in favour of it.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) explained, we have run our national life on a totally different principle. It is that anyone who is interested enough to vote in a situation should vote, and that the majority should carry the day. It is a simple idea. It has carried forward the country, just as it has carried forward the national life of the great American republic and most of the British dominions. I have in mind Australia, Canada, New Zealand and so on. When this is pointed out to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, instead of trying to simplify the situation, they realise that they have made an error in trying to apply a law which will cover all the contingencies which may occur, so what they do in another place is to introduce a more complex provision than the original one. This is typical of the reactions of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen under pressure from hon. Members on this side of the House pointing out the errors of their ways and the difficulties of applying law to an industrial situation. They do not say, "Let us simplify the law if we must have it"; they say, "Let us introduce a more complex law than the one before."
      They have now come up with either a majority of those eligible to vote or not less than two-thirds of those who voted, if they are in favour of an agency shop, will get it. This increases the complexity of the situation. By increasing the complexity and obscuring the aim of the legislation, they will tempt people to disregard it and make the Act more difficult to apply.
      I think that my hon. Friends have hit on the solution. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were true to their beliefs, they would hit on the same solution.
      882
      No doubt they are familiar with Mr. Basil and Mr. Sebastian de Ferranti. One of them used to sit on the benches opposite. In the old days, when Ferranti was still Ferranti, it was headed by the father of those two gentlemen. He was invited to an industrial seminar to give his views on how an industrial firm should be run. After he had given his address, one young sycophantic student got up and asked: "Tells me, Sir, from your great experience, what is the key to industrial leadership and success?" Mr. Ferranti replied:"I expect you want me to tell you that it is due to industrial skill and to personality. But if, as I am, you are short, ugly, foreign and diffident, you must have 51 per cent. of the equity." If that is so, I recommend that piece of capitalist philosophy to right hon. and hon Gentlemen opposite and hope that they will accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Loughlin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for making it absolutely clear that, whatever arguments we advance about these Amendments, we are positively opposed to the agency shop. It is essential not only that we get that on the record but that we get it across to the community at large in the loundest, clearest possible voice.
      Mr. Ashton: The newspapers will not print it.
      Mr. Loughlin: If the newspapers will not print it, we can at least tell our constituents in our speeches.
      During the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) the Secretary of State intervened and raised the question of the percentage that is normally required in a factory to get a closed shop. I will tell him. It depends entirely on the circumstances obtaining in the factory.
      8.15 p.m.
      I will illustrate this from my own experience. I worked in a factory employing about 1,250 people of whom about 600, less than 50 per cent., were in the union and wanted a closed shop. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why It was because, over a period, we had secured substantial improvements in the general conditions of labour, safety standards and wage rates of the people in that factory. Many of the workers were

      883
      eager to join the union, but they resented those who were prepared to take all the advantages but would not pay a halfpenny towards the maintenance of the union organisation. We paid the shop stewards out of the branch funds for doing a great deal of the work in getting improved labour conditions in that factory.
      We considered the situation. We decided that we would get them all in because, if they were getting the benefits, they were entitled to face their responsibilities. This applies in the social area. People living in my community get the advantage of lighting, sewerage, roads, and all the things which arise out of the rate fund. We do not say to people, "You have a right to all the benefits, but you do not need to pay rates". We say, "If you do not pay your rates we shall take you to court and distrain on your property, if need be".
      Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that when we talk about industry we are talking about a microcosm of society. It is like being outside the factory. I agree that there is a totalitarian aspect in many factories, but it is precisely the same. It is a society under a different umbrella.
      Reverting to my illustration, we decided that those who got the benefit should face their responsibilities. What did we do? The answer to that question is the short answer to the right hon. Gentleman. We considered which two departments were of so much significance to the factory that if we stopped them the whole factory would stop. By coincidence, the two departments concerned were almost 100 per cent. trade union shops. [Interruption.] I am not being facetious. I want my hon. Friends to be absolutely serious about this. The two departments concerned were just about 100 per cent. trade union shops. So we said to the lads in those departments that we wanted a closed shop and we told the employer that if we did not get a closed shop the two departments would come out. If the two departments had come out the factory could not have gone on.
      I use this as an illustration. I believe that at that time we were quite justified. On the basis of the three years' work which we had done we could have justified it anywhere. The people we were
      884
      asking to face their responsibilities had had the maximum benefits that they could possibly expect from trade union organisation.
      Mr. R. Carr: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's reference to living in a community and paying the rates. That is what we are recognising in the Bill. At the moment there are free riders who pay nothing. When the Bill is on the Statute Book the free rider will not be allowed. He may not be compelled to submit to the discipline of the union, but he can be compelled to pay his rates so that he will not get the benefits for nothing.
      Mr. Loughlin: But only in certain circumstances. If that is to apply throughout the whole of industry, I concede that point.
      Mr. John Page: The hon. Gentleman has told us a very interesting story. Does he consider that his action was democratic? If so, I wonder whether his hon. Friends who have been saying that 51 per cent. is democratic agree with the use of blackmail to bring this democracy into play.
      Mr. Loughlin: I take the point, but we are debating a Bill which will apply to industry. Despite all the high-falutin' terms that we use, we are very much realists at heart. I think that most of us could argue a case for the ideal, but what we are faced with is arguing a case for the human being, and as far as I know there are no ideal human beings, except my wife.
      I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) attempted to engage my hon. Friends in an argument about the miners' decision being based on 55 per cent. I agree that the hon. Gentleman's remarks were very much to the point, but may I ask him to reverse the argument for a moment? Let us assume that Mr. Speaker would accept from me a manuscript Amendment to alter 51 per cent. to 55 per cent. Would that satisfy the hon. Gentleman? In view of his criticism of the miners, would he accept that 55 per cent. was the right figure, and would he come into the Division Lobby with us?
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that in no sense did I endorse 55 per cent. I was trying to probe

      885
      it because it seemed to contradict what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said. Since he spoke every speech from the other side of the House has seemed to confuse the issue so clearly set out by the hon. Member for Walton, even though one did not agree with what he said.
      Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that and I, too, am confused. I become confused when I look at the Bill and when I try to consider the Amendments which have been suggested by the other place. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's being confused. The hon. Gentleman's case is that we cannot argue in favour of 51 per cent.—which is the subject of the Amendment—as against two-thirds because one of our organisations used the figure of 55 per cent.
      Mr. Tom King: Answer the question.
      Mr. Loughlin: I know that the hon. Gentleman asked a question, but he was using the old technique which we always use in the House. If he uses the old technique I am entitled to reverse the position and ask him to establish quite clearly what is at the back of his mind. I ask him to tell us whether, if we were able to change the figure to 55 per cent., he would support us. Quite frankly, I know that he would not.
      I now propose to deal with a matter about which the Secretary of State is possibly sick and tired of hearing, but it is a matter which must cause him some concern. I am not being funny when I say that. Anyone who considers the phrase "eligible to vote" must, if he has a reasonable attitude to things, become concerned. If we talk about those eligible to vote, we make no provision at all for those who do not vote. Let us consider that situation in a parliamentary democracy. The right hon. Gentleman may look at me in a hang-dog fashion, but is it not true that he was voted to this House by a percentage which was considerably lower than the percentage of those eligible to vote?
      Mr. R. Carr: I am sorry if I have a hang-dog look, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is only because we have been told by hon. Gentlemen opposite that they want to press on and debate urgent things, and yet if we have heard the argument now being advanced by the
      886
      hon. Gentleman once, and answered it once, we have heard it and answered it at least one hundred times since last January.
      Mr. Heffer: I hope that my hon. Friend will take it from me that we regard this as a matter of great principle, importance and urgency, and that if hon. Members on this side of the House wish to emphasise the point there will be no objection from us.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, and I am more than grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton for his. I think it is accepted in the House that I could not care two hoots whether we want to get on or do not want to get on. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to intervene again?
      Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman has now stated what has been obvious since yesterday, namely, that the Opposition want to delay and not to get on with the business. All this talk about wanting more time for debate is bogus.
      Mr. Loughlin: I do not know whether it is in order for an hon. Member to indulge in gratuitous insults. If ever there was a gratuitous insult it was that made by the Secretary of State a moment ago. I shall await your Ruling on it, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Hon. Members may insult each other as much as they like, so long as they do it in a parliamentary manner. Nothing that I have heard so far has been un-parliamentary.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I can now indulge in insulting the Secretary of State. I think that my contributions to the debate yesterday demonstrate quite clearly that I have not attempted to make Second Reading speeches. I have dealt with the Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman can read HANSARD to confirm that if he wants to. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he can intellectually justify the inclusion of "eligible to vote" as distinct from "those voting". This is the substance of the argument. It is not a question of which department they belong to or whether they are in one craft as against another.
      Mr. Anthony Fell Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth) indicated assent.
      Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that after 11 years I have found one hon. Member opposite who agrees with me. The phrase "eligible to vote" is completely undemocratic and unfair.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Prescott: In reply to the Secretary of State's reiterated assertion that we on this side are wasting time instead of debating the issues which we regard as important, I must point out to him that the principle involved here is one of the most important in this legislation. We are sometimes encouraged to reiterate our points because, no matter how many times we make a point, the right hon. Gentleman fails to give us a proper answer. If we are lucky to get an answer. Last night I could not even get an answer.
      In view of an earlier exchange, I want to put it on record that the conversation which I was reputed to have had with the Solicitor-General about an Amendment occurred only after the Division was called. I was trying to get into HANSARD a record of the Government's position affecting my trade union.
      We are debating the essential principle —that of the majority will—involved in democracy, whether it be expressed as a majority of one—or 51 per cent.—or, as is the Government's interpretation of democracy, 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote, which latter interpretation we fiercely attack. In the discussion on a later Amendment we shall deal with the Government's proposal that it should be 66⅔ per cent. of those voting or a majority of those eligible to vote.
      I am one of the 17 Members referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) who are here with a majority of 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote. I plead both for a principle which I believe to be right and also for my colleagues to be represented in the House on the principle of the majority of those voting in an election.
      The real issue is whether the two-thirds majority proposed in a later Amendment, though we believe the 51
      888
      per cent. to the essential point, is a concession. We are told that the Bill is designed to strengthen the trade union movement. The burning question is whether the proposal will make it more difficult for trade unionism to develop. I believe, contrary to the Government's contention, that the Bill is designed solely to cripple the trade union movement.
      The principle embodied in the Bill is that of 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote. The proposed change is just a liberal figleaf. The test is whether it will be more difficult for trade unionism to function. A good analogy is that, if it is necessary to swim across a river which is two miles wide, it is immaterial whether the person so challenged has the ability to swim two-thirds of the way across or 75 per cent. of the way across. The real challenge is to get from A to B, namely, from one side of the river to the other. In this case, the test is whether it will be possible for growth to occur in trade unionism.
      Basing myself upon that criterion, I shall spend the next few minutes considering the matter against the background of my experience. I do not apologise for again referring to my experience in shipping. Most hon. Members have referred to their experience. My industry has a number of peculiar aspects about it that make it very different from other industries.
      We are concerned with a ballot for an agency shop. How many of those taking part in the election will determine whether the agency shop will be adopted at their place of work? We are debating the issue here within the context of the Bill as it is at present, and we on this side of the House totally reject the concept of the Bill. However, taking the Bill as it is, I should like to pose some problems which will make it extremely difficult to conduct ballots. There are many problems in the shipping industry which will make it extremely difficult for the employees to vote because of the difficulty of getting ballot papers to them. It will be appreciated that mobility of labour in my industry is very great. Men are employed in ships which are situated all over the world and it is difficult for

      889
      those men to receive mail. I am assuming that if a ballot is conducted, the ballot papers may be sent by mail. One cannot assume that the postmen will be paid extra money for nipping round the world delivering ballot papers. Many of our ships have to go to inaccessible places where there are no facilities for the delivery of mail. Some ships are away for anything from 12 months to over two years.
      Then there are problems of different companies. Seamen are not mobile like non-seagoing people, just from factory to factory; a seaman can be mobile from one ship to another ship in the same company, or from one company to another company, and from one part of the world to another part of the world. His place of residence can change constantly from week to week, month to month and year to year. That makes it extremely difficult to conduct a ballot among those men.
      In considering the application of the agency shop, men may have left the company or the ship during the time when the ballot takes place and may be in another ship. New men will have come in and decided whether there shall be an agency shop in that company, while the people who should have taken part in the ballot will have moved on to another company. The turnover of labour in that industry is extremely high. The Tavistock Institute has done a survey and has found that over 25 per cent. of those who enter the shipping industry leave within a period of five years. This leads to ever-increasing problems in conducting a ballot.
      There is the question of addresses. We have ballots within our own union and the addresses change constantly so that it is difficult to keep regular contact with the men. Men spend varying periods of time ashore. It has been found that 20 per cent. of seamen spend 50 per cent. of their time on shore, on leave, away from their ships so that they would be out of touch with the ballot to determine the essential principle of the application of an agency shop. This applies to different types of ships, those engaged in the home trade and foreign-going ships. I am seeking to show to the House how difficult it is in these circumstances to conduct ballots.
      890
      My union holds executive council elections every two years. Because of the difficulties to which I have referred, we hold the ballot open for over three months. On the last occasion it was open for four months. During that time the ballot and elections are run by the Electoral Reform Society, an independent body. There are more than 9,000 claims for votes from 54,000 seamen, representing about 18 per cent. of the membership claiming the right to vote. Indeed, only 5·7 per cent. of forms were returned in 16 weeks while the ballot was open in 1967, and that percentage has been as low as 4·8.
      In other words, there is, first, the difficulty of holding ballots. This is where it is relevant to consider the need to reach a certain percentage in the level of voting, be it 51 or 66. Then there is the difficulty of those who do not vote and the fact that a vote not cast is a vote against. The Government must have been aware of this. Actually, this very fact fits in with the philosophy of the Bill. However, they obviously found it difficult to overcome it in the Measure, and have come forward with this so-called liberalising step. Now we are told, "We had better make it two-thirds", but in reality this is no concession.
      While the principle of abstention in voting may not now mean a vote against, as it did under the previous eligibility arrangement, one must bear in mind the way in which people vote. For example, why do fewer people vote at local than at general elections? The answer is simply that they take a different attitude to the former. Considering the record of the Conservatives in the last year or so, I have no doubt that the majority of people wish that they had exercised their vote differently at the last General Election.
      Attitudes vary and people vote according to what they consider to be the importance of the occasion. Some people feel extremely strongly about the need for trade union representation, and they can always be relied on to vote in union matters. Others feel just as strongly in their hearts, but are not bothered to vote or take part in union affairs. This applies to most human institutions and is typical of our political history.

      891
      In other words, because the majority do not vote that does not mean that they are not in favour of what they might have voted for. It is just that they prefer to leave it to the minority to take the decision. The apathetic majority in trade unionism are always glad to accept the concessions and improvements secured by the minority. We in the trade union movement have always been aware of those against trade unionism, and that is why we have conscience clauses.
      One frequently finds that the people who want better conditions are either not prepared to fight for them or leave it to the minority to do the fighting. Alternatively, many people who are interested in union affairs channel their energies into other activities, like the boy scouts and hobbies.
      Mr. Skinner: But not yachting.
      Mr. Prescott: Certainly not. They cannot afford that. Only a Tory Prime Minister can indulge in such expensive hobbies.
      When it is necessary to obtain a high vote, one is up against all sorts of difficulties. If a total vote of 66 per cent. must be obtained, as in this case, there will be equal difficulties because of the great number of people who will say, "I cannot be bothered".
      I have often heard it said that because so few people attend union branch meetings, the power of the trade union movement is being moved to the factory floor. That is true to an extent, but it is wrong to assume that because people do not attend union meetings they are not interested in union affairs. As soon as there is an important issue, such as a strike, an overtime cut, a threat of redundancy or what seems to be an unnecessary sacking, they turn up in strength. Then the apathetic majority, who are not usually concerned to participate in and vote on trade union matters, appreciate the protection they get from the trade union movement.
      This is the serious point of disagreement between the two sides of the House on this issue. We are discussing a fundamental principle which it seems hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot grasp. I shall, therefore, have much pleasure in opposing the Government on this matter.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall not keep the House long, but it is worth reiterating one or two points. After the powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), it does not need to be said that all of us on this side are against the agency shop and we shall always be against it. Somewhere along the line, however, we must accept that we have to get the best possible deal that we can out of the agency shop.
      The same thing happened in the other place. In Committee in the House of Lords, the whole of the Labour Opposition were against the agency shop principle. On Report, they decided to see what kind of deal they could get out of it in the way of voting. The official Labour Amendment in the other place was for a simple majority. The official line of the Labour Party throughout the Bill has been that a simple majority should suffice. In the other place, a manuscript Amendment was moved at the same time by one of my noble friends from the mining industry, Lord Blyton. He anticipated the miners' conference by one day by putting down a manuscript Amendment to provide for 55 per cent. We all recognised the difficulty of the Front Bench. Its occupants wanted to get off the hook from the situation into which they had got themselves on the Bill.
      In the other place, to get the best deal that we could, we were opening windows and doors and hoping that the Government would jump through one of them to give us a better deal than they have done. Unfortunately, they failed to do so. They failed to take the options. I do not think that the Government Front Bench will take them tonight. What we on this side must do, and keep on doing, is to try to hammer home that this is a principle with us and a principle which each and every one of us will continue to reiterate. We can only be happy that when the day comes, we shall strike it from the record altogether.
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member has said that this is a principle. As we know that he speaks with great authority for the mining industry, will he tell us what is the principle? Is it 51 per cent. or is it 55 per cent.?
      Mr. Concannon: The official Labour Party principle, both here and in the House of Lords, is a simple majority. I shall make my peace with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) because it was his area which submitted the amendment to the miners' conference for a simple majority instead of 66⅔ per cent. My area decided to go for 55 per cent.
      Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend's area is more conservative.
      Mr. Concannon: No, it is not. I am in favour of a simple majority, but for some reason the miners' conference went for 55 per cent. It must have thought that it was a big enough jump from 66⅔ per cent. to 55 per cent. I have no doubt that this matter will come up again and that in the near future it will become a simple majority.
      I ask the Minister seriously to consider the precedent he is setting and whether he cannot meet our proposal. If he will not accept 55 per cent.—and I cannot see him accepting even a simple majority tonight—that does not mean that we shall not keep pressing this. The only thing we can say to the trade union movement from these benches is let us wait until the next election, when we promise that we shall wipe off the Bill and everything that goes with it.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), in a speech which was as trenchant as it was witty and literary, suggested that the Bill would not be a lawyer's paradise. With some feeling, I agree with him, but if it is a paradise, then it is a paradise lost. He persuasively showed us that it gets into the realms of fantasy in one or another. It would be more accurate to describe the Bill as a lawyer's nightmare. I believe that I can prove this by one illustration.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I do not know whether he has had legal training, but he has a good eye for a legal flaw. He put his finger on a definite ambiguity and the difficulty which underlies the whole of this part of the Bill— the part dealing with eligibility to vote. It is not a simple matter, as he rightly appreciated. There is some law on the matter. Lord Chelmsford, in Baker v.
      894
      Lee in 1860—House of Lords cases— dealt with the question of the meaning of the word "eligible". He pointed out that it is ambiguous. He said that it can mean "legally qualified"—he was thinking of the context of that case—and that it can be qualified in law—that is, qualified according to the requirements of the law—or it can mean "fit to be chosen". These are two different meanings and we do not know which of them is intended in the Bill.
      In the case of Morris v. Winter in 1930, before the King's Bench, the question of eligibility was distinguished from the question of entitlement to remission. Eligibility to remission is one thing; entitlement to remission is quite another. I hope that the Solicitor-General will return to the Chamber shortly, because I want to say something about him and I prefer not to say it in his absence.
      I have only chosen these two cases as an illustration, but many more could be quoted. However, I do not want to take up much time because we want to focus our points as shortly as we can. I end the point by stressing that, even in terms of the Representation of the People Acts, which are matters that we here are much concerned with, the question of eligibility to vote in a general election is an entirely different matter from entitlement to vote. A person is eligible to vote at the age of 18 but he is entitled to vote only if he takes the steps to get himself on the register. The meaning of the phrase is so vague and meaningless that one can only wonder how it got into the Bill.
      Unfortunately, the Solicitor-General is still not here, but I want to quote what he said in an address to the American Bar Association on 15th July. The report in The Guardlan said that he had told the meeting that the Bill would need
      "… detailed change and improvement …"
      in future years. That is the understatement of the year. We are being asked to push this final stage of the Bill through in only five days of debate. Yet that is what has been said by one of its principal creators. Perhaps I am unfair to use that quotation, particularly in the hon. and learned Gentleman's absence, but he will be as aware as I am that it is a principle of law that a confession can be used against the accused person whereas a statement in his favour cannot

      895
      be used in his favour. I quote that against the hon. and learned Gentleman and on that happy note I conclude.
      Mr. R. Carr: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) has one advantage or disadvantage over me—he is a lawyer and I am not. He and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) are making heavy weather about the question of the eligibility to vote. First, this is something which the parties, if they can agree about it, are free to agree about it for the area of the pLant or works or establishment in which they wish to consider the question of the bargaining agent and who shall be entitled to vote. If they cannot agree, they then go to the C.I.R. which will make recommendations.
      We are constantly accused of having imported United States law. We have probably gone nearest to that, although still very far from it, in having to some extent taken hold of the concept of the bargaining unit and the bargaining agent and the possibility, although not so freely or in the same circumstances in this country as in North America, of determining such questions by means of an election. Anybody who has fairly looked at the practice in the United States would have to say, whatever he might say about the rights and wrongs of the system across the Atlantic, that on the whole there had been no great trouble via the National Labour Relations Board, which in this respect is the nearest equivalent, although not a very exact equivalent, of the C.I.R. in this respect. There has been no difficulty about holding elections of this kind, about deciding constituency boundaries, as we would call them in Parliamentary terms, or those entitled to vote.
      I do not believe that in practice there will be any more difficulty in this country than there has been there. First, it would be up to the parties to agree voluntarily, and if they could not, the C.I.R. would be the body which would say what it considered to be right.
      I intended to deal with a number of issues raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Unfortunately, he is not here. I do not complain and I am not criticising him for that, for he has been one of the
      896
      most regular attenders of our debates. We are rather playing Cox and Box with each other. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General hoped to put right an omission of last night by replying to the hon. Gentleman on an Amendment earlier this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman was not here then and now the same thing has happened again.
      There has been much emotion and some substance. I do not wish to denigrate the performance of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), but the emotion which expressed most clearly the strength of feeling came in the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). He said that the Amendment clearly showed the antitrade union bias implicit in the Bill.
      That is the greatest nonsense. In this context, the hon. Gentleman convicted himself out of his own mouth. He mentioned two companies, one good and one bad. The good was Metropolitan-Vickers. He said that all this system had grown up there voluntarily. Good! Excellent! There is nothing in the Bill which will stop that from happening in future, or going on as it already exists. The Bill will not make it more difficult. It will not detract in any way from a voluntary development with good will, or from a vountarily established position.
      The bad company was Roberts Arundel, where all voluntary efforts had failed. In spite of the strength of the union membership, the union could not get recognition, let alone a closed shop. That bad example will be corrected once the Bill is on the Statute Book. That is a fact and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny it. The voluntary system worked in the example of the good company and will continue to work when the Bill is passed, but the voluntary system, unaided by and without the proper framework of industrial relations law, proved itself unable to cope with the bad case of Roberts Arundel. If ever there was a clear example of the need for a law of the sort that we are talking about it is that one.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: It is difficult. There is a philosophical gap between us which is wide and deep and which has been there throughout our debates. My contention

      897
      is that these matters cannot be resolved by law. In the bad case industrial action had to be taken. It was a long and protracted business but it was successful. Recognition was obtained. It was a difficult case. This Bill would not have put it right. Metropolitan-Vickers was the good example with its agency shop provisions but legislation such as this may introduce problems into a factory.
      Mr. Carr: As the hon. Member says, there is a deep philosophical difference between us but what I cannot understand is why he positively prefers to have the Roberts Arundel type case settled after enormous, wasteful, damaging and destructive loss of time by industrial war fare rather than through machinery which could have settled it without industrial warfare, by peaceful process under the law, much sooner and with much less damage to the workers, the company, the customers and suppliers. I cannot under stand why industrial warfare is preferable to a peaceful mechanism for obtaining the rights which we all agree about—
      Mr. Ashton: This is why I say the United Nations can settle Vietnam.
      Mr. Carr: We do not pretend that this Bill will remove all warfare from industry. I do not believe that this is possible allowing for human nature, although we may hope to improve. Surely it is sensible and good to introduce machinery which will enable more cases to be settled without warfare than is the case at present. In the majority of cases the machinery will not be used, but there will be an important minority of cases which at the moment have to remain unresolved or which must be resolved by industrial warfare. We believe that in a civilised society it is more sensible to have this machinery and freedom and order under the law. If that breaks down warfare may still be the final result but let us try the other way first.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the agency shop system was chosen for this beneficent Bill, as he puts it, rather than the closed shop procedure? There might have been force in the argument if he was suggesting that the framework of law was to be used to help the closed shop. He is removing the right which trade unions have fought for for generations.
      Mr. Carr: This is another deep problem, and here there is a more genuine philosophical division between the two sides than the one I have just dealt with. I do not feel that I could embark on that because it would be a debate about the agency shop and would be a repeat of debates initiated at an earlier stage in an outstandingly good speech by the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden). There, the philosophy of the agency shop versus the closed shop was touched upon. If I were to embark on that again I should be going well beyond the terms of the Amendment.
      Hon. Members opposite are missing one vital link in their argument. They are speaking as though the Bill does not provide for a simple majority. They quote in support of their argument the fact that we are elected to the House on straight majorities, and make decisions on straight majorities; that Winston Churchill said, "One is enough". When we are dealing—as we are in the Bill— with the basic question of recognition we say that a simple majority is enough. That is the equivalent to electing one's Government, or one's elected representative. It is the choice of the union which shall have the sole bargaining rights.
      Mr. Harold Walker: But at the moment the workers in an establishment can challenge that agency.
      Mr. Carr: Yes, but the decision is a simple majority decision whether to support single-agency recognition.
      When we go beyond recognition, to the approval of an agency shop, it is something more than straight recognition, and we believe that it requires more than a simple majority. That has been a fundamental principle of ours from the beginning. I believe that that is not only right but is in tune with experience under the present system. That is why I interrupted the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to ask what his judgment was— based on his great experience—of the sort of membership that there had to be in an establishment before it was possible to get a closed shop.
      Under the present system basic union recognition is often obtained with relatively small percentage memberships, but I believe—and I think that I am supported

      899
      by many experienced trade union leaders; I believe that this view was expressed in the debate in another place—that in normal circumstances before a union can go forward from its initial stage of recognition to the further stage of a closed shop it has to have 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. membership. In practice, before a closed shop situation can be achieved, the union concerned must have obtained considerably more than a bare majority of union members in the establishment. That does not apply in all cases, but it applies in the great majority of cases. Any experienced union leader would have difficulty in denying that in the majority of cases what I have been saying is correct.
      From the beginning, our principle has been that there should be a simple majority for recognition but something more for something more, namely, the agency shop, which is the nearest to the closed shop that our philosophical reasons enable us to go.
      In the original Bill we said that the something more would have to be a majority of those eligible to vote and not a majority of those voting, but strong exception was taken to this by hon. Members opposite. We understood the depth of their feelings on the matter. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I should point out that we understood the difficulties of the shipping industry. The hon. Member has expounded on many occasions the difficulties of taking a ballot in that industry. Those difficulties were among the most powerful practical arguments that finally led us to believe that we must support an Amendment providing an alternative to the "eligible-to-vote" qualification. It was because of practical arguments like those and because of the obvious emotional feelings of hon. Members opposite about eligibility to vote as the test that we supported an Amendment in another place that, as an alternative, we should have 66 per cent. of those voting.
      Why 66 per cent.? I was asked. It is a matter of judgment, of course. There is no obvious yardstick. The only principle which I had in my mind was that a bare majority was needed for recognition, something more than a bare majority was needed for something further—an agency shop, which imposes extra rights and extra
      900
      obligations on both sides, and it seemed to me that 66 per cent. was a reasonable figures. In going forward to that we were genuinely going forward to meet first the practical difficulties which the hon. Member put forward about industries such as the shipping industry, and secondly the deep emotional feelings on the other side about the objectionableness of eligibility to vote as the basic test.
      Mr. Prescott: I should like to offer my apologies to the right hon. Gentleman for having missed the beginning of his speech. In normal circumstances I would not have missed it, but there were unavoidable circumstances so that I did miss it, and I would apologise to him.
      Mr. Carr: We have been playing box and cox with each other, but I would say to the hon. Member that the Solicitor-General was sorry not to have replied to his point last night because he was right in saying that of all the speeches the hon. Member's was the one really directed narrowly to an Amendment. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend would not mind my admitting on his behalf that the hon. Member had raised a very specialised and difficult point about seamen presenting a special problem, and my hon. and learned Friend was hoping to have been able today to reply when speaking to another Amendment, on which it would have been in order for him to reply to the hon. Member's point, but, unfortunately, it was not possible to give the hon. Member notice and he was not here. I know that my hon. and learned Friend will be writing to the hon. Member to try to answer his point in detail. I hope the House will forgive that diversion.
      In conclusion, in supporting this Amendment in another place we were genuinely trying to meet and help and satisfy what we realise to be the deep feelings on the other side and also the practical problems which we recognise exist in certain industries such as shipping, and yet at the same time maintaining what we believe to be right, that for the agency shop provision there ought to be more than the simple majority which is required to obtain recognition. For these reasons I must ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist this Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
      Mr. Fell rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Mr. Heffer.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) may want to make a brief comment afterwards, but, with the leave the House, I just want to say that it seems to me that while the right hon. Gentleman made a fairly long and detailed reply it was a most unconvincing one. I do not want to speak long but I must point out that he did not deal with the points which had been made in relation to the simple majority.
      The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that under Clause 48 the simple majority applies in relation to recognition but he went on to say that, whilst it can apply in that case, it cannot then apply in relation to the agency shop provision. He made the point that a closed shop usually means about 90 per cent. of the workers in a union before the closed shop is applied. I am not going to deny that, but the point is that it is on the basis of a voluntary agreement between the employer and the trade union. We are getting away from the voluntary agreement to the point where the legal paraphernalia is becoming involved, and if this is to be the future pattern, then the simple majority should apply on recognition and on the agency shop.
      9.15 p.m.
      I should like to comment briefly on the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the time my hon. Friends are taking on these debates. He cannot make remarks like that without there being a reply. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are angry because hon. Members on this side of the House have not lost interest in the Bill but are deeply concerned with its principles and details and, as long as the Bill is before the House, will participate in the debates at all levels.
      The right hon. Gentleman has made this constant complaint because, in the last analysis, he does not want any discussion on the Bill; he wants to push it through automatically without proper democratic discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to understand that the democratic principle is very valuable to us and dear to our hearts. My hon. Friends are not prepared to let that
      902
      demoratic process go in relation to the Bill. The trade union movement has never had an opportunity to discuss the basic principles because it was said from the word "go" that the basic pillars were not under discussion. But we shall try to discuss them whenever we get the opportunity to do so. The right hon. Genleman's remarks were quite unwarranted, and I hope we shall hear no more of them.
      The question of the miners' 55 per cent. majority has been brought into the argument. I said in my opening remarks that hon. Gentlemen opposite would look for one or two examples to try to prove their case. This is the one they picked on. The miners' union is one of the few unions that does not have a simple majority.
      I think that we have made out a very good case, and I hope that we shall have the support of the House. I will say no more. I know the hon. Member for Yarmouth wishes to make a point.
      Mr. Fell: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) for awarding me the opportunity of making a point. I was tremendously impressed by his first intervention and agreed with almost every word he said, but I find it more difficult to do so since his second intervention, which was most immoderate.
      My right hon. Friend will know that I have supported him throughout the passage of the Bill and have sat through almost all our discussions, but I am not happy about the simple majority and the suggestion made in the Lords Amendment for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Walton. I was a little confused when the hon. Member for Walton said that we in Parliament govern our affairs by simple majorities, and, indeed, come here by a simple majority, because he went on to say that in the case of the agency shop agreement the situation was quite different and special. I cannot follow that argument. The hon. Gentleman has always been strictly honest with the House and admits that there are no precedents. Had he been able to quote precedents, his case would have greater weight. I must not get out of order by bringing in other matters, but the hon. Gentleman well knows that the extremely important matter of the Common Market will be decided in this House by a simple majority.
      Mr. Tom King: No doubt it was not thought necessary to quote precedent because there was enough information before the House on this matter. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said that the National Union of Mine-workers regarded 55 per cent. as the correct figure. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) assured the House that a two-thirds' majority was a hallowed procedure for many trade unions. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) informed the House that one could get the results one wanted with a minority.
      Mr. Fell: I am delighted I gave way to my hon. Friend. I am sure he feels better. I was saying that the use of the two-thirds majority by unions was in regard to change of rules. But in this House we adopt the principle of a simple majority for any matter, however great it may be. We all know that the greatest
      matter which has come before this House for 100 years will be decided by a simple majority. If I am wrong and the Government decide to do something different, then that will be a precedent. But I am not happy that we should set a precedent in this case.
      I was impressed by the earlier part of the case put forward by the hon. Member for Walton—though I shall not vote for the Amendment—and perhaps my right hon. Friend may rethink this matter before this debate is over. If he does not rethink it now, he will not have another opportunity to do so.
      Mr. Speaker: Shall we take a simple majority vote on this Amendment?
      Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 247, Noes 271.

      Division No. 445.]

      AYES

      [9.24 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Allen, Scholefield

      Deakins, Eric

      Hilton, W. S.

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Horam, John

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Delargy, H. J.

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Ashley, Jack

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Ashton, Joe

      Dempsey, James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Atkinson, Norman

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Barnes, Michael

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Barnett, Joel

      Driberg, Tom

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Beaney, Alan

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Hunter, Adam

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Dunnett, Jack

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Eadie, Alex

      Janner, Greville

      Bishop, E. S.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Booth, Albert

      Ellis, Tom

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      English, Michael

      John, Brynmor

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Evans, Fred

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

      Bradley, Tom

      Faulds, Andrew

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

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

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

      Buchan, Norman

      Foot, Michael

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

      Forrester, John

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Judd, Frank

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Freeson, Reginald

      Kaufmann, Gerald

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Kelley, Richard

      Carmichael, Neil

      Garrett, W. E.

      Kerr, Russell

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Kinnock, Neil

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Ginsburg, David

      Lambie, David

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Golding, John

      Lamond, James

      Cohen, Stanley

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Latham, Arthur

      Concannon, J. D.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lawson, George

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Leonard, Dick

      Cronin, John

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Lipton, Marcus

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

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Hamling, William

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hardy, Peter

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Harper, Joseph

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      McBride, Neil

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      McCann, John

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Hattersley, Roy

      McCartney, Hugh

      McElhone, Frank

      Paget, R. T.

      Stallard, A. W.

      McGuire, Michael

      Palmer, Arthur

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michal (Fulham)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Mackie, John

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Strang, Gavin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Pentland, Norman

      Taverne, Dick

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

      Marks, Kenneth

      Pre6cott, John

      Tinn, James

      Marquand, David

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Tomney, Frank

      Marsden, F.

      Probert, Arthur

      Torney, Tom

      Marshall, Or. Edmund

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Meacher, Michael

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Varley, Eric G.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Mendelson, John

      Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

      Millan, Bruce

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

      Wallace, George

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Watkins, David

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

      Roper, John

      Weitzman, David

      Molloy, William

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Moyle, Roland

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

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Ogden, Eric

      Silverman, Julius

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Woof, Robert

      O'Malley, Brian

      Small, William

      Oram, Bert

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Orme, Stanley

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

      Padley, Walter

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Clegg, Walter

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Cooke, Robert

      Goodhart, Philip

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Coombs, Derek

      Goodhew, Victor

      Awdry, Daniel

      Cooper, A. E.

      Gorst, John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Corfield. Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Gower, Raymond

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Gray, Hamish

      Balniel, Lord

      Costain, A. P.

      Green, Alan

      Batsford, Brian

      Critchley, Julian

      Grieve, Percy

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Crouch, David

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Grylls, Michael

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Curran, Charles

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Benyon, W.

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Gurden, Harold

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Biffen, John

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Dean, Paul

      Hall-Davie, A. G. F.

      Blaker, Peter

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Digby, Simon Wingfleld

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Body, Richard

      Dixon, Piers

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Hastings, Stephen

      Bowden, Andrew

      Dykes, Hugh

      Havers, Michael

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Eden, Sir John

      Hay, John

      Braine, Bernard

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Bray, Ronald

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Brewis, John

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

      Hicks, Robert

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Emery, Peter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hiley, Joseph

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Farr, John

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

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Bryan, Paul

      Fidler, Michael

      Holt, Miss Mary

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

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Hordern, Peter

      Buck, Antony

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Hornby, Richard

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Burden, F. A.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworrh)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Fowler, Norman

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Fox, Marcus

      Hunt, John

      Channon, Paul

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

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fry, Peter

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      James, David

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Gardner, Edward

      Jessel, Toby

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      906

      907

      Jopling, Michael

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Soref, Harold

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Neave, Airey

      Spence, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Sproat, lain

      Kilfedder, James

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Normanton, Tom

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Nott, John

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Kirk, Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Knox, David

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Stokes, John

      Lane, David

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Osborn, John

      Sutcliffe, John

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Page, John (Harrow, w.)

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

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

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Peel, John

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Loveridge, John

      Percival, Ian

      Tebbit, Norman

      Luce, R. N.

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Pink, R. Bonner

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

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      McLaren, Martin

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Tilney, John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      McMaster, Stanley

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Trew, Peter

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Pym, Rt, Hn. Francis

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Raison, Timothy

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Maddan, Martin

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Maginnis, John E.

      Redmond, Robert

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Mather, Carol

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Maude, Angus

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Wall, Patrick

      Mawby, Ray

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

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

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Moate, Roger

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Molyneaux, James

      Rost, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Money, Ernle

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Monro, Hector

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Worsley, Marcus

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sharples, Richard

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      More, Jasper

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

      Younger, Hn. George

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Simeons, Charles

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Mudd, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mr. Keith Speed.

      Murton, Oscar

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

      Amendment to the Lords Amendment proposed: Leave out 'two-thirds' and insert '51 per cent.'.—[Mrs. Castle.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 269.

      Division No. 446.]

      AYES

      [9.35 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Davies, S. O, (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Allen, scholefield

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

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Deakins, Eric

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Ashley, Jack

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Ashton, Joe

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Atkinson, Norman

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Dempsey, James

      Barnes, Michael

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Doig, Peter

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Barnett, Joel

      Cohen, Stanley

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Beaney, Alan

      Concannon, J. D.

      Driberg, Tom

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Bishop, E. S.

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Eadie, Alex

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Cronin, John

      Edelman, Maurice

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Booth, Albert

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

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ellis, Tom

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Davidson, Arthur

      English, Michael

      Bradley, Tom

      Davits, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Evans, Fred

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lawson, George

      Probert, Arthur

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Foot, Michael

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hers, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Forrester, John

      Leonard, Dick

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lipton, Marcus

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Loughlin, Charles

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

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Roper, John

      Golding, John

      McBride, Neil

      Rose, Paul B.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      McCann, John

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McCartney, Hugh

      Sandelson, Neville

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McElhone, Frank

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      McGuire, Michael

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

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

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mackie, John

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Hamling, William

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Small, William

      Hardy, Peter

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

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Harper, Joseph

      Marks, Kenneth

      Spearing, Nigel

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marquand, David

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Marsden, F.

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Heffer, Eric s.

      Meacher, Michael

      Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Hilton, W. S.

      Mellish, Rt. Hit. Robert

      Strang, Gavin

      Horam, John

      Mendelson, John

      Strauss, Rt Hn. G. R.

      Houghton, Rt Hon. Douglas

      Millan, Bruce

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Howell, Denis, (Small Heath)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Taverne, Dick

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Molloy, William

      Tinn, James

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)

      Tomney, Frank

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Torney, Tom

      Hunter, Adam

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tuck, Raphael

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

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Janner, Greville

      Moyle, Roland

      Varley, Eric G.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wainwright, Edwin

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

      Murray, Ronald King

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

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Wallace, George

      John, Brynmor

      Oram, Bert

      Watkins, David

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

      Orme, Stanley

      Weitzman, David

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Padley, Walter

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Paget, R. T.

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Palmer, Arthur

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Judd, Frank

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Kelley, Richard

      Pendry, Tom

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Kerr, Russell

      Pentland, Norman

      Woof, Robert

      Kinnock, Neil

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Lambie, David

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Lamond, James

      Prescott, John

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Latham, Arthur

      Price, J. T. (Westnoughton)

      Mr. James A. Dunn.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Braine, Bernard

      Cockeram, Eric

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bray, Ronald

      Cooke, Robert

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Brewis, John

      Coombs, Derek

      Balniel, Lord

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Cooper, A. E.

      Batsford, Brian

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Bryan, Paul

      Costain, A. P.

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

      Critchley, Julian

      Benyon, W.

      Buck, Antony

      Crouch, David

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Crowder, F. P.

      Biffen, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Curran, Charles

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Blaker, Peter

      Carlisle, Mark

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Boardman, Tom (Leiceter, S.W.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

      Body, Richard

      Channon, Paul

      Dean, Paul

      Boscawen, Robert

      Chapman, Sydney

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      910

      911

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Raison, Timothy

      Dixon, Piers

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kilfedder, James

      Redmond, Robert

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Eden, Sir John

      Kirk, Peter

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Knox, David

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

      Lane, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Emery, Peter

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Eyre, Reginald

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Farr, John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Fenner, Mrs, Peggy

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

      Rost, Peter

      Fidler, Michael

      Longden, Gilbert

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Loveridge, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Luce, R. N.

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sharples, Richard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      MacArthur, Ian

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

      Fortescue, Tim

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fowler, Norman

      McLaren, Martin

      Simeons, Charles

      Fox, Marcus

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Sinclair, Sir George

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

      McMaster, Stanley

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fry, Peter

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Soref, Harold

      Gardner, Edward

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Speed, Keith

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Maddan, Martin

      Spence, John

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maginnis, John E.

      Sproat, lain

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maude, Angus

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Gorst, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Gower, Raymond

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Stokes, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Green, Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Sutcliffe, John

      Grieve, Percy

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

      Tapsell, Peter

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

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

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Molyneaux, James

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Gurden, Harold

      Money, Ernle

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Hall. Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper

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

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Tilney, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mudd, David

      Trew, Peter

      Havers, Michael

      Murton, Oscar

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Hay, John

      Neave, Airey

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Heseltine, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hicks, Robert

      Nott, John

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Hiley, Joseph

      Openheim, Mrs. Sally

      Wall, Patrick

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

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Osborn, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hornby, Richard

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Peel, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Percival, Ian

      Wilkinson, John

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hunt, John

      Pink, R, Bonner

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Iremonger, T. L,

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Younger, Hn. George

      James, David

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

      Jessel, Toby

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pym, Rt. Hon. Francis

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Jopling, Michael

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 26, in page 10, line 31, at beginning insert "knowingly".
      9.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

      913
      I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if this Amendment is taken together with the comparable Amendments: Nos. 30, 31 and 32 in Clause 15; Nos. 58, 59, 60 and 62 in Clause 31; Nos. 109, 111, 113 and 114 in Clause 53; No. 178 in Clause 92 and No. 186 in Clause 94.
      The House will have seen that the Amendments in question all seek to insert the word "knowingly". They are all Amendments which were moved in another place by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and accepted by the Government. They are all designed to appear in the various Clauses in question before the words:
      "induce or attempt to induce".
      They are designed to make plain that proceedings on the grounds of an unfair industrial practice which is said to consist of inducing can only lie where the inducement was done with knowledge of the effect that it would produce. It is a point, as I say, which was pressed upon the Government in another place.
      The House will recollect that the concept of inducing or attempting to induce occurs in the agency shop provisions, in the infringement of workers rights provisions in Clause 31, in the recognition provisions in Clause 53, in the breaking of contracts of employment provisions in Clause 92 and in the unfair industrial practice in support of another unfair practice in Clause 94. Those are all the places in the Bill where the concept of inducing occurs, excepting in Clause 128 where the concept of inducement is used to exclude the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. It has been felt right by all those who considered it in another place and by the Government not to add the word "knowingly" but to follow the existing words of the legislation. To include it there might restrict the effect of that Clause in excluding the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts.
      The word which is sought to be inserted does not in any way conflict with the ordinary rule of law, but inducement in itself involves knowledge and intention. It merely makes plain, as the Government were pressed to do, that throughout this Bill knowledge is a necessary element of inducement. It sets it beyond doubt, although the House may feel that there was very little doubt about that anyway.
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my hon. and learned Friend make one point plain—that to any normal lawyer this is totally unnecessary because "knowingly" is imported into the law at common law? I think this was done by Lord Gardiner, in his wisdom, to ensure that there could be no doubt in the matter.
      The Solicitor-General: I did not want to develop the argument. My hon. Friend is right in repealing what I said—that knowledge is implicit in the concept of inducement. The idea is familiar, but the point was pressed on the Government by the noble and learned Lord, and to set the matter beyond doubt it has been thought right to include the word "knowingly" at the points I have indicated.
      Mr. Concannon: I mention for the record that of the 1,102 Amendments tabled in another place, 42 Opposition Amendments were accepted. We are now discussing 14 of the 42.
      Mr. John Fraser: I will not go through the list of unfair industrial practices which the Amendment is designed to mitigate. It was tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Gardiner and at first the Lord Chancellor said that, having looked through the textbooks, it seemed unnecessary.
      It is encouraging to an up and coming lawyer to know that the distinguished Lord Chancellor could be wrong the first time. In the event, he said that Lord Gardiner was right and that he had been wrong. Thus, he finally accepted the Amendment, though mentioning that some dangers might arise. Did he mean that some people might get away who would otherwise be caught?
      The Solicitor-General: If the hon. Gentleman is casting himself in the rôle of an up and coming lawyer, I am sure that the House would be glad to pay tribute to his modesty. Certainly I would not wish to stand in the way of his self-description. I hope that he will concede that the Lord Chancellor was not acknowledging error but was wishing to make an understandable and sensible concession to Lord Gardiner, and so set the matter beyond doubt. No error was acknowledged and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be as generous to the Lord Chancellor as I am being to him.
      Mr. Fraser: I thought that I was being generous.
      The inclusion of the word "knowingly" in this context is often related to strikes as being unfair industrial practices. In the House of Lords the Government amended the definition of "strike", and I have a question which is of considerable importance in this context which I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman can answer.
      Hon. Members will recall that not long ago British Medical Association doctors gave notice of their intention to terminate their employment with the National Health Service. If they were to do that again—if, for example, an organisation introduced auxiliaries who had not qualified as doctors and were working in the N.H.S. and the doctors decided to take such a step—would they, as members of the B.M.A., being part of a closed shop and having knowingly given notice to terminate their contracts, be liable to damages for indulging in an unfair industrial practice under the terms of this Measure?
      Mr. Alex Eadie: I do not want to become too involved in what is obviously a legal argument. However, I do not apologise for entering the debate, particularly as my brother is a lawyer and I have discussed the legal aspects of the matter with him.
      We are now talking about strikes and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) referred to this word having been defined. A strike occurs when people decide that they do not want to work. Indeed, the first challenge to this Measure will probably arise as a result of the Government's announcement today.
      I do not know the circumstances that will surround that challenge, but perhaps the people on the Clyde, those who work for U.C.S., will decide to come out on strike, not because they want to strike but because they want to work.
      We have been talking about inducement and unfair industrial practices. People who strike are sometimes accused of being associated with some sort of predatory organisation or are motivated by irresponsibility, though it can be irresponsibility on the part of the Government. Here are people who might decide to strike because they want work.
      916
      I wonder whether the Solicitor-General can answer this, because it may well be the first challenge to the Bill. I wonder whether the Government will take up this first challenge to it, because we will be dealing not with two or three people, but with hundreds of thousands.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with a very narrow point, "knowingly to induce". We are dealing with a word which has been inserted, so we have heard, at the representation of Lord Gardiner in the House of Lords, to clarify a very narrow point.
      Mr. Eadie: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I know that you have legal experience and will guide me, and I am grateful to you, but I am also getting advice from other legal persons sitting next to me. I know that one lawyer's opinion is as good as another's—
      Mr. Speaker: In the matter of order, no other lawyer's opinion is as good as mine.
      Mr. Eadie: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but speaking as a non-lawyer and since this is an emotive matter and of great moment, I would say that by his own words the Solicitor-General has raised precisely the point which I have raised. Therefore, because this matter is of some moment to ScotLand—and indeed, to the whole Bill—I seek to suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to answer my proposition concerning workers who decide to take industrial action because they want work. I wonder whether he would try to clarify what I regard as this very important position.
      The Solicitor-General: I move with caution, Mr. Speaker, in view of the limitations you have placed on the scope of the debate.
      Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman has moved with caution in any event.
      The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady says that I have moved with caution on this in any event. Anyone who talked about the important human issues on Clydeside which the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has raised would move not simply with caution but with understanding, sympathy

      917
      and compassion. Because I cannot respond to the wider issues, I hope that the hon. Member will not think that I am neglecting them. It would not be right for me to embark on discussion of them.
      My reply to the point raised by the hon. Member, which is in line with that raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), is that the worker who strikes in the circumstances posed by either hon. Member is not himself committing an unfair industrial practice in any event. The doctor who strikes—in fact, he would not be striking by giving his notice—is not rendering himself liable to any action at law. The only situation in which an unfair practice could be committed is where somebody induces people to strike in pursuit of one of the objectives identified in the Bill.
      If an organisation, a trade union or its representatives induced workers to strike because, as the hon. Member put it, they wanted work—in other words, if they were striking about an issue of interest and they were being called out on that strike by a registered union or its representatives—equally there would be nothing unfair about that. The essence of the Bill is that an interest strike, a strike about something as important as availability or non-availability of work, or as important, as it could be, as the dilution of the medical profession by the admission of non-qualified people—a strike of that kind called without notice but by a registered organisation or its officials equally is not unfair. The only circumstances in which either of the examples posed could be unfair would be, first, if the strike was called without notice not by or on behalf of a registered trade union. Then, those calling the strike would be inducing under Clause 92 as it used to be.
      The hon. Member for Norwood asked about the position of doctors. It could not constitute an unfair practice if the doctors gave their due notice. They would not in any event be taking collective action in respect of anything categorised as unfair in the Bill. If they were protesting against the employment of unqualified people, that would not be something in which it would be regarded as
      918
      unfair to strike. The point would not, therefore, arise.
      I dare say that I have gone further already, Mr. Speaker, than the question of the meaning of the word "knowingly". On that narrow basis, I commend the Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 27, in page 10, line 34, leave out from "that" to "voted" in line 35 and insert:
      "neither a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot nor two-thirds of those who voted in it have".
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, leave out 'two-thirds' and insert '51 per cent.'.
      10.0 p.m.
      I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if we also discussed the Opposition Amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 28, 29, 291, 292 and 293. They are in exactly the same terms.
      We have discussed thoroughly the principles involved in this batch of Amendments but it is to the Amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 291, 292 and 293 to which I want to address some brief remarks because they relate to a quite different situation from that which we discussed in earlier debates—that is, the question of the ballot which arises from Schedule 8, the closed shop situation. It is different because it was the particular and peculiar characteristics of certain industries that brought into being the approved closed shop provision—the celebrated breach of what the Government held forth as an absolute principle originally.
      I am provoked into saying, again, following the right hon. Gentleman's reply to our earlier debate, that he must grasp that recognition precedes recruitment. Trade union recruitment follows upon recognition and not the other way round. People do not join a union as a sort of abstract principle. Some may do so, but not the average person. People join for concrete and specific reasons, principally because of a particular situation or set of events whereby they are able to recognise the value and merit of membership. A

      919
      person will not join a union in these circumstances unless it offers some means of obtaining redress for what may be a grievance or of achieving a particular end.
      We deployed these arguments when we debated fully and effectively the Government's proposal to prohibit, in defiance of the Royal Commission's recommendation, the closed shop. The Government subsequently, in the light of our powerful arguments, which received support from hon. Members opposite, introduced the approved closed shop. Here again, the approved closed shop can be upset if one-fifth of the workers in the industry challenge its establishment and if there is subsequently a ballot.
      I have two questions. First, in an approved industrial situation, where the whole House envisaged the approved closed shop finding its relevance, how is it possible in many circumstances to identify the bona fides and industrial good standing of the individuals who may challenge the ballot? In practice, how would it be possible to determine at any given time the proportion of those in the industry as a whole who might be protesting? For instance, I do not know how at any one time one would determine how many members there were of Equity, the actors' union, and therefore how many would constitute one-fifth. It is important that legislation should be practicable, we have repeatedly cast our doubts about the Bill in that respect. But it is important that it should be practicable in industries such as acting and among unions such as Equity, the Musicians' Union and the Writers' Guild and similar professional and quasi-professional bodies. In such circumstances, how could a ballot be carried out in practice?
      For instance, I understand that, because of the fluctuating character of employment among musicians, often of a seasonal character, musicians may move from being whole-time professionals to part-time professionals, sometimes doing what they call gigs, one-night stands, while between engagements they work as, for instance, clerks on a building site to make up their incomes. The difficulty is not confined to professional or quasi-professional groups. There would be a limit to which this procedure could be applied to seafaring. I regret that my
      920
      hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is not in his place. We had a limited debate on Report when he commented on the impracticality of conducting a ballot among seafarers, who might be scattered all over the world at any given moment. There is also the building industry, with a transient labour force moving from site to site and difficult to quantify or identify. We have discussed the principles and these are the practical difficulties which arise even more sharply in the situations which I have mentioned.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has said that he does not wish to extend the debate over ground already covered. The issues on which he lays most emphasis are how to identify the group of people among whom the one-fifth are to be found and how to conduct a ballot in order to ascertain whether two-thirds within the group when once identified do or do not approve.
      When one is concerned with a ballot to get a closed shop agreement, or to cancel one—the two possibilities—one has to find one-fifth from those actually covered by the agreement being sought or then in existence. It is acknowledged that it cannot extend to those potentially in the industry although not then employed within it.
      That is the position as it was when the first Schedule left the House. That position has not been altered by anything done in another place. Neither is it dealt with by this Amendment. The second point, put in the broader sense of how it will be practical to conduct a ballot among people who may be in scattered places and who will find it difficult to vote, is the reason why the Amendment made in another place is before this House for approval. The point put to us by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and others is that we cannot hope to get a 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote and it is better to acknowledge that we should look at the voting of those who do vote.
      This is designed to take into account the point made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) about how we can count the votes of people who cannot vote. That is why we have included this alternative threshold whereby

      921
      we look not at those who could have voted but at those who have voted and on that basis we have to get two-thirds, 66 per cent., of those who are voting. That may well be less than 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote.
      It is upon that basis that we have accepted and commend to the House the Amendment made in another place. We cannot go beyond this any more than on the agency shop. I recommend the House to accept the idea of a closed shop being acceptable on a balloted majority of less than one of those alternatives in the Bill; in other words, 50 per cent. of those eligible or two-thirds of those voting.
      As my right hon. Friend said earlier, trade union leaders of great experience in another place made the point that we do not normally seek or expect to get a closed shop agreement with less than 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the employees in question already in union membership. It is as a parallel to that that we put forward the same concept in the context of the closed shop as in the context of the agency shop.
      Mrs. Castle: The Solicitor-General has not answered the pertinent points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don-caster (Mr. Harold Walker). What we are saying here is that, however much we may object to the concept of the ballot for the agency shop, we have argued that and are moving on to a separate point of whether we have to import that ballot procedure into the approved closed shop situation. It does not follow automatically that because we have a ballot provision for the agency shop there has to be this right to challenge the approved closed shop with the consequent ballot. It was only as a result of the illustrations given by my hon. Friends in the earlier debates of the position in certain industries that we ever got the Government to accept the concept of the closed shop principle.
      It was pointed out that there were industries in which it is difficult to control entry. There could be the swamping of standards through a lack of pre-entry control. The work force might fluctuate and be peripatetic. The approved closed shop agreement will apply only where it is found by the C.I.R. that these special situations exist. It is just those special situations that make a nonsense of the
      922
      ballot provisions which we are challenging.
      How can we say that two-thirds of the relevant workers shall be allowed to challenge this approved closed shop agreement and then go on to say that the relevant workers are workers to whom the proposed agreement would apply? If we return to the Equity agreement, and I am not as competent to deal with that argument as my hon. Friend, the relevant workers would be literally anyone who was trying to come into the industry in an uncontrolled way. How can we, by definition, find two-fifths of them?
      We know that we are engaged in a useless exercise. The Government will not listen. They did not listen in Committee, and they will not listen now. But we tell the Solicitor-General that when the massive overhaul of this absurd legislation takes place, as it will have to, we hope that he will not be too proud to admit to the House that he was wrong about this closed shop ballot provision, and that one day we may look forward to seeing it eliminated.
      Mr. Rees-Davies: I rise because I have a close interest in these matters. They affect Equity, the Screenwriters' Guild and the Musicians' Union. The right hon. Lady and I would both be out of order in discussing whether or not there should be a ballot; that time is past. We are now considering whether the terms laid down for the ballot in the Lords Amendment are an improvement. In my view the Government have gone a long way towards meeting the special cases of the National Union of Seamen, Equity, the Screenwriters' Guild, the Musicians' Union and perhaps others— I know not, because I have no experience of others—so as to enable them to conclude a closed shop agreement.
      It is clear to me that the Solicitor-General was correct in saying that this provision does not apply at large to any musician or any member of Equity just because he happens to be a casual actor or someone who just walks on to the set, or a muscian who plays part-time. It clearly applies only to those who are engaged in the agreement required.
      The case of the Screenwriters' Guild is the easiest to deal with. Its whole purpose is to enable all those who write

      923
      scripts for television and films to associate together to secure a closed shop, so that they can uphold their standards. Once a person has become a scriptwriter he wants to join others who wish to enter into an agreement, not necessarily with a single employer; the Government have changed the terms of the Bill so as to enable the agreement to be made with an organisation or an association of employers. That is a great change in the terms of the Bill.
      Plainly, therefore—if we put ourselves in the position of one of the workers to whom I have referred—if we want to enter into the agreement we must have an eligiblity to vote. Having got it, we may not have the opportunity to use it. If, as in the case of those eligible to vote, an ordinary majority is sufficient, it is right that in the alternative a proportion of two-thirds of those who are able actually to vote should decide, in order that we may be sure that we obtain the real feeling of the workers who are associated together.
      The ballot is maintained so that we can ensure that the provisions of the Bill are truly limited to the cases where a substantial group of workers wish to be associated in an agreement either with a single employer or with an organisation of employers, so that criteria can be fixed which will enable them to fulfil the requirements of the special exception relating to a closed shop agreement.
      In my judgment, that does not infringe the general principle for which we speak, because we still believe that workers should have the right to decide whether they wish to subscribe to a union.
      This is the fundamental difference between the two sides of the House, but, having come down in favour of the right of the worker to select, I have always maintained that the stand which I have taken up on this matter was a proper exception and did not infringe the principles of the Bill, and I think it is right that the Lords should have produced an Amendment of this kind which takes account both of the eligibility to vote and also of those voting, but provides an alternative.
      One final point. I think it is true to say that the Minister in charge of this Bill and the Solicitor-General and those
      924
      advising him really ought to be congratulated from all parts of the House, whether or not one agrees with the background principle, upon their efforts to try to achieve what they have achieved, which is an exception which will be of value to many people and many hon. Members on the other side of the House and their colleagues in this field.
      They have done it, as they have done it, without any support from the Musicians' Union. I bitterly regret that. I raised this entirely because the whole of the members of the Musicians' Union in the Isle of Thanet, without support from their union, wanted this matter to be brought forward. The Screen Writers' Guild, again, or certain members of the Guild, wanted this matter dealt with. That is why it came about. The same also goes for Equity. It did not arise from officials of the union entirely. It arose from the rank and file, and it was for that reason, and surprising, perhaps, that these matters were taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and others of us on this side of the House, and from beginning to end we have had the utmost sympathy and compassion from the Ministers, who have had to give long heart-searching to try to arrive at an accommodation which introduces the new principle into the Bill, a principle which, I believe, will be of value to everyone.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not claiming a monopoly of virtue in this matter and implying that hon. Members on this side of the House were not equally, or, indeed, much more, concerned on behalf of these workers?
      Mr. Rees-Davies: Oh, no, I am not for a moment suggesting that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House did not take a keen interest, but other hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House wanted to wreck the Bill because they objected to its principles altogether, and they took no interest but virtually sabotaged what one was seeking to do. There were honourable exceptions. The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) was one notable exception.
      However, it is true to say that from the officials of the Musicians Union, or people in this House, no assistance whatever was given, or the slightest endeavour to help in any way at all, to try to create

      925
      an exception which will be of tremendous value to the union's members, and that was for political reasons, because they wanted to sabotage the Bill. It is very unfortunate, because in the long term this provision may be of the greatest material assistance to those men who, as hon. Gentlemen will recognise, serve a particular profession which may well require a particular agreement and to form a closed shop agreement of this nature. I am not going to argue whether they can get an agency shop agreement, but if they cannot they may be able to get in under the criteria of this Clause. I do not suggest that the intervention by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) was other than a perfectly proper intervention and I do not suggest that we on this side have a monopoly of virtue —I think that was his phrase—in having raised this matter. Not at all. I do say, however, that the Government are entitled to say that they have a virtual monopoly in coming up with a successful answer.
      Mr. Lamond: I dissociate myself entirely from the congratulations extended by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davis) to the authors of the Bill, and do not accept the strictures he expressed. What has interested me tonight has been the retreat of the Solicitor-General and the Minister as they tried to meet the opposition's arguments about the proportion of votes which should be cast in favour before a ballot is considered to be successful. Several hon. Members have said that we are elected here on a simple majority, but that is not entirely correct. Hon. Members can be elected to the House by fewer votes than a simple majority of the total votes cast.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had all this debate before. If hon. Members opposite later tell those of us who have been quiet in order to allow them to speak that they have not had time to discuss the Clauses when they are doubly discussing what we have already discussed and have been doing so in the last two days, it is not clear to me—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is quite clear to me is that this is not in any way a point of order.
      Mr. Lamond: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point but this is an important
      926
      matter which we wish to hammer out and I will speak as briefly as I can. An hon. Member can be elected to the House with a majority of a little over one-third of the votes cast in the election. In the famous election of 1945 Mr. E. L. Gandar Dower was elected as Conservative Member for Caithness and Sutherland in a three-cornered contest on barely one-third of the total votes cast. He had 5,564 votes out of an electorate of almost 26,000, that is less than 25 per cent. of those eligible to vote. If we accept these standards and apply them to ourselves we cannot expect the trade unions to believe that we are strengthening their hand if we apply different standards to them.
      The Minister said that on a ballot for recognition a simple majority was sufficient, but that is not sufficient to satisfy me, because there are important parts in the Bill where we are insisting that two-thirds of the votes cast must be in favour. It has been suggested that this is being done because important matters are being decided.
      An hon. Gentleman opposite took up this point and asked what the position was in regard to the Common Market. He said that if an assurance were given that a simple majority would not be enough in that case he would be happy to accept what is proposed here. This very point was put to the Prime Minister at Question Time recently, and the Prime Minister replied:
      "If I understand the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question correctly … He is saying that we should work on the basis not of a simple majority of votes cast in this House but of a majority of all those who are Members of the House."
      In other words, a majority of the 630, even if only 500 voted. A much more modest request was being put forward than what is proposed by the Government tonight, but the Prime Minister categorically said that that was not acceptable to the Government:
      "This is not the constitutional practice of the House, and I do not see any grounds for changing it on this occasion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1673.]
      Although such an important matter as that is to be decided on a simple majority, the Government are asking on a matter like the closed shop for a two-thirds majority. I suggest that this reveals that they are concerned not to strengthen the

      927
      trade union movement but to make it as difficult as possible for that movement to achieve its ends in protecting the workers.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made to the Lords Amendment: —
      The House divided: Ayes 233. Noes 265.

      Division No. 447.]

      AYES

      [10.30 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Meacher, Michael

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mendelson, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hamilton, William (Fife. W.)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Barnes, Michael

      Hamling, William

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

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Hardy, Peter

      Molloy, William

      Barnett, Joel

      Harper, Joseph

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Beaney, Alan

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hattersley, Roy

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Moyle, Roland

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Horam, John

      Murray, Ronald King

      Booth, Albert

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Oram, Bert

      Bradley, Tom

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Orme, Stanley

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Padley, Walter

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Paget, R. T.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hunter, Adam

      Palmer, Arthur

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, w.)

      Janner, Greville

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

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

      Pendry, Tom

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pentland, Norman

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Cohen, Stanley

      John, Brynmor

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Concannon, J. D.

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Prescott, John

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds. S.)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S.W.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Judd, Frank

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Kaufman, Gerald

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kerr, Russell

      Roper, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Lambie, David

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamond, James

      Sandelson, Neville

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Latham, Arthur

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Leonard, Dick

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Driberg, Tom

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Duffy, A. E. P

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lipton, Marcus

      Small, William

      Eadie, Alex

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Spearing, Nigel

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ellis, Tom

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Stallard, A. W.

      English, Michael

      Stewart, R. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Evans, Fred

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Faulds, Andrew

      McBride, Neil

      Stonehouse, Rt Hn. John

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McElhone, Frank

      Strang, Gavin

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McGuire, Michael

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Foot, Michael

      Mackie, John

      Taverne, Dick

      Forrester, John

      Mackintosh, John P.

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

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Freeson, Reginald

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

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

      Garrett, W. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Tinn, James

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Torney, Tom

      Ginsburg, David

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

      Tuck, Raphael

      Golding, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Urwin, T. W.

      Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. G.

      Marquand, David

      Varley, Eric G.

      Marsden, F.

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Woof, Robert

      Wallace, George

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Watkins, David

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Weitzman, David

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mr. James A. Dunn and

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wilson, Rt. Rn. Harold (Huyton)

      Mr. Donald Coleman.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McLaren, Martin

      Astor, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fortescue, Tim

      McMaster, Stanley

      Awdrey, Daniel

      Foster, Sir John

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fowler, Norman

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Balniel, Lord

      Fox, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Batsford, Brian

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

      Maddan, Martin

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Fry, Peter

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Bennet, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Gardner, Edward

      Marten, Neil

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Mather, Carol

      Benyon, W.

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maude, Angus

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Mawby, Ray

      Biffen, John

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maxwell-Hyslon, R. J.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Gorst, John

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

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Gower, Raymond

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Body, Richard

      Gray, Hamish

      Moate, Roger

      Boscawen, Robert

      Green, Alan

      Molyneaux, James

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Grieve, Percy

      Money, Ernle

      Bowden, Andrew

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Braine, Bernard

      Glimmer, Selwyn

      More, Jasper

      Bray, Ronald

      Gurden, Harold

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Brewis, John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mudd, David

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

      Murton, Oscar

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Neave, Airey

      Bryan, Paul

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Normanton, Tom

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

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nott, John

      Buck, Antony

      Hastings, Stephen

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Havers, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Burden, F. A.

      Hawkins, Paul

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hay, John

      Osborn, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Heseltine, Michael

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Channon, Paul

      Hicks, Robert

      Page, John (Harrow, w.)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Peel, John

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

      Percival, Ian

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Clegg, Walter

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Cockeram, Eric

      Hordern, Peter

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Cooke, Robert

      Hornby, Richard

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Coombs, Derek

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.DamePatricia

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

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

      Cordle, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hunt, John

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Costain, A. P.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Raison, Timothy

      Critchley, Julian

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Crouch, David

      James, David

      Redmond, Robert

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jessel, Toby

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Curran, Charles

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

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Jopling, Michael

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Dean, Paul

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Digby, Simon Wingfleld

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Kirk, Peter

      Rost, Peter

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Eden, Sir John

      Lane, David

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Scott-Hopkins, James

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

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sharples, Richard

      Emery, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

      Eyre, Reginald

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

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Farr, John

      Longden, Gilbert

      Simeons, Charles

      Fall, Anthony

      Loveridge, John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Fidler, Michael

      Luce, R. N.

      Sheet, T. H. H.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

      930

      931

      Soref, Harold

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Spence, John

      Tilney, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Sproat, lain

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Trew, Peter

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Wilkinson, John

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Stokes, John

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Worsley, Marcus

      Sutcliffe, John

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Tapsell, Peter

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wall, Patrick

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Mr. Keith Speed and

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Warren, Kenneth

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

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

      Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 16

      SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR APPROVAL OF CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT
      Lords Amendment: No. 33, in page 13, line 17, leave out "section" and insert "Act".
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment which I hope will commend itself to the House. As it stands, the definition of "approved closed shop agreement" applies only to Clause 16. It is, of course, intended to apply throughout the Bill in the same way as the definition of the "agency shop agreement" in Clause 10(1) applies throughout the Bill. The Amendment puts that matter right. I hope that it will be accepted.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 13, line 20, leave out "employers' association" and insert "organisation of employers".
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 288, 294, 295 and 297, which are in the same terms.
      The Amendment will enable an approved closed shop agreement to be made between one or more trade unions and an organisation of employers which is not registered. We accepted the argument advanced in another place that it is chiefly a handicap that a union should require an employers' organisation to be registered before it may be a party to an approved closed shop agreement. The Amendment removes that particular requirement.
      Amendments on similar lines were moved originally in Committee in another place by Baroness White and Lord Archibald, who are members of the Labour Opposition. The Amendments were looked at sympathetically by the Government side and were eventually adopted on Report. That is why we
      934
      commend them to the House. We believe that, in the narrow sphere of the approved closed shop agreement, we can make the concession without undermining the basic philosophy of the Bill on registration.
      These Amendments will enable an organisation of employers which is not registered under the Bill to be a party to an approved closed shop agreement, and this will overcome the objection that was made in another place that the requirement of an employers' organisation to register before it could become a party to a closed shop agreement was essential. I think that it is very much in the interests of those who support the approved closed shop concept, which we have debated on previous occasions, that these Amendments should be made, and I hope that they will be accepted by the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 35 in page 13, line 26, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 28, and insert
      "if he is not already a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions, as the case may be, must become such a member unless specially exempted".
      Read a Second time.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, at end add
      '(but such specially exempted worker shall nevertheless not be excluded from conformity with the rules and discipline of the trade union)'
      I think it might be convenient if we take at the same time Amendment No. 290 to Schedule 1, in page 123, line 42, at end insert—
      "() In this paragraph, 'effective application' means any application which is not precluded by paragraph 10 of this Schedule from being entertained by the Industrial Court."
      The two Amendments seek two different objectives, but they are a part of a whole and, therefore, it is perhaps appropriate that they should be taken together.
      This is the "approved closed shop agreement" Clause. It was introduced by the Government partly in answer to arguments put forward on behalf of Equity, but the ironic thing is that the

      935
      Clause as it stands is of no value to Equity—for reasons which I shall give in a moment—though it may be of help to some other unions. I think that this proves the argument that I have made throughout, that there are no particular arguments to be made on the Bill on behalf of paricular trade unions. Any argument about the Bill is a general argument and is applicable to the entire trade union membership.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I want to help him. I think it might be for the convenience of the House, and I do not doubt that the Solicitor-General has this in mind, to take at the same time his Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 290, at end add
      'but notwithstanding paragraph 7(2) and paragraph 10 of this Schedule where an approved closed shop agreement is in force any one or more employers who are not parties to such agreement may with the trade union or trade unions concerned apply to the Industrial Court for any order that such employer or employers be made a party or parties to such agreement and the Industrial Court, if it is satisfied that the existing parties to the agreement consent to the applicant or applicants becoming parties to the agreement shall order that such applicant or applicants shall forthwith be parties to such agreement.'
      Perhaps the hon. Member would address himself to that Amendment, too, if he feels so inclined.
      Mr. Jenkins: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while you were in consultation I had tried to make it clear that it was my intention to follow the advice which you have subsequently given.
      I was about to say that there are no particular arguments to be made on this Bill. Any argument made on behalf of one trade union is an argument on behalf of all trade unions, and it is a little ironic that the consequence of the argument put forward is an Amendment which is of no value to the union on whose behalf it was argued.
      The reason for that is that the type of control exercised by Equity is control of entry, which the Bill defines as pre-entry, and against which the Government have set their face. We say that this is not pre-entry but point of entry. We seek to limit the number of people entering into the entertainment business, and it is this which the Government say
      936
      they cannot permit because, if they did, it would undermine the broad principles of the Bill.
      To prove the need for the Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment, I must first show that the Bill will not work. To show that, it is necessary to refer to the casting agreements now operated by Equity. These are different in various parts of the entertainment business. In the West End theatre, for example, productions have to be cast from full members of Equity—people who have been in the business for 40 weeks and have been provisional members of the trade union for 40 weeks. There is an appeal procedure. If a manager wants to cast a newcomer, he can go through an appeals procedure. If he manages to persuade his fellow managers, they might impose their decision upon the trade union, and the trade union accepts into membership the newcomer. Therefore, it is a hurdle, but it is not a door. The manager can ultimately do his own casting but he has to go over this hurdle in order to do it. Similarly in the touring companies and among principals in pantomimes, they have to be cast from among existing members of the union. Therefore, technically under this Bill, even in its altered state, it is impossible for Equity to function as it now does.
      The alterations made in the Bill, therefore, are of little value to the union on whose behalf to some extent, at any rate, they were introduced. I think this illustrates the sad part about this Bill, that it will not succeed in doing what it seeks to do but will achieve other ends. From the point of view of the entertainment world, this is a thoroughly bad Bill.
      I will not go through the whole entertainment industry, but in most branches of entertainment, including the cinema and television, there are provisions under which, in the first instance, casting is made from among existing members of the trade union. It is only when that source has been fully explored that the manager is entitled to go outside and bring in a newcomer.
      In subsidised repertory there is a limit of 130 new entrants every year. Once the managers have cast their 130 in a year, nobody else comes in. The shutter comes down. This will no longer be permitted under this Bill. This procedure may seem harsh, but it is done by

      937
      agreement by the managers. It recognises the necessity to limit entry, and they have argued in favour of the maintenance of the shop.
      Right hon. and hon. Members opposite in their doctrinaire fashion—I have never come across such a doctrinaire Government as this lot—are completely obsessed with the doctrine of Conservative so-called freedom, which has shown itself, for instance, in the proposed destruction of the National Film Finance Corporation, which it would be out of order for me to deal with now. This doctrinaire bunch is bent upon destroying the entertainment industry with which I have been associated for many years.
      My proposed Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 35 seeks to add at the end:
      '(but such specially exempted worker shall nevertheless not be excluded from conformity with the rules and discipline of the trade union)'.
      It provides that in the event of a worker being specially exempted, the consequence of such special exemption shall not be that he escapes from the discipline of the union. It means, therefore, that even if he pays his contributions to a charity or other organisation he still has to comply with the rules of the union. This is important, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it because it will provide an opportunity for a man who objects to paying to a trade union to pay his contributions elsewhere, but will ensure that he does not escape from the general obligations of trade unionists.
      However, the Amendment does not make it possible for Equity to control the delinquent manager. Those powers are hopelessly lost under this iniquitous Bill, and if I had time I would quote chapter and verse relating to the case I mentioned the other day, in which a distinguished theatre manager said that he had been totally misled by hon. Gentlemen opposite into believing that it was the intention of the Government to do something to rescue the theatrical world from the plight into which this Measure is casting it, but no such rescue has occurred and it will not occur unless the Amendment is accepted.
      Some of my hon. Friends say that the Bill will not work and so it will do little harm. That may be so in the industries
      938
      they represent, but in acting it has already begun to do harm. For example, for the first time for many years, employment has begun to take place on a non-union basis. In Bognor, for the first time in years, a group of actors was engaged on a non-Equity basis at below minimum rates. When asked why this was happening for the first time since Equity was established, the manager said, "I no longer have to bother with Equity because of the Industrial Relations Bill." That statement, by Miss Brenda Ross, is on the record. In this case, she was made to bother.
      Elsewhere, in summer shows in various parts of the country, managers are considering whether they can now undercut the Equity rates, whether they still need to use Equity contracts or as a result of this Bill will be free to do exactly as they please.
      Unfortunately, what is believed often proves to be the case. If it is believed throughout the entertainment business that Equity's shop is universal and operates generally, that will be the case. If, on the other hand, the opposite is believed to apply, it may begin to apply. The Bill is already undermining the situation and undermining a form of control that has been valuable to managers and to the entertainment business as a whole. I have with me a letter from a very distinguished British actor which says:
      "Artistic standards rest on the economic foundations that Equity has created and which the Industrial Relations Bill seeks to undermine."
      As the Bill is drafted, the procedure for obtaining a closed shop agreement is so cumbrous that even when both the trade union and the employer are willing, it cannot be achieved without tremendous delay. There is the initial delay of one month, the process of the Industrial Court, the ballot procedure and all the rest.
      For this reason the second Amendment says, in effect, that if a trade union and employer agree to adhere to an existing closed shop agreement, that shall be done without having to go through this procedure. In other words, the lengthy procedure provided by the Bill will be waived if they so agree.
      I urge hon. Members, and particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, not to talk about amending legislation. If we do

      939
      not take this opportunity to block up the gaps, it will be too late. Although it is now too late to conduct much of a rescue operation in the context of the Bill, it would be possible to rush through the House a new entertainment employers' registration Measure. That might do something to stop the rot.
      In the other House Lord Olivier pleaded with the Government in a gentlemanly fashion. I am not an actor but a trade union official. Unlike some actors, I suffer from no illusions about hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those illusions were also held on this side. It was believed by some hon. Members on this side that the Government intended to offer Equity a special deal, but no such special deal has been offered.
      Unless these two Amendments are accepted, even this minor rescue operation is prevented. The two Ministers in charge of the Bill are two polite monsters and they are doing grave damage to the entertainment industry. The nation will regret this and I believe that the right hon. Gentlemen will also live to regret it.
      11.0 p.m.
      Mr. R. Carr: If one of the monsters may be allowed to reply, perhaps I could say a few words about these Amendments.
      The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) pursues the cause of Equity and of the profession in which Equity is involved with great passion and sincerity and we respect him for it, even if we may not always agree with him.
      The hon. Gentleman realises, and the House must realise, in considering these Amendments that they apply to the whole field and not just to Equity. Even if I admitted—which I do not—that they were necessary, for the special cases of Equity, it would not be the way of dealing with that, because what is proposed would apply over the whole field of employment.
      I will explain why these Amendments are unacceptable. Amendment No. 35 would make a conscientious objector subject to union rules and discipline, even though he is specially exempted from the general requirement to join a union under an approved closed shop agreement. That would be like going back to Army service, with a man being exempted by a
      940
      conscientious objection tribunal and then being told to join up just the same.
      The whole purpose of conscientious objection, whether we agree with it or not, is that a man or woman should not be subject to the discipline and rules of a union. That is what conscientious objection means. Hitherto, it has often carried with it the advantage that the man or woman concerned was better off, per week or per month, than everyone else, and we are putting an end to that at least by providing that he shall contribute the equivalent of union dues to charities, so that the person concerned does not benefit financially by his objection. But if that objection is tested and accepted by a tribunal, it is unacceptable that, that having been sustained, he should be subject to the rules and discipline of the union. I do not believe that anyone who sustains the principle of conscientious objection at all can look at the Amendment for two minutes without realising that it must be rejected.
      The purpose of the second Amendment, to Lords Amendment 290, is to enable employers or associations which are not parties to a closed shop to operate such an agreement as though they were parties to it, provided that that is acceptable to both parties. This, too is unacceptable because it would allow the widespread and unsupervised introduction of closed shops. There may be a difference of philosophy between the two sides of the House.
      While we wish to encourage union membership and see it rising voluntarily, we are philosophically opposed to the principle of a compulsory closed shop.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House involuntarily. The Amendment advocates a facility to adhere to an existing closed shop and not a facility to create new ones.
      Mr. Carr: That is what I was coming to. We are opposed in principle to a compulsory closed shop. We have said, however, and we moved Amendments accordingly when the Bill was at an earlier stage in this House before it went to another place, that we recognised that there might be a few cases where, without a closed shop, the temporary nature of employment, the great surplus of potential or actual employees or workers in

      941
      the trade or profession and many other circumstances might justify an approved closed shop because it would genuinely be the case that without an approved closed shop reasonable terms and conditions could not be maintained in that employment.
      Therefore, while maintaining our general principle of opposition to the closed shop, we moved Amendments to make additions to the Bill to allow an approved closed shop in special circumstances. The essence was, however, that the circumstances were special and that each case should have to be approved.
      The hon. Member's Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 290 would vitiate the whole of that principle, because if we accepted his Amendment we would first get a particular position examined and approved as an exceptional case justifying a closed shop. The hon. Member then says that if we accepted his Amendment, anybody who wanted to join, as long as the two parties to it did not object, could join absolutely without limit. In this way, one could get a growth, not only in Equity but anywhere throughout industry, of people joining an approved closed shop ad lib, with no control, no supervision and no passing of special principles.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: What is wrong with that?
      Mr. Carr: This may be a genuine difference between the two sides of the House. What is wrong with it from our point of view, and absolutely contrary to the principle of the Bill, is that while we are prepared to encourage union membership, to outlaw the free rider and have an agency shop, we are opposed in principle to the compulsory closed shop but, because we recognise that there may be very special circumstances in which that is the only way that reasonable circumstances and conditions of employment can be maintained, we are prepared in those special circumstances to allow an approved closed shop. It is, however, on the basis of special circumstances.
      The hon. Member wants us to accept the proposition that, having got one small area of closed shop approved because the circumstances are special, anybody who wants to do so, provided that it is not objectionable to the parties concerned,
      942
      can adhere to that and so make the closed shop bigger and bigger. Even if that were necessary for Equity—and I will say a word presently about the general points— it simply could not be accepted as a general proposition.
      Having made the provision for the approved closed shop—the two industries we have particularly in mind which might need it, although there could be others, are Equity and shipping—we believe that we have done all that is necessary. We do not accept that membership of Equity is the only test of entry that can reasonably apply to this profession. We think that other tests of entry can be applied.
      We believe that as long as a major number of the most important figures, both on the managerial and the production side of the entertainment industry, on the one hand, and among the actors and performing side, on the other hand, remain loyal to Equity, any coming actor or actress, any coming manager or promoter, who wishes to make substantial progress in the profession will not be able to do so unless he adheres to the reasonable conditions, because he will know that unless he does he will never get the support of the big people in the trade, the big names in the profession, whose support will be essential to his progress.
      We believe that in allowing the approved closed shop without free entry— or, as has been said, the pre-entry closed shop—we have provided what is necessary. But if in the event our confidence is disproved and the hon. Gentleman's fears are proved, we shall consider taking special action to deal with the matter. It will not be action in industrial relations law but regulatory action of another kind. I have given that undertaking to the profession. I must advise my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.
      Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Lords Amendment No. 35 seeks to remove an ambiguity in Clause 16 of the Bill which was identified by my hon. and learned Friend for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I undertook to consider the point and have done so. He suggested that the drafting of the Clause,

      943
      as it stood, could be construed to suggest that the closed shop could be approved even if it were a pre-entry closed shop. That was not the Government's intention.
      We came to the conclusion that there might be some substance in this point. We have proposed this alteration to make it plain that an approved closed shop cannot be a pre-entry closed shop where the worker concerned has already got to be a member of a union. The point made by my hon. and learned Friend has been taken in another place, and I invite the House to agree with this Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 36 in page 14, line 10, leave out from "not" to "a".
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 37, in page 14, line 13, after "made" insert:
      "and has refused to become or has been excluded from being such a member".
      No. 38, in line 17, leave out "and has refused to become".
      No. 39, in line 19, at end insert:
      "and refuses to become or has been excluded from being such a member".
      The Solicitor-General: These also are Amendments to Clause 16 moved in response to points raised on Report in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), and the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn). They were drawing attention to certain ambiguities in the provisions of Clause 16 (5).
      We considered the matter and Amendments to meet those ambiguities were accepted in another place. They should be considered alongside Amendment No. 41, which inserts new Clause B after
      Clause 16—(Supplementary provisions as to approved closed shop agreements).
      11.15 p.m.
      The effect of the Amendments is to make plain what is or is not unfair for employers in an approved closed shop situation. It is clear from subsection (5) that in certain circumstances an employer may either dismiss or refuse to engage a worker who is not complying with the terms of the approved closed shop agreement. These Amendments make clear the circumstances in which the employer can do those things. He may dismiss a non-member who has refused to join, or a man who has been excluded from the union, or a specially exempted worker—a charity contributor who has refused or failed to pay his charity contribution. The meaning of a man who has been excluded from the union can be dealt with on Amendment No. 41. As a parallel, the employer may refuse to engage a non-member who refuses to join the union and may refuse to engage a man who has been excluded from the union. The provisions are in line with each other and consistent with the principles of the Bill. I invite the House to agree with these Amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 14, line 19, at end insert—
      "() Where a worker to whom the agreement applies, and who is specially exempted, has agreed to pay appropriate contributions to a charity, and requests his employer to deduct the contributions from his remuneration and pay them on his behalf, then so long as that request remains in force—

      (a) he shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) of this section as having refused to pay the contributions to the charity, and

      (b) any failure on the part of the employer to comply with the request shall not be regarded as a failure on the part of the worker to pay the contributions."

      Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 221.

      Division No. 448.]

      AYES

      [11.15 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Balniel, Lord

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Awdry, Daniel

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Astor, John

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Batsford, Brian

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Benyon, W.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Peel, John

      Biffen, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Percival, Ian

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Blaker, Peter

      Havers, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Body, Richard

      Hay, John

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hayhoe, Barney

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

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Heseltine, Michael

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hicks, Robert

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Braine, Bernard

      Hiley, Joseph

      Raison, Timothy

      Bray, Ronald

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

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Redmond, Robert

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hordern, Peter

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Bryan, Paul

      Hornby, Richard

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

      Homsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Buck, Antony

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Burden, F. A.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Carlisle, Mark

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hunt, John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Channon, Paul

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Chapman, Sydney

      James, David

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Jessel, Toby

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jopling, Michael

      Scott, Nicholas

      Clegg, Walter

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Cockeram, Eric

      Kilfedder, James

      Sharples, Richard

      Cooke, Robert

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Coombs, Derek

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Kirk, Peter

      Simeons, Charles

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Knox, David

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Lane, David

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

      Costain, A. P.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Soref, Harold

      Critchley, Julian

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Speed, Keith

      Crouch, David

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Spence, John

      Crowder, F. P.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Curran, Charles

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

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Loveridge, John

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Dean, Paul

      Luce, R. N.

      stokes, John

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      McLaren, Martin

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      McMaster, Stanley

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Eden, Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Temple, John M.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Maddan, Martin

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

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

      Madel, David

      Tilney, John

      Emery, Peter

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Farr, John

      Marten, Neil

      Trew, Peter

      Fell, Anthony

      Mather, Carol

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Fidler, Michael

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Mawby, Ray

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Fookes, Miss Janet

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

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Foster, Sir John

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Fowler, Norman

      Moate, Roger

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Fox, Marcus

      Molyneaux, James

      Wall, Patrick

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

      Money, Ernle

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Fry, Peter

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gardner, Edward

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Gibson-Watt, David

      More, Jasper

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mudd, David

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Goodhew, Victor

      Murton, Oscar

      Wilkinson, John

      Gorst, John

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Gower, Raymond

      Neave, Airey

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Normanton, Tom

      Worsley, Marcus

      Green, Alan

      Nott, John

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Grieve, Percy

      Onslow, Cranley

      Younger, Hn. George

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Grylls, Michael

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Osborn, John

      Mr. Tim Fortescue and

      Gurden, Harold

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Mr. Reginald Eyre.

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      946

      947

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Hamling, William

      Moyle, Roland

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Harper, Joseph

      Murray, Ronald King

      Ashton, Joe

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O'Hailloran, Michael

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      O'Malley, Brian

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Oram, Bert

      Barnes, Michael

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Orme, Stanley

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Barnett, Joel

      Horam, John

      Padley, Walter

      Beaney, Alan

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Paget, R. T.

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Pendry, Tom

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Booth, Albert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Hunter, Adam

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hil)

      Prescott, John

      Bradley, Tom

      Janner, Greville

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Probert, Arthur

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

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

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      John, Brynmor

      Richard, Ivor

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

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

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Roper, John

      Concannon, J. D,

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Sandelson, Neville

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Judd, Frank

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

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

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

      Kelley, Richard

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kerr, Russell

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Latham, Arthur

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Leonard, Dick

      Stallard, A. W.

      Deakins, Eric

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lipton, Marcus

      Strang, Gavin

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Loughlin, Charles

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Driberg, Tom

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Taverne, Dick

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

      Durnnett, Jack

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Eadie, Alex

      McBride, Neil

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

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McGuire, Michael

      Tinn, James

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Torney, Tom

      Ellis, Tom

      Mackie, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      English, Michael

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Evans, Fred

      Maclennan, Robert

      Varley, Eric G.

      Faulds, Andrew

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Wallace, George

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

      Watkins, David

      Foot, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Weitzman, David

      Ford, Ben

      Marquand, David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Forrester, John

      Marsden, F.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Meacher, Michael

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ginsberg, David

      Mendelson, John

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Golding, John

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

      Woof, Robert

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Molloy, William

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Mr. James A. Dunn and

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

    New Clause "B"

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO APPROVED CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS
      Lords Amendment: No. 41, in page 14, line 24, at the end insert new Clause "B":
      "'B.—(1) For the purposes of section 16(5)(a) of this Act a worker, notwithstanding that he has not expressly refused to become a member of a trade union with which an approved closed shop agreement was made, shall be treated as having so refused if he does not duly apply for membership of that trade union before the end of the relevant period or if, having applied for such membership, he withdraws that application.
      (2) For the purposes of section 16(5) of this Act a worker shall be treated as having been excluded from being a member of a trade union if (but only if)—

      (a) his application for membership of the trade union has been rejected, or he has been expelled from membership of the trade union, and

      (b) the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled.

      (3) The conditions referred to in subsection (2)(b) of this section are that—

      (a) under the rules of the trade union the worker has a right of appeal against his rejection or expulsion, and

      (b) his appeal has been heard and dismissed or has been withdrawn or the time for appealing has expired without his having exercised that right.

      (4) Subject to the next following subsection, in this section "the relevant period" in the case of an approved closed shop agreement—

      (a) in relation to a person who, on the date on which the agreement takes effect, is a worker to whom the agreement applies, means the period of three months from that date, and

      (b) in relation to any other person, means the period of one month from the date on which he begins to be employed as a worker to whom the agreement applies.

      (5) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that, in so far as any approved closed shop agreement relates to workers engaged, or seeking to be engaged, in work of a description specified in the order, subsection (4) of this section shall have effect as if, for the references to three months and one month, there were substituted references to such shorter periods as are specified in the order."
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The Amendment was foreshadowed by me in what I said to the House a moment or two ago. It is connected with the
      950
      Amendments that the House has just considered—Nos. 36 to 39—and is the last of a group moved in response to points made on Report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). Just to complete the story of what happens in the approved closed shop, as I have explained, the employer is entitled either not to engage or to dismiss certain workers who do not comply with the conditions laid down in the approved closed shop situation. In particular, the employer is entitled to dismiss or not to engage the man who has been excluded from a union.
      The Amendment dealing with the new Clause B, to be added after Clause 16, sets out in substance the meaning of being excluded from a union. It has the effect that if a person applies for membership of a union and is excluded from it either on seeking to join or by subsequent expulsion, he is not to be treated as excluded by the employer unless and until the appeal procedure of the union has been gone through.
      I want to explain the structure of the Clause in a little more detail. The first subsection provides that a worker who fails to apply, or does not pursue his application, or withdraws his application, for membership of a union which has a closed shop agreement made in its favour, within the period that he has to do so, is to be regarded as somebody who has refused to join, and the employer is entitled either not to take him on or to dismiss him. The union, having got an approved closed shop agreement, is entitled to see that the employer either does not take him on or dismisses him.
      I mentioned the period of grace that the man has. Under subsection (5), in the ordinary way a worker who is already employed in the approved closed shop has a period of three months in which to join the union, and a new worker coming in has a period of one month in which to join. That period can be shortened if the industry is such that a shorter period is required. Rather, as with the agency shop agreement, in other words, the Secretary of State may shorten the period of three months in the case of an existing worker and of one month in the case

      951
      of someone seeking to be engaged! So this is the first case—the man who does not even try to join or who, because he does not follow up his application to join, becomes liable to dismissal by the employer or need not be taken on by the employer.
      11.30 p.m.
      Moving to the next stage, if he applies for membership and is pursuing his application for membership, he cannot be regarded as excluded and cannot be regarded as somebody whom the employer is entitled to dismiss or not to engage until either the application for membership has been rejected or, if he is an existing worker, he has been expelled from the union and he has exercised his right to appeal and the appeal has been dismissed or he has not attempted to appeal. He remains entitled to protection and remains entitled not to be dismissed until his appeal against expulsion or his appeal against non-admission has been disposed of by the union.
      Mr. Orme: Is his appeal to the union or to the Industrial Court? If his application to the union is refused, as he has never been a member of the union he has no right to appeal to the union.
      The Solicitor-General: It depends. There are a variety of situations, as the hon. Gentleman knows as well as anybody. [Interruption.] My assertion did not justify the anxious grunt that it provoked from the hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The hon. Gentleman grunts as eloquently as anybody in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will do so if I am given the opportunity. In certain unions a person who applies for membership has a right to appeal from a rejection. It is not true of all unions, but in the case of some unions if an application for membership is refused the man is entitled to appeal against his initial rejection.
      Similarly, in certain unions—indeed, in most unions, if not all—a member who is expelled is entitled to appeal against expulsion. The limit of his right to remain on is until he has exercised and exhausted his right of appeal under the union's procedure. It does not entitle him to stay on after that if he wishes to challenge the way in which the union
      952
      has dealt with him. In other words, it would have been possible to include a provision which said, "The worker who is employed in a closed shop situation and who is expelled from the union is entitled, not merely to remain on in the job until his internal union appeal has been exhausted, but also to stay on until he has challenged the union appeal procedure by going on thereafter to the industrial tribunal or the Industrial Court." That is not what the Clause says. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's point. In other words, the worker stays on until the internal procedure has been exhausted but not beyond that. If he wishes thereafter to challenge the union's procedure as being unfair in having dismissed his appeal, he would have to challenge it from outside by going to the Industrial Court.
      Mr. Orme: I follow that argument, particularly as applied to someone who has been a member of a union and has been expelled. In my union if an applicant for membership is refused admission he has no right to appeal. Other union members can raise the point that they have proposed and seconded his admission, but he has been rejected, but the applicant himself is not a union member because he has been rejected.
      The Solicitor-General: That would not come within these provisions. The hon. Gentleman's union is not the only one. Other unions have provisions for appeal aganst non-admission. I think I am right in saying that one or other of the cinema industry unions, either A.C.T.T. or N.A.T.K.E.—I think A.C.T.T.—has appeal procedure of that kind. In that situation the non-member who is trying to become a member has that kind of appeal. It is this compromise provision which we have adopted.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames argued that we should entitle the worker to remain on not merely until internal procedures had been exhausted but until the appeals from the external procedure—the court or registrar—had also been gone through, but this provision does not go as far as that.
      Mr. John Golding: Does the word "dismissal" here include suspension from duty?
      The Solicitor-General: The word "dismissal" does not include suspension from duty, but the other thing which the employer may not do until he can show the worker comes within this provision is to discriminate against him; so the employer would be disentitled to discriminate against the worker on these grounds as well.
      The hon. Gentleman may have in mind the possibility of the employer suspending from duty on full pay while the matter is gone through. I do not think that would amount to a discrimination. So the position could be put in cold storage until the appeal procedure had been gone through. This is what would happen under many existing procedures now. Where the closed shop exists, the union expels and asks the employer thereupon to follow up the expulsion by dismissal. Both sides frequently accept that until the union's appeal procedure has been exhausted the man should remain suspended on full pay. That would not amount to dismissal, nor to discrimination as between him and somebody else.
      Granted the concept of a closed shop, and granted that it is operating within this area where it is approved, I suggest to the House that the Amendment is a coherent and reasonable response to the points put in another place and argued in this House on Report, and that it is a sensible provision to link to the Amendments which the House has just considered.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. and learned Gentleman, in explaining what is basically a new Clause, puts forward a case which on the surface appears to be a genuine concession to some parts of the trade union movement. It seems to meet the points made by hon. Members. It may meet the case of some of his hon. Friends, but the trade union movement is not satisfied that this is a serious concession.
      The hon. and learned Gentleman gave the clue when he pointed out that under subsection (4), if agreement is reached while the worker is employed he is given three months to join, and after an agreement has come into operation he is given one month to join.
      The Solicitor-General: The two positions are these. If the man is already employed at a plant and an agreement
      954
      comes into operation for the first time, three months. If it is there when he arrives, one month.
      Mr. Heffer: I do not know whether I have made myself clear, but that is exactly what I said. That is my interpretation. What the hon. and learned Gentleman can say—and no doubt this will be his great justification—is that, under the new subsection (5), the Secretary of State can decide, in certain special circumstances, that the period should be shorter than three months or one month. To some extent, we had this discussion earlier today, when we asked what was the thinking of the Government about the period that might be suggested when the Secretary of State took such a decision and brought in the appropriate order. We were told that it was not possible at this stage to say what the situation would be.
      Let us examine this great concession, and the industries to which the provision could well apply; indeed, it was brought in precisely because of the conditions in such sectors as acting, television and sea going. Unless there is a pre-entry closed shop in them, even with this provision it will be almost impossible to catch up with certain people. The situation will be quite fantastic. In the case of seamen in particular, a three-months period would be ridiculous; even one month would be no use. With some short sea journeys, a seaman could flit from one company to another. Earlier, I gave the example of a musician, perhaps a trombone player who does a couple of night stands somewhere and then moves on. In such a case, one cannot even begin to talk in terms of one week even, because this type of worker moves so quickly from one job to another.
      This really is no concession at all. Some hon. Members opposite got slightly excited when the basic principle to which they had firmly nailed their colours was, they thought, being eroded under immense pressure from certain sections of the trade union movement and from the Opposition. The have no need to worry. Their fears need not lead to sleepness nights. The Government have clearly stated once again that their basic principle remains: they are against the closed shop, including the pre-entry closed shop. Although they

      955
      say they are in favour of what they call an approved closed shop, it is so hedged about that it means virtually nothing.
      I come now to the question of the worker who may be expelled or, having made application, excluded from the union. The Solicitor-General is right in saying—we have said it often enough— that each union has its own rules. The unions are not the same; they do not have a pattern which applies to every industry.
      11.45 p.m.
      Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) indicated what happens in his union. Perhaps I might tell the right hon. Gentleman what happens in my own, because it underlines how democratic we are. In the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, if an applicant for membership is refused admission by a branch, the chairman is bound by the rules to inform the applicant how he can appeal to the national executive committee against the decision of the branch. Often, such an appeal is upheld by the national executive, and the branch concerned is forced to accept the applicant.
      The trade union movement has its own appeals machinery, as we pointed out when we discussed the idea of having to go to an industrial court. The British trade union movement is an extremely democratic body. There are variations of the democratic theme, but anyone can take advantage of the appeals machinery if he feels that he has been wronged by his branch.
      The Secretary of State made the Government's position clear earlier when he said that, in principle, they are opposed to the compulsory closed shop, though they recognise that in some circumstances there might be some justification for the approved closed shop. However, the view of this side of the House, and, incidentally, that of our friends in the other place, is that this is a phoney closed shop and really is no closed shop at all.
      This proposal was opposed in the other place. When we come finally to decide this Amendment, my hon. Friends will make clear their opposition to it in the Division Lobby.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, this is a phoney Amendment. However, I do not believe that it is deliberately so. I think that it is accidental and symptomatic of the way in which the Government have presented the Bill and moved their Amendments.
      I am reminded of the story of the Dutch boy who pushed his finger into a hole in a dyke when he saw water coming through it, only to find other holes appearing. The Solicitor-General is playing a similar rôle, trying to stem the flood through the many breaches in the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting very near the position of the boy who stood on the burning deck. One cannot help feeling that if there was time he would like to begin all over again and move further Amendments to stop up the many other holes that my hon. Friends have discovered.
      My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who has great experience as a trade union official, has pointed out an obvious flaw in drawing attention to the relationship between suspension and not obvious dismissal. Clearly, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not thought of that at all. If the Lords were to sit until next Christmas, I doubt whether he could come back with an Amendment to cover that position.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme), who has great engineering union experience, has pointed out that there is a great variation. His own union has certain practices, as have the building workers union and the railway workers, from whom I came before my trade union education, after which I got certain experience of union practices in the British trade union movement.
      We are told that this addendum, if it can be called that, or this addition, "After Clause 16", is to improve the earlier words. But it does not. It confuses; it confounds confusion.
      It reminds me of the contribution last night of one of my hon. Friends who is a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. He said that it was an absolute impossibility for ordinary workers, their representatives,

      957
      and even middle and top trade union officials to sit down and interpret this kind of twaddle as it affects industrial relations. It will simply upset the workers if they try to do so.
      I said earlier that it was not the thoughts of Chairman Mao, but the thoughts of Geoffrey Howe. After this addition to Clause 16, we shall have to have a few more pages attached to that little book. I do not know whether it is a little red book. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a blue book."] Every worker will sit by his machine, and, instead of working his machine, he will have to think how to interpret "After Clause 16" in relation to the closed shop. It is not worth the candle.
      This addition is geared to previous contributions by the Secretary of State on previous Lords Amendments relating to Clause 16. It is an attempted logical follow on. The question of paying to a charity is laughable. It is an oddity in industry; it is not the rule. The whole box of tricks will completely upset the workers.
      On the pre-entry closed shop, possibly the only advanced pre-entry closed shop system is the one affecting the print workers. I do not know what will happen there. Probably we shall not have any national newspapers in consequence. They have a labour supply situation confronting them. Their voice has been missing on the follow on to Clause 16 and all that goes with it. I do not think they have a sponsored Member here. At any rate, I have not heard the voice of that union with its great experience of the closed shop.
      Right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite have been completely contradictory. They turned their faces against any concept of a closed shop, but they have had to bend a little by the force of the discussion, and now they come back with this virtually idiotic "After Clause 16" which heavily protects because of the time element, the month and three months provision in Clause 5.
      I hope that it is the intention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject this "After Clause 16" from the other place. It simply confuses a grossly confused situation. It adds to the general totatility of the complete irrelevance of this part of the Bill, and the rest of it,
      958
      to Britain's necessity to keep industry going, to stay in the export market, and so on, and to bring about the co-operation which we so desperately need. I believe that, in the end, this kind of stuff will destroy all that.
      Mr. Loughlin: I thought that the Solicitor-General explained the Amendment and its implications very well. I understood the Amendment as a result of his explanation. He spoke in particular about the periods of grace for the two categories of people involved —three months' grace for the person who is in employment, and one months' grace for the newcomer.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke about industries in which the three months' grace, even for those who were in the industry at the time of the coming into operation of this provision, would not be appropriate. On hearing my hon. Friend my mind went immediately to the fishing industry as a classic example of what might happen.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred to the shipping industry. I think that the fishing industry provides a good illustration of the futility of the three months' grace if some people want to avoid their obligations. There are three sections in the industry. There are the inshore men, who go out with the tide and come back with the returning tide, or possibly go out one day and return the next. Then there are the middle-water men, who are often away for a week. The third section, which is the one most affected by this provision, is the deep-sea element.
      In the deep-sea fishing industry, each man is engaged for one trip. He may be employed by a line operating a closed shop. If he goes to Iceland, or the Barents Sea, he may be away for 21 days, and one can think of the opportunities which the dodger will have to defeat this provision. It will not be possible to apply this part of the Bill to the deep-sea fishing industry without the Secretary of State using his powers under subsection (5).
      That subsection says:
      "The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide … shorter periods. …"

      959
      When one examines all the industries in the country, one realises that there is a distinct possibility that if the Secretary of State were called upon to exercise his powers under that subsection he would constantly have to introduce Statutory Instruments relating to single industries.
      But conditions in industry could change, with the result that the Secretary of State could repeatedly have to come to the House to introduce Statutory Instruments, not merely in relation to particular industries—
      It being Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned, pursuant to the Orders [25th January and 28th July].
      Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

      ROADS (CARMARTHEN BY-PASSES)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Weatherill.]
      12 midnight.
      Mr. Gwynoro Jones: The question of the two by-passes of Carmarthen has been a problem which has confronted our area, especially Carmarthenshire and West Wales, for many years. It is a problem which has occupied the minds of many people, the county council in particular. I should like to pay tribute to the work of the roads and bridges committee of the county council for their efforts over the years in stating the case for the two bypasses.
      The problem at present is obviously a result of the fact that the A45 trunk road together with the A40 trunk road link form a combined east-west route, westwards to St. Clears and into Pembrokeshire at the point in Carmarthen. Not only do we have these two main trunk roads, but we also have the further aggravation that roads from Llanelly, Lampeter and Cardigan have a focal point in Carmarthen. Therefore, Carmarthen is the gateway to West Wales. There is a severe bottleneck in the town of Carmarthen causing the tourist a great deal of inconvenience, and when we talk of inconvenience we are talking in terms of hours every Saturday. It is not some-
      960
      thing which happens once in a while. It happens Saturday after Saturday. Carmarthen is also an administrative centre and a market town. This further helps to aggravate the situation.
      Tourism in West Wales is developing despite this hazard. I am sure that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) will agree with me. Tourism is now becoming a major industry. In Carmarthen it brings in over £2 million a year to the economy. In Pembroke it is probably in the region of £8 million to £10 million a year. Over the years the position has been worsening. It was beginning to make itself felt in the middle of the 1960s. I should like to quote what Mr. Tew, the engineer, and Mr. Randles, the planning officer, stated in their report. It will exemplifiy what has been happening in Carmarthen and how the great increase in the flow of traffic has contributed to the situation which exists today.
      Their report states:
      "On a Saturday in the first week of August, 1952, 10,700 passenger car units entered Carmarthen by the three main routes. On 22nd Auaust, 1964, the number had increased threefold to 32,700. The by-passable traffic"—
      the traffic which was not stopping in Carmarthen but which had to go through the other areas, especially Pembroke, mainly tourist—
      "increased from 5,400 to 23,700 over the same period. … The impact of this traffic can only be appreciated if it is realised that in general each of these existing routes has a practicable capacity well below 6,000 passenger car units per day, and in addition to this through traffic, had to carry over 9,000 local vehicles."
      The trend started in the 1950s and began to make itself felt in the middle 1960s. The experience of the last few years was not with us in the early 1960s or the 1950s. But in the middle 1960s the increase in traffic flow was at a far greater rate than in the earlier period. I estimate that there is a general increase now of 10 per cent. per year, and the vehicle licensing figures show an increase of between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. per year in local traffic. In other words, both local and through traffic are increasing at a considerable rate.
      During the period of the Labour Government—I do not wish to be controversial and I am not making a political point—we had introduced, in 1965, the

      961
      concept of the preparation pool, and although we must do more to tackle the problem, it will be generally agreed that that concept was of benefit. In October 1968, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) announced, as Secretary of State for Wales, that the southern by-pass had been put into the pool. Since then announcements have been made about the eastern by-pass and the dual carriageway and by-pass from Carmarthen to St. Clears. These are urgent and necessary projects.
      I understand that when projects are placed in the preparation pool, it is then up to the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office to set the priorities. As I have explained, in 1968 the southern by-pass was placed in the pool, as was the Pontardulais project. While I look forward to the day when the motorway runs from London to Cardiff, through Carmarthenshire and into Pembrokeshire, the Minister has a problem to face now. If the motorway is completed to Pontardulais by 1976, as planned, and the situation in Carmarthen continues as at present, the position will become intolerable because the traffic that is now coming across South Wales on the A.48 is being held up en route at Pontardulais and Morriston. If these two towns are by-passed, the traffic will arrive that much faster in Carmarthen and become even more compacted.
      What priority is the Welsh Office prepared to give to solving this problem? The situation is becoming impossible. For example, last Saturday was the worst for many years. I am told that the traffic congestion throughout the weekend was so bad that queues of vehicles extended eastwards from Carmarthen to St. Clears and beyond. I am informed that the queues were some of the longest in the history of the area and that the problem is reaching emergency proportions.
      What priority is the Welsh Office prepared to give, not to the southern but to the eastern by-pass and the dual carriageway between Carmarthen and St. Clears, including the by-pass of St. Clears? If we construct only the southern by-pass, the problem will not be eased. On the other hand, if we merely by-pass Carmarthen the problem will not be eased either. Indeed, it will be made worse because the congestion will simply be removed from Carmarthen to St. Clears,
      962
      which is only nine miles away. Welcome though the motorway is, will the Minister give an assurance that by 1976, when it is opened, the two by-passes of Carmarthen will be built and ready for use?
      The future prosperity of Carmarthen and of West Wales depends on this infrastructure improvement. Tourism depends on it. Industrial development depends on it.
      I am glad to see two hon. Members opposite have come to listen, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who was actively concerned in the preparation pool schemes, and especially with the southern by-pass of Carmarthen. [Interruption.] I am reminded of the Bailey bridge. This helped the situation for a while, but the experience then was similar to what will happen when the Carmarthen traffic is moved to St. Clears. That moved the problem from one part of the river further downstream. I accept what the former Secretary of State said— that he foresaw the problem.
      This problem is so urgent that it merits serious consideration and priority action by the Welsh Office.
      12.11 a.m.
      Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones) for giving me the opportunity to intervene, and for once I found myself in almost entire agreement with him. For Carmarthen this road is important; for Pembrokeshire it is vital because it is literally our lifeline. The whole of our industrial development, our tourist industry, and all our communication with the rest of the British Isles depend on this road and at the moment it is obstructed by this bottleneck, and not only that, but it affects many vital local facilities.
      At present, this is the way to our hospital. If Government plans are carried through, it may be the way to the centre of local government. This is vital for Pembrokeshire. There are few higher priorities in the road building programme anywhere in the Principality. The Government have set aside £14 million extra for infrastructure improvement in the near future in Wales, and I hope that some of it can be allocated to this high priority.
      12.13 a.m.
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen on raising this matter of such interest and for the excellent way in which he did it, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards), who made a short intervention, since this also affects his constituency. May I say to them and to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. John Stradling Thomas), that Wales is pretty well represented tonight.
      The problem of serious traffic congestion in and on the approaches to Carmarthen, particularly during summer weekends, has been with us for far too long. An improvement is essential, not only for Carmarthen itself, where traffic is badly congested, but also for South Wales as a whole. For Carmarthen stands at the crossroads to South West Wales; it is the gateway to Carmarthenshire, Pembrokeshire and South Cardiganshire, as the hon. Gentleman said. It is an area of great natural beauty, visited by many holidaymakers.
      It is particularly unfortunate from the traffic point of view that Carmarthen stands at the junction of the two main east-west trunk routes, the A.40 and the A.48. It is bounded on the south by the River Towy, which is crossed by only one bridge. It is this bridge, combined with the road junction immediately to the north and the urban area to the west, which lies at the heart of the problem.
      With the greater level of resources available lately for roads, it has become possible to tackle congestion in places such as Carmarthen on a more comprehensive basis than was thought possible some years ago. In the early 1950s, it was decided to build an internal relief road, known as the Carmarthen diversion, west of the bridge. Perhaps I may pass to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West, to pass to his hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, a map of the area which will make clearer what I am about to say.
      That project involved improved roads in the town and the dualling of the length of the A.40 road on its western outskirts. The improvement was in three stages. The first was completed in
      964
      1959 and the second in 1965. A third stage, now under construction, is expected to be completed early in 1972. The cost of these three schemes is well over £1 million.
      Those improvements did not, however, deal with what has become the major cause of congestion, which is the single bridge over the River Towy. Accordingly, in October 1968, a scheme to provide a southern by pass, the second river crossing, at an estimated cost of £2 million, was added to the trunk road preparation pool. Since then, first the previous Administration and now the present Government have been pressing ahead with the preparation of this scheme. Inclusion in the preparation pool, therefore, means that it is a worth-while scheme which will be brought into the firm programme.
      When the statutory processes have advanced to a stage where we know exactly what the scheme will cost and, secondly, we know how the expenditure is likely to be spread over the construction period, we shall then be able to consider this scheme alongside others which have reached a similar stage of preparation and decide the final priority in the light of the funds available.
      I would expect this Carmarthen bypass scheme to be among the first to qualify for a place in the firm programme, but in fairness to the other schemes in the preparation pool it would not be right for me at this stage to make a firm commitment. The preparation of a scheme of this size, partly within an urban area and involving land partly in industrial use and a new bridge, is a complicated exercise. The choice of route to put forward for public comment raises difficult technical planning and environmental problems.
      All these processes take about five years to complete, which would mean starting at the end of 1973. We expect to meet this date, although, of course, one can never predict what objections will be received when the formal statutory procedures begin. It was realised in 1969 that unless further steps were taken, the situation at the bridge at peak week-ends would, as the hon. Member has said, become extremely critical before the southern by-pass could be in use.
      Accordingly, in 1969 a further interim scheme was prepared to provide some

      965
      immediate relief by means of a temporary Bailey bridge a short distance away from the present bridge, combined with the operation of a one-way traffic system. It was always accepted that the degree of relief afforded by the Bailey bridge would be limited until the final stage of Carmarthen diversion scheme had been completed. We regard the Bailey bridge as a useful interim measure but it will certainly not stop us pressing ahead as quickly as we can with the completion of the southern by-pass.
      Further plans to relieve congestion were announced in May 1970, when an eastern by-pass was added to the trunk road preparation pool. The purpose of that scheme is to improve the approach along the A.40. It will provide a new road from Abergwili to link with the southern by-pass at the south-eastern corner of the town, at an estimated cost of £1·6 million.
      There was a certain price to be paid as a result of the decision to bring forward the construction of the eastern bypass because the design of the southern by-pass had immediately to take account of the need for another junction where the two by-passes join. This involved a certain amount of redesign, although this has been completed and the basis on which proposals can be published has now been settled.
      There have, however, been other difficulties to which I must refer. The hon. Member will recall that, in reply to two Parliamentary Questions on 3rd March and 3rd May last, he was told that it was hoped to publish proposals for the southern by-pass this summer and for the eastern by-pass later in the year. I now have to tell the hon. Member that some of the design details have taken longer to settle than had been expected and our latest estimate is that we should be able to publish draft Orders under Sections 7 and 20 of the Highways Act, that is to say Orders fixing the centre line of the by-pass and seeking powers to build the new bridge over the River Towy, in the spring of next year.
      The date for publishing Orders for the eastern by-pass is rather more tentative at present but is likely to be later in 1972.
      The hon. Member has asked that the M.4 east of Carmarthen should not be
      966
      completed until the by-passes of Carmarthen has been built.
      Mr. Gwynoro Jones: With respect, I did not suggest that. Of course, I want to see the motorway coming into Carmarthenshire—God forbid that anyone should try to stop that proposal. I was asking about the situation of the motorway just beyond Pontardulais. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the delay of six or more months will mean that the completion of the scheme will also be delayed?
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: What I was about to say was that, much as I regret it, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks.
      We want to complete the whole road as soon as we can. It would not be right to delay work on any section. Part of the M4, the Morriston by-pass, is already under construction and will certainly be ready before the Carmarthen by-pass. But I expect the Carmarthen by-pass to be in use before the whole of the Welsh length of the M4 is completed.
      The present programme for the bypasses, despite our desire to complete preparation quickly, is disappointing. The main problem with the southern by-pass has been the effect of the new road on railway Land and on adjacent Land occupied by industrial and commercial concerns and by British Railways. It is intended that the road should be elevated here and several combinations of bridge, embankment and alignment have had to be considered, each affecting the constructional cost of the scheme, and the effect on neighbouring property.
      We had provisionally come to the conclusion earlier this year that we had reached a solution which could be incorporated in a draft Order for public comment. This has, however, had to be verified by further studies, particularly on issues affecting Land use and the effect on industrial premises. We have now completed these studies and can proceed with the draft Orders. The position on the eastern by-pass is that its alignment is affected by a possible change in 1973 in railway operations which could enable certain railway Land to be used for the road.

      967
      Planning difficulties are not unusual in a scheme in or close to an urban area. Whatever route is chosen is likely to have an adverse effect on some people and, in fairness to everyone who might be affected, we must examine every possibility carefully. While my right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to modify a line in the light of objections after it has been published this requires further lengthy procedures and we like to try as far as possible to get the best line in the first place. Time spent on details now may well prove worth-while in the end.
      It is well known that the by-passing of Carmarthen is part of the Government's main highway strategy in South Wales. This is designed to provide a dual carriageway road, most of it motorway, from the Severn Bridge to the point in St. Clears where traffic divides along the A.40 to the north side of Milford Haven and the A.477 to the south side of the Haven. The whole of this length is now covered by schemes under construction, schemes in the firm programme, schemes in the preparation pool, or feasibility studies. All will be pursued with the utmost vigour, consistent with not riding roughshod over the wishes of people affected.
      968
      In the Welsh Office we are as keen as the hon. Member to see this strategy become a reality as soon as possible.
      Mr. George Thomas: I deeply appreciate the difficulties of the Welsh Office in this matter and I am well aware of the grievous problem facing Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. In support of the powerful representations which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynoro Jones), I should like to ask two questions. Would the Minister give a firm date for when he expects and aims for the southern by-pass to be included in the firm programme and could he say when he expects and aims to get the eastern by-pass in the firm programme?
      Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting those questions to me. As soon as a firm date can be given for both, I shall get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend. It would be wrong for me tonight to give what might seem to be a firm date but what would not be so firm tomorrow.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock-

EMPLOYMENT
  Mexborough and Wombwell (Young Persons)
  Mexborough and Wombwell (Young Persons)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Electronics Industry (Scotland)
  Electronics Industry (Scotland)
  Fatal Accidents
  Fatal Accidents
  Remploy
  Remploy
  Racial Equality
  Racial Equality
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Midlothian (Redundancies)
  Midlothian (Redundancies)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
  Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Statistical Publications
  Statistical Publications
  Unfair Dismissal
  Unfair Dismissal
  Training Centres
  Training Centres
  Unemployment and Wage-Related Benefits
  Unemployment and Wage-Related Benefits
  Retraining Programme
  Retraining Programme
  Hartlepool Steel Works (Redundancies)
  Hartlepool Steel Works (Redundancies)
  Newport (Factory Closure)
  Newport (Factory Closure)
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  Industrial Investment
  Industrial Investment
  Derby
  Derby
  Industrial Rehabilitation Service
  Industrial Rehabilitation Service
  North-West (School Leavers)
  North-West (School Leavers)
  Factory Inspectorate
  Factory Inspectorate
  Wages
  Wages
  Lanarkshire (School-leavers)
  Lanarkshire (School-leavers)
  Redundancy
  Redundancy
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Robens Committee's Report
  Robens Committee's Report
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Open University (Minister's Visit)
  Open University (Minister's Visit)
  Local Education Authorities (Independence)
  Local Education Authorities (Independence)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Birds (Oil Slicks and Detergents)
  Birds (Oil Slicks and Detergents)
  Schools (Improvement Programmes)
  Schools (Improvement Programmes)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Expenditure)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Expenditure)
  Kenyan Immigrants, Leicester (School Places)
  Kenyan Immigrants, Leicester (School Places)
  Portsmouth Polytechnic (Students' Accommodation)
  Portsmouth Polytechnic (Students' Accommodation)
DEFENCE
  R.A.F. Malagasy
  R.A.F. Malagasy
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Domestic and Office Articles (Subversive Use)
  Domestic and Office Articles (Subversive Use)
  Pensions
  Pensions
HOME DEPARTMENT
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Dogs Fouling Footways
  Dogs Fouling Footways
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Bedford and Kempston (Italians)
  Bedford and Kempston (Italians)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Category A Prisoners
  Category A Prisoners
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Foreign Capital Investment
  Foreign Capital Investment
  Cardiff (Techno-centre)
  Cardiff (Techno-centre)
  Marine Survey Fees
  Marine Survey Fees
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  National Space Technology Programme
  National Space Technology Programme
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  British Assets, Egypt (Compensation Agreement)
  British Assets, Egypt (Compensation Agreement)
  B.O.A.C. Aircraft (Forced Landing)
  B.O.A.C. Aircraft (Forced Landing)
  MINERAL RESOURCES (DEVELOPMENT)
  MINERAL RESOURCES (DEVELOPMENT)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EMPLOYMENT (YOUNG PERSONS)
  EMPLOYMENT (YOUNG PERSONS)
  D-NOTICES
  D-NOTICES
  RETIREMENT PENSIONERS (CONCESSIONARY FARES)
  RETIREMENT PENSIONERS (CONCESSIONARY FARES)
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Butter Prices
  Butter Prices
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
ENVIRONMENT
  Construction Education
  Construction Education
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers (Bonus Payments)
  Heavy Goods Vehicle Drivers (Bonus Payments)
  Bus Licensing
  Bus Licensing
  Newnham Bridge, River Ouse
  Newnham Bridge, River Ouse
  Welsh Hockey Association
  Welsh Hockey Association
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committee on Expenditure
  Select Committee on Expenditure
SCOTLAND
  Family Planning Association (Grant)
  Family Planning Association (Grant)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Cholera
  Cholera
  Scientology (Foster Report)
  Scientology (Foster Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Imports (European Comparisons)
  Imports (European Comparisons)
  Schedule E Centre, Liverpool
  Schedule E Centre, Liverpool
WALES
  Britannia Bridge, Menai Straits
  Britannia Bridge, Menai Straits

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

FOULNESS AIRPORT SITE AND UNEXPLODED MISSILES
LORD BESWICK: 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 numbers of missiles, since records were kept, have been fired into the sands in the vicinity of the proposed new airport at Foulness; what proportion of these missiles remain unexploded and what is the estimated cost of clearing these unexploded missiles before any construction work can safely begin.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, from 1942 to 1970 inclusive, nearly two million rounds were fired into the Maplin Sands area but not all of these contained high explosive. It is not possible to say how many of the high explosive rounds remain unexploded in the sands. The proportion of"blind"rounds, that is shells which should have exploded but failed to do so, should not be large; but a considerable quantity of unfused high explosive shells were fired, particularly in the period 1942 to 1945, and, being unfused, should not, of course, have exploded. Clearance measures are now being considered; their costs have not yet been assessed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we are all very interested in the information he has given? Is he further aware that the estimate I have been given is that 20 per cent. of these missiles are unexploded? And would he agree that this is scarcely a suitable foundation for an airport runway? Will the cost of clearing these be included in any future estimate for the construction of the Foulness Airport?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord is interested in my reply; otherwise, I imagine, he would not have asked the Question. I do not exactly know what percentage of shells are unexploded; I should have thought it would be much lower than the noble Lord's estimated figure. Although it would not form a very good basis for a runway, there were certainly hazards at the other three sites that were open to the Government, though not particularly of that character. With regard to the costs, that is a matter for my right honourable friend.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord also aware that my research has shown that below these 1·9 million missiles there are a number of cannon balls which were fired there from the beginning of the 19th century? Is he also aware that, though I am a very powerful advocate, I hope, of vertical take-off, this is not the system I had in mind?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am beginning to think that it is I who should be asking the noble Lord questions about this matter, and not the other way round. I think it is unlikely that there are cannon balls, because the range has been used for only about 100 years; and even if it is so, I think it unlikely that they would go off because they did not have a charge of high explosive in them.

MALTA: EXPENDITURE BY SERVICEMEN
3.11 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the estimate of the total amount spent in Malta by the British defence forces and their dependants in the financial year 1970–71.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, just under £14 million.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, does this not mean that, on average, each member of the population of Malta supplies between £40 and £50 worth of goods and services as a result of our troops being

617
there, and has my noble friend drawn the attention of the Prime Minister of Malta to that fact? Is it not also true that the ability to attract future investment to this island, on which its prosperity must depend, will, in its turn, depend on the stability and security of the island which our Forces help provide?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think anybody would quarrel with what my noble friend has said, and of course I made this point to the Prime Minister of Malta when I saw him the other day.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that although probably every Member of your Lordships' House recognises the past history of Malta and the services rendered to the United Kingdom and the Allies in two wars, nevertheless, and even despite the fact that the expenditure is not the really serious aspect of the problem, the fact is that Malta really now has no strategic value? If some assistance could be rendered to the Maltese Government on behalf of the Maltese people, that would be advisable, but not for the purpose of retaining Malta as a strategic base.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the facilities we have at Malta have no strategic value. I certainly agree with him that the price which has been asked is too high, and we shall have to make up our minds how much it is worth paying for them.

GOVERNMENT AID TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to list the amount of Government aid and defence aid granted to Commonwealth countries in terms of its value per head of population of those countries.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will, with the leave of the House, circulate the full details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With
618
regard to economic aid for the calendar year 1970, the five countries which received the most aid per head of population, excluding those countries with populations under 15,000 are: Gibraltar, £45; Seychelles, £32; Malta, £23; Solomon Islands, £20; St. Lucia, £20. In these countries there was no defence aid.
Following are the details referred to:
The following are the figures requested, which for military aid are for the financial year 1970–71 and for economic aid the calendar year 1970. The calculations are based on estimates of population in mid-1970.

Country

Bilateral Aid Programme Per Capita 1970

Military Assistance Per Capita 1970–71

£

£

Cyprus

0·31

—

Gibraltar

45·18

—

Malta

22·51

—

Gambia

1·10

—

Ghana

0·62

—

Nigeria

0·17

—

Sierra Leone

0·37

—

Kenya

1·03

—

Tanzania

0·15

—

Uganda

0·45

—

Botswana

4·31

—

Lesotho

0·68

—

Malawi

1·70

—

Rhodesia

0·30

—

Swaziland

7·67

—

Zambia

0·59

0·01

Mauritius

2·09

—

St. Helena (including dependencies)

67·03

—

Seychelles

32·29

—

Bahamas

0·05

—

Barbados

2·33

—

Cayman Island

22·80

—

Honduras (British)

19·28

—

Jamaica

0·90

—

Montserrat

50·00

—

Trinidad and Tobago

0·56

—

Turks and Caicos Islands

101·30

—

Virgin Islands (British)

60·6

—

Associated States

Antigua

6·75

—

Dominica

18·70

—

Grenada

3·80

—

St. Kitts

13·79

—

St. Lucia

20·31

—

St. Vincent

12·86

—

Guyana

4·67

0·04

Bermuda

0·06

—

Falkland Islands

21·90

—

Ceylon

0·36

—

Hong Kong

0·05

—

India

0·08

*

Malaysia

0·60

0·14

Pakistan

0·09

—

Singapore

3·84

2·44

Fiji

4·50

—

Gilbert and Ellice Islands

15·00

—

New Hebrides

14·27

—

Papua

*

—

Country

Bilateral Aid Programme Per Capita 1970

Military Assistance Per Capita 1970–71

£

£

Solomon Islands

20·36

—

Tonga

5·70

—

Western Samoa

0·06

—

Notes:
(1) Excludes (a) general unallocated economic aid amounting to £10,862,000 in 1970, and (b) general unallocated military assistance of £2,222,000 in 1970–71.
(2) * means less than ½p.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, does this not mean that, if Mr. Mintoff's demand that we henceforth pay four times the price is granted, Malta will be receiving more than twice any other Commonwealth country in any part of the world? Can my noble friend tell the House approximately how much of Malta's gross national product is dependent on British expenditure?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not sure whether it is fair to join the two figures together as my noble friend did. The figures which I gave him are the result of an undertaking to provide aid under conditions which obtained in 1964, and we are carrying out this obligation. With regard to his second question, about £8 million a year comes from tourists to Malta, about £10 million from British settlers, and, in all, about half the gross national product comes from British sources.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that Malta was once part of our Empire, and that Malta is to-day what we made it? Would he not also agree that many of Malta's difficulties arise from the closure of the Suez Canal, which has meant that the port and docks find it hard to operate? Would not the noble Lord also agree that, while it is fair and right that we should make a contribution, although it should not be an unfair contribution, in the present circumstances we hope for a degree of generosity from Her Majesty's Government?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that that is a slightly wider question than the original one, but we are carrying out the obligation we entered into in 1964.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I think my noble friend misunderstood my first supplementary. I was not seeking to add the two sums, although they are both
620
helpful to the people of Malta. What I was seeking to say was that at present we are granting £5 million aid and Mr. Mintoff is asking that that sum be increased to £20 million. In that event the aid would rise from £23 to £92 per head, which is the figure that would mean treating them twice as favourably as any other Commonwealth country.

SUNDAY SPORT: LOCAL AUTHORITIES' POWERS
3.15 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: 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 to what extent local authorities are empowered to allow facilities for the playing of organised games on Sunday.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the statutory powers of local authorities to provide facilities for sport and recreation are not drawn in terms of Sunday use, except that the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1890 forbids the closing of parks or pleasure grounds on that day. The matter is therefore one for individual local authorities to decide for themselves.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Wrexham Rural District Council decided last week to organise games on Sunday, and to pay for these from the rates? Will he agree that that is illegal?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord had put that question direct to me I should have been given a better opportunity to answer it. The 1780 Act prohibits the opening of places on Sunday to which people are admitted on payment. I do not think that covers the point to which the noble Lord is referring.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think it desirable that the Government should bring to the attention of local authorities the importance of the social amenity provided by organised games on Sundays, and ask them why they do not provide them?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not taking any particular view on this point. The law is there, and the local authorities have charge of their own grounds.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am asking the noble Lord whether he will take a particular view and prod local authorities on the subject.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am not quite sure in which direction the noble Baroness is trying to get the Government to prod. Does she want more games on Sunday or fewer games on Sunday? It has been the view of successive Governments that the Crathorne Committee Report should be implemented by a Private Member's Bill, and all Governments have been giving help. It is perhaps unfortunate for all of us that none of these has reached the Statute Book.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should not like the Minister to go away with the wrong idea. Of course I believe that children should be allowed to play games on Sunday; children living in overcrowded areas should be given this opportunity. It is a very good thing for all boys in the streets to have organised games.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think this is within the bounds of the law already.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, the Minister said he was not too sure in which direction the noble Baroness was moving. I can assure him of the fact that if I ask a question she is bound to ask a supplementary.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether it is more wicked to play cricket on Sundays or to listen to political speeches?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure there is value in both.

THE SUMMER RECESS
3.19 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms make any statement about the date on which the House will be expected to return after the Summer Recess? I understand there may well be imponderables, but it would be convenient if we could have such information as is possible.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am afraid it is rather difficult to forecast exactly when the House will return after the Recess. It depends really on how much time will be required for the Report stage and Third Reading of the Immigration Bill. Until between us, through the usual channels, we can get some idea of how much time is required, it is difficult to indicate. If those stages can be taken fairly quickly, then it may be possible for the House to come back on October 18. On the other hand, if more time is required it will mean coming back on October 11 and 12, and then adjourning until October 18.
While I am on my feet, and with the leave of the House, may I say that at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on Upper Clyde Shipbuilders?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I can understand the noble Earl's difficulties, and I thank him for what he has said.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.21 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Ninth Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Committee's Report was as follows:
MEETING WITH THE HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEDURE COMMITTEE
The Committee have heard an oral report on the evidence which was given on July 7, 1971 by the Chairman of Committees and the Leaders of the three Parties to the House of Commons Procedure Committee on the four

623
subjects of proposed co-operation between the Houses, viz.:

(a) distribution of Bills between the Houses;

(b) joint pre-legislation committees;

(c) joint post-legislation committees; and

(d) a joint committee to examine or debate subordinate legislation.

The Committee will give further consideration to the question of the proposed co-operation in the Autumn.
AMENDMENTS TO LEAVE OUT CLAUSES ON THE REPORT STAGE
The Committee have considered the practice of putting down amendments to leave out Clauses or Schedules on the Report Stage and the opinions expressed by the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition on this subject (H.L. Debates, July 1, 1971, cols. 491–7).
The Committee endorse the guidance then given to the House to the effect that it is undesirable, as a general practice, to move amendments on Report to leave out whole Clauses or Schedules, where the purpose underlying the amendments is to probe rather than a genuine desire to leave out the Clauses or Schedules in question. The proper time for such probing is the Committee stage.
PROCEDURE ON DIVISIONS
The Committee have given further consideration to the experimental procedure on Divisions and recommend:—

(a) that the Question should be put a second time after three minutes from the calling of the Division, instead of after two minutes, as recommended in the Fourth Report from the Procedure Committee on 3rd May, 1971;

(b) that the experimental procedure on Divisions should be continued until Christmas; and

(c) that at the end of six minutes from the calling of the Division, the Question should be repeated by the Lord on the Woolsack or in the Chair, but that the words at present used to invite those Peers who have not already voted to proceed to the Division Lobby should be dispensed with.

ITALICISING OF WORDS IN MOTIONS OR QUESTIONS FOR EMPHASIS
On 7th July, 1971, a Starred Question was asked in which certain words were italicised in order to give them emphasis.
The Committee are of opinion that it is not in accordance with the custom of the House to italicise or underline words in Motions or Questions put on the Order Paper in order to give them emphasis.
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The Committee have considered the way in which amendments are recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, particularly in any Committee or Report Stage which extends over more than one day. They note that at present there is no indication of the point reached in a Marshalled
624
List of amendments at the end of a day's proceedings, unless the House has completed its consideration of the List. The Committee recommend that the Minutes should give details of the last amendment considered and disposed of.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I refer briefly to this Report? There is some very important material in it, and I hope that noble Lords who do not always see these Reports may take the opportunity of looking at this one. May I comment very briefly on two aspects? There is in this Report an endorsement of the views expressed by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and myself, on the undesirability on Report stage of moving, for probing purposes only, to leave out clauses. We discussed this matter and there was general agreement. This situation was brought about by circumstances which were not wholly within the control of the Opposition at the time. I am sure that this conclusion is right and I support the endorsement of the Procedure Committee.
It ought however to be formally recorded, so that there is no misundering—and I am sure this is the intention—that this endorsement still does not in any way remove the right of noble Lords to move to leave out clauses on Report, provided that that is precisely what they mean. That is really the basis of that part of the Report. I mention it only so that if, in future, noble Lords in any part of the House choose to take such action, it is understood that this will not be quoted against them. Of course the purpose of moving to leave out a clause on Committee stage is really to draw attention to the fact that one is going to have a debate on the Question, that the clause shall stand part of the Bill, and one may vote against it. I hope that the noble Earl the Leader of the House, agrees with that.
There is a second point to which I wish to refer, and this may save my speaking on the Motion with regard to the amendment of Standing Order No. 50 which provides, as does the Report, for the continuation of our new procedure on Divisions. This, I think, is working extremely well and is of great convenience to the House. I believe it is right to alter the period before the second call from two to three minutes. Some noble Lords may find it disturbing to wait a

625
little longer in the Division Lobby; but, bearing in mind that the Clerks sometimes take more than two minutes to come from distant parts, I think this decision is right. I am sure we are right to continue the experiment a little longer and not to come to a final decision at this stage.
Finally, I should like to make a protest which I have made before, that we ought not to produce temporary Amendments to Standing Orders, because the House then has to amend an Amendment to a temporary Standing Order. I am sure that in future, if we are going in for this sort of experiment, it would be better merely to suspend the Standing Order and for the House to record what it wants, so that we do not have to come back and keep making Amendments to what is essentially a temporary Standing Order. In fact, there ought not to be such a creature in existence.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman of Committees, can help me here, because I do not seem to be in complete agreement with what my noble friend said in the first part of his speech. Is it not a fact that on Report stage we never have the Question put, That a clause shall stand part of a Bill? Therefore, there is no opportunity, unless one moves that the clause be left out, of discussing the clause as a whole.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I think I ought to remind the House that the Question before it is, That the Report be now considered. If we want to consider it, we ought to wait until the next Question which is, That the Report be now agreed to.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be now agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, this enables me to make another speech and I much appreciate it. I do not wish to proceed further upon this matter, but it would be interesting if the noble Earl
626
felt like repying to my noble friend. My impression is that in either place one cannot vote against a clause in this sort of way, unless one really means to throw it out. Furthermore, on Report we do not have debates on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I reply to the procedural point of the noble Lord, Lord Royle? The noble Lord is of course completely correct, that on Report stage we do not have to move that clauses stand part of the Bill. That is done only on Committee stage. But the point in the Procedure Committee's Report to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred is the recommendation that if, on Report stage, a noble Lord wishes merely to probe, he should not move the omission of a clause. He should move that a clause should be omitted—which he is still perfectly free to do—only if he really wishes the clause to be omitted.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOL): My Lords, I think we are now in order. All that I should like to say on the two substantive points is that I endorse completely what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, has said. I am of course reminded, in discussing the question of Amendments to leave out clauses on Report stage, that the discussion which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, and I had was on the night of the great flood in your Lordships' House. I should also like to say that I have taken note of, and I have some sympathy with, the subsidiary point which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, made about Amendments to Amendments to temporary Standing Orders. I thought he had a point, and perhaps this is something which we can bear in mind. But on the two substantive points, I cordially support what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, has said, and indeed the Report of the Procedure Committee.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask how one would raise on Report any matter in regard to a clause? If one wants to ask questions or to be clear about an amended clause, how does one do it unless one has the opportunity of putting something on the Marshalled List?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the answer is to put down an Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIVISIONS
3.28 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the Amendments to Standing Order 48 and Standing Order 50, agreed on May 12 last, be continued in force until the Christmas Recess in the next Session of Parliament; and to move the following Amendments thereto—
Standing Order No. 48
Paragraph (3), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4A), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").
The noble Earl said: 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. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, has in fact made my speech on this point and therefore I shall not make it. But I would make one point. I hope the House will agree to this change from two minutes to three minutes. We have had a very large number of Divisions this Summer, and the House has become almost professional in the way it divides. But we have not had any Divisions of what I might call an amateur kind, called by an individual Back-Bencher. To expect him to find a second Teller and get those two names recorded at the Table in two minutes is, I think, asking rather a lot. It can be done by those of us who are doing it regularly, but for somebody who is not familiar with the procedure I think it is too short a time. So I hope that the House will agree to the three-minute rule.
Moved, That the Amendments to Standing Order 48 and Standing Order 50, agreed on May 12 last, be continued in force until the Christmas Recess in the next Session of Parliament; and to move the following Amendments thereto:—
Standing Order No. 48
Paragraph (3), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ");
Paragraph (4A), line 1, leave out (" two ") and insert (" three ").—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before the House goes into Committee I should inform your Lordships that this is a Consolidation Bill with Law Commission Amendments, and as such falls within the fourth category of Bills referred to the Joint Committee. In so far as the Bill is not pure consolidation, but gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission, it may be discussed in the House and in Committee of the Whole House. In this case the Joint Committee are of the opinion that the recommendations of the Law Commission are for the purpose of producing a satisfactory consolidation of the law, and they approve the recommendations, without amendment, and further state in their Report that in their opinion there is no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 295 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 22 agreed to.
Schedule 23 [Consequential amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 3:
Page 340, line 7, after (" 1965 ") insert (" (as amended by the Civil Aviation Act 1971) ").
Page 340,line 19, at end insert—

(" "the said section 118"" section 27 of the Act of 1962"(in both places)

" the said section 164"" section 45 of the Act of 1971 ".")

Page 353, line 9, at end insert—
(" The Civil Aviation Act 1971 (c. )
In section 14 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971—

(a)in subsections (6) and (9)(c) and (d) for the words"subsections (1) and (2) of section 158 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962"and"section 153 of that Act"there shall be substituted respectively the words"subsections (1) and (2) of section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971"and"section 209 of that Act ";

(b)in subsections (7) and (9)(d) for the words"section 82 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962"and"Part V of that Act"there shall be substituted respectively the words"section 128 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971"and"Part VI of that Act."

In section 17 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 for the words set out in the first column below there shall be substituted the words set out opposite to them in the second column below:—

" section 118, 119, 123, 134(2) or 170(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 "

" section 164, 165, 169, 187(2) or 237(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ".

" the said section 118 "

" the said section 164 ".

" section 27 of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 45 of the said Act of 1971 ".

" section 122 of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 168 of the said Act of 1971 ".

" section 129 of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 180 of the said Act of 1971 ".

" section 130(2) or 133(1) of the said Act of 1962 "

" section 181(2) or 186(1) of the said Act of 1971 ".

" the said section 27 "

" the said section 45 ".

" Part III of the said Act of 1962 "

" Part III of the said Act of 1971 ".

In Schedule 5 to the Civil Aviation Act 1971—

(a) in paragraph 5, sub-paragraph (q) and (bb) shall be omitted and after paragraph (ee) there shall be inserted—

" (ff) sections 22, 40, 48, 49, 118(2), 127, 128, 129, 149, 165(3), 181, 182, 183, 186, 192, 206(6), 209(3)(b), 210(2), 213(3), 216, 223, 225 to 241 (except section 230 as applied by section 13 of the Opencast Coal Act 1958), 245(7)(b), 255, 281(6)(b) of, and Schedule 10, paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 19, and Schedule 20 to, the. Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ";

630
(b) in paragraph 6, sub-paragraphs (f) and (l) shall be omitted and after paragraph (m) there shall be inserted—

" (n) sections 206(6), 225 to 241 and 281(6)(b) of, and Schedule 10 and paragraph 4 of Schedule 20 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ";

(c) in paragraph 7, sub-paragraphs (c) and (g)shall be omitted and after paragraph (h)there shall be inserted—

" (i) sections 149(3), 165(3) and 225 to 241 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ":

(d) in paragraph 8 for the words"section 69 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 ","the Town and Country Planning Act 1962"and"Section 70(2) of the said Act of 1968"there shall be substituted respectively the words"section 223 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 ","that Act"and"Section 225(2)(b) of the said Act of 1971 ".")

The noble and learned Lord said: In rising to propose this series of Amendments, which I think I can deal with together, subject to the agreement of the noble and learned Lord opposite, I would say simply that they are all technical, draftsman's Amendments. They are caused by the neck-and-neck race between this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, and the Civil Aviation Bill. We think that the Civil Aviation Bill is likely to come into force before April 1, 1972, which is the date set for the commencement of this Bill. It therefore becomes necessary for those references to be translated with effect from that date, and that is the purpose of these Amendments. It could have been done the other way, but it would have required double references in the Civil Aviation Bill owing to the date at which it comes` into force. That is the only purpose of any of these rather complicated Amendments. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 3.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 23, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 24 agreed to.
Schedule 25 [Repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 381, line 47, at end insert—

(" 1971 c.

The Civil Aviation Act 1971

In Schedule 5 paragraph 8(3) ")

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 25, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 22):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning Bill, have consented to place their interests so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
3.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Amendment of qualification for unemployment benefit, sickness benefit and injury benefit]:
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Before I call Amendment No. 1 I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 23, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Baroness said: Bearing in mind that there is a great deal of business to be completed to-day, I will not take up the time of your Lordships too much, but I would tell the Committee that although there appears to be a large number of Amendments down to this Bill, in fact the number of points to be debated is very small—not small in quality, but small in number—and the Amendments are related. With permission, despite what the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman, has just said, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. They relate to a subsection of the clause which deals with unemployment and sickness benefit. Taking sickness benefit first. I would point out what the Minister in another place said when speaking on this clause. I believe that on Second Reading in this House the Minister also told your Lordships this. The Minister in another place stated:
" We have witnessed over the past years steady increase in the proportion of male workers covered to a greater or lesser degree by employers' sickness schemes, but of course they are not yet comprehensive "—
and note this, my Lords—
" and as the hon. Member has said, they are of varying quality."
That, I think, is very relevant to this clause.
I wonder whether I may refer again to the paper, General Problems of Low Pay. This deals with only three industries: contract cleaning, laundry and ancillary workers in the National Health Service. We see that these workers were interviewed concerning sickness benefit and asked what conditions obtained in those industries. We find that for men in the laundry industry 22 per cent. receive full pay for a month or more when they are sick, 23 per cent. sick pay but less than full pay for one month or more and 33 per cent. receive no sickness pay at all. There were 23 per cent. who said they"did not know ", but, my Lords, I suspect that one would know whether one received pay when sick, so I think we may safely assume that a proportion of those also did not have any sickness benefit.
When we look at the figures for workers in the National Health Service we find a slightly happier picture. There, 75 per cent. of the men would receive full pay

633
for a month, but only 41 per cent. of the women would receive it. That is an interesting point. When we come to the women working in industry we find again that the percentages are different: 89 per cent., if working part-time, did not receive sickness pay, and in the laundry and dry cleaning trades 57 per cent. of the women full-time workers did not receive sickness pay.
I do not want to labour the point and I know that I may have selected something which is not typical, but I think it is all too easy to say that these figures are not typical. This Bill, as I see it, deals with the low-paid worker. As a professional, I have always been fortunate to have an adequate salary and to be fully protected by my employers in the event of sickness, but it is one of the ironies of life that if one is badly paid because one is badly educated, one invariably lives in poor housing, one's children are educated in old and neglected schools and one is, as a result, much more vulnerable to sickness, unemployment and all the other problems. So this will be the group who will be hit by any change which takes place through this Bill.
When we look at unemployment benefit, with 800,000 unemployed at the moment we realise that no small section of the population is concerned. This matter is of particular concern to those working in the building trade or the catering trades, people who, as we all know, are much subject to short-time working. To lose three days' benefit several times a year seems grossly unfair. Again, if one is at the lower end of the pay scale every major change in one's budget means an added difficulty. Recently I saw a suggestion that a Bill of this kind would attempt to deal with scroungers. I absolutely refute at this Box that the average worker is a scrounger. In my experience, both here and as a magistrate, I find that rogues and scroungers will find a way round any piece of legislation we introduce. We must always consider that we are dealing with ordinary people and that it is ordinary people who will feel the benefit or the disadvantage of any legislation which we introduce.
I have been told that if there are hardships there are always supplementary benefits. That is so, but this only means shifting the payment from one fund to another, which in the event means related
634
benefits. I said on Second Reading that this is a mean Bill. I see nothing to cause me to change my opinion, and this is one of the worst clauses in the Bill. Very generously, we are giving the Government two opportunities here. By Amendment No. 1 we would take out subsection (1) and leave the situation as it is at the moment. Those concerned would be paid for the three waiting days. If, on the other hand, advantage is taken of Amendment No. 2, the introduction of the change will be postponed until January, 1976. Noble Lords may ask why this is suggested and I will give three reasons; there may be others. This would give the unions time to demand that all employers should provide a scheme to cover all workers for sickness, unemployment and injury and it would give employers time to accede to that demand. Secondly, the date suggested will be after the present Government have to go to the country, and I guess that they will be replaced by a different type of Administration. Thirdly, if we have entered the European Economic Community by that time there will be an opportunity for the Government of the day to prepare schemes in co-operation with the countries of the Six. I beg to move.
3.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): I am very happy to try to answer the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, although I shall have to depend largely on the arguments I put forward on Second Reading, because this is a major part of the Bill and I could not possibly accept her proposed Amendments. I went into this in some detail on Second Reading. I shall try to avoid going over all the, figures I gave then, but I ask to be excused if I cover some of the same ground.
The noble Baroness mentioned the provisions for social security in the E.E.C. and naturally both of us are interested in making comparisons. I think there is one comparison that should make us very thankful for our own scheme. That is that it is a national, comprehensive scheme and makes universal additions for all those who benefit under it

635
As it is a national scheme, we must now allow it to ossify. We must review its workings from time to time and ensure that those who subscribe to it—employer, employee and taxpayer—as well as those who benefit, get the best value for their money. This, I suggest, will not only mean reviewing the administrative arrangements from time to time but also will entail fundamental changes in the scheme when we have to find new priorities. That is what we have done on this occasion, as I tried to explain on Second Reading. I suggest that we must not consider this Bill in isolation. It marches hand in hand with the National Insurance Act, recently passed in this House, which made substantial increases in benefits.
To mention just one improvement which was universally acceptable to your Lordships, there was the new invalidity benefit package. We should like to do more. We should like to increase the benefits and to bring in new selective benefits, but there is a limit to the financial resources available. One way of providing more money is by a careful review of existing benefits. It was as a result of that review that we put this particular benefit, the retrospective payment for the three waiting days, into the scales against other priorities. We came to the conclusion it was no longer justified. I should like to emphasise this, because it was not all that clear in our last discussion that this payment is never made now during the first three days. The whole point of the three waiting days is to disregard short isolated periods of absence. Payment is made retrospectively only if someone is absent for two weeks or more in a period of 13 weeks. This was useful and a good benefit when the scheme was introduced, but in terms of priority we feel that it is no longer justifiable. It may be that the noble Baroness does not agree with our priorities but that is the reason why we have taken this step.
I have already given some of the reasons why we have reached this judgment. To save a long catalogue, I would just list the changed circumstances to-day compared with those when the scheme was stated in 1948. Since then, there has been a four-fold increase in personal disposable income and an eight-fold increase
636
in personal savings. National Insurance benefits have increased very substantially in real terms as well as in money terms. Thirdly, we now have earnings-related supplements to benefit which are payable from the third week off work, which is just about the same time that this payment was made. Fourthly, there are many more working wives, earning much higher wages. Fifthly, there has been a substantial growth in employers' sick pay schemes.
As our attention was drawn to this by the noble Baroness, may I repeat the figures? The coverage in the year 1961–62 was only 56·5 per cent. of all male employees but in April, 1970 employers' sick pay schemes covered over 72 per cent. For manual workers, the corresponding figure, while lower, was still nearly 65 per cent. of all full-time male employees aged 21 and over. These are the reasons why we consider that this particular benefit no longer has the same priority as others. It has nothing to do with scroungers. That is quite another point and has no relevance to our reasons. Times have changed and there are more urgent priorities for the £19 million that can be saved (at the present rates of benefit) and used in other directions, such as the invalidity benefit package I have mentioned.
The noble Baroness also spoke to Amendment No. 2 and here I could not accept that we should delay this change of priority. We have already committed (as it were) the money elsewhere in the invalidity benefit package and under the National Insurance Act. Naturally we want to do all we can to encourage employers to increase the number of sick pay schemes and I am sure that pressure will be put on them by the trade unions to do so, but this is a matter for voluntary negotiations. I hope that, as a result, more workers will be covered by these voluntary schemes. I regret that for these reasons I am unable to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: While I should like to thank the Minister for his words, I confess that I did not expect him to accept either Amendment. I am eternally hopeful, however, and sometimes a Minister has a change of heart. I am interested in the figure which he gave of 65 per cent. of manual workers

637
covered by sick pay schemes. That still leaves 35 per cent. not covered—a very large number of people. Though we talk in percentages, they mean millions of people. I suspect, though I have no way of checking this, that it is those on better pay who get the fringe benefits. I feel that it is rather like talking gaily about 2 per cent. unemployment being necessary. That is fine, if you do not happen to be part of the 2 per cent. I reject entirely the noble Lord's proposition about working wives. The fact that a wife happens to be working is no reason at all for not paying benefits. And I would point out that the Government are not giving the money, they are simply redistributing it in a slightly different way. However, having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Before the noble Lord answers, if he can speak again, could I ask a question on discrimination? Apparently a man is discriminated against if he has a working wife. Are women discriminated against because they are married? I see that the percentage of women who get sick pay is very small.
LORD ABERDARE: There is no discrimination here at all. I am not quite sure to what the noble Baroness is referring.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: The noble Lord has said that there is no discrimination if a man may not benefit if he has a working wife. That is discrimination against a man on certain grounds and I want to know why there are fewer women.
LORD ABERDARE: I never said anything of the sort. I do not think that the noble Baroness was listening. I was giving various reasons why, in the changed economic circumstances of today, with more money coming into the home and with better National Insurance benefits, we thought the priorities no longer justified the payment of benefit after two weeks of the money that would have been paid for the first three days' sickness. There is no discrimination at all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I was not talking about the first three days'
638
sickness but about sickness pay, about the figures which my noble friend gave.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think that perhaps my noble friend is referring to the figures which I gave from General Problems of the Lower Paid and here we must absolve the Government, who are not actually concerned. I quoted this in aid and said that employers seem to give more benefit to men than to women. That is discrimination, but on this occasion we cannot expect the Minister to reply.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: In other words. I was attending to every word the Minister said and I was correct.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ABERDARE: Before the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees puts the next Amendment, it may he a convenient time to have a Statement and I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS
3.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I shall with permission repeat the Statement which is being made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place on shipbuilding on the Upper Clyde. This is the Statement:
" The group which I invited to advise me about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders has reported. Their report is now available in the Vote Office.
" Their principle findings are that Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited, as organised in 1967, was doomed from the start as a result of the faulty concept of structure within which it was organised; the burden of eventual loss with which it was saddled; and the inadequate management with which it was provided. The Group therefore conclude ' that any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified '. The Group also state that the present order book is dangerously thin for U.C.S. in its present size, particularly in view of the low level of orders coming into the industry.

639
" Nevertheless if the order book is concentrated at the Govan and Lint-house sites; if ship production is standardised; if the management is radically reformed; and if much more productive and realistic working agreements can be negotiated with the men who would be employed there—on these conditions, the Group think it should be possible to form a new company which would retain a viable shipbuilding capability on the Upper Clyde with prospects of some eventual expansion.
" The Government accept these conclusions. But the Group's conditions are fundamental and the enterprise can go forward only if they are met. In particular I must emphasise the need, if this venture is to succeed, for first-class management and for satisfactory undertakings by the unions in relation to working practices and wage rates.
" If these conditions are met the Government believe that private capital should be forthcoming, particularly from Scottish sources, and the Government would be ready to provide some of the initial capital.
" If the new venture can be established on the basis I have described, some 2,500 men will have the prospect of continued employment there. Another thousand men, and probably more, should be able to find work with other shipbuilders on the Clyde. Some too may be retained in work by other interests acquiring U.C.S. facilities from the Liquidator. For the rest, a considerable number are likely to be needed for the completion of ships already building. Thus only about 400 men in all will become immediately redundant, although others will do so at intervals during the months to come, as ships are completed. The Government will of course do everything possible to assist those who lose their jobs.
" If the Court grants the company's application for a winding up order, the liquidation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited will proceed.
" While we are seeking to establish whether the conditions for a viable shipbuilding enterprise can be created, on the lines recommended by the expert
640
Group, I will have their continuing advice. I am grateful to them for the work they have already done.
" To ensure meanwhile that the Liquidator has the necessary working capital, the Government propose to allow him to retain for a limited period the monies advanced under existing arrangements with the provisional Liquidator. If during this period further sums are needed, then, provided there has been satisfactory progress in fulfilling the conditions I have outlined, funds will be made available from the consolidated fund and estimates will be presented to the House in due course. If Government money were to be provided for a continuing operation legislation would have to be introduced."
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made in another place, but I think he will agree, as a Scot, that this is a particularly black day for Scottish industry. Is the noble Lord aware that male unemployment in that part of Scotland is already running at 10 per cent.? And, of course, we have just had the announcement that Plessey will close next month, so adding to this number.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions. When the expert committee say that it might be possible to concentrate at Govan and Linthouse, does this mean the complete closing down of Scotstoun and Clydebank? Secondly, with regard to the number of men involved, is it not a fact that the figure of 400 is a little misleading? Will it not mean that at least 5,000 to 6,000 men's jobs will be lost, even when the operation is completed? Further, has the noble Lord made any estimate of the number outside the yard whose jobs will be lost as a consequence of this action? Is not the total likely to be somewhere in the region of 15,000 to 18,000? I should also like to ask just how much this is going to cost public funds. What will be the losses entailed? Indeed, has any estimate been made of what will be the cost to Government funds in regard to redundancy payments on top of all this?
Finally, the fifth paragraph of the Statement says:
" If these conditions are met the Government believe that private capital should be forthcoming, particularly from Scottish sources, and

641
the Government would be ready to provide some of the initial capital."
Can the noble Lord tell us just what sums are involved in doing this job? How much are the Government prepared to pay, and how much do they expect to raise from private Scottish sources?
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to reserve our comments on this matter until we have had an opportunity of reading the special report. But on first reflection we should like to ask one major question. The Statement implies that if the new company is formed it will be formed on the site of the Upper Clyde. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would consider the possibility of using a lower Clyde site near the proposed Hunterston Steelworks. I should also like to ask whether, if this is not to be the case, and the proposed new company is to be sited on the existing Upper Clyde sites, this casts any doubt at all on the proposed new steelworks?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I agree that this is a black day for Scottish industry; no one can dispute that. The noble Lord asked whether this involves the complete closure of Scotstoun and Clydebank. The intention is that the ships at present being built there should he completed, and that the remainder of the work should be transferred to Govan. It will then be for the Liquidator to dispose of the Scotstoun and Clydebank yards. I should say that, so far as I am aware, no inquiries have been received in regard to the Scotstoun and Clydebank yards. The noble Lord suggested that the mention of 400 workers becoming redundant is misleading. I do not think it is. What I said was that only about 400 men in all will become immediately redundant. Naturally, there will be a run-down, and the Liquidator will have to decide how to dispose of the workers then. I did say, however, that it is estimated that Scott Lithgow could provide jobs for up to 1,000 men at the end of the year.
The noble Lord then went on to ask about employment outside the yards. That is a difficult thing to estimate. One has seen some rather, I think, exaggerated estimates in the Press about this. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord an estimate about it. If there is a continuing
642
activity at Govan, and if the activity at Scott Lithgow increases, then quite a number of those who are providing work outside the yards will continue to do so. But, of course, those who provide the supplies for ships do not do so only for the Clyde; many supply them for elsewhere, as well. The noble Lord asked what losses have been entailed by the Government. Something over £20 million of Government money has been put in, and that I am afraid is the level of the loss. Much of this must have gone, as some of it will rank with other creditors. So far as the redundancy payments are concerned, I can give the noble Lord details if he wants them, but probably he does not.
LORD HOY: My Lords, no. But I wonder whether the noble Lord can help us in this way. Obviously, if we are going to pay off some thousands of men, some estimate must have been made of what it will cost in unemployment benefits, and some estimate must also have been made of the cost in redundancy payments, because at the end of the day we shall be losing some thousands of jobs in the industry.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is primarily a matter for the Liquidator. It is for him to decide what is the size of the forces to be retained, the payments in` lieu of notice, or payments with notice, and redundancy payments. Finally, the noble Lord asked what sums are involved. It is difficult to give precise estimates, but to acquire the assets from the Liquidator, to provide working capital and to improve facilities might cost something like £10 million. The Government hope that this money might he found from private sources, but they accept that some degree of Government involvement may be necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked whether consideration had been given to moving to a lower Clyde site. Consideration has not been given to this point because of the nature of the present operation, which is an operation of liquidation. The recommendation made by the experts is that the activities should be concentrated at Govan. If it is possible on the conditions they have indicated, that is where what remains of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders should continue to operate. So far as the possibility of

643
steel development is concerned, this has not entered into the picture. My Lords, I hope I have answered the questions satisfactorily.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware whether there have been any inquiries about Govan? He has said that there were no inquiries about Scotstoun and Clydebank. Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the importance of taking some action quickly? Many of the men in the yards are highly skilled. If they leave the area the problem of finding employment in any form of development where the percentage of the less skilled is higher will become increasingly more difficult.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. There have not as yet, again so far as I know, been any inquiries about Govan, but this is the first announcement that has been made of the recommendation. Regarding my noble friend's second point, I fully agree with him. The Government are very alive to this point and so of course is the Liquidator. He wants to do the best he can.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I assume that the Government got out some figures before coming to this decision. I assume they have estimated what it would cost the nation if they did not continue to support the shipyards, what the benefits would be and what the alternatives were. Is it not possible to have this information? Leaving out the tragedy of the unemployment involved and all the related problems, there must be some basis on which the decision was made. Is it asking too much of the Government that they should share that information with the nation, and with this House in particular?
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that point, would he bear in mind that this has been a very costly and somewhat naïve experiment, which was pushed on to the previous Government by Mr. Wedgwood Benn at enormous cost to the taxpayer? Whereas I perfectly concede, as would everyone in this House, that it is a tragedy for those who are there and have been led astray, it is a little unfair
644
to demand extra millions of pounds for this particular shipyard when other shipyards have introduced better working arrangements with their trade unions, have introduced better management and also standardised ships. All these things have been done in other yards without massive support from the taxpayers of this country. Surely there must be a limit to the manner in which we prop up this particular shipyard.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, if I may say so, I was not asking anyone to put up more money. I was asking on what information the Government have based their present decisions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, is that the Government appointed a committee of experts. After I have sat down, he will be able to get a copy of their report from the Printed Paper Office and when he has read that I am quite certain he will agree that the Government's decision in this matter was right.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Lord not understand even now the questions which my noble friends were asking? Is he aware that there is something called the Central Capability Unit, or Public Expenditure Analysis Unit, which is supposed to be able to make estimates of social costs? Is he further aware that we had no idea, when the Government were facing their decision, whether they had estimated the amount of money they will now have to pay out by way of unemployment benefit and redundancy payments?—because the Government are going to advance money to support this. Can the noble Lord give some indication as to what the total cost will be as a result of closing down these shipyards? I will not pursue further the tragedy involved but we would like to ask whether in fact the Government have done these sums, because only the Government can do them: this Committee would not be in a position to do them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point is surely that here is an enterprise which was set up, admittedly, in a hurry. The amount in losses that they were faced with at the time was seriously underestimated. It has been shown that

645
at least two of the shipyards are totally non-viable. The experts' report has made quite clear (to read the words again) that
"…any continuation of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders in its present form would be wholly unjustified."
If the noble Lord reads the report he will see that the experts were conscious of the social considerations.
LORD SHACKLETON: Social costs.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am now dealing with the social considerations and will come to the social costs later. No estimate has been made on the social costs for the reasons I have given, that it is impossible at this stage to say how many men will be employed and how many will have to seek employment elsewhere. It must be remembered that as this is a special development area assistance is available. But the major point here is that, on the basis of this report, the Government have come to the conclusion that it would be quite unjustifiable to continue putting money into an enterprise of this kind which shows no sign whatsoever of being viable. Governments are prepared to give assistance of one kind or another, especially in development areas, on condition that the enterprise looks as though it might become viable in the long run and not otherwise.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion unduly, but I am sure that your Lordships' House will realise how important this is to Scotland and its economy. I find it difficult to understand how the Government came to this decision without having costed it. The noble Lord has just said that the Government found themselves unable to cost it, and yet, in spite of not knowing what the cost is to be, they have reached this particular decision. Might I also ask whether it is correct, arising out of the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that in this particular yard there was a substantial cut in the labour force, but at the same time the output went up by 87 per cent.? Surely this was a contribution by the workmen along with their employers to help to bring about the viability of the yards?
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, I have just been given a copy of the report
646
of the Advisory Group on Shipbuilding in the Upper Clyde. It does not give any of the information I requested. I should like, with permission, to ask again for the information. I have not suggested that the Government should advance any further money, but I should like to have the information on which they have based the decision to implement this report and what it will cost the nation, directly or indirectly, to do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is absolutely impossible to give an estimate of this kind. One does not know how many of these workers will be employed either in the continuing enterprise or elsewhere in shipbuilding, or elsewhere in industry that may he developed on the Clyde. There is no means of costing this. All that can be said at the present time is that here is an enterprise which has shown that it is not viable. As much as possible of it, given the conditions and if the conditions are fulfilled, will be maintained. But this is all that can be justified. For the rest, the Government have said that they will do their utmost to find employment for those who are displaced.

SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
4.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Before I call Amendment No. 4 I have to point out that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: With permission, I will discuss Amendments 4, 5 and 6 as before, because again we offer the Government an alternative, but I will not repeat the argument other than to say that there is the opportunity to leave matters as they were, which we offer in Amendment No. 4, or to postpone the introduction of the conditions until 1976, which we offer in Amendment No. 5. This deals with another group in the community—not as large a group as those who are unemployed but a very important group. The last figure I was able to

647
obtain of the number of industrial accidents in a year came from the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and gave a total of 322,000 accidents yearly. We must ask again which group of workers are likely to sustain accidents whilst at work. I suspect that administrative workers in offices are not likely to sustain industrial accidents, unless they drop the typewriter. It seems that it will again be the people we have been speaking about—the miners, the builders, the shipyard workers. These are the kind of people who suffer industrial accidents—factory workers of all kinds. Although I have searched the replies given by Ministers in another place I could not find any figure given of the extent to which employers' schemes offer coverage. I may have missed it, in which case I shall be pleased to hear it—not necessarily today. When you are a low-paid worker—I am sorry to repeat this and I do not wish to be emotional, but it is a fact—if you suffer unemployment or injury or sickness you need as much help in the monetary sense as you can get, to tide you through what can be an expensive period. I beg the Government, even at this late stage, to leave matters where they are. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I will try again to meet the noble Baroness's points. I hope I shall get the last word this time and not the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who succeeded on the last Amendment. I am afraid that I cannot accept these Amendments, for the reason that we do not feel that we can make any difference in principle between the three-day waiting period for sickness, unemployment benefit or industrial injury benefit. If there is an argument for abolishing waiting day payment, it must apply generally and not just to payments in respect of sickness and unemployment. It would be difficult to maintain the general principle if we were to make exceptions of one sort or another. In fact, over recent years it has been a long-term aim of all Governments to bring the rules for administering industrial injuries and national insurance benefit more into line. This is not only to give fairness between people who are for one reason or another off work, but also to provide a much simpler scheme to administer in already busy offices. All sorts of anomalies creep
648
in if you make distinctions between unemployment and sickness and industrial injuries benefits, one being whether your period of work comes under one heading or the other heading first.
The other point I should like to make is that those who are injured industrially already receive a higher rate of benefits. They get £2·75 a week more than those who are in receipt of sickness and unemployment benefit, so under the new schemes they will be receiving after September £8·75 a week. That to some extent should help to carry them over. They will be receiving this benefit for the full period they are away from work, and after six months they will be entitled, if their injury goes on, to industrial injury disablement benefit and industrial injury sickness benefit. I am afraid that to accept these Amendments would strike at the root of the whole principle we are seeking to put through in this Bill, and that is to switch this money where we think there are greater priorities. We can only beg to differ from the noble Baroness if she feels that the priorities are different.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am surprised when the noble Lord says that you can equate the first three days of a sickness with the first three days of industrial injury. I was always under the impression, as I am sure doctors all over the country were, that the changes in the regulations which laid down that the individual who was sick for three days was not paid unless the sickness went on for a further period, were made because some people suspected that some of this short-term sickness might stem from malingering and that the way to foil an individual who had had a good time out the night before, had developed a headache and had decided to take a day or two off, was to stop payment for the first three days. I was certainly under the impression that this played some part in this decision.
With an industrial injury, a man in a factory who catches his hand in a machine is seen immediately by the manager, by the first aid people and so on. Everybody knows that he is incapable of working. That night he is seen by his doctor and there is absolutely no doubt but that the man has suffered injury. I feel it is extremely difficult to equate that with the individual who may say (it is not so in every case, of course),

649
" I'm not feeling too well and will take three days off ". I am surprised that the noble Lord stressed the fact that you must have one rule for all these people.
LORD ABERDARE: Under the present scheme neither the person who is off sick nor the person who suffers an industrial injury receives payment during the first three days, but it comes as a sort of bonus after two weeks. It is this payment, a kind of bonus payment, which we think is no longer as important as it was. While I am on my feet, may I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that the provisions of employers' sick pay schemes, where they are in effect, do cover incapacity caused by industrial injury as well as by sickness.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I am quite sure that the Minister will not expect me to say that I accept his arguments. I appreciate that he has to make them. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has a point. Industrial injury is not the same as sickness, and, to me, to argue for anything just because it is administratively more convenient to do when you are dealing with human beings is the worst of all arguments. Nevertheless, I have made my point. In this Bill we are dealing with the lowest paid workers, who can ill afford to be without benefit for these three days. The Minister has repeated several times, and we all know it to be the case that it is a retrospective payment. It does come, but I suggest that we should look at the working of the Act to see why it should take so long to be paid at all. Two weeks seems quite a long time. However, that is not a matter to discuss this afternoon. Making that point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Abolition of local advisory committees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.30 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Clause 9 deals with the national insurance advisory committees which, under this Bill, are to be abolished. In another place, the Minister described three functions for
650
these committees. He said they gave advice on the location of offices, and of proposed closures; they gave advice on the personnel who sit on the local tribunals; they interviewed difficult assistance and supplementary benefit cases. The personnel of the advisory committee was described on Second Reading, and was outlined in the principal Act. I should like to emphasise that these are ordinary citizens, and it is an important part of the British way of life that we can always appeal to our peers. It does not matter how good the professional advice is, the fact that ultimately ordinary people can make an appeal to their peers is a vital point.
If we look at the third function of the committee—to interview difficult assistance and supplementary benefit cases—I wonder how far this has been used. I tried to assist a widow on one occasion (I am not certain whether the case would have come under this committee or not) who had her pension book removed because she was held to be cohabiting with a man. The evidence was that she watched television with him. I am happy to say that we were able to get the decision reversed; if that were evidence of cohabitation, it would put a number of your Lordships at some risk. It seemed to me at that time that the fact that we were able, as her own peers, to help this woman was an important point.
These committees have cost the colossal sum of about £20 a week, if my arithmetic is correct. They are manned voluntarily. The Minister in another place said that they had outlived their use and were not being used properly. That is a popular argument when you want to get rid of something. For example, there is the exercise of running down the railways: first, you make it difficult for people to travel on a train; you arrange for the service to be at awkward times or, better still, see that people can travel on the train only if they have a restricted ticket which has to be purchased at the station. I travelled on such a train the other day; there were about 20 people in a coach which could have held far more. If you make anything difficult enough you can justify the argument that nobody wants to use it.
I strongly suspect that these committees have not been used to the full. The national advisory committee at top level

651
is used considerably by the Minister, and the Minister calls its findings in aid on every possible occasion. But it is vital that we should also have local links. This is not the moment to remove a small committee in which ordinary citizens are involved. The amount of money is so small that I beg the Government to allow the retention of these committees and, indeed, to give them more work to do.
LORD ABERDARE: We touched on this matter on Second Reading. I should like to pay a sincere tribute to those who have served on local advisory committees over many years. Our decision to abolish these committees was in no way intended as any reflection on the public spirit of the people who served on them or on the way in which they have discharged their duties.
The noble Baroness said that the local advisory committees provided an appeals system for people with social security problems. The appeals system already exists quite independently of these committees. There is a right of appeal to a national insurance local tribunal against decisions on claims to national insurance benefit, and to a supplementary benefit appeal tribunal against decisions on claims to supplementary benefit. The tribunals have chairmen appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and two other members. In the case of the national insurance local tribunals, the members are drawn from two panels—one consisting of persons representing employed persons, the other representing employers, self-employed and friendly societies. On the supplementary benefits appeal tribunals, one of the members is chosen by the Secretary of State, and the other is appointed by him from among representatives of workpeople. That is really where the appeals system lies, both for national insurance and supplementary benefit matters.
The noble Baroness described the functions of the local advisory committee quite correctly. But these functions are no longer giving them enough work to do, and are no longer required, and so we have decided to abolish the committees. It is true that in the early days of the national insurance scheme they were helpful in advising the Department about
652
which outside organisations to consult in building up these panels. The national insurance scheme has now been running for 23 years, and the Department's local office managers are well aware of the representative organisations in their areas, so that the advice of the local advisory committees is no longer needed.
The second function: changes in local office organisation. This was a function which was useful in the early days but again it is not of any practical application now. The third function (and in a way the most important one) was advising the Supplementary Benefits Commission in cases of difficulty. The committees did very good work and on occasion still do; but it is doubtful whether it is worth keeping in being 141 committees, with over 4,000 people serving on them, for this single purpose which it is no longer so essential to have performed by the committees.
The Supplementary Benefits Commission has specialist officers who are experienced in dealing with the problem cases. There are now the new local authority social services departments, many more social workers than there were, and, I am glad to say, increasing contacts between the social services department and the local supplementary benefits commission officers. They are able to sort out many of the problems previously handled by the local advisory committees.
When Mr. Ennals, a predecessor of mine at the Department of Health and Social Security, wrote to all the local advisory committees asking for the views of the chairmen on their future role, there were not enough constructive suggestions to justify any further use of the committees. The main answer that came through referred to considerable frustration. There is a need now to make use of both the human elements in these committees, and the financial elements. I know that £130,000 a year may not be a large sum by some accounts, but it is still money which we would not want to use, except in the best possible way. Nor do I think it right to use the voluntary services of 4,000 willing people in committees if their usefulness is now no longer what it was. I would pay every tribute to those who have served on the committees. I very much hope that

653
they will continue to give voluntary service in other ways, where their services would be very much appreciated. However, in the circumstances I am afraid that I cannot accept the deletion of Clause 9.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I noted in the principal Act that when these bodies were established it was said:
" For the purpose of considering and advising upon such questions as the Minister or Commons may from time to time refer to them ".
It seems a little hard to ask these inexperienced people what they should be doing. I would put it the other way round. If I were a Minister I would refer to a committee of this kind far more matters than they have had to deal with. I still feel that if a National Insurance Advisory Committee can give such good service there is a function for the local advisory committees. We are trying to get people to understand their benefits. At the moment there is a great publicity campaign; millions of leaflets are being sent out, and I feel that this particular committee would have some function in this connection.
In this recent case relevant to supplementary benefit and cohabitation, I noted that the Press statement issued by the Department said that the Commission freely admitted that in a service of 18,000 staff, errors of judgment would sometimes be made. This one accepts' it is perfectly reasonable. That is the very reason why I think we still want the protection of a small committee of this kind which can interview cases. I am not saying that they find the answers; I am saying only that the individuals have the feeling of satisfaction that they have not been merely dealt with by"them "—the professional worker—but by one of their own kind. I make this appeal because I feel that this is a mistake—but I see that I cannot change the Government's point of view.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am very concerned with the question—and there has been a good deal of relevant publicity lately—that a woman who is receiving a benefit will be deprived of it if
654
it can be proved that she has a male friend—I put it as broadly as that. In a congested street, if a woman has frequent visits from a man no doubt there will be gossip. My noble friend has put the point that the local advisory committee could protect her in so far as she would be able to explain the position to them. What protection is a woman going to have now if the noble Lord dissolves the advisory committees? I am very concerned. Perhaps he will tell the Committee how the machinery will operate. Will somebody regularly go round spying on these women? Who will do it, and what appeal will these women have from the decision?
LORD ABERDARE: As the noble Baroness knows, there are different rates of benefit for single people and for married people. It would therefore be quite unfair if two single people who were in fact living together were able to"get away with it ", as it were, and get more benefit than a married couple. This is the fundamental reason why it is necessary for those who work in Social Security offices to keep some sort of check on the people who are getting the benefits, to make sure that they do not cheat the rules. If a person is dissatisfied with the ruling of the local office, then he has a right to go to the appeal tribunal.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I ask the noble Lord this question? I am glad that he has answered in that specific manner. He has said that the position is that there may be two people living together and getting a benefit; or we may say that one person is getting a benefit and the other is working. Does he apply the same test to men? If a man is receiving a benefit while living with a single woman, is the man also deprived of his benefit if it is discovered that they are not married?
LORD ABERDARE: The benefit is the wife's benefit. It is given by virtue of the fact that she is a man's wife. She has not paid the full contribution. It does not apply to the man who has paid his full rate of contribution. But, with due respect to the noble Baroness, we are getting a long way from the local advisory committees which we are supposed to be discussing.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But—
LORD ABERDARE: I should be grateful if I could have the last word on this point; the noble Baroness has had it on all the others—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But the noble Lord has not answered my question. He specifically referred to two single people. I recognise that he is speaking about two single people. I am not speaking just about the wife's benefit; I am speaking about two single people where the guilty party is the man. I am only asking this question: Is he going to send round his inspectors to tell the man that in no circumstances must he live with this woman?
LORD ABERDARE: This has nothing to do with morals.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: Yes, it is morals.
LORD ABERDARE: No; it is a matter of administering the rules. A woman does not pay the same contribution as a man if she opts out, and therefore receives a lesser benefit, and so it is unfair if she gets away with receiving a single person's benefit although she is cohabiting with a man.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: That is morals.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

MINERAL WORKINGS BILL
4.47 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments he now considered.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 150 as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1]
Clause 2, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
" (5) Every order under this section shall be so framed as to secure that the amount which, by virtue of the order, may be deducted from payments under a mining lease or mineral rights order by the lessee or other person concerned in respect of each ton of ironstone extracted under that lease or order is not less than the amount which he was entitled to deduct under section 3(2A) of the Act of 1951 in respect of each ton so extracted in the year ending 31st March 1971."
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The House will remember that the Bill is designed to strengthen the resources of the Ironstone Restoration Fund. To this end, Clause 1 requires the Secretary of State to specify a new rate of contribution payable to the Fund by ironstone operators. These contributions are levied on the tonnage of ironstone extracted. Under the existing law the operators recover half of their contributions from the ironstone royalty owners so that, with certain exceptions, the burden is shared equally. Under Clause 2 the Secretary of State is to specify how much of the contributions at the new rate will be recoverable by the operator from the owner.
As the clause originally stood it would have been theoretically possible for the Secretary of State, having raised the operator's contribution per ton under Clause 1, to lower the existing owner's contribution. This is not the intention. He will be consulting those concerned before he makes any order, and it would not be right to attempt to suggest at this point of time what level of contributions by owners will ultimately be considered to be appropriate. But it would of course certainly not be appropriate to fix the rate at less than the rate which has been applicable since 1951. The clause, as amended by the addition of the new subsection, therefore secures that the rate of contribution payable by an owner in consequence of an order made under the clause cannot be less than the rate which he was liable to pay under the 1951 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 2–4.]
Clause 3, page 3, line 32, at end insert"and "
Clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out"increase in the cost of labour and materials"and insert"change in the cost of labour and materials and of other items relevant to the cost of carrying out any such works as are referred to in section 9(1) of the Act of 1951 "
Clause 3, page 3, line 38, leave out from"enacted)" to end of line 39.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. With the leave of the House I suggest that we consider these Amendments together. The House will recall the explanation given to them on the earlier stages of the significance of the"standard rate ". Under the Mineral Workers Act 1951 operators have been entitled to receive from the fund payments representing the approved cost of mandatory restoration work in so far as it has exceeded the"standard rate"determined by the Minister in 1955. The standard rate was then fixed at £110 per acre and it represented the average cost to operators of complying with the restoration requirements of their leases in 1950.
Clause 3 empowers the Secretary of State to vary the standard rate by order. The new words introduced by Amendment No. 3 require him to take account, not of the"increase"in the cost of labour and materials but of the"change ", thus allowing for the possibility—rather remote, perhaps—that the costs may go down. The other changes in the wording require him to have regard not to the general cost of labour and materials but to the cost of labour and materials relevant to the restoration work. These Amendments, of which Nos. 2 and 4 are consequential upon No. 3, will I hope commend themselves to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMMIGRATION BILL
4.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESIIAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Witidleshain.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF SHANNON in the Chair.]
Clause 6 [Recommendations by court for deportation]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 68A:
Page 7, line 44, leave out (" seven ") and insert (" twenty-eight ").
The noble Lord said: Owing to a misunderstanding regarding which Amendment was before the Committee when we last met I have already delivered my speech on this Amendment, much to the bewilderment of the Minister in charge and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. That spech appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT and therefore I do not think it necessary to repeat it now.
All I wish to say is that the object of this Amendment is to change to 28 days the seven days which are allowed to potential deportees on their appeal, and I am suggesting to the Committee that seven days is an unfair limitation. They are often in custody, there are difficulties in regard to legal discussion and difficulties in connection with solicitors reaching them, it may be by long journeys. I am encouraged by the fact that it is normal for the court of quarter sessions or assizes to grant 28 days for an appeal, and I hope that the Minister will respond to this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The result of the noble Lord's error last week is that I have been able not only to listen to his words but to read them as well, so I come even better prepared than would normally be the case.

659
The effect of the Amendment would be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has pointed out, that 28 days' notice would have to be given instead of seven before a recommendation could be made for deportation. The provision in the Bill is modelled on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, Section 8(1) of which provides that no recommendation for the deportation of a Commonwealth or Irish citizen is to be made unless he has been given seven days' notice of the relevant statutory provision about eligibility for deportation. There is no corresponding provision in the existing law with regard to aliens, and the Bill seeks to extend the existing law to citizens by giving them the same period of notice as Commonwealth citizens previously had.
The existing provision of the 1962 Act has worked satisfactorily so far as the Home Office is aware. Generally, courts do not serve the notice of eligibility for deportation until conviction, and thereafter the convicted person remains in custody until the court decides whether to recommend deportation. At the present time the period spent in custody is seven days, but if the Amendment were accepted it would be 28 days. This would mean in practice that most people would, after conviction, be kept in detention unnecessarily for up to an extra 21 days. We have had time to look at the implications of this Amendment and we believe that, despite the good intentions of the noble Lord, in practice the Amendment would not operate to the advantage of those whom it is intended to help.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, maintained that seven days might be too short a period for a person to decide whether he would contest the allegation that he is eligible for deportation, but I would point out to the noble Lord that it is open to any person who is in that position to apply for a further adjournment if he finds it necessary, and I am advised that it would be most unlikely that the court would refuse any reasonable request of this nature. I understand the motives of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, but I think the implications in practice point towards leaving the period where it is at seven days rather than at 28 days.
LORD SHEPHERD: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, even
660
now appreciates that this Bill brings in quite a different category of person than does the 1962 Act. I can recognise the difficulties of my noble friend's Amendment in the case of a person remaining in custody for this extra period of 21 days. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would consider the fact that we may find a fairly large number of Commonwealth citizens who have come to this country and have remained here for many years, and for reasons which perhaps we may dispute but they may feel are sufficiently strong, they have not taken out registration. In other words, it may well be that a Commonwealth immigrant could be in this country for some 10, 15 or even 20 years and suddenly he commits an offence and subsequently finds himself liable for deportation. I can see that if time was given he might be able to provide grounds which would mean that the deportation order would not be made against him. I see in a later Amendment to this clause the noble Lord is extending the period. If the noble Lord opposite cannot go to 28 days, I wonder whether he would consider 14 days? I think this would remove some of the difficulties and would perhaps meet the case put forward by my noble friend.
5.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I should be glad if the noble Lord would look at the Amendment again, or at my noble friend Lord Shepherd's suggestion for a shorter period. As the noble Lord is aware, and certainly from my experience I am aware, most people subject to deportation orders are in custody, and although it is a relevant and important point that if the Amendment were accepted they would be in custody for an additional 21 days, I think the important thing is that they are unlikely to know of, or be in a position to exercise, all their rights. Seven days is a very short time, in fact only time to write one letter from the prison and get a reply. I know that the clause provides that certain information shall be given to them, but I think they should have more than seven days. Although the noble Lord gave a very careful reply, he really did not deal with this one issue. If they are going to be deported they are not going to be released from prison, so they are not going to get away with it.

661
I also have it in mind that many of these cases will concern the whole family. Not only is it the man against whom the deportation order is made, but all the members of his family. I think this is far too serious a question to be dismissed lightly. We should be quite sure that any Commonwealth citizen who is considered to have transgressed in such a way that he is liable to deportation should at least have 28 days in which to prepare his appeal. I hope the noble Lord will think again.
LORD JANNER: May I add one further word? There was a time when notice of appeal in respect of any criminal matter in which a conviction had taken place was as short as seven days. The policy in these matters has been to extend the time, and it has been extended so as to enable a person to take proper legal advice and to consider the position in all its aspects. I wonder whether, in circumstances where not only the person against whom the order is made but the whole family is involved, on second thoughts the period of seven days will not be considered to be unreasonable? I should say 21 days at least, so as to give the man a proper chance of taking such advice as he needs and also considering the position.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I appreciate what has been said. I have looked into this question, and I am confident that nobody in the position that noble Lords are concerned about will be left without sufficient time to obtain proper advice. We must remember, first of all, that a convicted person will not be starting from scratch as regards obtaining legal advice. He will have just been through a trial, or at any rate the submission of a plea of guilty if that is the case, and almost invariably he will have been legally represented. His solicitor or counsel will have been present at the time of his conviction and will be able to get in touch with him straight away. I should like to re-emphasise the point—it is a considered one—that I am advised that no court would refuse a request for a further adjournment to give a convicted person more time if the allegation that he was eligible for deportation raised any question of difficulty at all.
I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the point he raised, as to
662
whether I appreciated the category of person we were dealing with. The sort of person he referred to as being resident here—he mentioned 10 years or 20 years—will be exempt from deportation. He will not be subject to deportation proceedings if he has been ordinarily resident here for five years by July of this year. That is in Clause 7 of the Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord surely appreciates that we are legislating for the future, not only for those already here. Somebody who has been here at the moment for only three years might very easily be liable.
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, he would not be. The person who has been here three years, as noble Lords will find when we come to the relevant provision will become exempt when his further two years are up. Anyone here before the end of July becomes exempt when the period of five years is completed. I do not think there is a great deal between the two sides of the Committee on this matter. I really do feel that the people who need legal representation will be able to obtain it; and the court will make sure that they are able to do so by granting an additional adjournment if they think it is needed. The fact that there will invariably be a solicitor acting in the case is also relevant.
We must carefully take into account the fact that the individual, if the Amendment were accepted, would be likely to spend a longer time remanded in custody than otherwise. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham has practical experience, as I have, of this. I have known of cases—not very frequently, but there have been examples—where after protracted representations the individual himself asks to leave; he says,"For goodness sake, please let me go. I have been held in detention long enough while representations are considered ". We need to safeguard the interests of the individual concerned.
LORD SHEPHERD: I only wish to intervene a second time for this reason. First of all, we are legislating for the future. The noble Lord himself said we regard this Bill as permanent legislation. It may be, as the noble Lord said, that a person who is in custody may say,"I have had enough. Please let me go: I

663
will go willingly ". But if this person is deported it affects the family; the wife and children will be deported as a direct consequence of his own deportation. So there is quite a serious matter here.
LORD STONHAM: I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me over a particular case? He mentioned that if a citizen had been here five years the Act would not bite. I received a letter only this afternoon from an Irishman in Dartmoor Prison. It started off by saying:
" I am serving a five year sentence and am liable to be deported at the end of it ".
What advice can one give? The prison sentence will not count towards his five year residence; at least, that is what I assume. My experience is that people in this situation usually have quite a bit of time to serve in prison before the recommendation made by the court in sentencing them has to be considered. So the argument"Please let me go"does not have much effect in cases of that kind. That is a typical case, one of the kind that has prompted me to take part in this discussion. What do we do with chaps like that?
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is very difficult to give immediate advice on an individual case across the Floor of the House, and I would not wish to do so. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said. The question of the amount of time the person is likely to spend in custody is a critical one. We have considered this point, and really do not think that the Amendment would operate to the advantage of those who are recommended for deportation.
LORD BROCKWAY: I agree with the Minister that there are cases where persons in detention are actually asking that their period of detention shall end earlier, because of their desire to get out of that situation. I am aware of that. There are just two points I should like to make. The first concerns the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. This will arise on Clause 7. If I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I have Amendments to Clause 7 which will be dealing with the point that he has raised on this clause. Secondly, I very much hope that the Minister, having listened to the influential
664
advice which has been given during this debate, may look at the matter again before we reach the Report stage; and I will consult with other more experienced persons than myself before the Report stage. Immediately, I would ask permission to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 68B:
Page 8, line 17, after (" deportation ") insert (" provided that no court shall make any such determination in the absence of evidence given by a qualified medical practitioner ").
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 68B. The purpose of this Amendment is that when there are questions about the age of a person who wishes to enter this country and who may be subject to deportation, the evidence of a qualified medical practitioner should be taken. At the present time decisions are often reached without any such consultation. Even in the higher courts decisions are reached without direct medical evidence. These persons often have no evidence of their age in the way of registration; no registration in the territories from which they come has been made. Often they are not honest in the replies which they make to many questions, and their credibility is doubted. In my experience, when credibility has been doubted on other answers that doubt has very often extended to their declaration of age. I strongly suggest that before decisions upon age are reached, some medical evidence should be required. That is the whole point of the Amendment, and I hope the Minister will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The existing law about the deportation of Commonwealth citizens on conviction of an offence provides, in Section 7(1) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. that the age of 17 is to be the minimum age for deportation. I should point out that the Home Office has no record of any case in which the determination of the age of the offender has caused the court difficulty, or in which it has been subsequently alleged that a person under 17 has been deported. Moreover, while medical evidence as to age is a reasonably accurate indication in relation to young people, it is not sufficiently

665
accurate to determine age with the precision, in terms of days or weeks, that would be needed in this context. A court would not be able to act on medical evidence with any assurance, and it is likely that any doubtful case would be settled by such evidence as a birth certificate, or evidence of relatives as to date of birth. In fact, careful enquiries are invariably made to establish a person's age before serving notice of eligibility for deportation. I might add, for the information of the Committee, that deportation of anyone under the age of 18 is exceedingly rare. I can also confirm that the Secretary of State is at all limes prepared to consider representations after a court has made a recommendation and before a deportation order is made, and that he would certainly wish to examine any suggestion that the offender was below the minimum age.
LORD BROCKWAY: I have listened to the Minister. I will not pretend that I am satisfied, but I appreciate the position, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.17 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 8, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 69. Clause 6(3), which we are seeking to delete. It says: cerned with the interpretation of Clause 3(6). Perhaps at this stage I might apologise to the Minister, and indeed to the Committee, for the fact that I was not able to be present on the last occasion when that clause was being discussed, because I should have liked to say something about it. May I remind the Committee of what Clause 3(6) says:
" Without prejudice to the operation of subsection (5) above, a person who is not patrial shall also be liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if, after he has attained the age of seventeen, he is convicted of an offence for which he is punishable with imprisonment and on his conviction is recommended for deportation by a court empowered by this Act to do so."
Then we come to this subsection (3)(b), which we are seeking to amend, is con
" For the purposes of section 3(6) above—
666
(b) the question whether an offence is one for which a person is punishable with imprisonment shall be determined without regard to any enactment restricting the imprisonment of young offenders or first offenders; "
The question I want to ask is whether that is really right. If the law says that in certain cases, because of the youth of the offender or because it is a first offender, the court should be precluded from being able to impose a penalty of imprisonment upon that person, is it right that you should leave with the court the power of recommending that that person should be deported?
There must be cases, indeed there must be many cases, where the penalty of deportation is a much more severe penalty than any imprisonment that the court might be able, in the ordinary way, to impose. It seems to me to be odd and anomalous that you should say to the court,"No, you cannot send this person to prison because he is too young"or,"because it is a first offence ", but that the court should nevertheless be able to say that they recommend this person for deportation.
I am concerned about the whole question of whether it is right for courts, and especially perhaps for magistrates' courts, to have the power to recommend deportation at all. It does not seem to me that a court of law is well contrived or well equipped to decide questions of deportation. After all, a court is concerned with two things. Firstly, whether it is proved that a particular person has committed a certain offence. Secondly, if it records a conviction, the court has to decide what penalty is appropriate. But the courts—and, I suggest, particularly the magistrates' courts—have very little opportunity of going into all the matters involved when the question of deportation is being considered. They are very ill-equipped and there is a danger—I should have thought a grave danger, because no direction is given as to the sort of principles to be followed—of a considerable variation of practice between one court and another.
I realise that these are general objections to courts having the power to recommend deportation. But if we are going to leave courts the power to recommend deportation, would it not be sensible to circumscribe that power and say: you can recommend deportation if

667
you think fit, but not in a case where you have no power to send the person to prison? It seems to me that this would be a sensible and logical way of avoiding some of the injustices which may occur while a court has this power. I recognise at once that the Home Office is not obliged to act upon the recommendation of a court. But I suggest that if the court—possibly wrongly—does recommend deportation, it will be more difficult for the Home Office to overrule or disregard the recommendation, than in a case where a court makes no recommendation at all. I have no doubt that the Home Secretary is always reluctant to disregard a recommendation by a court, and this would, to some extent at any rate, relieve him of that embarrassment.
Finally, nobody need worry if the power to recommend deportation in cases of this kind is taken away from the courts. There is always the residual power in the Home Secretary, whether a person is recommended for deportation by a court or not, under Clause 3(5)(b)—that is, not conducive to the public good. There is always the residual power in the Home Secretary to say,"Even though the court has made no recommendation I, in my wisdom, am going to make a deportation order ". Therefore nothing is lost by way of control. But what is gained by this Amendment is that we bring the law into a state of common sense and logicality; we simply take away from the courts the power to recommend deportation in this limited class of case. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I support the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has moved. The cases with which we are dealing are cases which, either because it is a first offence or because of the age of the offender, are not punishable with imprisonment. In principle, it seems to be loading the dice too much against immigrants to insert this special provision, the effect of which is to allow an offence not punishable with imprisonment to be treated as if it were. That requires a great deal of justification. For this reason and the others which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has given, I hope the Government will regard the Amendment favourably.
5.25 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I shall certainly try to put the case for the Bill as it stands, despite the fact that I am no lawyer and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has supported the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. The effect of paragraph (b) as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, correctly described it, is that a court is allowed to recommend deportation in the case of first offenders and young offenders, despite the fact that under other legislation it cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment on them except in special circumstances. I agree that, at first sight, it seems rather odd; indeed, the noble and learned Lord made reference to this matter last Thursday. But this is very far from the purpose of the clause, as I shall seek to show. The purpose is to give greater latitude to the courts, and to allow them to recommend deportation without having to impose an inappropriate penalty.
If I may deal with first offenders: the First Offenders Act 1958 provides that a first offender shall not be sentenced to imprisonment by a magistrates' court unless the court is of the opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate. This might preclude the court from recommending deportation. Yet, particularly in the case of a person who has committed an offence against immigration control—for example, art illegal immigrant or a person who has overstayed his authorised leave—it surely would be right that the court should recommend deportation, without necessarily imposing a penalty. It would, I suggest, be ludicrous if illegal immigrants had to be fined or, in certain circumstances, imprisoned for a first offence, rather than that the court should be able to recommend that they should be sent back to their country of origin. That would be the effect if we removed paragraph (b). The court would no longer have the latitude to deal with the case of a first offender who was an illegal immigrant, and would not be able to recommend his deportation.
In the case of all young offenders, the same sort of practical considerations apply. Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 provides that no court shall impose imprisonment on a person under 21, unless it is of the opinion that no

669
other method of dealing with him is appropriate. Clause 3(6) of this Bill precludes a court from recommending the deportation of any offender who at the time of conviction is under the age of 17. So what we are dealing with here is the liability to deportation of those aged 17 to 21.
The effect of removing paragraph (b) would be that, broadly speaking, a court would be unable to recommend an offender under the age of 21 for deportation, unless satisfied that the only appropriate means of dealing with him was to pass a sentence of imprisonment. A recommendation could be made only in conjunction with such a sentence. It would preclude the court from making a recommendation in a case where imprisonment was not called for, but where deportation was the best course in the public interest, or in the offender's own interest, or in both.
In deciding whether to recommend the deportation of an offender aged 17 or over, a court will naturally take very full account of his age as well as his other circumstances, and will make such a recommendation only when it feels that it is in the best interests of the person concerned. In cases of evasion of immigration control, or possibly in cases where a person aged between 17 and 21—perhaps a visitor—has committed certain minor offences, it may well be in his best interests that he should be absolutely or conditionally discharged and a recommendation made for deportation.
The point was also made by my noble friend Lord Windlesham on the last Amendment that, in the final event, the Secretary of State will give the very closest consideration to a recommedation before confirming it. But I know that my right honourable friend feels that it helps him in his final decision to have a recommendation from the court. This is the reason for this paragraph (b). It is to give sufficient latitude to the court to be able to recommend deportation, without the necessity of imposing a penalty which in the particular circumstances might not be suitable. In conclusion, perhaps I may point out that these provisions are exactly the same in their effect as those in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. There is nothing
670
new in them, and they do give the courts the flexibility they need when dealing with the practical problems that arise.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I am filled with confusion here, though I am quite ready to be put right, and to be put right quickly. Under Clause 3(5) a person who is not patrial is liable to deportation for three different reasons, which are laid down. It is not necessary so far as I know that he shall have been sentenced before the Home Secretary is able to exercise this right. What we are talking about is not these three basic reasons but the case where a man has settled here all right and then commits offences and gets into trouble with the law. Therefore, to say"if he was an illegal entrant ", as the noble Lord did, seems to me to have absolutely nothing to do with it at all. It may well be that I have misunderstood, but I should like to be put right.
LORD ABERDARE: This applies to any person who is not patrial. It may be a visitor to this country who misbehaves. I mentioned minor offences. It may be, say, shoplifting. If such a person is brought before a court for an offence which is punishable by imprisonment, the court may then recommend his deportation. What this clause says is that although under other Acts he may not he sentenced to imprisonment except in special circumstances, he can still be recommended for deportation.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: What confused me was that the noble Lord said that one of the offences he might have committed was to be an illegal entrant. If he is that, he is liable under Clause 3(5). He does not have to be sent to prison first, surely. However, it may be that it is only a small point.
LORD FOOT: I am not sure that it is a small point; I think it is a point of some substance. May I deal first with the case of a person who commits some breach of the immigration laws themselves? As I understood the noble Lord, what he was saying was that in a case of that kind it may be appropriate to deport the person but inappropriate to impose any penalty upon him. I acknowledge that there is some virtue and some sense in that. If a person

671
is brought up on a charge of having committed some breach of the immigration rules themselves—having broken the conditions on which he is staying here, or something of that kind; or, indeed, having come into the country illegally—I think it may be perfectly proper to retain the right of the court to recommend him for deportation. But that point could be met by deleting this paragraph, as I am suggesting, and then putting something else in its place which would enable the courts to retain the power to recommend deportation when they are dealing with an offence against the immigration laws themselves. That is a matter, surely, of drafting, and something which can perfectly easily be dealt with.
But when we turn to the question of the young offender, I am afraid that I do not follow the noble Lord's argument at all, because what I understood him to be saying was this. Supposing a young offender is brought up on some criminal charge and the court considering what to do with him is deprived of the power to recommend him for deportation, it will be obliged, as I understood the noble Lord to say, to impose some penalty of imprisonment upon him as being the only course that was open to them. But surely that is not so. I had a case professionally only last week in which a German girl was charged with shoplifting. She was brought up before the court; she was found guilty and was fined £3 and recommended for deportation. You can perfectly well fine an offender; you have not got to send him to prison. If he comes up charged with an offence of stealing or something like that, you can impose upon the young offender a fine and, having done so, you are not under any obligation to recommend him for deportation. I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, and if I have done so it is my obtuseness. But as I understand the argument there seems to be no difficulty whatever in dealing with young offenders just as we deal with them to-day if you take away from the courts the powers to recommend deportation where they have no right to send them to prison.
LORD ABERDARE: This is an extremely complicated matter, but as I understand the position and the noble Lord has mentioned the particular case
672
of a young offender—there is no power under which that young offender can be sent to prison. That is common ground between us. It is only in the case of an offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment that a court can recommend deportation. Now there might be a case different from that which the noble Lord cited. It might be the case, say, of an Irish boy of 18 who commits an offence such as I mentioned—shoplifting, theft, or some such criminal offence. The court might feel that it was not appropriate to inflict a fine on him, let alone send him to prison. In a case like that, what we want the court to be able to do is to recommend that he should be deported; to be able to give him an absolute discharge with a recommendation for deportation. This clause is the way in which that is achieved.
LORD FOOT: I do not know whether it is within the rules of the Committee for me to speak again.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes.
LORD FOOT: I do not think that this difficulty exists at all. Take the case of the young Irishman who commits some criminal offence like shoplifting. What are the options open to the court? It can do anything. It can give him a conditional discharge; it can impose a fine; or, if it is satisfied that there is no other proper course open, it can even send him to prison. It can do any of those things. But where a court considers that the offence is worthy of a conditional discharge, or of a minimal fine of £3 or £5, or something of that kind, should it be within the power of that court, which takes such a small view of the matter, to be able to recommend the appalling penalty, as it may be, of deportation? Even if it is not able to do so, it is still open to the Home Secretary, when the case is reported to him, to consider the whole thing on its merits, and if he is satisfied the person should be deported, then he can make the appropriate order. Therefore I do not really see what the noble Lord's difficulty is. It may be my obtuseness, but at the present moment I am not satisfied that what we are trying to achieve could not be achieved if the Government were prepared to reconsider this matter and possibly introduce some Amendment of their own at the next stage.
BARONESS WHITE: May I say one word on this matter? I think we are all in agreement that where there is a breach of the immigration law deportation may be a perfectly appropriate way of dealing with a young offender, or even more with a first offender. That would be perfectly logical. But, putting that on one side, when this point was debated in another place the Secretary of State made great play with the position of a young Irishman who might get into trouble here and who might do better at home. I think we should put that out of our minds, because deportation for an Irishman would be neither here nor there, for he could get on the next boat, and return here without let or hindrance. If, on the other hand, the person concerned was someone from a far more distant place in the Commonwealth, this could be a much graver matter. That, rather than the position of the Irish, is what we should be concerned about in this possible treatment of a first offender or a young offender. I do not think one can be happy about the very careful explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, although we are most grateful for it. Speaking for myself, I am afraid that I did not find it entirely convincing.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I hope I may be forgiven for intervening, but are not the Government here introducing the question of transportation, not deportation? This is making transportation a form of punishment. In many cases the sending of a Pakistani back to Dacca would be a greater penalty than anything a magistrate might impose on him.
LORD ABERDARE: I think the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, are not at all relevant, in view of the fact that we are here repeating the provisions which exist in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady White: we are at one so far as breaches of the rules of entry are concerned. As regards the other cases, all I can say is that we think it better to leave these matters to the discretion of the court. The person concerned may not come From Ireland; he may come from France, which, after all, is not very far away. There may be instances where it is more suitable, and in the best interest of the young offender of whom we are thinking, that he should be
674
sent home. I understand that a young person is not normally deported but is given an opportunity of an assisted departure, so that no stigma is involved. It is to help the offender and to deal with him in the best possible way that we need the latitude which this subsection gives us. If I may, I will certainly discuss the matter again with my right honourable friend in the light of what has been said, but noble Lords will have read the proceedings in another place and will know that there are difficulties over this very complicated matter.
LORD GARDINER: The Minister has repeated what we were told on the last Amendment, that the justification for this must be right because it is in the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. To save repetition in discussion of future Amendments may I respectfully say that I do not accept that as an argument. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who said two years ago that we established one of the less liberal and one of the most arbitrary systems of immigration law in the world, in the civilised world at any rate. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, may himself not strongly disagree with that. In some respects, of course, we are improving this Bill and making it more liberal; but concerning Commonwealth citizens we are making it less liberal because we are downgrading them to the level of aliens. The fact that this has been part of our immigration law for a very long time is not a very strong argument, in view of the fact that we had one of the most arbitrary and illiberal immigration laws compared with the laws of any other country. I have not yet understood why it is so desperately important that so many of these recommendations for deportation should be capable of being made by magistrates' courts, having regard to the fact that the Home Secretary has the power in his own hands. May not something be said for the view that consistency is more likely to be achieved by the Home Secretary than by a thousand magistrates' courts all over the country?
5.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 69) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 89.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amherst, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Amulree, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Annan, L.

Hall, V.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Serota, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Hunt, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hylton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Stonham, L.

Burgh, L.

Janner, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Byers, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wade, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lindgren, L.

White, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Willis, L.

Diamond, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moyle, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Norwich, V.

Foot, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Masserrene and Ferrard, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monck, L.

Amory, V.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Oakshott, L.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gage, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barnby, L.

Garner, L.

St. Helens, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Savile, L.

Blackford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Bradford, E.

Hacking, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brecon, L.

Hailes, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strang, L.

Cawley, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Strange, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hastings, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Hatherton, L.

Swinton, E.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Teviot, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hives, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Ilford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Croft, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Loudoun, C.

Windlesham, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.53 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It might be convenient to your Lordships if I say that it has been agreed between the usual channels that it might he convenient for the Committee to continue on Monday with the consideration of the Bill. It might not be at an early hour, because there are other proceedings on the Education (Milk) Bill, but I think that this might be convenient to all noble Lords.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for informing the Commit-
676
tee that we shall be meeting on Monday, and we readily agree to this suggestion. However, I am bound to say that it seems to me strange that an important Bill of this nature, affecting the future of many of our people, should be treated in this haphazard way. We are now in the fourth day. I thought we were to start early—but we did not start until ten minutes to five—and were to go on until 8.30 p.m. The noble Lord now tells us that we will perhaps have another late start on Monday. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can help us, but I feel that a word of protest at the

677
way the Bill is going through the House is justified. In view of the announcement of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, certainly we shall meet on Monday and I hope that it will not be too late before we start the Committee stage.
LORD WADE: Is it possible for the noble Lord to give any indication of how late the House will sit on Monday and similarly what the position will be, so far as it is possible to forecast it, on Tuesday?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think this shows that Statements about business should be made by the Government Chief Whip and not by the Minister in charge. If your Lordships would like further details about this, perhaps the Opposition Chief Whip and my noble friend the Government Chief Whip would like to have a further word and advise the Committee accordingly.
LORD BESWICK: I think it is only fair to say that the proposal that we should meet on Monday was made from this side, but the noble Lord's colleagues agreed to it.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 9, line 6, leave out (" fourteen ") and insert (" twenty-eight ").
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(6) provides that a deportation order shall not be made on the recommendation of a court so long as an appeal is pending and that for this purpose an appeal shall be treated as pending until the expiration of the time for bringing it, or, in Scotland, until the expiration of 14 days from the recommendation of the court. The need for the reference to 14 days in Scotland is because one form of appeal in Scotland, by way of bill of suspension, is not subject to a time limit. The point was raised in another place and it was suggested that some longer time limit was desirable, and on Report my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate undertook to consider altering the limit to 28 days. This Amendment is introduced as a result of this further consideration. I beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exemption from deportation for certain existing residents]:
5.58 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 70A:
Page 9, line 11, leave nut from (" section ") to (" was ") in line 13 and insert (" any person who on the 31st of July 1971 ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 70A and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I take with it Nos. 70B, C and D. It will not be obvious from the Marshalled List of Amendments what is the aim of this series of Amendments. Therefore, it may be to the advantage of the Committee if I explain their general purpose. The first purpose is not to suggest an advantage to Commonwealth citizens but, perhaps rather strangely, to suggest an advantage to those who are not Commonwealth citizens but who nevertheless are immigrants. The object is to extend to all residents from Saturday next (I am interested in that date in the Bill; it suggests that it was thought that the Bill would have passed much earlier than it is likely to do) and not merely to Commonwealth citizens the provisions for exemption from deportation. A stated object of the Bill is to provide uniform treatment for Commonwealth citizens and aliens. If so. I would urge that aliens should have the same privileges as Commonwealth citizens as regards exemption from deportation. That is the first effect of this series of Amendments.
The second effect of these Amendments would be to delete the requirement that an individual who has qualified for exemption should remain in this country without interruption, if he is to retain that privilege. This point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on the previous Amendment, because it is true that this difficulty would be overcome if the individual applied for British nationality after five years. But I regret that many Commonwealth citizens to-day are reluctant to take British nationality, and one of the influences in that direction is the series of Immigration Bills which has been introduced.
I am interested in the fact that this requirement was not in the Bill as it was introduced into the other place. It has only been introduced into the Bill as presented to your Lordships' House, and

679
events which have taken place in this Committee since its introduction make it quite inconsistent. In this Committee we carried in Clause 1 an Amendment which insisted that Commonwealth citizens here should retain their status. If Clause 7, as printed in the Bill, is carried without the Amendments which I propose, then the Amendment which we carried to Clause 1 becomes inconsistent with the rest of the Bill, because the status of Commonwealth citizens will be changed. I beg to move.
6.2 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: What Clause 7 does is to exempt certain residents from deportation. Under subsection (1) of Clause 7 Commonwealth and Irish citizens who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the end of July, 1970. are not liable to deportation on conducive grounds if there has been no break in their ordinary residence here since then; nor are they liable to deportation for overstaying, or for breach of conditions, or as members of the family of a person ordered to be deported, or on conviction of a criminal offence, if they have been for the last five years ordinarily resident and there has been no break in their ordinary residence here since the end of July, 1971. This was introduced as a safeguard to the position of Commonwealth citizens established in this country and I mentioned it in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he spoke on the first Amendment. The lawfully settled Commonwealth immigrant in this country who has been here for five years, or who settled here before the end of July, becomes exempt from deportation proceedings when his five-year period is up. That in general, is the current picture.
As the noble Lord may know, in the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act there was a cut-off point; Commonwealth citizen became subject to control for the first time, and consequently they became subject also to deportation for the first time. The reason was that you cannot really have a restriction on people coming into the country when there is no way of enforcing their departure if they evade the controls. But exemption was provided for somebody who had been established lawfully in this country for five years. This subsection is intended as a safeguard, and I do not think the argument
680
that it is inconsistent with Lord Wade's Amendment is one that I would necessarily uphold. We are studying the significance of Lord Wade's Amendment at the beginning of the Bill. We are not absolutely certain as to its effect on the detailed provisions of the Bill. What we want to do is to study both the general principle and the detail of the Bill in the course of the Recess, and perhaps to discuss some of the implications with the noble Lord.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway for speaking to these four Amendments. I think they are linked. I was proposing to reply to all four together, and it may shorten our proceedings if I do so. The first Amendment, No. 70A, seeks to extend to aliens the exemption from deportation conferred by the clause on Commonwealth citizens. Amendment No. 70B seeks to provide that all aliens and Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident at the end of July, 1971, shall be exempt from deportation on conducive grounds, notwithstanding that their ordinary residence may not have been continuous since the end of July, 1971. The third and fourth Amendments, Nos. 70C and 70D, seek to provide that aliens and Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident at the end of July, 1971, shall not be liable to deportation for overstaying, or for breach of conditions, or as members of a family, or on conviction by a court, if at the relevant time they have for the last five years been ordinarily resident here, notwithstanding that their residence has not been continuous since the end of July, 1971. As to continuity of ordinary residence, it may be helpful to explain that a person who goes temporarily overseas, intending to return to a home which he continues to maintain in this country, does not cease to be ordinarily resident. So absence on holiday or on business trips does not break the continuity of ordinary residence for this purpose.
I hope that I can be helpful to the noble Lord on the last two of his series of four Amendments, but on the first, No. 70A, I am afraid that we cannot see a case for extending to aliens the safeguards contained in the provisions of Clause 7. Indeed, the word"safeguard"is inappropriate in their case, for a reason that I will give in a moment, whereas in the case of the Commonwealth

681
citizen, I think it is an appropriate word to use. It does not seem to us that there is any logic in saying that aliens who are ordinarily resident here at the end of July this year shall be exempt from deportation on conducive grounds. They are already liable to deportation on this and on other grounds, no matter how long their residence, and they will have no exemption in the future. They have not been exempt in the past, and they will not be in the future. So the question of residence hardly seems to arise; for there is in effect no change in the present position. It would be a quite arbitrary act suddenly to say to one small group of people who happen to be in this country on a particular day that they are in a different situation from any other immigrant who had been here in the past and gone away again, or might come here in the future.
Similarly, on Amendment No. 70B, we are not convinced that there is a case for providing that persons without the right of abode who were ordinarily resident from the end of July, 1971, shall never—I stress the word"never"thereafter be liable to deportation on conducive grounds, no matter how long they have been away from the United Kingdom and ordinarily resident elsewhere. The Amendment would, for example, exempt from deportation an alien or a Commonwealth citizen who was ordinarily resident here at the end of July, who then went away, let us say, for a period of ten or twenty years, and who on return was deemed by the Secretary of State to be a suitable case for deportation on conducive grounds. This would mean that account could not have been taken of whatever had happened to that man in the intervening twenty years. He may have been engaged in all sorts of unsatisfactory international activities, but none the less it would not be possible to deport him again on grounds of his exemption by previous residence.
I move on now to Amendments 70C and 70D, the last two of this series. These Amendments provide that aliens or Commonwealth citizens who were ordinarily resident at the end of July, 1971, should not be liable to deportation for overstaying or for breach of conditions, or as members of families, or on conviction by a court, provided that they have had five
682
years' ordinary residence, notwithstanding that this had not been continuous since the end of July, 1971. So far as aliens are concerned. I have explained that we do not see merit in the proposal, since they have never previously been exempt from deportation on grounds of residence, nor will they be under the Bill. But as regards the Commonwealth and Irish citizen, since five years' continuous ordinary residence has conferred exemption in the past, we are inclined to think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has put his finger on a good point here. He will not be surprised to hear that we think the Amendments are defective in their drafting, in that, apart from anything else, they would not require the ordinary residence to be continuous. But, subject to this, we see sonic merit in what he has proposed. He will appreciate that I only saw these Amendments this morning.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, I appreciate that.
LORD WINDLESHAM: They were on the Marshalled List for the first time today, and therefore there has not been the opportunity to study them quite as closely as I should have liked. But I can give him an undertaking that if he feels inclined to withdraw these—I do this, not for tactical reasons but on their merits—we should like to study them further. I am afraid I am not with him on extending it to aliens, but as far as Commonwealth citizens are concerned we should like to study his proposal and see whether it is possible to make a change upon the lines he proposes.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I have listened to the debate with great interest. I am not wholly happy about what my noble friend has said, principally because I remember a number of cases where a Commonwealth citizen has been convicted in the courts and the judge or magistrate has expressed regret that he was not able to recommend him for deportation since he had been in this country for over five years, although he had certainly not succeeded in showing himself to be a good citizen of this country during that time. I know that these arguments are nicely balanced, but I hope my noble friend will bear in mind that there is another side to this matter as well as

683
that which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway has so forcefully put.
LORD BROCKWAY: I rather surprisingly appreciate what the Minister has said in response to these Amendments. In view of the fact that he has indicated that there will be further consideration of the last two, with some acceptance of the principle behind them, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Exceptions for seamen aircrews and other special cases]:
6.13 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 10, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to Clause 8. May I just read out the first subsection:
" (1) Where a person arrives at a place in the United Kingdom as a member of the crew of a ship or aircraft under an engagement requiring him to leave on that ship as a member of the crew, or to leave within seven days on that or another aircraft as a member of its crew then unless…"
Then certain conditions are set out. One of them, which removes from him the right to enter without leave, is if he has at any time been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and has not since then been given leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom. Here I should like to ask a question, because I am concerned about the weight of the words"at any time ". Suppose a seaman comes here on a ship and is obliged to leave on that ship when its time is up, and suppose that some 10 or 15 years ago he had been refused leave to enter, perhaps on some purely technical grounds—his documents were not in order or something of that kind—is it really necessary that that sort of person should require leave to enter in such circumstances? I am merely asking the question. I realise that it is a very small point, but it does not seem to me to matter much whether a person has at some previous date been refused admission to come in, when you are considering the case of seamen or the crew of an aircraft. I merely want to ask the Minister whether he thinks those words
684
" at any time"are not too weighty and do not carry the matter too far.
LORD DENHAM: There might well be occasions, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, says, when this particular provision, by having effect after a long period of time, might seem a little ridiculous. But the subsection itself is important, because if anybody has been refused entry to this country it is a reasonable presumption that it would be a good idea to look into the reasons for that refusal and see whether they still apply at the time when he applies to come in again. As the noble Lord will realise, once the person has come in again he does not have to seek fresh permission every single time subsequently. Once he has been allowed to come in after this special examination he is then clear of this particular subsection. All he has to do is to apply to the Customs officer or the immigration officer and put his case. In the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, talked about I think this would be purely a formality.
LORD FOOT: May I ask one further question? If a person is refused leave to enter at any time, is a sort of black list kept? When, for instance, a seaman comes in on a ship, is he required to state whether he has ever been refused permission to enter this country? Do people ever look to see whether his name appears on a black list? Perhaps the noble Lord could tell me what happens.
LORD DENHAM: I am not absolutely clear as to how large and how thorough a black list is kept, but of course a list of the members of a crew would be handed in to the immigration authorities, and this would be checked through. It might well be that someone would be missed, but it would be up to the officers of the ship or the aircraft, or whatever it is, to make clear to the crew members that this provision existed and that anyone who had been refused entry would have to be re-examined. I imagine it would be possible for somebody to be missed who should have applied again, but I think that on most occasions the procedure will work all right.
LORD FOOT: With the leave of the House, I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 71D:
Page 10, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, the purpose of which is to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 8. I regard this subsection as so dangerous and as going so far beyond the ordinary scope of the Bill that I hope the Committee will give very serious consideration of the Amendment. I will read the terms of the subsection because I think they are of such a character that they will almost themselves convince the Committee that this clause seeks to give the Secretary of State powers which ought not to be admitted—
" The Secretary of State may by order exempt any person or class of persons, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the order, from all or any of the provisions of this Act relating to those who are not patrial.
An order under this subsection, if made with respect to a class of persons, shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
What is the effect of the subsection? It is to give the Secretary of State this quite extraordinary power to control whole groups of people who are not specified in the Bill at all, and to give the Secretary of State the power to do this by Statutory Instrument subject only to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament. I want to suggest very strongly indeed that it is in principle wrong that fundamental Amendments to the immigration laws should be made by the order of the Secretary of State in this way without the necessity of passing any further Act of Parliament. I take as an illustration the Act of 1968 in which many of your Lordships were deeply interested. That is an Act which, for the first time, denied to British citizens holding British passports the right to enter this country, and this House recognised that a very deep principle was at stake when that Bill came before it. Because that principle was at stake there was a debate and a division representing every group in this House.
If this subsection had been the law at that time there would have been no necessity whatsoever for the Government to bring before this House the Bill of 1968. It would have been possible for
686
the Secretary of State to employ these extraordinary powers by which, under this section, any person or class of persons can become involved. I want to urge on the Committee that this is a power which we should not give to the Secretary of State, the more particularly when it can only be conditioned by the negative procedure of annulment and not by the positive procedure which we believe should be contained in the Bill.
One cannot foresee the future, but as one looks at the Commonwealth and at the political changes that are taking place within it, can members of this Committee really say that a situation may not arise of equal importance to the Asians of British citizenship in East Africa, and yet the Secretary of State under this subsection would have the right by order to come to a decision as to their fate? Terribly important principles are involved in this whole sphere of immigration, and if there are to be fundamental changes in immigration law they should be brought about by definite Acts of Parliament and not by an order as stated in this subsection. I beg to move.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I feel that this particular section refers in specific cases to the crews of ships or aircraft who may be coming here, but may I give a few small examples—
LORD GARDINER: Would the noble Lord forgive me? He may well be excused for thinking that because of the marginal note. I would hope that the Minister who is going to reply will help us about the marginal note. From the marginal note, it is true, that it looks as if this clause is dealing simply with seamen; but when you read on it is quite obvious that it is not dealing only with seamen at all.
LORD DENHAM: If the noble and learned Lord will take another look at the note, it says—
" Exceptions for seamen, aircrews and other special cases."
Those words apply to this particular case, I am sorry if the noble and learned Lord is confused, but if he looks again at the note I think he will find it reasonable. I can set the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, at rest. The kind of people

687
who are given exemption by Statutory Instruments made under the existing law, and whose exemption is likely to be continued by an. Order under Clause 8(2). include, for example, members and officials of other Governments here on business, consular officials, and officials of international organisations. The exemptions given are in conformity with our international obligations. These obligations do not remain constant and are subject to alteration from time to time as new international organisations are set up and new international agreements are made. It is not therefore practical to delimit the full extent of exemption once and for all in the Bill itself. This is the reason for the subsection to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, objects. He suggests that this clause in the Bill could be used to control whole groups of people—he mentioned specifically the Kenyan-Asians—without the necessity of passing a further Act of Parliament. That cannot be done. The power given by Clause 8(2) is a power to exempt from control people who would otherwise be subject to it, and not to impose control on people who would otherwise be exempt. From the way that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, read out the subsection I had the impression that he was taking exception to the Negative Resolution procedure at the end of it. That was put in as a safeguard by the Standing Committee in another place.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I hope that my noble friend, with whom I am in constant agreement on this Bill, will not press this Amendment. If there is a thoroughly bad Bill, which exerts objectionable restrictions on a limited number of people which it defines, and then the Secretary of State is given the right to make exemptions, we all ought to be thoroughly grateful for that.
BARONESS WHITE: While not in the least disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to go farther than he has done. The trouble over this particular clause is that it is so wide. For example, it has been suggested that under this provision the Secretary of State could exempt from all the controls persons from the European Economic Community as a class of person. It may not be in the minds of the Government
688
so to do, but it could be done. If it is intended to apply only to limited groups of people, such as those described by the noble Lord, would it not be possible to describe them in Schedule 2 to the Bill, instead of leaving a part of the Bill which looks so wide when it is intended to be extremely narrow? In another place the Minister of State there said that he would look at the drafting again, because objections were taken to the form of expression. It is misleading, if one appears to be legislating for a wide field but in fact intends to do so on a narrow one. It does not seem to be good legislation. Therefore could we ask the Government to have a further look at this? If there any objection to describing in the Schedule the classes of people who are covered? They were given in detail in another place. If that Schedule has to be amended to take account of any change in our international obligations, it could be done, and there would be no possibility of misapprehension as to the real intentions of the legislation.
LORD DENHAM: We will certainly consider carefully what the noble Baroness has said. The reason the clause has been drawn so wide is so that, with international agreements being fairly frequently made and different circumstances arising with each, the subsection should enable the provisions to be made in conformity with these international obligations. The noble Baroness was worried about persons from the European Economic Community, and whether this subsection could provide a backdoor method of bringing in nationals of those countries. There is no question of that. Entry to the European Economic Community does not involve exempting nationals of member countries from immigration control, but only of giving them preferential treatment in certain respects under the immigration rules. I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that Clause 8(2) will not be used to give effect to the free movement of labour provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord's assurance is of great value to the Committee, but it will be of little value outside. In view of the explanation of the noble Lord I fully understand the reasons why this subsection has been put in. I do not think it ought to have been in Clause 8, which really deals with seamen

689
and air crews. These are specific categories—
LORD DENHAM: There is reference to other special cases—
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will permit me to finish, perhaps we may get on a little faster. I said that Clause 8 deals with seamen and air crews. This is a particular type of employment, and different types of people will enter this country. If subsection (2) is to deal with diplomats and the like, they fall into a completely different class of employment from that of seamen and air crews—
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I—
LORD SHEPHERD: if the noble Lord will let me finish, I am trying to be helpful. My noble friend Lady White suggested that this provision could be put into Schedule 2. That may be a way out. I wonder whether the best course would be to put subsection (2) in a separate clause on its own, with a rubric stating that it refers to diplomats and those who come within that general definition. That would take them well away from seamen and air crews.
LORD DENHAM: While we are looking at what the noble Baroness has said, we will naturally look with equal care at the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I cannot commit the Government to change this clause, but we do feel, without having studied what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said, that the drafting of the clause is correct. If the noble Lord will look on the next page of the Bill he will see that it deals not only with seamen, for there are also provisions relating to the Armed Forces and to diplomats.
LORD BROCKWAY: I do not at all regret having moved this Amendment. The discussion which has taken place has strengthened my view about the great danger of the inclusion of this subsection. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge that I ought to welcome this subsection because it would exempt certain classes from the bad provisions of this Bill. To that extent I would welcome it, but the Bill does not only impose restrictions upon certain classes of Commonwealth immigrants it gives privileges to other sec
690
tions of Commonwealth immigrants. There will be great danger under the subsection that they may be exempted from some of the privileges. I am thinking of the patrials, who have particular privileges. It may be, in the circumstances of Commonwealth development, as it was in the case of the British Asians in East Africa who had British citizenship, that their rights will be limited under this subsection. Therefore I make no apology at all for raising the matter. In view of the Government's having said that they will give consideration to the points that have been raised, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Further provisions as to common travel area]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 71E:
Page 13, line 2, after (" instrument ") insert (" a draft of ").
The noble Lord said: I will detain the Committee for only a moment on this Amendment. I will take with it Amendment No. 71 F. These Amendments raise the issue as to whether there is to be a negative or a positive treatment when matters come before the Houses of Parliament. That matter has been raised on a number of occasions. It can be raised again on Report stage if we do not get satisfaction, and in view of the fact I am prepared not to move these Amendments this evening.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Immigration Appeal Tribunal and adjudicators]:
6.40 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 71G:
Page 14, line 21, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(" (a) the Lord Chancellor shall appoint adjudicators and shall continue to appoint members of the tribunal ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 71G. It is of some psychological importance. The Amendment suggests that the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Secretary of State, shall

691
appoint the adjudicators as well as members of the Appeal Tribunal. The object of the Amendment is that it should be quite clear that there is impartiality in the appointment of these officers. The Secretary of State is really a party to the dispute, and there is a fairly strong feeling among those who make these appeals that it is all a part of the Home Office set-up. That feeling will be strengthened if the Home Secretary is to have responsibility for the appointment of adjudicators. The position might be assisted a little if that right were in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This matter was considered with some care in 1967 by an independent Committee which was set up to consider the establishment of a system of immigration appeals. It was the Committee on Immigration Appeals, under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Wilson, which reported in August, 1967. What the Wilson Committee said on this particular point, in paragraph 153 of their Report (Cmnd. 3387), was as follows:
" We recommend that the appointment of adjudicators should be vested in the Home Secretary, who will be guided by any general recommendations made by the Council on Tribunals under Section 4 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. We have no fear that the independence of the adjudicators will be any less complete because they are appointed by the Home Secretary."
The previous Government (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was Lord Chancellor at the time and no doubt considered this matter) accepted this recommendation of the Wilson Committee and it was included in the Immigration Appeals Act 1969.
The argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in moving the Amendment was perhaps met to a certain extent in that the Lord Chancellor appoints members of the Tribunal, the appellate body. These are key appointments, and the Lord Chancellor's responsibility for them was thought in itself to be sufficient guarantee that the appeals system would function impartially. They of course review the decisions of the adjudicators, who are in a position of a court of first instance in this respect. When the Immigration Appeals Bill was being prepared a couple of years ago it was represented to the Home Office by one or two bodies concerned with the
692
interests of immigrants that if the adjudicators were to be manifestly impartial, and if their decisions were to command the confidence of the immigrant communities, they should be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. This view, as I say, did not attract support from the previous Government; nor, I believe, did it attract much support when the Bill was being debated in Parliament, and it is not a point of view that has been pressed subsequently. We do not believe that the fears which were expressed at that time have been borne out in practice.
I gave some statistics last week when we discussed the appeals system in another context. In an 11-month period from July 1, 1970, the number of appeals before adjudicators which were allowed was 147, compared to 681 that were dismissed. This is really a test of confidence. If there had been no appeals allowed by the adjudicators against the Home Office at all, people might have begun to wonder whether the appeals system was as valuable as had been suggested. But the rate at which appeals are being brought is running now at about 200 a month. I think this shows that people do have confidence in the independence of the adjudicators and that the Government of the day—we agree with our predecessors on this—took a wise decision in accepting the recommendation of the Wilson Committee that the adjudicators should be appointed by the Home Secretary.
LORD BROCKWAY: Once more, I will withdraw this Amendment, although I am entirely unconvinced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Appeals against exclusion from United Kingdom]:
6.46 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 14, line 37, at end insert—
(" ( ) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a person who, on an application duly made, is refused a work permit or is granted a work permit subject to conditions may appeal to an adjudicator against the refusal or the conditions.")
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Government will be able to consider this Amendment sympathetically. In the first

693
two subsections of Clause 13 there is provision for an appeals system in certain circumstances. Amendment No. 72 seeks to provide an appeals system where a person who has applied for a work permit has had it refused, or has been granted a work permit where the conditions imposed were in his view clearly unfair. These work permits are a matter of considerable importance, particularly in the smaller Territories and the position is often less understood in those smaller Territories when a work permit is refused. They feel that they are perhaps being treated less well than some of the larger territories.
I should have thought that if the noble Lord could accept this Amendment two things would arise. First, if an applicant felt he had been treated wrongly he would be able to have the matter reviewed. Secondly, it would provide a true feeling of impartiality to the whole system, which, I would agree with the Government, has in the past worked well. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The aim of the Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, explained in moving it, is to give a right of appeal to the immigration appeal authorities where a person was refused a work permit or perhaps where it was granted only subject to conditions. I appreciate the way in which the noble Lord moved the Amendment, but am afraid it is defective, and seriously so—not in a way so that it could be tidied up by improving drafting or anything of that kind. It would confer the right of appeal, not on the prospective immigrant at all but on the prospective employer, because it is the employer who applies for the work permit. Secondly, it refers to a work permit being granted subject to conditions. But this is not so. The permit is granted to the employer and the conditions are then applied to the holder when he arrives here.
But, leaving these problems on one side for a moment, we are not convinced that there really is a case for an appeal on these lines where a work permit is refused. In considering this we must remember that the system of work permits—or, previously, employment vouchers, but at any rate a document of entry for the purposes of work—is not a new feature. We have had these
694
for aliens and for Commonwealth citizens for almost a decade. The Wilson Committee, to which I have just referred and which was set up to consider the establishment in the most appropriate form of an appeals system, did not receive any representation that a right of appeal against refusal of a work permit or an employment voucher was desirable, and they made no recommendation that this should be established. Later on, after the Committee had reported in 1967, certain bodies concerned with immigrant interests suggested to the Home Office that such a right of appeal might be provided. This was again before the advent of the present Administration, and no doubt these representations were fully considered by my predecessors at the Home Office when the Immigration Appeals Act 1969 was introduced and subsequently went on the Statute Book. Since the Act came into force in July 1970 we have had no experience that the decision to confine the immigration appeals system to the range of decisions which, under that Act, are subject to appeal was in any way wrong one.
Further, there is the point that the immigration appeal authority really would not be at all well fitted to deal with appeals about work permits. These would inevitably raise difficult questions in the field of industrial relations and employment policies. To a large extent they would turn on the availability of local labour. It is difficult to see how the adjudicators could really make judgments on matters of that kind.
Noble Lords who are familiar with the subject will know, too, that the trade unions have an interest in the issue of work permits. If they feel that their members' jobs are likely to be affected they make representations to the Department of Employment, and the Department takes these into account in deciding on the issue of work permits. Here again, it does not seem that the immigration appellate authorities would be the appropriate bodies or would really be able to come to any useful judgment on matters of this sort. As I have said, the work permit is issued on criteria which are dependent on questions such as the availability of local labour, and we do not believe that an Amendment on these lines, suggesting that matters of this sort

695
should be brought under review by the immigration appeals system, would be in any way practicable.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am most grateful for the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: The effect of Clause 13(3) which I am seeking to delete is to prevent certain classes of person—and for the moment I will not deal with whom they are—from appealing against a refusal of leave to enter this country until they have left the United Kingdom.
The first comment I would like to make upon that is that the rule is absolute. There is no discretion given to anyone, even in the cases of the gravest possible hardship, to say"No, we will allow you to have your appeal heard in this country and we will allow you to stay in this country sufficiently long for that to be done ". If a person falls within the class dealt with by this subsection then that person must leave the country before he can initiate an appeal or have his appeal heard. My own belief is that this can give rise to great and undeserved hardship. I think there may be many cases of people who seek to enter this country without, for example, a certificate of patriality although they may be patrials, or without an entry clearance although they may he entitled to an entry clearance they have not provided themselves with those documents because of innocent mistakes.
May I give one example? One of the classes of person dealt with under this subsection is the person who is a patrial by virtue of Clause 2(1)(c), that is to say a person who
" is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has at any time been settled in the United Kingdom and Islands for a continuous period of five years or more ".
That sort of person is required under this subsection, before he goes out of the country, to obtain a certificate of patriality in order that he may get back. If he fails to do that and he seeks to
696
come back into the country and says"I am a patrial ", he will be told"If you have not armed yourself with a certificate of patriality we are afraid that you must get out of the country before you can appeal on the grounds that you are in fact patrial."
How easy it would be for such a person—say someone coming from East Africa, who has been resident here for five years and has achieved patriality—how easy for that person to go for a holiday on the Continent, unaware that he has to obtain a certificate of patriality, and then to seek to come into one of the ports of entry and to be told"No, you have not got your certificate of patriality and we are not entitled to go into the matter as to whether or not you are a patrial. If you want to appeal against this refusal of entry you must go away again and initiate your appeal from outside."
Not only can people be caught in an innocent mistake of that kind but also, I suggest, this provision can bear with uneven hardship upon different classes of person. If a patrial, or a person who claims to be a patrial, is refused entry because he has not got a certificate of patriality, all he need do if he is well-to-do is fly over to Paris, and get in touch with his legal advisers; if the matter is one of pure technicality he can have his appeal heard and all is well. He is not seriously inconvenienced. But what about the case of the dependant of a Commonwealth citizen who is resident in this country, who has come from halfway across the world, and to do so has possibly used a large sum of money representing the savings of a long period? That person, that dependant—that child, it may be—arrives at Heathrow without having armed himself with the entry certificate he ought to have, possibly as the result of error, possibly because he was not properly informed or possibly because the document is defective, through no fault of his own. That person cannot just fly over to Paris and get it all put right: that person is bound to be put on the next plane taking him back to Asia and may never be able to contemplate coming to this country again, with all the expense it may involve. Therefore, this provision, as I see it, may bear with most uneven hardness on these different classes of people.
The last question I would ask the Minister is this: what really is the object

697
of this provision? Why is it necessary that somebody should go out of the country before he can initiate the procedures of appeal? What harm would be done if people in those circumstances were allowed to remain in this country just for the short period necessary for their appeals to be heard? The Minister will know, as I do, that these appeals can be dealt with very rapidly, and indeed are dealt with very rapidly. He will know that the great majority of appeals against refusal at the port of entry are dealt with in 24 or 48 hours. What real harm would be done if we were to allow these people to stay in this country—in detention it may be—for the period necessary for their appeals to be heard? I beg the Minister to consider this matter because I think that already, under the system operating to-day, particularly in the cases of dependants of Commonwealth citizens in this country and seeking to come into this country, very great hardship is occasioned when somebody, particularly a child, comes here not armed with a document he should have. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I preface my reply to this Amendment by saying how much the Government appreciate the work that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, does in his capacity as Chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service? This is a body made up of representatives of voluntary organisations representing immigrants' interests which employs counsellors at all the ports in order that people wishing to enter this country who encounter difficulty for some reason or other may know what their rights of appeal are and are able to exercise them. I know of the very close interest which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, takes in the work of the service and I should like to place on record the Government's appreciation.
Through his knowledge of the immigration appeals system he has picked up in this Amendment what is, I think, undoubtedly an issue of considerable substance and importance. There are considerations relating to the policy both of the previous Administration and of this one, which I ought to rehearse in answering the case he has made. The Amendment deleting this part of the clause as he correctly said would give the ordinary
698
passenger a right of appeal exercisable at the ports in all circumstances, whereas the Bill provides that only the holder of an entry clearance or a work permit shall be able to appeal before removal. Section 2 of the Immigration Appeals Act, consistently with the recommendation of the Wilson Committee to which I have already referred, provided for all passengers to be able to appeal before removal from the United Kingdom. But this provision in the Act of 1969 has not been introduced, as the noble Lord knows. Instead, the last Administration introduced a non-statutory right of appeal for the holders of entry clearance and work permits. The Bill seeks to preserve that situation, the de facto situation, by giving statutory backing to the arrangements introduced by the previous Government, and in addition to give all other passengers—those not holding an entry clearance or a work permit—a right of appeal after leaving the United Kingdom.
The reasons for this are as follows. The Wilson Committee, in recommending comprehensive rights of appeal at the ports in 1967, had chiefly in mind the case of immigrants or their dependants who had sold up their home and arrived in the United Kingdom for permanent settlement and who were then refused entry. Such decisions caused great hardship and distress. But Parliament, with the agreement of both Parties, subsequently decided in 1969 that Commonwealth citizens seeking to enter as dependants should be required to obtain entry certificates before setting out, and this was given effect in Section 20 of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. So since 1969 it has been mandatory that a person coming to this country as a dependant should have an entry certificate before he starts out. This system has been working for the last two years with a right of appeal against refusal to issue an entry certificate, and a right of appeal at the ports in those rare cases where the holder of a certificate is refused entry.
I think I am right in saying that in one of the cases mentioned by the noble Lord just now—the dependant arriving with an entry certificate who for some reason is challenged (it may be thought to be forged or something of that sort)—has a right of appeal if he is in possession of an entry document.
LORD FOOT: I entirely agree with that, and if I said something misleading I withdraw it. I agree that if he has a document and the issue is whether or not it is valid, he has a right of appeal without having to go back to his place of origin.
7.7 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: In drafting this Bill the Government came to the conclusion that the requirement under the 1969 Act of an entry certificate was a desirable one and one that in the interest of the dependants themselves and their families here should be continued, and that a dependant should apply in his country of origin for an entry certificate before setting out. If a right of appeal exercisable at the ports before removal were now introduced the Commonwealth citizen coming for settlement would not benefit from it, because he would still be required to obtain an entry certificate or employment voucher, or, under the new system, a work permit. The categories of person who would benefit would, in the main, be people like visitors and students who do not come for settlement but for a relatively short period. We must accept that it may cause hardship, for a visitor or student to be refused entry, but the hardship is not comparable with the refusal of entry to a person coming for settlement. So the frame of reference has altered since 1967, and the case for introducing a right of appeal exercisable for the residual categories of passengers is different now from what it was then.
There are other factors in addition which have led the Government to adopt the solution contained in the Bill. One is the very steep rise in traffic at the ports over the last three to four years. On Second Reading I mentioned that in 1966 ten million passengers a year were arriving, mainly as visitors, at the ports of entry in this country. By 1970, the figure had risen to 14 million; that was an increase of 40 per cent. in four years. But the total number of passengers who were subject to control—that is, those who do not have a right of entry—had increased more sharply even than that, by 73 per cent. over four years. With the advent of jumbo jets and improved facilities for people coming with their own cars this trend of very sharply increasing
700
numbers coming through the ports is likely to increase. This has put very great pressure on the Immigration Service and it has led, unfortunately, to delays at some ports.
If there were to be rights of appeal exerciseable at the ports, this would either mean accepting long delays, or requiring a large addition to the numbers of officers in the Immigration Service so that they could be free to take part in appeal hearings, to process appeals, and to present the cases. These are tasks which have to be carried out by the immigration officers who are presenting the case for one side, and very often a counsellor in the service of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is presenting the case to the adjudicator for the person who may have been refused entry. Therefore, there is here a question of manpower in the Immigration Service, and, with these huge numbers at the peak times—as anyone knows who comes through the Channel ports, or particularly London Airport—the delays that may result can build up quickly if there are not enough immigration officers at their posts.
In deciding not to go beyond the present arrangements—and I emphasise that the Bill preserves the de facto status quo—and introduce rights of appeal exercisable at the ports before removal, the Bill will be in line with European practice. Nevertheless, all passengers will have a right of appeal after removal from the United Kingdom. This arrangement serves two purposes. First, from the date of the introduction of the new arrangements every immigration officer will know that if he refuses admission he will be doing so in the knowledge that he may thereafter be required to account for his decision to an impartial authority. Secondly, if the United Kingdom were to enter the E.E.C., this arrangement would fulfil our obligations towards E.E.C. nationals.
I hope that has not been too full a reply. As I say, this is a considerable issue of policy. There are these considerations of European practice, of the sheer practical implications at the ports because of the increase in numbers, and the fact that since it is now mandatory for a dependant to have an entry certificate, the situation has really changed greatly over the last three years. I have

701
had some first hand experience of this, but people who are not quite so close to it might think that for the dependant in India who applies for an entry certificate at one of the High Commission posts, an appeal in this country might not be very useful, but in practice the appeal in this country is of great value, because the family very often are established in this country. I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is familiar with many cases of this sort. It is very often in the Midlands that the appeal is held, and the relations attend. They represent the appellant, and incidentally they have great confidence, going back to an earlier point, in the adjudicator. If the appeal was held overseas, the system might not have earned the confidence of people in this country quite so quickly as it has. It is for reasons of this sort that, although I am sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, I am afraid there are these considerations which point in the other direction.
7.13 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: May I ask the noble Lord a question? I was trying to follow him carefully, and I do not think he dealt adequately with the point about a returning patrial who had failed to furnish himself with evidence of his patriality. I think this is important. People do not always appreciate that they need to have these documents if they leave these shores and then wish to re-enter, perhaps after some considerable time. They may, nevertheless, be qualified under Clause 2(1)(c) or (d), and it is precisely against that that they may not appeal until they have returned home, possibly from some very distant country indeed. This worries me considerably, because the mere holding of a passport does not necessarily indicate that one has qualified for patriality under Clause 2(1)(c) or(d). I wonder whether the noble Lord could say a little more about that aspect.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I adhered to issues of policy, because this is a fairly big issue and one which has been considered over a period of time, and there are really quite large considerations on the other side. I will deal with the noble Baroness's point, because I agree that it is a worrying one. I do not think that the results will necessarily be quite so adverse as the noble Baroness
702
fears. The man who is patrial by virtue of Clause 2(1)(c), needs a certificate of patriality, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, correctly said, if he wishes to establish on returning to this country that he is exempt from control. But this does not mean that if he does not have such a certificate, which will be an endorsement in his passport, he will be refused entry. What it means is that he will be examined by an immigration officer; that he is not exempt from examination by an immigration officer. He will be in the same position as somebody who is subject to control and will, in all probability, be admitted as a returning resident under paragraph 50 of the Immigration Rules, Control on Entry.
LORD FOOT: If a patrial, in circumstances such as the noble Baroness describes and as I described earlier, goes out of the country with a passport, but not knowing that he ought to get a certificate of patriality endorsed on his passport, and then seeks to come back, of course the immigration officer will examine that person. But if the immigration officer is not satisfied from what lie hears that this person is indeed a patrial, then, as I understand it, under the rules he is obliged to say,"No, I refuse you entry ". Once he has done that—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—then the patrial, or the alleged patrial, cannot pursue his appeal except by going out of the country and initiating the appeal from outside. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to look at this point very carefully. We are dealing in paragraph (c) with an extremely small category of people. I think the noble Lord may have a point here. I am sure that the answer I have given him is correct, and I think that in 99 cases out of 100 he would be examined by an immigration officer, and the immigration officer would then fall back on the immigration rules which deal with returning residents. I take the point about what happens then if, having done so, the immigration officer still says,"I am not satisfied ". In fact the case has then to be referred to a chief immigration officer, who is required to review it. Inquiries are then made; people are rung up. If, at the end of the day, the decision is taken"No, the passenger cannot be

703
admitted in this category ", then I should like to consider the point the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has made. On first hearing it—and I did not have notice of this particular point—I think he is probably right that an appeal would not lie at the ports, and it may well be that this is something we ought to have a look at again. We are in complicated territory here, and I think I ought to study that particular point with some care.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: The only point I want to make is that, listening to this debate, one is confronted with a very strong case involving ignorant people who become confused and make mistakes, and an immense administrative problem, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made perfectly clear. We on this side of the Committee have not exercised the sentimental argument very much over this Bill—just a little, but not very much—and I do not want to do it now. When you visualise the kind of case that the noble Lord put before us, of the kind of mistake that we all make when travelling abroad, and consider what it must be like to be sent home a couple of thousand miles, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, ought to look at this point a good deal more deeply. If he had to come to the Houses of Parliament and ask for more money to employ more immigration officers, then, so far as I am concerned, this would be a reasonable increase in civil servants to which I certainly should not object. I feel that he has slightly diverted us on to technicalities. Admittedly, what he said is true, but he has lost the real evil of these cases. Even if they happen only twice a year, they ought to be stopped. But, so far as I can see, there is no means under the present arrangements of stopping them.
LORD GARDINER: While the Minister is considering this matter, may I ask whether this is the position? If a patrial goes from here to Italy or Russia for a holiday and has his wallet, containing his passport, stolen and—wrongly, as it turns out—his story is not believed because he has nothing at all to show and can only say that he had a passport and has lost it, will he have to go back to Russia
704
before he can appeal if the Bill remains as it is?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The two points to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, have referred relate to the first part of subsection (3), whereas the issue of policy which we have been debating is contained in the last two lines of page 14 and the first two lines of page 15. As I said, I should like to look at the position of the people who are patrial under Clause 2(1)(c) and the Clause 2(1)(d) people. They are the only people who are concerned, and not the people who have the right of abode under Clause 2(1)(a) and Clause 2(1)(b), who represent the overwhelming majority. As I said, I think the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has raised a special case which I should like to look at, and I should like also to look into the case of the visitor who loses his passport in Moscow.
Let me return to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, because what he said was on the central issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, knows, this is a major issue which has been debated for some three or four years. The difficulty with dependants, as the previous Administration found, is that if you establish a system to catch the two cases a year to which the noble Lord referred, they will become the pattern if a right of appeal here is provided. Why should only those two people use it? I regret to say—and this is common knowledge to those who study the subject—that here we have one of the standard methods of evasion of the immigration control. The system of mandatory entry certificate clearances with an appeal in this country, but with the certificate being issued by the British High Commission post abroad, was established precisely to bring this means of evasion to an end.
The noble Lord talked about public expenditure. These diplomatic posts are frequently staffed by immigration officers. We have attached to the British High Commissison in Delhi a chief immigration officer who serves as a second secretary and has considerable staff. He has with him five or six entry certificate officers who are skilled immigration officers. They carry out inquiries there and then, because if there is going to be an argument about a family relationship

705
—whether or not somebody is a son or a nephew or is under the ages of 16 or 18—these inquiries can take quite a long time to complete in Asia. It seems to us, as it seemed to the previous Administration who had to deal with what had become a practical problem—Mr. Callaghan said this in his evidence to the Select Committee—that we ought to resolve such matters at the other end. Both the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that these appeals could be cleared very quickly at the ports, and that is quite true with the system as it operates at the moment. It would certainly be true if the two dependants of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, were exercising an appeal here. But it would not be true if there were a general appeal for all passengers, which is what the Amendment proposes.
The Canadians have had gravely discouraging experience with their appeal system. That is one of the systems investigated—and commented upon very favourably—at the time of the Wilson Report on Immigration Appeals, because of the delays that had set in owing to the nature of the system, after somebody had been admitted. A public inquiry was held under a Mr. Sedgwick into this matter of somebody being admitted, perhaps on business or to visit some friends, for a week or two. Under the system, such a person could appeal, and it was taking 15 or 18 months before he had exercised his full appeal rights. The Canadian Government said, and Mr. Sedgwick, who was carrying out the public inquiry on their behalf, also said, that this was really a misuse of the appeal system, because at the end of that time all things were no longer equal. The man was there. He had to be allowed to work. He could not be held in custody for that period. He had done nothing except to arrive and exercise his legal rights. It was a grave practical problem. He may even have had a child in that time, since he had been working there for 12 or 15 months. Naturally, the appeal system became overloaded, and very often a person could not be asked to leave after such a period.
Therefore, there are these practical problems and the question of dependants is the central one. We must be clear in our minds that the Bill preserves the
706
current situation: nobody who now has a right of appeal exercisable at the ports here will be losing it. When the entry certificate procedure was set up, those who are closest to the subject felt that the procedure represented a distinct step forward in terms of practical administration, and that the arrangements set up by Mr. Callaghan—which are, broadly speaking, being adhered to—constituted the best solution.
LORD FOOT: May I thank the noble Lord sincerely for the full explanation he has given, and of course I agree with a great deal of it. I, and my Party in this House, opposed the 1969 change of front at the last moment, when the previous Government decided to introduce the compulsory entry certificate for dependants in the place of origin, but I have to acknowledge that there are advantages in the system. There are counterbalancing disadvantages, but there are advantages. It is of some advantage to have an appeal here in this country where the sponsor of the dependant is available, even though the appellant himself is not available. So I am not criticising the general system.
But we are dealing with two matters. We are dealing with the question of the patrial, which is a very specialised point, and the noble Lord has been good enough to say that he will have another look at that to see whether anything can be done. But, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, have said, what is really important is the person who comes from the other side of the world, perhaps innocently and not knowing that he has not complied with regulations. Even if you maintained the general principle that, in the ordinary way, persons who come here without the necessary entry certificate or entry clearance must go out of the country before they can lodge an appeal, I should have thought that it was not beyond the wit of man to allow the Secretary of State to exercise a discretion when it appeared, on the face of it, that a person had come here honestly and innocently and was the victim of a mistake and a misunderstanding. I should have thought it was possible to enable the Secretary of State, for example, to exempt such persons from the provisions of this clause.
I ask the Minister to consider whether that can be done, because the present

707
state of affairs, even if only two or three people a year come here, perhaps using up the savings of five or ten years in order to do it, and are then sent back, and particularly if children are involved, is really intolerable and is something which we ought to be capable of dealing with on some administrative basis. I shall withdraw this Amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having gone as far as he has. I hope that he will be prepared to consider that final suggestion, too. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74:
Page 15, line 2, leave out (" at a port of entry and ").
The noble Lord said: In the light of the previous debate, I do not intend to move this Amendment.
7.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 74A:
Page 15, line 4, leave out (" shall ") and insert (" need not ").
The noble Lord said: In this case, too, the discussion would be largely a repetition of the debate that has taken place previously. I would only say in respect of it that, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, knows, very often immigrants come to Heathrow or elsewhere in a state of ignorance, in a state of confusion; and sometimes it has not been the fault of the individual immigrant that he does not have the certificate of entry. This subsection says that an appeal shall be refused if it appears that the appellant has entered the country illegally. I suggest that that is going rather far. I should have hoped that in this instance an appeal might be allowed directly to the adjudicator in this country, without the necessity for the appellant to leave the country first. That would seem to me to be a more just and fair attitude towards these particular persons than what is now proposed. Therefore, for the purposes of hearing the Minister's reply I move this Amendment. Perhaps I may say that I think Amendments Nos. 74A and 74B may be taken together. I beg to move.
LORD DENHAM: Clause 13(4) repeats in substance the provisions of Section 2(2) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. It continues the present situation, in which an appeal against refusal of entry cannot succeed if the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant is an illegal entrant; that is, that he sought to enter without examination or in breach of a deportation order.
It is right that a person who is being refused entry as an illegal entrant should be able to challenge the refusal on the ground that he is not in fact an illegal entrant. But in the view of Her Majesty's Government there is no reason for departing from the view taken by Parliament in 1969, that in such a case the right of appeal should extend no further. Anyone who believes that he has a valid claim to admission ought to present himself in the proper way, and not try to circumvent the control. If he chooses to make an attempt at evasion, he must accept the consequences of his illegal action. It will subsequently be open to him to seek admission lawfully and to appeal from overseas if his application for an entry clearance, or for revocation of a deportation order in force against him, is refused.
The restriction on an illegal entrant's right of appeal does not mean that no illegal entrant will ever be allowed to stay. In such cases, any compassionate circumstances and all other relevant factors are taken into consideration, but this is and should remain a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State and not for the appellate authorities.
LORD BROCKWAY: In view of the earlier discussion we had I do not want to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.34 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 15, line 5, leave out (" appears ") and insert (" is proved ").
The noble Lord said: This is rather similar to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was making, but my point is a little different. What I am worried about is the words"if it appears that ", which appear both in the second

709
and in the fourth lines of this subsection. The subsection in full says:
" An appeal against a refusal of leave to enter shall be dismissed if it appears that the appellant was at the time of the refusal an illegal entrant, and an appeal against a refusal of an entry clearance shall be dismissed if it appears that a deportation order was at the time of the refusal in force in respect of the appellant."
What do the words"if it appears"mean? Clearly they must mean something less than"if it is proved ", but how much less? This is a matter of semantics. But suppose somebody comes before the adjudicator, seeking to appeal against a refusal of leave to enter, how is the matter presented to the adjudicator? Does the representative of the Home Office say:"We are of the opinion that this appellant was at the time of refusal an illegal entrant ", and is that sufficient to make it appear to the adjudicator that he was an illegal entrant? Surely it ought to be proved as a matter of evidence; and if it ought to be proved, what is the objection to deleting the words"if it appears"and putting in the words"if it is proved "?
The second question I want to ask is this. When one uses the words"if it appears ", it does not answer the question: appears to whom? Does it mean appears to the immigration officer, does it mean appears to the Secretary of State, or does it mean appears to the adjudicator? If it means appears to the immigration officer, then all the immigration officer has to do when he goes before the adjudicator is to say,"Look—it appears to me that he is an illegal immigrant ", and from that moment onwards the adjudicator is precluded from inquiring into the matter any further and has to dismiss the appeal. If, on the other hand, it means that it must appear so to the adjudicator, if it is a matter fat the adjudicator's decision, then what he has to do is to examine the evidence and decide if it is proved to his satisfaction. Therefore you might as well have the words"if it is proved"in the first place. Perhaps the noble Lord can explain why these words have been used. I have no doubt he will tell us that they have appeared in some Act of Parliament or some rules before. We have already heard that many times. But if the words are defective, they are made no better by having had an earlier appearance. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Lord correctly forecast in his penultimate sentence, Clause 13(4) repeats in substance Section 2(2) of the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. The latter provision used the words"appears to him "—that is, to the adjudicator but—it is clear enough from the context, without an express reference to the adjudicator, that that is what is intended here. The verb"to appear"has a more precise legal meaning than may be apparent at first sight. It is commonly used in statutory provisions to indicate the conclusion drawn by a court or tribunal from the evidence before it. It is so used in the 1969 Act and also in the provisions of this Bill. This use of the word does not imply any contrast between appearance and reality, but refers to the conclusion which emerges from the scrutiny given to the facts.
In practice, I doubt whether there is all that much difference between the word"appears"and the words"is proved ". An appellate authority would be expected to form his conclusion from the evidence before him on the balance of probabilities, whichever formula is used, and the substitution of"is proved"would not introduce a stricter standard of proof. In certain circumstances, however, the words"is proved"might not be altogether apt, because they could be read as implying that in every case it will be necessary for the respondent to the appeal to bring forward positive proof that the appellant is an illegal entrant or, as the case may be, subject to a deportation order. Positive proof may not be necessary in some circumstances; for example, if the appellant admits that he is an illegal entrant the appellant's own admission would probably be sufficient to enable the adjudicator to dismiss the appeal on those grounds.
I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and although it may be difficult to meet him on the question of proof, I think he put forward a very strong case when he asked the question about"appears to him"and said that he thought it might even mean appears to the immigration officer or to the Secretary of State. That is certainly not intended. OF course what is meant is: if it appears to the adjudicator and he satisfies himself on the evidence that the conclusion he arrived at is a proper one. If that can be made clear in the drafting

711
and would satisfy the noble Lord, it might be possible to adjust the wording, although I cannot commit the draftsman to an exact form of words.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Would it not be clearer if we had the words,"if the appellant at the time in question was an illegal immigrant "?
LORD FOOT: I do not know whether anyone else wishes to speak, but I am quite happy to leave this question in the way it has been left by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. However, may I ask one question? The noble Lord said at the beginning that the words,"if it appears ", appear in other legislation, but he went on to quote earlier immigration legislation. I wonder whether he can tell us if his advisers have been able to point to any other Statute where this phrase has been used? If so, and there is a precedent for these words and they mean that the tribunal concerned is satisfied on the balance of probabilities and so on, I should be reassured.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I cannot answer the noble Lord's question offhand, but it is a very relevant question. I shall make inquiries and write to him with the answers and I shall also see whether we can compose an alternative form of words.
LORD FOOT: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.44 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 15, line 10, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: On a previous occasion in Committee I expressed appreciation of the quite extraordinary way in which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave his mind and interest to everything we are discussing. I want to add something else now. If before Report stage he has actually to consider every issue which he has promised to consider, he will not only have to be working overtime in the House itself but also outside the House. I welcome his promise to give consideration to so many
712
Amendments and I hope that this Amendment may be added to the list.
There are two reasons why I urge that this subsection be deleted. The first is the extraordinary power it again gives to the Secretary of State. It allows him to certify that a person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal to allow him to enter this country on the ground that his exclusion is"conducive to the public good ". That is a terribly vague phrase. To give a Minister that power with such a vague phrase, on his personal responsibility, without any reference to an adjudicator or an appeal tribunual, seems to give one man quite extraordinary powers. I ask the Minister to look at this phrase"conducive to the public good"and its vagueness. Is not the phrase"in the interests of national security"more often used when this power is given to the Secretary of State? That at least is rather more definite. Perhaps the Minister will look at this phrase and consider whether the Home Secretary really ought to be given these powers to deny the right of appeal on a ground which appears to be so indefinite. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I wonder if, when the Minister replies, he can explain what I am quite sure I ought to know but frankly do not: why in most places in the Bill where"conducive"is included—in Clause 3(5), Clause 13(5), Clause 15(3) and (5)—we just get"conducive to the public good"and in none of those subsections nor in the interpretation clause is there any definition of what"conducive to the public good"means? Then, in Clause 14(3) and there alone we suddenly get
" conducive to the public good, as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for other reasons of a political nature ".
I do not know whether we are supposed to read that into the other places in the Bill where there is not such a full explanation or limitation. When one is considering the other subsections and the meaning of"conducive to the public good"I do not know how far we can rely on what is said in Clause 14(3). Is that intended to be comprehensive? When it says"as being"I suppose it must be one of those three qualifications and nothing else. Does it mean that

713
" conducive to the public good"in the other subsections contemplates something as wide as this? I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, could answer that.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I begin by replying to the question put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, while it is fresh in my mind? I think am right in saying that this Amendment is directed to Clause 13(5) and the noble and learned Lord has jumped a little ahead to Clause 14(3); but I think it may be helpful to the Committee to discuss this whole matter now because the words"conducive to the public good"are crucial in both these clauses. The phrase includes security, political considerations and what are called"other non-conducive grounds ". Wherever it is mentioned, as in Clause 13(5), without qualification, it includes all those three. In Clause 14(3), however, it is confined to"interests of national security"or of relations between the United Kingdom and other countries, or for other reasons of a political nature. So Clause 14(3) is limited to security and political cases only and excludes the other non-conducive grounds. Let me give an example of other non-conducive grounds. We have referred in the debate on deportation to the international drug traffickers who manage to avoid criminal convictions, to the gambling racketeers; and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary talked about people connected with the Mafia. These are the sort of people who have been regarded as undesirable in the past; deportation orders or refusals of entry have been made on the ground that their presence would not be conducive to the public good. Clause 14(3) does not apply to them. It is confined only to what it says. In all other places where the words are mentioned without qualification it is the wider use that is intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, reminded me of something which gives me food for thought from time to time—the number of hostages to fortune collected as the Bill goes on. I hope that I shall be able to redeem most, if not all, of them. The effect of this Part of the Bill will be that the appeals system will continue to operate as at present for the ordinary immigrant and his dependants, but it will be open to the
714
Home Secretary personally, as being consistent with his general responsibility for law and order and security, to exclude from this country people whose presence here he thinks would not be conducive to the public good. The number of such people is small and is likely to continue to be small. But the issue is none the less important. It is as well to appreciate the scale of what we are talking about. In terms of aliens, at the moment we are concerned with something of the order of about a dozen people a year, several of whom so far as deportation is concerned, have been convicted, but in whose cases the courts have decided to leave the matter of deportation or not to the Home Secretary. Sometimes the courts say so in giving judgment.
If this Amendment (and the next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, which touches on the same ground) were accepted, it would have the effect that only persons whose exclusion was desirable in the interests of national security—the noble Lord said that he would confine himself to national security—could be excluded without right of appeal. In the view of my right honourable friend, this would not be a desirable change, particularly in regard to two groups of people. First, there are the rare cases in which the Secretary of State thinks it necessary to exclude a person on political grounds. As to these, the Wilson Committee in paragraph 143 of their Report thought that there would be nothing untoward in removing political cases entirely from the ambit of the appeals system. The noble Lord asked, as have others, what is meant by the words"political cases ". I might quote the Wilson Committee Report here. What they said in paragraph 147 was:
" Cases arise from time to time in which the Home Secretary feels justified in excluding a person from this country, or requiring him to leave, on grounds that are essentially of a political nature—for example, that his presence here is or would be harmful to international relations, or offensive to public opinion. We doubt whether the system of appeal which we are proposing would provide apt machinery for dealing with such cases. We would not therefore think it wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the proposed appeal system, to remove such cases from the scope of that system and leave them entirely to the Home Secretary's discretion subject to his responsibility to Parliament."
Apart from the political cases of this kind, there are from time to time the

715
cases of people trying to obtain access to the United Kingdom, about whom the Secretary of State has received information, perhaps from overseas police forces or intelligence services, which has been given to him on a confidential basis and which could not be disclosed on appeal. In these cases also, the Government think it right that the Home Secretary, again by his personal decision, should have the power to exclude the individual from the United Kingdom. In ending what I have to say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I would remind him—though he knows it better than most—that when we use the words,"the Home Secretary is responsible to Parliament for the exercise of this discretion ", this is no empty phrase. Home Secretaries have been personally responsible to Parliament for decisions of this kind over a number of years; and the closeness of personal interest, the way in which representations are prepared by Members of another place and of this House, also impose a degree of Parliamentary scrutiny. We saw it earlier this year in one famous case. This showed that Parliament is vigilant in these matters and that the Home Secretary is answerable for his decisions to both Houses of Parliament.
LORD FOOT: May I ask a question? I understand that the definition of"conducive to the public good"is wider under Clause 13(5) than under Clause 14(3). Why are different standards adopted depending upon whether it is an appeal against exclusion from the United Kingdom (which is dealt with in Clause 13) or whether it is an appeal against a variation of conditions? Why is a different standard of"conducive to the public good"adopted, a more limited standard, under Clause 14 than in the other case? What is the distinction in principle? It may be that the noble Lord covered the point; but if he did I am afraid that I missed it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My right honourable friend covered it at considerable length. I will abbreviate it. The noble Lord will find an interesting speech in the course of the Standing Committee"B"proceedings in another place on Thursday, May 20, at columns 1116 to 1120. The Home Secretary spoke on his approach to this subject at some considerable length. The case he put
716
up on this question of non-conducive appeals was subsequently supported by Mr. Callaghan. My right honourable friend drew a distinction between people who were already here and those who were seeking to come in. A person already here whose stay is curtailed or who is asked to leave is in a somewhat different position from someone seeking to come in. What my right honourable friend said was this:
" He has been allowed to stay in this country for two years or some such period. He has changed his plan, moved his family; and if he then does not get what he expected "
—speaking of an extension of stay—
" he is prejudiced. If he applies to come and is told that he cannot be admitted, that is too bad. He is not entitled to expect to be allowed in. But if he has been allowed in here he is entitled to expect to be able to stay here for the time for which he was originally admitted…"
and so on. Therefore, as a result of the discussion in Standing Committee, what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary agreed was that there should be an appeal in the case of the person who is already here, through the normal appeal system in all cases except the security and political ones. In the existing appeals system they are anyway, provided for separately because these are the cases that go to the special panel of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The procedure was used only once. The noble Lord, Lord Garner, was a member of that tribunal; and I think that no one who studied what took place on that occasion was particularly happy that the procedure should continue.
What the Home Secretary now has in mind, and he explained it again in Standing Committee, and subsequently on Report, is that for the people who are already here, in everything except security and political cases, the right of appeal should lie through the appeals system; that in the security and political cases, the Home Secretary should remain responsible; but that he should take informal advice from"three wise men ", three security advisers, in the same way as happens when there are cases where the security of a member of the Civil Service is in doubt. I could give further details of this, if the Committee would be interested, but that is the reason. A person outside has less right than a person who is already here.
8.0 p.m.
LORD GARNER: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned my interest in this matter and perhaps I may make a few comments, although it is an extremely difficult ground of legal speciality for someone who is a layman to tread. I agree with the Minister that there are unfortunate features about the procedure under which the special panel of the tribunal operates. My first doubt is really a question of public relations. If any part of the case should be heard in camera, it is almost certain that the Press and publicity media in this country will take exception to that course and assume that something not quite right has happened whatever the facts may be. It is important that not only justice be done but that it be seen to be done, and so long as we have this special secret part of the tribunal I think it is bound to cause trouble.
Secondly, there is the position of an appellant. The Wilson Committee recommended that he should be informed of any circumstances brought specially to the notice of the tribunal when sitting in camera: but legislation provides otherwise, that the appellant is not even to be represented at the trial and the part in camera is to be heard in his absence. On the occasion on which I served, the tribunal were charged by the appellant's counsel to scrutinise with the greatest care the evidence offered by the parties, and I think I can say that we did our duty in this respect. But I would comment that it does not seem to me really appropriate that a tribunal should have that sort of function imposed upon it.
The third difficulty is that the Act provides for the report to be published but does not require the Home Secretary necessarily to act upon its recommendations. The duty imposed upon the tribunal is to find in favour of the appellant if they are satisfied that in the exercise of his discretion the Home Secretary should have acted differently. It may be entirely appropriate for a tribunal to reach such an opinion upon the actions of a junior officer acting for the Home Secretary, but I think it is entirely invidious for a tribunal to be called upon to pass judgment on a decision taken by the Home Secretary on a matter of policy, particularly when it is in the field of law
718
and order for which he is responsible. If the tribunal finds against him in a report that is published, one can see that it is difficult for him to be forced to vary the system. As was suggested at the time, it is easy to see why a Home Secretary faced with this position might prefer to resign rather than to yield on a matter to which he attaches importance.
I should like to make just one other comment to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, about this difficult phrasing of"conducive to the public good"and"in the interests of national security ". I am sure that important legal considerations attach to whatever phrase we use. There is one point that appeals to me. The phrase on national security has a connotation, particularly in the public mind, of something which is a positive danger to the State, which is not made clear by the phrase"conducive to the public good." It strikes me that in a sense it is fairer to an individual, less offensive to him, to use the more general phrase and less likely to be misleading to public opinion as a whole. I accept that there are dangers in the more general phrase. It is much wider and could be abused, if there were to be an unscrupulous Home Secretary, but I would hope that the risk of that is sufficiently remote.
8.5 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: This is one of those occasions when the reply of the Minister has disturbed me more than it has reassured me. It has disturbed me because he has indicated that the phrase"conducive to the public good"is intended to cover a broader ground than the ground of"in the interests of national security." The noble Lord who has just spoken is perfectly right when he says that"in the interests of national security"can be regarded as more offensive than the phrase"conducive to the public good "; but the very fact that the latter phrase does not appear to be so conducive indicates that it not so definite, that it is vaguer, and it is because of that that I doubt very much whether it should be included in the Bill at all.
I think that we have the right to exclude people from this country where there is evidence that they intend to commit some crime here. I think that we have the right to exclude them when

719
we have evidence that they are to be engaged in violent conspiracy or something of that character. I do not think we have any right whatever to exclude them because they hold a particular political opinion. And my fear is that this vague phrase of"conducive to the public good ", with these private inquiries through the police in different countries and with all the political prejudices that there are at the present time, may be used to keep out of the country and deny to them even the right to appeal against refusal on grounds which are not substantial, people who hold particular political opinions.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Garner, that from my own knowledge of the present Home Secretary, I should not expect him to apply this power which the Bill gives him in a way which would be illiberal. At least I would expect him to do that less than many possible Home Secretaries of whom I could think. But when we are passing a Bill of this kind we have to consider the effect of these words not only upon the present occupant of the office of the Secretary of State, but their effect when there are changes in political climate and political personnel. We have to be very careful indeed not to include words which might in effect have a bad result upon the liberties and tolerances of our country. I am withdrawing this Amendment only for one reason, namely, that the same subject will be raised almost immediately on an Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Foot, and I am perfectly sure he will put the case much more effectively than could.
LORD FOOT: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, I should explain that I am not going to move my Amendment No. 77, so if he really wants to put the matter to the vote he must seize the opportunity now, because I am afraid he will not: get any assistance from me. Perhaps I should also say to the noble Lord that if he seeks to press this Amendment to a Division I am afraid I shall not be able to go into the Division Lobby with him, because since the next Amendment was put down by my noble friends and myself I have been satisfied that the Government are right about this
720
matter. I agree that this question, as to whether a person should be excluded from this country on the grounds that his entry is not conducive to the public good, is a political decision and an executive decision for which the Secretary of State ought to be answerable to Parliament. I agree that this is not an appropriate matter to be considered by somebody in the nature of an appeal tribunal. The decision has to be made by the Secretary of State, and has to be defended by him in Parliament. Therefore, while I am not trying to ingratiate myself with the Government on this matter, unhappily I am on the other side from the noble Lord.
LORD SHEPHERD: I hope that my noble friend will not feel called upon to press this Amendment to a Division. I recognise that he has strong feelings about it, and no doubt, in the eyes of many, a strong case. Equally the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has given us a clear exposition, and I should certainly like to look with the greatest of care at what he has said. This is a matter that we can come back to when we consider my noble friend's Amendment No. 79, which is much of the same pattern, and perhaps on the Question, That the clause stand part. I hope that in the circumstances—the Committee is a thin one, and it is a big issue which we ought to have time to consider—my noble friend will make that gesture. Of course, it will be open to him to return to this subject on Report, if he feels so inclined.
LORD BROCKWAY: How can a Back-Bencher possibly resist an appeal of that kind, especially when it is added to by the fact that I begin to suspect that something is a little wrong in my attitude if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not able to go into the Division Lobby with me, because on these issues of liberty he is one of the most decisive champions. For those two reasons, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Appeals against conclusions]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): I have

721
to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 78 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 79.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 78:
Page 15, line 37, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move this Amendment, but may I be permitted to say in one sentence why I am not moving it? It is because it goes to the same question of conducive to the public good, which has already been discussed exhaustively to-day.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This might be a convenient moment for the House to resume. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved. That the House do now resume.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
8.16 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment)—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AILWYN in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Constitution of the Authority]:
VISCOUNT H AN WORTH VISCOUNT H AN WORTH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
(" and
(c) shall appoint at least one member who shall have special responsibility for the interests of consumers.")
The noble Viscount said: This is one of a series of Amendments whose object is to ensure that the consumers' point of view gets the attention it deserves in the council of the new Civil Aviation Authority. This and the other Amendment standing in my name, No. 6, are complementary Amendments and not alternative
722
Amendments. In the Second Reading debate, the importance of making these Amendments was stressed both by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry. Although the Minister was sympathetic—and on an issue of this nature I do not think any Minister would wish to be thought otherwise—he contended that the functions of the new Authority were in one way or another consumer functions. I agree with this. But it applies equally to the whole range of public services, from the Post Office to bus services; and with a slight extension of the principle you can also say that producers of consumer goods have the same sort of motivation, because they are in business to satisfy consumer needs, otherwise, of course, in the long run they would hardly make a profit.
Yet we all know that for various reasons the consumer voice is relatively ineffective. This, I think, is particularly so in the public services sector. Other important considerations are allowed to affect the issue. The Minister has said that the duty of the new Authority, to have regard to consumer interests, will be amplified in guidance given under Clause 3(2) of the new Bill. This is not enough, and I should have thought there was even merit from the population's point of view in including something much more specific in the Bill. It is noteworthy that the provisions of the old Civil Aviation Act, Clause 4, which have been copied out in my Amendment No. 6 have not been included in this Bill. This is hardly reassuring. Experience has shown that even with these provisions the situation has not been entirely satisfactory from the consumer's point of view.
The present Amendment is a very modest one and it would only require the Secretary of State, in appointing members to the Civil Aviation Authority, to appoint at least one member who would have special responsibility for the interests of consumers. I really cannot see that such a moderate Amendment is likely to cause inconvenience to anyone, and if it is argued that this sets a precedent which Governments might not wish to follow, I should certainly like the Minister to admit that such is the case. There are a number of other Amendments following mine which have rather the same object in view, and I shall wish to

723
support some of them. So, although I beg to move this Amendment, I shall not press it, because in discussions with the Opposition I realised that they are not wholly happy about this particular solution. Nevertheless, I myself like it and it is one which we have tried, from the consumer angle, to incorporate in other Bills and with other authorities. I should certainly like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
LORD BESMCK: The noble Viscount has moved his Amendment in the most persuasive manner and I, for one, am wholly in agreement with the purpose behind it. As he has said, this matter of the consumer's interest has been raised at earlier stages of the Bill, and I am certain I am right in saying that it was the view on both sides that some reference to consumer interests should be included in this piece of aviation legislation. However, as I have said at earlier stages of the Bill, it would probably be a mistake to have one member of the Authority who would be labelled as the"consumer representative ". It would seem to imply that because this one member is interested in consumer affairs he is in that respect distinct from the other members of the Authority.
I think that would be wrong, both from the point of view of the individual member who is going to do the job and from the point of view of the Authority. It is the Authority as a whole, in my view, upon whom we should pin the responsibility of looking after the consumer interests. Nevertheless, as I have said, I agree with the purpose behind the Amendment and I am encouraged to hear the noble Viscount saying that even though he may not press it we might together secure his purpose by the support given to a later Amendment.
8.25 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I think that although we are taking the first Amendments separately it might be helpful to the Committee if I prefaced my remarks with some general observations about tile way in which the Government see the safeguarding of the interests of customers, so that we can consider the Amendment which the noble Viscount has just moved with Amendments 3, 4,
724
5 and 6 in a common perspective. I can fairly say that there is no real disagreement among us as to what we want to achieve. I believe we all take the view that the civil aviation industry exists to meet the needs of those who wish to use its services and that the Authority should exercise its many powers in such a way as to secure that those needs are met as well, as fairly, and as completely as can be achieved. The question which still divides us, if indeed it does, is how to ensure that this is done.
As my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade has said in another place, the Government have had it in mind throughout that in the guidance to be given to the Authority under Clause 3(2) it should be made clear that the Authority should actively seek the views of the users of aircraft services and set up whatever formal machinery it thinks necessary and appropriate for this purpose. This, it seems to us, is the right approach to the question since it means the Authority should go out and seek those views and not merely wait for them to come in. It also means that we leave it to the Authority to make the arrangements which it thinks best for this purpose. This seems to be the right approach if the Authority is to be allowed the discretion that we want it to have in managing its affairs. In addition, it means that we avoid placing particular emphasis on complaints. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said on Second Reading, consumer interest goes much wider than complaints. I agree that it would be wrong to adopt provisions which focus attention specifically on the consideration of complaints.
Following the same line of thought, the Government have also taken the view that it would be wrong to provide that one member of the Authority should be appointed specifically as a consumer representative. Here I think we are all in agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has just confirmed. The reason for this is, of course, that it is a sad fact of human nature that the views of a person specially appointed in such a capacity tend in practice to be disregarded and discounted because it is known that these are the views which he is there to express. Also, following the same general approach and bearing

725
in mind the views that have already been strongly expressed both in your Lordships' House and in another place, it would seem to be wrong for the Secretary of State, in appointing members to the Authority, to say which particular responsibilities particular individuals should have. It is better to leave it to them. It really is important that the Authority should be given the fullest discretion to organise itself to deal with its own affairs.
With those rather lengthy but, I hope, helpful introductory remarks, the comments which I shall have to make in due course on the five Amendments I have mentioned will fall into place as part of a consistent view which I hope your Lordships will be able to accept. Turning specifically to Amendment No.: as I have said, I think it would be wrong to tell the Authority that one particular person among its members should have particular responsibility for the interests of consumers. This would limit the authority's discretion, as I have explained, and it would tend to carry with it the implication that other members of the authority need not bother about the customers. Also, I should see a real risk that that particular person's views would tend to be discounted.
I think that the purpose of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, whose knowledge in this field is very wide and deeply respected, would be better achieved in other ways. First of all, the Authority should be under a clear duty, as it is, to pursue the consumer interest; and that is achieved in part by the objectives which now appear in the Bill and which will be further strengthened if Amendment No. 4 to Clause 3 is accepted. This in turn will be supported and amplified by the policy guidance to be given under Clause 3(2), which itself will be subject to Parliamentary debate. I can assure noble Lords that the policy guidance will deal more fully with consumer interests and will include a requirement for the Authority to consult as widely as possible all those concerned with consumer interests.
Secondly, it is essential that in appointing members to the Authority, the Secretary of State should bear in mind that in approaching all its work the Authority should be mindful of the interests of its customers. Instead of appointing just
726
one person with these special responsibilities, the Secretary of State—in appointing members to the Authority in general—should and will have regard not only to their experience and qualifications for special functions but also to the extent to which they will be responsive to consumer interests. As the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, we too want the Authority as a whole to be mindful of the customers' interests and I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will have regard to this.
Having said that, I would agree that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has a point when he suggests that someone in the Authority should have responsibility for investigating consumer complaints. That is a point which everyone would accept, and such a person might be responsible furthermore for co-ordinating consultations with the consumer interests, and for ensuring that full account is taken of their interests and relevant representation. But this does not mean that that person should necessarily be a member of the Board. Indeed, there is much to be said for a fairly senior member of staff bringing such matters to the attention of the Board as a whole. Therefore I am saying that this is a matter for organisation and management by the Authority within the Authority, and not a matter for legislation. As I have said, I believe it would be quite wrong for your Lordships' House or the Secretary of State to tell the Authority to organise its affairs in any more detail than is set out in the Bill as we intend to amend it. I hope I have said enough to reassure the noble Viscount that customers' interests are very much in mind.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: The noble Lord has said enough to reassure me that nothing has changed. Year after year we ask for consumer representation and year after year, by Governments of different complexions, we are told that everything is absolutely fine—that of course anybody who is selling things to consumers thinks only of the consumer and never pays a moment's attention to any other aspect of the deal. We are also told it would be absurd to have in a Cabinet, for example, somebody paying particular attention to any one subject. No one, would listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if in the Cabinet he spoke

727
about money because everyone would know what he was going to say. This is the argument which has been seriously put up against somebody who has a special job to look after consumers' interests. It is awfully boring for people like myself who in the past have been actually concerned with consumer movements and interested in them to hear the same silly old arguments trundled out week after week.
A number of consumers in the aeroplane business are deeply and rightly dissatisfied. The thing is in a fearful mess; it is extremely badly run. I.A.T.A. is the most serious restrictive practice in our whole economic organisation, and just to suppose that everything will be all right if we do nothing about it is not good enough. I hope my noble friend will bring something to a Division, if not this Amendment, at least another one, because I think that from the consumers' point of view the whole thing is quite impossible.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My noble friend has suggested that we should widen our discussion at this stage to cover not only Amendment No. 1 but also Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6. I think we had a good and full discussion in the previous Committees here and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, was not present then as he certainly has enlivened the discussion to-night. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has already said he does not wish to press his Amendment No. 1. I think this was discussed particularly on the Second Reading of this Bill and it was generally agreed, as my noble friend said, that it was not necessarily a good principle to appoint a special representative. The issue therefore seems to be whether the Committee should accept my noble friend's Amendments No. 3 and 4 or possibly that of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, or that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I am grateful to my noble friend for undertaking at the last Committee stage to look again into the problem and for coming back with an Amendment to try to meet the wishes of the Committee. It would seem that the only difference between my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is in the words—
" subject to the preceding paragraphs "
728
in the case of my noble friend and—
" in pursuance of the duties set out in the preceding paragraphs "
in the noble Lord, Lord Beswick's Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may feel that the wording of my noble friend's Amendment could be translated as being subservient to the clause. I would suggest to the Committee that if one simply had—
" to further at all times the reasonable interests of users of air transport services "
this could well meet the case.
As to the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth's Amendment taking out Section 4 of the 1960 Act, I would suggest that if under Schedule 11 of this Bill that clause were not repealed it would meet his point.
LORD BESWICK: If I may try to be helpful to the Committee, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has rather confused the issue by referring to Amendments which have not yet been moved. I have spoken already but I have not moved my Amendment and I was reserving the arguments concerning that Amendment until we reached it. I think we could save time if we could settle first whether this particular procedure is the way in which we want to secure the purpose we all have in mind.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I am going to withdraw this Amendment but I am wholly unsatisfied with what the Minister has said. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has made the point that I was going to make: that having one man whose particular interest is to look at consumer requirements is perfectly satisfactory. It is the sort of board that one has in any company where as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has said, there is a wide range of interests. I am wholly unconvinced by that argument, but I will leave it there.
What worries me a great deal more is the argument that one need not put much about this in the Bill because after all the Authority is bound to do the job all right. Why do we need a Bill laying down a lot of requirements on the Authority? The conclusion one arrives at straight away is that these things are vitally important and that the consumer viewpoint is a relatively minor matter. I am afraid the Minister cannot get away with that argument. What we want to see in black

729
and white in the Bill is that the Authority must concern itself with consumer affairs in conjunction with its other work, and unless we get that we are not satisfied.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I apologise to the noble Lords because I was not here for the opening speeches. I do not think the Tannoy was working at full blast. I am somewhat dubious about this Amendment, and I work on the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is going to withdraw it; but when we get to Amendment No. 6 I think lie has made out a very strong case, one which we should all support when we get there.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Functions of the Authority]:
8.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
(" ( ) the consideration and formulation, in consultation with those concerned, of a national airports plan; ").
The noble Lord said: On the Committee stage I raised the question of the responsibility for the planning ahead of our national airports, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, promised to write to me. That he was good enough to do, but I did not receive the letter until yesterday. Therefore I was not able to put down my Amendment until yesterday, and I apologise for the fact that it only appeared on the Marshalled List this morning. The Amendment was drafted in something of a hurry, and the wording may not be adequate. Nevertheless, I thought it was necessary to have something on the list of Amendments, and it is important to get an assurance that there will be something in this Bill which places upon the Authority a responsibility for the consideration and planning ahead of a national airports pattern. It was said on the Committee stage that there should be someone, somewhere, who brooded over the problem and who was capable of setting down a coherent plan for our future airports system for the nation as a whole. It seems that the Civil Aviation Authority is the appropriate organisation.
They will have responsibility for the administration of some airports, the responsibility for air traffic control and for regulating and licensing air transport services. They will see how these air transport services are developing, and I hope that if our next Amendment is successful they will have a statutory responsibility for looking after the interests of the consumer who flies on the services. Therefore it seems logical that the Civil Aviation Authority should be the body which looks after the planning ahead of an adequate airports system.
I have in reserve a more carefully considered form of words, and if I can get an undertaking from the noble Lord I will withdraw this Amendment on the understanding that he will consider the words that I propose to put down on Third Reading. I do not believe that there can be any argument against the proposition that someone should have the duty which I have tried to set out in my Amendment. I doubt whether it can be controverted that there is a better organisation than the proposed new Civil Aviation Authority. I hope that it will be possible for the Government to accept either this Amendment, or the principle of it, and we can put down another form of words on the Third Reading. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will allow me to interpose a few words here. When he says:"in consultation with those concerned," he raises a subject in particular that could be germane to the issue. I do not suppose that the formulation of a national airports plan is something that the Civil Aviation Authority, or anybody else, could deal with entirely by themselves They have the duty to provide assistance and information which would no doubt be useful to those with experience—local authorities, perhaps—on matters such as land use planning and the environment. In the most formulative stage of any plan, or even the vestiges of a plan, I hope that the Civil Aviation Authority will be in a position and, if necessary, will be guided under Clause 3 to provide the technical information necessary for those who know about the things that county councils know about to make their contribution.
One cannot expect the technical matters to be in the immediate knowledge of all

731
those who are concerned. In view of what the noble Lord has said about the functions of this Authority, those matters will be very much in the minds of the Authority. They will know about the latest trends, about vertical take-off and landing, and about everything there is to know in the forefront of the current movement towards progress in the air world. They will be in a particularly favourable position to give information, to co-operate and co-ordinate. I hope that even if a national airports plan is not going to be written into the Bill, there will be strong pressure upon the Authority to keep in close contact with people like local planning authorities, so that they may have a permanent system of co-operation and consultation on all these matters.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the questions of land use planning go wider than those of civil aviation alone. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross that the Government must retain ultimate responsibility for such matters, and the matters are those on which local authorities will also have something to say. For these reasons the Civil Aviation Authority cannot be given an executive role in this area such as it has in others. That is not to say that the Authority will have no role, because that would be far from the case. The Authority will be able to continue and develop the work done by the Department of Trade and Industry in regard to estimating future traffic demands and airport capacity requirements. In this way the Authority should be able to provide an advisory service to the Government, to airport owners and to others which will help to ensure that aerodromes will be developed, not only to meet the needs of local areas but to provide a viable air transport network for the country as a whole, which is the noble Lord's main consideration.
As I have already said, this will be an Advisory and not an executive role, and in that respect it is quite distinct from all the functions spelt out in Clause 2, which are functions for which the Authority will be given executive responsibility. Nevertheless, I confirm that we intend in the policy guidance to be made under Clause 3(2) to spell out more fully the
732
Authority's precise role in relation to aerodrome planning. Fundamental decisions, such as the choice of Foulness as the Third London Airport, and the recently announced decisions relating to restrictions of development and closure of certain other airports in the London area are matters for, and will continue to be matters for, the Government to decide. It is not the Government's intention to remain heavily involved in the detailed licensing decisions of the Authority. Instead, the Authority will be given, where necessary, clear guidance as to the Government's policies and will have the important job, which my noble friend envisaged, of helping with the implementation of these policies through its air transport licensing machinery. Here again the need is to give the Authority clear guidance under Clause 3(2).
In reply to my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, may I say that it has been the policy of successive Governments to adopt a flexible approach towards aerodrome development, allowing a good deal of freedom to local authorities in the areas concerned for the development of airports. Local authorities have been considered to be best qualified to decide the air transport needs for their respective areas. Nevertheless, it is intended that the Civil Aviation Authority shall undertake similar studies to those previously undertaken by Government Departments and independent consultants and will be thoroughly equipped to do so. Clear guidance will be given by the Government to the Authority as to the nature and objectives of these studies. And to complete the picture I would remind the Committee that Clause 33 of the Bill provides for the Authority to advise the Secretary of State and others on matters such as these and to recover the costs of providing such advice.
Therefore, it is better that no statutory obligation should be laid upon the Authority to produce an aerodromes plan. In this respect, in the way we propose it will be possible to preserve a greater degree of flexibility in aerodrome planning, which is desirable if the Government and local authorities are to take account of the rapidly changing nature of the problems which are likely to arise. Nevertheless, if the noble Lord cares to get in touch with me between now and the next stage I would be happy to give

733
consideration to any further Amendment he feels disposed to put down in the light of what I have said. But perhaps he may feel, with that explanation and with the reference to the effects of Clause 33, that the Amendment is not required at all.
8.52 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: That is really a curate's egg. All sorts of things have been held out to us as good, particularly in the last part of the noble Lord's speech where he said that he is prepared to discuss with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, before the next stage as to the purpose of this Amendment and how it could best be implemented, and the undertaking of the noble Minister to consider the whole question of a national airports policy. But I do not like the undertones. It started off with a most amazing remark, which I imagine came from the noble Lord's brief: that this was an Amendment about land use planning. If there is one thing it really is not about it is land use planning; it is about the whole national transport system; the whole international transport system, if you like, and this is somehing about which we really want an answer. We on these Benches in dealing
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that land use planning is totally irrelevant in that particular concern.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Indeed I do not. But, dedicated though I am to land use planning, I suggest it is a minor part of this particular Amendment and this particular point, because what we are talking about is the whole international transport problem. We on these Benches have time and time again, when fielding statements from Governments—both of the Conservative Party and of the Labour Party—dealing with airports over the last few years, always said,"Yes, but when are we going to have a serious overall plan for what is going to happen to airports and what is going to happen to air traffic?"This is what we want. We got no assurance about this from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
I welcome the fact, as I said before, that he is going to discuss with the noble
734
Lord, Lord Beswick, about this, but I hope he takes the point that we are not just quibbling about a minor power here or there, or who is going to have responsibility for deciding on the kind of minor issue where, he rightly says, the local decisions and local advice must have a very considerable say. What we are talking about—what I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is talking about; I think he is, and we certainly are—is some kind of machinery for an overall airport/airways scheme for this country, which has certainly not emerged in the past; it certainly shows no sign of emerging at the moment, and it certainly ought to emerge in the immediate future.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to support the general issue of a national airports policy, and I am grateful to my noble friend for saying that he is prepared to look at this matter and discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, before the next stage of the Bill. It is perhaps not necessary to remind the Committee that the Edwards Committee felt particularly strongly on this point, and from the evidence they gathered it seemed that there was a lack of planning and a duplication of facilities. They particularly mentioned in one case, I think, the Birmingham and Coventry airports. Also, as my noble friend has said, it is very much a matter of development of regions. It could even lead to the decline of regions. I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to agree that this should be written into the Bill, and I would certainly support it.
LORD BESWICK: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, to the noble Earl, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for the support they have given to the proposition I put before them. I must learn from this technique and speak as briefly as possible and then expect others to put my case much better than I am capable of doing it myself. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, must stand amazed at his own moderation when he referred to the noble Lord's speech as being a curate's egg. Harsher words could have been used. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the undertaking which the noble Lord has given.
May I say that I agree with the noble Viscount, and others, that of course other interests come into it. The kind of

735
Amendment I propose to put down is the following:
" Plans under this section shall be in such form and for such periods as the Authority and the Secretary of State may from time to time agree and in preparing any such plan the Authority shall consult with the Secretary of State and with any local authority appearing to it to be concerned to a significant degree by the plan and with any other bodies who appear to the Authority to be able to contribute substantially to the formulation of the plan and shall have regard to certain matters."
I hope it will be agreed. Of course, I recognise that many interests are involved when one comes to consider the possibility of a viable airport plan for the nation.
There was one particular point which worried me—and if I may have the noble Lord's attention for a moment I can put this down on the Record. He says that the Authority will have clear guidance from the Government as to its policy. This, surely, is the wrong way round. We are supposed to be setting up a professional body outside the governmental machine which is going to give guidance to the Government. I thought this was the whole purpose of Fulton and what he was saying. To say that you are going to set up a body and then tell it how to work, is rather like the idea of some form of puppet show with the Government still pulling the strings.
LORD SANDFORD: May I interrupt the noble Lord? What I said was that in the policy guidance we would spell out more fully the Authority's role—not the policy about airport planning but the Authority's role, which, as I explained, is advisory, in relation to aerodrome planning.
LORD BESWICK: I am glad that the noble Lord has made that clear. He used the phrase twice. The first time I understood what he said; the second time I thought he was saying something different. Probably the best way I can serve the Committee here is by asking leave to withdraw this Amendment, and then I will put before the noble Lord the Amendment which I have, and I hope that on Third Reading we can embody it in the Bill itself—in black and white, as someone said—as a statutory
736
obligation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [General objectives and guidance by the Secretary of State]:
8.58 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 12, leave out (" and ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, which is merely a paving Amendment, and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 4. I have already referred in general terms to the Government's intention in this field, and particularly to including specific reference to the interests of consumers in the guidance to be given under Clause 3(2). In moving this particular pair of Amendments I need not say much more. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, sought in the earlier Committee to strengthen these intentions, if I may express it that way, by amending Clause 2 in such a way as to make it the function of the Authority to safeguard the interests of consumers. However, this would not have been a good way of meeting the point because Clause 2 is descriptive of functions which are provided for elsewhere and are being transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority. This is not a function which is at the moment specifically provided for elsewhere. Moreover, as I have said, it is not really a function in itself. I think we are all agreed about that. It is more about the way in which the Authority should perform all its many functions. Therefore Clause 3 is a better place for it. Her Majesty's Government have therefore put down Amendment No. 4, in effect to elevate the consumer interest, which we are all so rightly concerned about, from the supplementary guidance to be given under subsection (2) and to include it among the main objectives in subsection (1) of Clause 3. In this way it will be given specific mention in the Bill itself, as many noble Lords have asked for, and in effect it will enjoy an elevated status. I believe all the noble Lords who have spoken will welcome this.
The matter will still be amplified in the policy guidance under subsection (2) but it will now hang on an objective set out in the Bill itself. If I anticipate him correctly the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is seeking an alternative to Amendment No. 4 by putting down Amendment No. 5. If I understand his intention correctly it is the opening words of Amendment No. 4 which he does not like and which read"subject to the preceding paragraphs," so I will now deal with that. I have carefully considered this matter and have concluded that Amendment No. 4 is to be preferred for these reasons. The purpose of the opening words of my Amendment is to guide the Authority as to the relative weight it should give to the four objectives in order to help it to reach a decision. I believe that the noble Lord's reformulation of it would tend either to guide the Authority wrongly in some respects or, more likely, tend to lead to some confusion.
Let me say straight away that I believe that in general the duty which each of our Amendments sets out, to further the interests of the consumers, will seldom conflict with the preceding objectives, and I do not think it would be right to regard it in that way. The objectives in paragraphs (a) and (b) are certainly intended to benefit the users of the transport services, and things like the lowest charges consistent with a high standard of safety will benefit air travellers. The objective of paragraph (c) goes rather wider since this is intended to benefit the country as a whole, and likewise the reference in paragraph (a) to safety embraces not only the safety of people in the aeroplanes but also the safety of the people on the ground. So in these particular respects, at least, it could sometimes be the case that the interests of the users of air transport services are not the only interests that the Authority would need to weigh. Therefore it would be wrong to say that the Authority must at all times further the interests of the users of air transport services to the exclusion of other interests, which is what Amendment No. 5 would occasionally be saying.
Reverting to Amendment No. 4, I would point out that the words"subject to the preceding paragraphs"mean no more in practice than that the Authority must weigh the interests of the users intelligently against other and wider
738
interests, where these are relevant. These words also mean that the Authority should take a long view and not too narrow a view of what the interests of the users really are. These words mean no more than that, but, as I have tried to show, I believe they are necessary and are the correct words to use in this context. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I was going to suggest that it would be to the convenient, of the Committee if we discussed the Amendment under my name on the Marshalled List together with the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 5, page 3, line 18, at end to insert the words on the Marshalled List. May I first say that I am grateful to the noble Lord—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: With great respect, I do not think that there can be two Amendments before the Committee at the same time. No doubt it would be acceptable if the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, were to speak to his Amendment, but I do not think he can move it when another Amendment has already been moved.
LORD BESWICK: I quite agree that it would be wrong if my Amendment were put to the Committee, and I suppose it is equally wrong if I move it, but I hope the noble Viscount will agree that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss these two Amendments together. I was saying that I was grateful to the noble Lord and to his right honourable friend for his readiness to discuss this matter with members of the Select Committee, and I am grateful for the efforts that have been made to meet the very firm views which were expressed at the Committee stage, but we have only to read the words in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to realise that they are inadequate. Here we are dealing with a consumer interest, the man or woman who is a passenger in the airline, the person all the organisation is destined to serve. As I said at the Committee stage, there is no point in building aircraft or in laying down a runway, or indeed in having an airline, unless it be for the purpose of giving adequate service to the passenger. We wanted to have in the Bill something which would make it quite clear that the customers' interest was after all paramount. I had

739
indicated that certainly up to now in aviation legislation we had recognised that there was this need. Although this view was supported by both sides of the Committee, and although views were expressed very forefully, we now have the following Amendment.
" subject to the preceding paragraphs, to further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services; "
I do not think it sounds sufficiently virile; it does not seem to mean what we want to say, and therefore I have ventured to put down some other words.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said that if we do not have regard to the preceding paragraphs we should not have regard to safety. Safety is in one of the preceding paragraphs. It would surely be unreasonable to say that we are looking after the interests of the passenger if we do not have regard to safety. Would it not be unreasonable if we were to say that we ignore paragraph (c), which makes reference to the need to make a contribution towards a favourable balance of payments? If we were looking after the interests of the consumer and jeopardising the balance of payments of this country that surely would be unreasonable. At the same time, I think it is wrong to say that before we can look after the interests of the consumer we have to have regard to the need expressed in paragraph (b)
" to secure that at least one major British airline which is not controlled by the British Airways Board has opportunities to participate in providing…services…"
I am not, of course, raising the purpose of paragraph (b). I simply say that it gives an entirely wrong impression if we say that before we look after the passenger, the customer, we have to see that one major British airline is properly provided for. I feel, therefore, with all respect and in all gratitude for what has been put into this Amendment which the noble Lord has moved, that we ought to go a little further. I hope very much that he will accept that although there may conceivably be legal objections to the wording that I am proposing, nevertheless if one interprets the words in a common sense way including the requirement about the"reasonable interests of users of air transport services ", his fears in relation to the balance of payments and in relation to
740
safety are not really justified. On reflection, I hope very much he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment and accept the Amendment in my name.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in everything he has said. I am, however, slightly worried about the tactical position and what the best tactical way to approach this is. I know that this is very presumptuous in the face of the Labour Party Chief Whip. I hope that the Minister will indeed agree to withdraw his Amendment and to accept that of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. If he does not, I would suggest that possibly the best way of tackling this is to accept the Government Amendment and then put down an Amendment to strengthen it at Third Reading. Presumably the Government, since they have seen the three Amendments, have already formed an opinion as to the relevant merits. If the Government go ahead with this, I think it would be wrong to oppose the Government Amendment as it stands, in which case the Labour Amendment, unless it is slightly altered in manuscript, more or less falls, because it no longer makes much sense. I hope that the Government will accept Lord Beswick's argument and will accept Amendment No. 5 and withdraw Nos. 3 and 4. I hope that if Nos. 3 and 4 are pressed the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will propose a strengthening Amendment on Third Reading. I think that would be the best way of dealing with it if the Government are not, as they often are not, ready to see the light.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to add my support to those who consider that the consumer interest is of paramount importance. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, described the Government's Amendment as not being virile enough. I have suggested already that it could be if the Government were to agree to omit these offending words,"subject to the preceding paragraphs"and simply add,"to further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services ". That would meet the wishes of the entire Committee.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. As there are very few Members present, it may stop the proceedings if we press this to a vote.
9.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I think the Minister's point is really rather a narrow one. It may be that a compromise Amendment is the answer. After all, if you look at Clause 3(1)(a) (which is one of the things the authority have to do first, the consumer interest coming second according to the Minister), it says:
" to secure that British airlines provide air transport services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand (so far as British airlines may reasonably be expected to provide such services) at the lowest charges…"
The point is that if you really wish to be difficult and split hairs you can say,"All right, yes, that is what they do, but they are not in the least concerned about whether the aircraft are half filled, and the public are paying far more than they ought to. They are nevertheless providing air transport services which satisfy all substantial categories of public demand, and really they should not take into account the consumer angle at all when thinking about this ". I merely make the point that you can read it several ways if you wish to. I do not feel that the Government Amendment is strong enough as it stands.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his acknowledgment and recognition that the Government have taken considerable pains to meet the points expressed in the earlier Committee and in putting forward our Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I confirm that we have gone as far as we feel it is right to go, and that after due consideration of all the points that were raised—and no fresh points have been raised to-night—we feel that we have now got the balance right. I would not agree that we have put the consumer interests second by any means. We feel that it is necessary to strike a balance, and we believe that we have the terms of that balance right in Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I cannot give any further assurance that we can make any further modifications. Therefore, I will ask the Committee to accept Amendment No. 3, which is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 4.
LORD BESWICK: Before we collect the voices, may I deal with the esoteric point which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, put about procedure? The answer is surely that if we
742
want to try to secure a strengthening of the clause, we should first have to divide on the Government Amendment. If that was defeated, then we go on to consider a vacuum. I quite agree that we are in something of a difficulty, but I am not sure that the words which I am moving would not fill that vacuum if we accepted the first of the two Amendments of the noble Lord opposite, and then if the second was defeated we could accept the third. That would seem to be the position. Before we come to that, I wonder whether the noble Lord would at least look at the proposal which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull put. If they left out these words:"subject to the preceding paragraphs ", I would be happy with that. If we have those words in as well, then I really feel that we are not meeting the wishes that were firmly expressed on both sides of the Committee in support of the consumer point of view. I ask, therefore, that the noble Lord should give an undertaking to look at that. If he will not, then I am afraid I shall recommend my noble friends to vote against the second of the two Amendments which the noble Lord is moving; namely, Amendment No. 4.
LORD SANDFORD: I would give an assurance that we would look at that if I was not satisfied that we had already looked at it very carefully. Clearly, to leave this out is the simple kind of solution which, at first sight, does have attractions. But on reflection we feel that it is necessary to strike the balance for the reasons I have set out, and therefore those words are needed. I do not think that I can add any more.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at end insert—
(" and;
(d) subject to the preceding paragraphs, to further the reasonable interests of users of air transport services; ").—(Lord Sandford.)
9.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Redesdale, L.

Balfour, E.

Gage, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Gisborough, L.

St. Helens, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Sandford, L.

Bolton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Savile, L.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hatherton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brecon, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Conesford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Latymer, L.

Strange, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Foot, L.

Kennet, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Kings Norton, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Burntwood, L.

Greenway, L.

Seear, Bs.

Collison, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Shackleton, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tanlaw, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Janner, L.

White, Bs.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH VISCOUNT HANWORTH moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) It shall be the duty of the Authority to consider any representation from any person relating to, or to facilities in connection with, air transport services by means of aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or with respect to the tariff or other charges in respect of any other such service or facilities:
Provided that the Authority shall not be required by this subsection to consider any representation if in their opinion—

(a) the representation is frivolous or vexatious; or

(b) the matters to which the representation relates have already been sufficiently considered by the Authority; or

(c) the matters to which the representation relates are for the time being regulated by an international agreement to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party.")

The noble Viscount said: The justification for this Amendment is, in broad terms, that which I put forward when moving Amendment No. 1. However, this Amendment is rather different; it is designed to provide a complaints procedure.
744
This procedure, exactly as it is in my Amendment, appeared in the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960, but for some reason or other it has been omitted from this Bill. I should like to remind your Lordships that both the Air Transport Licensing Board, in paragraph 11 of their last Report, and the Edwards Committee Report, on which this Bill was based—and paragraph 1,018 refers—stressed the need for adequate consumer representation and mechanisms for dealing with complaints. I have a feeling that the Government will argue that all this will be put into effect later on by the Authority, and need not in fact appear in the Bill. I am afraid that all my experience in these sort of circumstances indicates that nothing nearly as effective will occur. The plain facts are that it will probably be only when the case is taken up by somebody in Parliament that it will ever reach the top level.
If we make this Amendment to the Bill, with all the provisos that it has, it will not be time-wasting because the Authority need not look at a representation if it is frivolous or vexatious; they need not look at it if

745
" the matters to which the representation relates have already been sufficiently considered by the Authority ";
and they need not look at it if
" the matters to which the representation relates are for the time being regulated by an international agreement to which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a party."
Can we have anything more reasonable than that? If this is not put in the Bill, I do not believe that this sort of mechanism, certainly not such an effective mechanism, will ever come into being by itself. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: May I say a word in support of the noble Viscount? He sets down, in words which are probably more appropriate, part of the original Amendment which I had down on the Committee stage. Again I would emphasise, despite how the voting went on the last Amendment, that in fact the unanimous view of noble Lords on both sides of that Committee was that we should have words of this kind in this Bill. I hope that from time to time the noble Lord will accept the proposition that what is the general feeling in this Committee should have some relation to the nature of the Bill which goes out of this House. I hope, therefore, that he is able to say that he will accept the Amendment.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked"Could you have anything more reasonable? ". No, you could not. He leaned over backwards to meet the Government. We were asked earlier whether we could not have some more virile words. These are not at all virile. They are merely the kind of rather despairing words which anyone who had anything to do with consumers must put forward to a Government which destroyed the Consumer Council. This Amendment says that
"…the Authority shall not be required by this subsection to consider any representation if…representation is frivolous or vexatious; or matters to which the representation relates have already been sufficiently considered…"
and these words are prefaced by"their opinion "; that is, with no appeal from their opinion whatsoever. This immediately rules out a great number of the things which should be considered by the Authority. We all know that it is
746
a fact of human nature that in any institutions (this is not to cast any aspersions on the people who run authorities of this kind, people who run Government Departments or Government institutions or businesses of this sort) there are those who do not really want to consider a number of the more annoying and boring matters which are brought forward, one or two of which may be valid complaints by the consumer. All these are ruled out in this Amendment. It is entirely up to the Authority to decide whether it is going to look at these complaints or not. It is a very, very mild Amendment. I sincerely hope that the Government are going to accept it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to add a word of support in principle of the noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth. I would remind noble Lords that it was a Conservative Government which brought these words into the 1960 Act—and I understand from the A.T.L.B. that they have worked very well. I would make one suggestion on the lines of reducing the size of this Bill. Could we not agree that this matter could come under Schedule 11 and that this important section should not be repealed?
LORD SOMERS: While I am wholly in sympathy with the purpose behind the Amendment, I have some doubts regarding the proviso at the end of it. It is only too easy for any transport authority to disclaim responsibility for attending to a complaint by saying that the complaint has already been dealt with, or to pass on the responsibility to somebody else. One sees it every day in the rules of London Transport. One sees this every day—on the railways, on London Transport and everywhere. I feel that the proviso as worded is perhaps opening too wide a door, but apart from that I am absolutely in sympathy with the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has said, his Amendment follows the words of Section 4 of the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act, 1960, but omits the concluding words about what is to be done with a representation when the Authority has considered it. I have two points to make on this Amendment. The first is that the

747
1960 Act is much narrower in its scope than the Bill now before us. For example, in Clause 26 the present Bill provides for something new. It provides for the licensing of the organisers of air travel. This in itself is a very important new measure which will operate very much in the interests of consumers. Air travel organisers may, and often do, make use of the services of foreign airlines, but the effect of this Amendment would be to limit the duty of the Authority to the consideration of representations about flights on British-registered aircraft. The result would be that the dissatisfied holidaymaker who arranges his holiday through a British air travel organiser but flies on a foreign-registered aircraft would have no opportunity to have his grievances considered.
The Authority will of course also have responsibilities for a wide range of matters going well beyond air transport licensing matters and there is no reason why the interests of consumers should be limited in the way proposed by this Amendment. The second point I make is an even more important objection. We want to get away from the concept of consumer complaints. Once again I remind your Lordships of what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said on the Second Reading of this Bill:
" There are many consumer matters affecting travellers that are not complaints…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/7/71; col. 1268.]
I and, I think, many noble Lords agree with that. For that reason we want the Authority to consider and take account of all representations from air travellers but I do not think this can be achieved by a specific Amendment on the lines which the noble Viscount has proposed. It is not just a question of drafting because air transport is one of the fastest growing and fastest changing industries and it is important that the matters to be pursued by the Authority in the interests of air travellers should be subject to review in the light of changing circumstances. That is why we attach so much importance to the policy guidance to be made under Clause 3(2)—as I have said several times, it can be amended from time to time—and why we regard that provision as the most suitable mechanism for dealing in such detail as is necessary with consumer interests. For that reason, I hope that
748
the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment because it would have these limiting effects; if he does press it, I would advise the Committee to reject it.
9.38 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to look again at this Amendment and to consider it in conjunction with what has been already agreed by the Committee when it accepted Amendment No. 4? There is no question of limiting anything; this is a question of adding something. We already have provision for the reasonable interests of air transport users to be considered. In addition to that, this is a requirement that proper complaints should be considered by the Civil Aviation Authority. I said before that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that we should not consider consumer interests simply as a matter of looking at complaints; but I do not believe she intended that any organisation which looks after consumer interests should not consider complaints. The point is that we do not want to limit it to this. The noble Lord is really wrong in trying to use that argument against this Amendment. There has been this provision in other aviation legislation and although this Bill covers a somewhat wider field, it is still necessary, possibly even more necessary, that representations from the consumers on individual matters should be considered.
I make this further point. When this Authority is set up, it will engage in a good deal of market research, endeavour to keep itself in touch with what is going on and find out how operators who are licensed are carrying out the provisions of their licences. The possibility of receiving complaints from members of the travelling public is a valuable way of keeping in touch with the market and I should think that this is a valuable addition to the kind of customer research which the Authority is required to do or have done for it. No possible damage can be done by accepting this Amendment and I believe that a certain amount of advantage would result. It is a positive Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley's conscience will not be troubled by it. On this occasion, therefore, I hope that we will be able to support the noble Viscount, if he sees fit to press his Amendment to a Division.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I do not think that the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, was in any way satisfactory. I have every sympathy with him. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in a very delicate and barbed compliment-cum-insult to me on Second Reading, said that I made a very good speech, considering that I knew less about civil aviation than anyone speaking except himself. I am not quite certain that I can put it so delicately to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, except to say honestly that his speech has landed him in a lot of trouble. To talk about the whole problem of national airport planning as a problem in landings planning is bad enough but to say that we want to get away from the concept of consumer complaints is a dreadful remark to have to read out. Of course, we want to get on to other and better things as well as consumer complaints but we do not want to get away from consumer complaints.
LORD SANDFORD: I was repeating the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: But the noble Lord was presumably repeating them verbatim? Yes, that is all right. I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness but I do not have to defend her every word in the House. Obviously, the line the noble Lord was taking was that we had to get away from consumer complaints. I am a consumer, we are all consumers, and I hope that none of us wishes to get away from the concept of consumer complaints. The broader, the wider and the deeper the whole concept is made, so that we have
people to look after us and represent the community and do all the things we want to see done, the more room there will still be for the little complaint of the single consumer on the matter which affects him or her. We do not want to get away from consumer complaints. This Amendment does not stop any wider, broader or deeper concept being involved as well. There is no reason why we should not have this Amendment and I hope your Lordships will vote for it.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I am afraid that, like other speakers, I am not satisfied with the Minister's reply. He makes one point, which is true, of course, and that is that this Amendment is limited to aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, there is nothing to prevent the Authority from doing what it can with aircraft that are not registered in the United Kingdom. Had I tried to include them, no doubt I should have been told that they have no jurisdiction in many of the matters with which this Amendment hopes to deal. I am afraid I dismiss that argument completely, and I am totally dissatisfied with the other arguments which the Minister has put forward. I must therefore press this Amendment to a Division, even at this late hour. I feel that consumer representation is a most important principle, and it is only too clear from the Bill, and from the Minister's reply, that we are retrogressing rather than progressing in this direction.
9.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Monson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V. [Teller.]

Seear, Bs.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kennet, L.

Somers, L.

Collison, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Strange, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Foot, L.

Merrivale, L.

White, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Balerno, L.

Belstead, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bolton, L.

Amory, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carrington, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Conesford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redmayne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Helens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Just, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Savile, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Selkirk, E.

Digby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Somerleyton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Falkland, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Vivian, L.

Gage, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oakshott, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.53 p.m.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Special provisions as respects certain functions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, leave out from (" 1958 ") and insert (" 1971 ").
The noble Lord said: These are just drafting Amendments. The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 has been replaced by the new Act of 1971, and these Amendments merely reflect consequential new references. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 8:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 31, leave out (" 5 ") and insert (" 8 ").—(Lord Sandford.)
Clause 5, as amended agreed to. Clause 6 [Financial Provisions]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 38, after (" revenue ") insert (" (including any grant towards revenue made to it in pursuance of section 10(1) of this Act) ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 9 on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Carrington. In the earlier Committee on this Bill there was some uncertainty among your Lordships, as there was also in another place, in inter
752
-preting the duty laid down in Clause 6(1) of the Bill. Amendment No. 9 has been put forward with the intention of making it clear that the revenue of the Authority will include grants which may be made available by the Secretary of State, as well as revenue which the Authority may obtain in the form of fees and charges. The Authority will thus be able to aggregate all forms of revenue so as to balance its books and meet the duty in this clause from the outset. This duty is something quite distinct from the question of the Authority's becoming self-supporting, without further need of subvention. The question of the full recovery of the cost of the Authority's functions and the time by which the Authority should become self-supporting is a separate matter on which the Authority will be given guidance under Clause 3(2) and on which there may be something more to be said on the next Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: As the noble Lord said, this subject was raised on the Committee stage. He said there was some uncertainty about Clause 6. It was not uncertainty, it was dissatisfaction. We thought the clause was a mistake. It was a mistake that this Authority, which is not a commercial authority but a body which has the responsibility of regulating a whole field of air transport affairs, should be expected to pay for itself, one year with another. We thought it could not be self-supporting. The noble Lord has gone some way to emphasise the fact that there will be grants and that paying one year with another can include a grant from Her Majesty's Government. I should have thought that the next Amendment on the Marshalled List in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, would have gone

753
further in some respects, but in other respects I can accept that it is difficult to see how the Government could place upon themselves such an obligation. I am grateful that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit to meet our point to this extent.
I want to ask only one question, and whether one undertaking can be given. It was not simply a matter of the Authority's having to pay its way, one year with another. A doubt which we expressed was the possibility that the Authority, in arranging its own affairs, would have to cost-subsidise one aspect of its responsibilities with revenues received from another aspect of its responsibilities. We thought it was quite wrong to have to collect from, say, aircraft engineers or from the aircraft manufacturers fees for simplification which would be required to pay for administrative work and regulatory work in other activities of the Authority. I want an undertaking as clearly as it is possible to express it that there shall be no requirement on this Authority to cross-subsidise one function with revenues received from another. If the noble Lord can give us that assurance in clear terms then we shall be most grateful to him.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: So far as I concerned it was a matter more of confusion than dissatisfaction. I felt that, in a phrase which became well known to those of us who served on the Select Committee, there was very little between the two sides on this particular subject. I therefore welcome the Amendment which clarifies a situation that was rather obscure beforehand. Since we are taking the two Amendments separately, I will reserve what I have to say on the further implications of this matter to Amendment No. 10.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to give a brief welcome to this Amendment and thank my noble friend who gave an undertaking at the last stage of the Committee to look at this matter again. I am grateful to him for moving the Amendment and for clarifying this issue.
LORD SANDFORD: The Amendment is not designed to deal with the rather wider issue that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, went on to mention in response
754
to my moving Amendment No. 9. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick asked me about cross-subsidisation, and I am glad to be able to give him the reassurance that he wanted. I do not think this arises on the Amendment, but I can assure him that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no intention that any one broad category of function should subsidise another. The revenue obtained from fees and charges in respect of the regulation of the industry will not, for example, be used to subsidise losses in providing the air navigation services. The Secretary of State has adequate powers to deal with that under Clause 9.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Grants and loans by Secretary of State]:
10.3 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 14, at end insert (" and shall make such grants as he considers sufficient to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ").
The noble Lord said: As I have already said, there is not very much between the Government and those of us on these Benches and, probably, those noble Lords who spoke on this matter in the Committee. We are all agreed that revenue should cover expenses for the Authority, and in the last Amendment it was spelt out that revenue should include the grants from the Government. We are all agreed, and have had notable assurances, that the Government intend to make adequate grants over a period of time at the beginning of the Authority's life to enable it to do its job well. I think I understand—and I should be grateful for an answer from the Minister on this matter—that in the foreseeable future the Government consider that their grants will cover the administrative costs on these matters of the general administration of the Authority's function that my Amendment covers.
The general feeling in the Committee was, and certainly the feeling of people I have talked to since is, that it would be highly unfortunate if such costs of running the Authority, which have little

755
to do with running an airline in the terms which our competitors know, had to be passed on to the airlines themselves and were not carried by the Government. It is the established practice for Civil Service functions like these to be funded by the Treasury even in this country. There is an almost infinite variety of Government functions in the same broad category whose costs are not passed on to the operating body themselves: for example, by the Department of the Environment, the railways, the road transport operators, and by the Department of Employment for industrial relations service.
Abroad, too, there are similar situations. In the United States, costs of the Civil Aeronautics Board and a substantial proportion of those of the Federal Aviation Agency are borne out of public funds. Australia recovers only about one-fifth of her expenditure of more than 100 million Australian dollars a year on the direction of civil aviation; and this type of cost is carried in Canada, in Japan, in France, West Germany and the Netherlands. If costs of this kind are passed on to British Overseas Airways or British European Airways, or the other bodies concerned, it might put them at a serious competitive disadvantage because they themselves would then have to charge more. It is my understanding that the Government do not want to see this happen and are going to ensure that it does not happen. But so far as the Bill stands, and as far as the assurances we have received stand, we have at the moment merely assurances that the Government are going to give particular subventions which they hope will cover the immediate future. But of course the Government cannot ensure what is going to happen after that. Nor are the Government in any way bound to covering these particular expenses. As I say, I think there is a general feeling that these expenses should be covered by the Government.
Therefore, I have put forward this Amendment which suggests that the Secretary of State
" shall make such grants as he considers sufficient to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ".
This is to ensure that those fields of expenditure which cannot and should not be
756
reclaimed from the operating airlines or from the customers in any shape or form should be covered by the Government. It goes considerably beyond Clauses 33 and 34, I think—subsection (4) of each was quoted by the Government at the last stage. We are talking about much wider expenses than these. What we are saying is that the Government should see that the basic charges which are not part of the commercial set-up should be looked after by the Government.
I put forward an Amendment submitted to me by the advisers in the airways, which said:
" and shall make such grants as are necessary to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ".
But I took considerable note of what was said on all sides again in the Select Cornmittee—that there must be very strong financial control over these matters from the very beginning, and that there should be a financial discipline accepted by the Authority. Therefore, I have amended the Amendment which was suggested to me, by saying:
" and shall make such grants as he considers sufficient to defray the costs of general administration of the Authority's functions ".
That covers the point made by noble Lords in the Committee, that it is up to the Secretary of State to say:"No; you are spending too much on these functions and I am not going to give you as much as you want or as much as you spent last year. I am going to give you as much as I consider sufficient." I cannot see what there is in this Amendment that the Government should object to; but I can see that if the Government accepted it it would allay a great many fears in the whole of the industry at the moment. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before my noble friend replies may I make a few comments? This Amendment is remarkably similar to the one moved in Committee. Indeed, when I first saw it I thought that the noble Lord had received his brief a couple of days later than I had received mine. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has already mentioned that it could be argued that the whole of the financial clauses, Clauses 6 to 10, are indeed wrongly set This new Authority is not a commercial operation. The new Authority will not be supported in a similar way to the F.A.A. and the

757
C.A.B., and all that we can do to assist it in persuading the Government to give an undertaking that grants will be available for certain services, should be done.
I think there is some difficulty in regard to the Amendment that is now before us, and perhaps my noble friend will draw attention to this, because as I read it the Amendment is mandatory whereas the clause is permissive. Also the question of administrative costs as phrased in the Amendment possibly goes a good deal wider than might be generally acceptable. I should like my noble friend to give a clear undertaking that grants will be available for certain services for years to come, not just the five-year or the seven-year period that we have heard about so far, and particularly for services such as the statistical section which we hope will be set up, and possibly the enforcement bureau and policing, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, mentioned at the last stage. I hope my noble friend will be able to give us this undertaking in clear and unequivocal terms.
10.12 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I am afraid I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment, but I hope to show that there are good reasons for that and to satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the airlines—and particularly the British airlines—will not be put at any serious disadvantage by the arrangements that are proposed. I confirm that it is the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to adhere to the principle that air travellers should not be subsidised by the taxpayers and that these broad aviation services about which we are speaking should be, generally speaking, financed by the air travellers, particularly as air transport is not a service which is enjoyed by all members of the community, some of whom indeed suffer only the discomfort of aircraft noise.
I recognise that other civil aviation administrations throughout the world—and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentioned some of them—; may not be pursuing an overall comprehensive policy of full cost recovery as vigorously as we are doing, but I would remind the noble Lord and the Committee that by far the greater part of the Authority's expenditure—80 per cent. of it—arises from the provision of air navigation services. In that respect
758
the process of cost recovery is being undertaken in orderly stages by international agreement, at least in respect of the Euro-control countries, which are the ones that are chiefly affected and with whom we are in competition.
LORD BESWICK: May I ask the noble Lord a question? Did he say that 80 per cent. of the costs are recovered from the air navigation services?
LORD SANDFORD: No, I said that 80 per cent. of the Authority's expenditure arises from the provision of air navigation services—much the greater part—and in respect of those the process of cost recovery is by international agreement and is planned in a series of stages.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull referred to Clauses 33 and 34 and I have already indicated that there is scope under those clauses for negotiation of the precise functions for which the Secretary of State may accept financial responsibility. The negotiations and the discussions of details will be a matter for the Secretary of State and the Authority, although clearly the Secretary of State will need to obtain normal Parliamentary agreement to make public funds available. The question of cross subsidisation is also relevant here, and I have already confirmed that the Secretary of State has powers to ensure that the revenue under one group of services will not be used to subsidise another.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Before the noble Lord finishes, I would point out that he seems to have forgotten the unequivocal undertaking that he was going to give me.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Is the noble Lord going to rise to give the unequivocal undertaking?
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether the noble Earl could remind me of the particular point.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I asked the noble Lord whether he would give an assurance that grants will be for a longer period than the five years we have so far heard about.
LORD SANDFORD: I think I dealt with that point by explaining—or maybe I was relying on our earlier discussion—

759
that the greater part of the Authority's expenditure, 80 per cent., arises from the provision of air navigation services, and the present intention is to recover the cost of those by international agreement over a five-year period. Another point on which I can give an assurance is that there is scope for negotiation under Clauses 33 and 34 over certain functions for which the Secretary of State assumes financial responsibility. There is no time limit to that. But beyond those two assurances I cannot go.
LORD BESWICK: Am I not right in saying that as in this Bill we are proposing to saddle the Authority with a debt of between £30 and £50 million, and as it was recognised that it would never be possible within the next decade for the Civil Aviation Authority to meet its costs and service a debt of this magnitude, my right honourable friend was given an undertaking that the transition would be extended? Is not this what the noble Earl is asking for—that it should be repeated by the noble Lord?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: If the noble Lord would like to have another question, to gather the whole thing together, would he care to comment on the other 20 per cent. of the costs? Eighty per cent. is a lot, but 20 per cent. in real terms is a great sum. What is going to happen in regard to that?
LORD SANDFORD: I think we are going rather wide of the Amendment, which related to costs of general administration. But as I have been asked the question about the initial debt and charges on it, I would confirm that this amounts to something of the order of £1·5 million, and depreciation charges £1·8 million—something of that order. But the point I was making was that much the larger section is the air navigation charges, and there are safeguards in the process of cost recovery in respect of those which will go a long way to give assurance to our own airlines in respect of the disadvantage they might be placed in vis-à-vis their international competitors if this part of the costs were being recovered other than by international agreement.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I should like first of all to say that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, was not entirely
760
right; I did not get my brief two days later than he did. I actually listened to the debates in the Select Committee and the admirable Amendments which he put forward, and thought that as a result this particular Amendment needed to be put forward at the next stage. I have heard nothing in this debate to make me think otherwise.
I should like to comment briefly on his point that this is a permissive clause into which I should put a mandatory Amendment. I do not think there is any substance in that point. To say that the Secretary of State may at the beginning, and then"and shall ", is perfectly possible; I do not see that there is anything very wrong with the Amendment there. I must confess that again I find all this extremely baffling. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said some words about"cost retrieval ", and not necessarily a passing on of the costs of air travel to the whole community and to the poor old taxpayer, with which I felt considerable sympathy. But the fact remains that the Bill, and the assurances that we have had from various Ministers about how it is to be implemented, do seem to me to leave the various authorities in the maximum uncertainty as to what is to happen.
On the one hand they are not being given the sort of full old Tory, and indeed full old Whig, treatment of"Cover the costs. Get all your costs back, and get on with it." They are given assurances that a great many of these things will be covered for a number years, and that the situation will not be such that they become uncompetitive with other airlines. On the other hand, they are not being given the real security they need. They are neither being given the full competition treatment nor the real security.
This is a situation in which you get the maximum amount of muddle. It is exactly the same kind of situation as that which has led to the position we have to-day with Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, where people really do not know what is going on. The law gives a very broad framework within which you have assurances from Ministers which may last a number of years, or may not last very long; one does not really know, and the situation is such that a Government can change its mind.

761
I am obviously not going to press this Amendment. The noble Lord who is actually in charge of this Bill has arrived, and in his presence I would not dare to do anything so much like lèse-majesté as to press an Amendment. But I think that we really can ask for a much more serious explanation of the Government's intentions on Clauses 6 to 10 than we have had so far, and I hope that at the next stage we shall have it. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Compensation in respect of planning decisions relating to safety of aerodromes, etc.]:
10.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I should like to ask my noble friends two points on Clause 17, and I have given them notice. I am sorry to bring them up at a comparatively late stage of the Bill. As I understand it, the point of Clause 17 is that where there is, as is usually the case, a public safety zone at the end of the runways of an aerodrome, in the case of planning permission being refused for the erection of a building there, or any other development, or possibly the erection of a building above a certain height, the owner of the land may serve what is known as a"purchase notice"on the local planning authority saying that his land is perfectly useless without the planning permission, and requiring the planning authority to buy it. Under this clause, the liability is then passed to the Civil Aviation Authority. It is their public safety zone; it is their fault that development cannot take place, so they have to buy it. This seems to be eminently reasonable. Indeed, nothing that I say should be interpreted in any way as affecting the improvement in the situation which I think this provision will bring about in relation to the C.A.A.'s aerodromes. Presumably, they are those set out in Schedule 2, and I do not want Aberdeenshire, Argyll, Inverness-shire Orkney, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness
762
and Shetland to think that I am wishing in any way to derogate from what they are getting under the Bill.
That was all very well when the Bill was introduced, because it dealt only with the Civil Aviation Authority's airports. But now, under Clause 29, which was introduced at a late stage in another place, the Secretary of State has taken powers to deal with all aerodromes. I wonder whether my noble friends can tell me why it is that it is only in the case of these, at the moment, rather minor Civil Aviation Authority aerodromes that the duty of paying compensation on a purchase order has been placed upon the aerodrome operator. It seems to me that public safety zones around some of the larger airports are probably more onerous on the planning authorities concerned, and it is of course by no means always the local planning authority in whose area the airport actually exists that gets the majority of the benefit from it. Very often the aerodrome is outside the large town which is the focal point upon which the aerodrome centres. That is what I should like first of all to know why it is only the C.A.A.'s aerodromes that are affected, and not aerodromes designated by the Secretary of State under Clause 29.
The second point is possibly even broader, but it is one cognate to this subject. It is not only public safety zones that cause planning restrictions as a result of the operation of aerodromes. Some county councils—and I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is momentarily not in his place, because Surrey is one of them—have accepted as a matter of policy certain levels of noise on what is known as the N.N.I., the Noise Number Index, within which certain sorts of buildings shall not be allowed to be erected. This is particularly relevant in the areas immediately at the end of the runways of aerodromes. If the public safety zone is a matter which in the case of a purchase notice for refused planning permission is going to attract compensation from the C.A.A., and I suggest also from the operators of other designated aerodromes, have the Government any views about extending this provision more widely, where an enlightened local planning authority has decided to adopt rather wider restrictions based not so much on the physical requirements of a

763
public safety zone, but on the environmental requirements in regard to the noise caused by the aerodrome?
This must be of great interest to people who live around Heathrow, Gatwick, and, at any rate for the moment, Stansted and Luton; and, no doubt in years to come, Essex and possibly Kent when Foulness comes in to existence. There are also many other large aerodromes, such as Ringway and Elmdon. All those local planning authorities have, at the moment, the possibility of this liability falling upon them for the public safety zone, and also for the noise standards, and I should be grateful if one of my noble friends could say what it is that the Government are thinking of doing, if anything, about this.
LORD SANDFORD: On the second point that my noble friend has raised, the Committee and he will be aware that the Government are reviewing the whole question of compensation, including the effects of aircraft noise, public safety zones and so on. The view of my right honourable friend is that it will be more appropriate to consider points such as my noble friend has just raised in the light of the findings of that review, rather than to try to relate them to compensation in the field of safety arrangements. On the first point which he raised, I will, if I may, write to my noble friend.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Grant and refusal of air transport licences]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry to intervene on these Questions, Whether the clause shall stand part, but this is a small point and I hope an assurance can be given by my noble friend. As I understand it, this particular group of clauses is a new provision taking over from the Air Transport Licensing Board the duties of issuing licences, revoking them and suspending them. At any rate hitherto there have been a set of regulations which have governed the procedure and the sort of notices which have to be given. I think they provide for a hearing at which certain people may appear before the Board and make representations
764
whether or not the licence should be granted or revoked, and matters of that sort. It is not altogether clear to me from reading this group of clauses—and I think Clause 22 is the relevant one on this point—whether there are to be hearings, but certainly something is to be prescribed by regulations because there is the word"prescribed"in Clause 22(1).
The point on which I should be glad if my noble friend could give some sort of guidance or assurance is this. Under the old regulations there was a large number of types of people who were entitled to be heard as of right at the hearings before the Board and, for all I know, on appeals, if there were any, afterwards—and there is provision for appeals in this Bill. The moment has arrived, or may arrive, when we have the possibility of different forms of air transport services being provided (I am particularly thinking of short take-off and landing and vertical take-off and landing services, which could be on quite small sites; and, for all I know, there may be helicopter provisions as well) where the people vitally concerned are not only the sort of people who used to be involved in the old regulations. I am on a local authority point again, and really a local planning authority point. Could my noble friend tell me whether, at hearings of this sort—they may not happen very often, but there should be provision for them, I think, in the regulations—local planning authorities will be able to come and make representations, preferably as of right, when a new service such as I have mentioned is being proposed which could have a substantial impact upon the inhabitants of the surrounding area and as to which it would he the very proper duty of a local authority or a local planning authority at least to make its voice heard by the Civil Aviation Authority when they are considering the application for or the possible suspension or revocation of a licence? I hope my noble friend will be able to give some assistance on this matter.
EARL FERRERS: My noble friend has asked what the situation will be with regard to people having a right to be heard by the Civil Aviation Authority. I can assure him that the persons who will have the right to be heard by the Authority in connection with air transport licensing matters and such things as

765
he has referred to will be set out in the procedural regulations which the Secretary of State will be drawing up. Careful consideration will certainly be given to the points which my noble friend has raised, but whatever conclusion is reached I am sure that in practice these large planning authorities—such as, for instance, the Greater London Council, and so forth—will be consulted on all significant developments which are of concern to them.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Supplementary provisions relating to air transport licensing]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 25, line 41, leave out from beginning to (" to ") in line 42.
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 at the same time. During the earlier Committee stage of this Bill considerable doubts were expressed about the provision of an unrestricted right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I emphasised then that the Government had considerable sympathy with the points made, and I repeated assurances which my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade had given in which he said that the Secretary of State would uphold the Authority's decision unless there was a major reason for departing from it. However, this did not satisfy your Lordships, and an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull was passed and went into the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will not think it churlish of me to say that the object of this Amendment, No. 11, is to remove the words which he successfully persuaded your Lordships to put into the Bill. But the object of the next one, Amendment No. 12, is not only to put back the effect of his Amendment but actually to strengthen it.
My noble friend's Amendment would have obliged the Secretary of State to have regard to the objectives put on the Authority by Clause 3; but this Amendment will oblige the Secretary of State to take into account the policy guidance as well. I trust, therefore, that my noble friend will realise that the Government have been concerned to meet the
766
point of view he put forward and which your Lordships expressed the desire to put into the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, chided me on the last occasion, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, reiterated the chiding this afternoon, for saying that there was not very much between us. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will realise that in fact there was not very much between us and that we have tried to meet the points which were made. When speaking on Amendment No. 6, the noble Lord said that he hoped that the Government would have some regard to the views expressed in Committee. I hope that this Amendment will clearly convince him that the Government have had regard to the views expressed and that we have tried not only to support those views but actually to strengthen them.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: May I assure my noble friend that I have never considered him churlish; in fact, I have always felt him to be none other than magnanimous. He has been particularly magnanimous over this Amendment, to the extent that the Government have changed their mind and have gone a certain distance to meet the wishes of the majority in the earlier Committee. It gives me great pleasure warmly to support this Amendment to a clause which I, and others, believe to be one of the most crucial in the Bill.
LORD BESWICK: It only emphasises the fact that it is a pity that this important Bill should be brought on at this time of night, that we are really unable to say in sufficient words how grateful we are for the way in which the noble Earl's right honourable friend the Minister listened to the representations which we made to him following the last Committee stage. I am extremely grateful to his right honourable friend for the way in which he has considered what we had to say. The noble Earl said that this Amendment strengthened what his noble friend put into the Bill. I wanted to go even further; but the fact that we have gone some little way is something for which I express gratitude.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for welcoming these Amendments. I will only say, after the strictures which Lord Beswick passed earlier, that his

767
pleasantries on this occasion will taste like nectar to my right honourable friend.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 12, at end insert (" and the Secretary of State shall, when considering whether to give a direction in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection and when considering the terms of any such direction, have regard in particular to the duties imposed on the Authority by section 3 of this Act.").—(Earl Ferrers.)
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Regulation of provision of accommodation in aircraft]:
10.42 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 27, line 34, at end insert—
(" (d) for appeals against refusals, variations, suspensions or revocations of licences to lie to a prescribed body or person (which may be a court, a Minister of the Crown, a body or person constituted or appointed by or under the regulations of such other body or person as the Secretary of State thinks fit) and for applying the provisions of any enactment, with or without modifications, in relation to such appeals;").
The noble Earl said. During the Committee's consideration of Clause 26, doubts were expressed whether the county court was the right place to consider appeals in respect of the Authority's decisions on travel organisers' licences. Your Lordships felt very strongly about the Amendment which was put forward, pressed it, and succeeded in having it accepted. Unfortunately, the effect of the Amendment was to remove entirely from the Bill any right of appeal against refusal by the Authority to grant a travel organiser's licence. I am sure that that was not the intention of your Lordships.
The question is not whether provision should be made for such an appeal, but what provision should be made. I think this is a difficult question. It was one which was touched on in the Air Transport Licensing Board's Annual Report and there have been further consultations with that body about it since the Report
768
was written. It is a question which I think should be discussed a little further, not only with the Board but also with representatives of the travel trade, with whom there will be consultations when the regulations are being drawn up. I think noble Lords will agree that more time should be allowed for this. The purpose, therefore, of this Amendment is to reinstate the provision for right of appeal in terms which will allow any arrangement to be made by regulations when there has been time for those consultations to take place and for all the problems to be looked at in greater depth. I hope that this will meet with the acceptance of your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: As the noble Lord has said, this is a holding operation. I think it is as good a solution as we can find at the present time.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Perhaps I may add my thanks to my noble friend and to his right honourable friend for meeting the Committee's wishes on what again I stress is a very important clause. I believe the Committee put up a good case and I am glad that it has been accepted.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 [Design, construction and maintenance of aircraft]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 28, line 28, at end insert (" and, if the advice was given in consequence of consultations required by virtue of this subsection, to publish particulars of the case forthwith in the prescribed manner ").
The noble Earl said: This again is an Amendment which gives effect to the concern which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Balfour in the Committee stage. He expressed the desire that it should be possible to publish differences of opinion should they occur between the Airworthiness Requirements Board and the Civil Aviation Authority. My noble friend was good enough to withdraw his Amendment and this Amendment has been put down to try to meet the point with which he dealt. He rightly made the point that the Bill as drafted could lead to serious delays before differences of view became known. We accept that

769
if the Authority decided not to proceed on advice from the Board on matters on which they are required by the Bill to consult—for example on such things as airworthiness standards—it is right that the particulars should be published forthwith. The Amendment, if accepted, will provide for this and I hope that it will meet with your Lordships' approval.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: This Amendment entirely meets the point I made on Second Reading and again in Committee, and I am grateful to Her Majesty's Government for having put this Amendment down. It fulfils what I desired in a much better way than the Amendment which I drafted and withdrew on Committee stage.
10.45 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 29, line 21, leave out from (" shall ") to end of line 22 and insert (" designate as the chairman of the board a member of it nominated by the board ").
The noble Earl said: Again this Amendment arises out of a point made during the earlier stage of the Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and other noble Lords presented an Amendment, the purpose of which was to provide that the Authority should designate as Chairman of the Airworthiness Requirements Board a member nominated by the Board. Although the Government had some dubiety about this at the time, we, reasonable as we always are, considered the point in detail and came to recognise the force of the arguments put forward in Committee. We accept that the Board should nominate its own Chairman. However, I hope that in practice it will transpire that it will be possible for a member of the Authority with executive responsibility for airworthiness also to be Chairman of the Board. We are grateful to noble Lords for raising this matter. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will not consider it churlish of me to cavil at the wording of the Amendment he put forward, but I am advised that, though there is nothing between us, as he will appreciate, what we want to do is more appropriately expressed in the words of our Amendment I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I suspect that the noble Earl has difficulty in coping with all the nectar falling around him, but I am grateful to him and to his right honourable friend for meeting the point I tried to make.
On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BESWICK: On this clause the noble Earl, who now has so much nectar around him, undertook to consider the drafting. I pointed out that it seemed to me clumsy in relation to the specification of persons appearing to the Authority to be representative and the noble Earl undertook to look again at the wording. No Amendment has appeared on the Marshalled List and I wonder if he can say whether the task of making it tidier was beyond him and his advisers.
EARL FERRERS: I should hate to say that it was beyond us. We looked at this point carefully. I am glad the noble Lord has mentioned it, because I was going to refer to it if he had not done so. We have looked at this again, but I am advised that any attempt at simplification would result in less and not greater clarity. If I may illustrate this by referring to the two proposals made in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, suggested that paragraph (a) should be omitted on the ground that paragraph (b) did all that was necessary. If that were to happen, this would mean that the representative members could all be manufacturers or all operators or all insurers or all pilots. This is because the list of persons at the end of paragraph (b) is linked by the conjunction"or ". It reads:
"…appearing to the Authority to be representative of manufacturers or operators or insurers of pilots of aircraft);…"
The noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, then put forward the ingenious suggestion that this difficulty could be overcome if the words were linked by"and ". He insinuated that his expertise of half a century of doing The Times crossword puzzle enabled him to come adroitly to this conclusion. I thought, on reflection, that he must have been doing The Times crossword ten years before I was born, which did give a certain satisfaction to me, but probably not to the noble Lord. But

771
perhaps he does not always get the crossword puzzle right. I am bound to say that on that occasion, having the mental alacrity of a snail, I was unable to respond quite as quickly as I might have done to his non-manuscript Amendment. I think he would agree, on reflection, that this would mean that the body or persons nominating the members of the new A.R.B. would have to be representatives of all four groups of person. I do not think there is a body which could do this. I hope that this explanation will satisfy noble Lords that the simplification of Clause 27(4) is not quite as easy as it might appear at first sight. The clause may appear to be complicated, but there is no ambiguity in it, nor any doubt, I suggest, as to its meaning.
Perhaps I might make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, how it would operate. If there were to be, for instance, a Board of, say, 16 members, one must represent a manufacturer, one must represent an operator, one must represent the insurers and one must represent the pilots. That gives us four members, and therefore satisfies paragraph (a). In order to satisfy paragraph (b) five more members must represent manufacturers, operators, insurers or pilots. For example, there could be two more manufacturers representatives, two more operators' representatives and one more pilots' representative, which would bring the Board up to nine—more than half. The remaining seven members can be anyone at all, including four manufacturers' representatives and so on. I hope that that has explained the position to the noble Lord, and that he will accept that this is the best we can do.
LORD KINGS NORTON: I am most interested to have the explanation the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has just given. In point of fact, I think my suggestion was a sound one. It is what in crossword puzzle circles we call a clue, and we leave it to the solvers to work out the solution. This, I assure the noble Earl, could have been done. Nevertheless, I am prepared to say that this, complicated as it is, worked out by appropriately clear-headed people, will produce a Board of the right composition.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Regulation of noise and vibration of aircraft]:
10.54 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 33, line 15, at end insert—
(" ( ) No action shall lie against the person who is the operator of an aircraft, his servants or agents if the requirements of this section are complied with in relation to that aircraft.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment deals with the welcome new clause introduced in another place at a fairly late stage, dealing with the regulation of noise from vibration of aircraft. It has been pointed out to me by my advisers that the clause provides penalties for non-compliance, but no safeguards for the consequences of compliance, or, for that matter, protection aganst litigation. I understand that both British and international carriers are genuinely worried about this aspect of the Bill, being quite often concerned with costly claims for injunctions which turn out to be claims that have occurred under normal operations. There is a general belief that there should be a protection, which this small Amendment I am moving would provide. In view of the nectar that has been falling on all sides of the Committee, I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept this simple Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendment, but I do not think I am in any danger of spoiling our happy relations, because I am pretty sure that I can satisfy the noble Earl that the purpose of his Amendment is in fact fully achieved by the clause as it stands. I am advised that no action will lie at common law in respect of an act carried out in compliance with a statutory requirement. Here the aircraft operator will be under a statutory duty to comply with the requirement, and so long as he does so without negligence he cannot be sued for doing so. If he does not comply with the requirement he may be liable if he flies in a way that is actionable, though like other operators, he will still have the protection of Section 40(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949. I hope, in view of that explanation, that the noble Earl may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for the assurance given, and I am happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.56 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 33, line 30, leave out from (" which ") to (" is ") in line 32.
The noble Lord said: Clause 29(1) says that the Secretary of State may publish notices telling the operators of aircraft what to do in order to avoid noise and vibration when they are operating from designated aerodromes. To see what that means we have to turn to subsection (11) of Clause 29, and we read there that"designated aerodrome"means any aerodrome which is designated by the Secretary of State. So that is all right. But there are other qualifications: it must not only be designated, but vested in or managed by the Authority, or licensed for public use in pursuance of an Air Navigation Order. That looks all right at first reading, but I understand that"licensed for public use"covers aerodromes which are licensed for public transport or instruction and it does not cover aerodromes used by flying clubs or private transport, for private instruction and that kind of thing. There are a lot of rather small aerodromes up and down the country from which people are flying small aircraft which, if they are flown in a certain way and, above all, at a certain frequency—if they are flown very often, buzzing round and round—may give rise to a noise nuisance. It seems to me that the Secretary of State should be as much empowered in giving directions in respect of those aerodromes as he is in respect of all others. I therefore seek to remove those two subsidiary qualifications and to allow the Secretary of State to designate any aerodrome for the purpose of giving directions to those operating from them. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: The problem of disturbance from noise is most serious around major airports—that is obvious enough—and those are the ones presently vested in or managed by the British Airports Authority, or those licensed for public use. However, the Government accept that other and smaller aerodromes may in certain circumstances cause significant disturbance in their immediate
774
vicinity if aircraft are flown in a particular way or at a particular frequency or at night. While there is some scope for local planning authorities to control the growth of aerodromes within their areas, it is true that unforeseen changes and increased activity can result in increased noise disturbance, sometimes at night, which could not be effectively controlled through planning procedures which were not designed for developments of that kind. We are therefore disposed to accept this Amendment, so that central Government will have at their disposal powers to control noise at any aerodrome. I ought to make it clear that these potential powers will not be invoked lightly. We shall look to the local population, perhaps through the local authority, to conduct a useful dialogue with the aerodrome management, who rarely fail to take careful account of local opinion. But when it is clear to the Secretary of State that a substantial body of responsible opinion is calling, and has been calling unsuccessfully, for relief from aircraft noise nuisance, he will then consider taking action under this clause of the Bill in the case of non-public aerodromes. He will also wish to satisfy himself that the problems of enforceability and manpower which the Department would have to face in exercising these controls over these aerodromes can be resolved.
On Question, Whether Clause 29, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have, I am sorry to say, four more planning points to put before the House. Two conveniently arise on this clause, and I hope that I may seek assurances briefly from my noble friend on both of them. The first, I think, is already implicit in what he has said: that in subsection (4)(a) there is a statutory duty for the Secretary of State to consult any body appearing to him to be representative of operators and aircraft using the aerodrome he proposes to designate. There is no statutory requirement in the Bill that he should consult the local planning authority. In view of what he said, I apprehend that he will have no difficulty in giving the assurance that the Secretary of State will do so before making a designation order. The second point is an ancillary one and does not actually

775
arise on this clause but out of the designation procedure. The Airports Authorities Act 1965 is being amended so that in the case of any designated aerodrome within the meaning of Clause 29 schemes for sound insulation can be instituted. Again I hope that my noble friend can tell me that before any such scheme is instituted in any area as a result of designation of an aerodrome or in connection with a designated aerodrome the local authority will be consulted.
LORD SANDFORD: I can give my noble friend the assurances he asked for, namely, that the local authorities would be consulted about the designation of aerodromes in or adjacent to their areas and also about possible noise abatement requirements.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am sorry. My noble friend has not quite got the point. It is not the noise abatement requirements only; it is also grants for insulation schemes under the 1965 Act which is being extended as a result of and consequential upon the designation procedure in Clause 29. I feel sure that before any such scheme was brought in the local authority would be bound to be consulted, but I would like an assurance from my noble friend.
LORD SANDOFRD: I meant to include that in the general phrase"the noise abatement requirements ".
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Management etc.]:
11.4 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 34, line 18, at end insert—
(" ( ) (a) The Authority having the management of any aerodrome to which this section applies shall provide for users of the aerodrome, for any local authority in whose area the aerodrome or any part thereof is situated or whose area is in the neighbourhood of the aerodrome, and for any other organisation representing the interests of persons concerned with the locality in which the aerodrome is situated, adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests.
(b) It shall be the duty of the Authority to report annually to the Secretary of State of any such consultations.")
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the management of airfields which
776
the Authority will be taking over. The point was raised in another place and I do not think it was fully answered at that time—perhaps they thought to come to it later on and they never did. Despite Section 8 of the 1968 Act giving those operators and users and residents around the airfield the right to form consultative committees, there had been a general lack of consultation in certain airfields. Under this Bill, with the Authority having the power to designate airfields, there will be no power to set up consultative committees. This Amendment is lifting Section 4 out of the 1968 Act to give the Authority power to set up these consultative committees and, at the same time, putting a duty on the Authority to submit an Annual Report to the Secretary of State. I hope the Government will see that this is a reasonable safeguard for those who are users and residents of the designated airfields, and that they will be able to agree to the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: Once again I seek to demonstrate to my noble friend that his Amendment is satisfactorily met in other ways, and is therefore not necessary. Everyone will sympathise with the purpose and thinking behind it. Subparagraph (a) seeks to require the establishment of consultative machinery on the lines set out in Section 8 of the 1968 Act. I am sure we all agree that there is need for the Authority to consult local interests, but I do not see any necessity for it to be spelt out in the Bill. We can safely rely on the Authority to do this on its own initiative. Secondly, if there were any real failure on the part of the Authority to consult local interests, the Secretary of State can always designate any of the Authority's aerodromes under existing legislation in Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1968.
With regard to the second part, the proposal that the Authority should report annually to the Secretary of State on any consultation that may have taken place, I am not convinced this would serve a sufficiently valuable purpose—although it would serve some purpose—to justify making statutory provision for it.
With those explanations, I hope it will be agreed that the first objective of my noble friend is already met under existing legislation, or can be met, and that the second is not really needed.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to my noble friend for his assurance upon this matter, and I do not intend to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Additional Provisions Relating to Constitution, etc., of Civil Aviation Authority]:
11.8 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 65, line 21, at end insert (" or employed by the Authority in pursuance of paragraph 13A of this Schedule.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I could be allowed to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 together. I am sorry it was not possible to table these Amendments earlier, and I apologise for the short notice. I hope, however, that they will meet the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, and the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, at an earlier stage on this Bill when they expressed concern that the terms and conditions of employees of the A.R.B., and the Civil Service should remain the same when they are transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Amendment No. 21 provides for the staff of the Air Registration Board to be offered employment by the Authority, and for their terms and conditions of employment, taken as a whole, to be no less favourable than those they had when they were in the Air Registration Board. Provision is made for the offer to be irrevocable for three months so as to give the employees an opportunity of considering it and either accepting it or rejecting it. Similarly, Amendment No. 20 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the terms and conditions of employment offered to civil servants who transfer to the Authority are at least as good as those which they have at the date on which the contract is offered.
As I explained previously, the Minister for Trade has given an explicit assurance that former A.R.B. staff and civil servants transferring to the Authority will have terms and conditions of service at least as good as those they had previously.
We felt that this assurance was enough. Noble Lords opposite felt that they would like it written into the Bill. We have written it into the Bill, and I therefore hope that these Amendments will satisfy noble Lords.
LORD KINGS NORTON: Certainly in replacing the Amendment which I proposed in Committee, and withdrew, by these three Amendments here, the end which I sought has indeed been achieved. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords opposite for putting into this Schedule the assurance which we had had orally. I am sure that everyone in the present Air Registration Board will feel greatly comforted by this. It is an excellent thing that the Amendment seeks to give the same kind of assurance to civil servants. But I should like to mention, although it might be difficult to do anything about it at this stage, a letter which is in Flight of to-day, headed,"Staffing the C.A.A.", where aparently some civil servants feel that, in transferring even in conditions which are as good as they have, their future promotion possibilities are restricted because they are in a smaller organisation than the one they were used to. Whether anything can be done about this, I do not know. But, in expressing pleasure at this Amendment, I wonder whether the Government could look at this particular difficulty which has been raised in this letter, because it might be that some people transferred will still be rather dissatisfied.
11.13 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: I fear that I cannot be quite as eulogistic about these Amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. I accept that the Government have gone some way to meet the views which were expressed during the proceedings of the Select Committee. But at the same time certain questions remain unanswered. May I take the liberty of reminding the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I put to him on the Select Committee the point that, according to the civil servants' union itself, an undertaking had been given by the Minister of State in another place, though at a private meeting, to the effect that he would establish an independent arbitration machinery whereby contracts offered could be vetted and approved as satisfactory. In his reply during the Select Committee proceedings, Lord Ferrers

779
said that, whereas I had pleaded for carrying out this alleged undertaking, he offered that the Minister would in due course appoint an independent Advisory Committee. I refer to col. 118 of the proceedings of the Select Committee. Indeed, he repeated that offer in col. 121.
I do not see those words—" an independent panel "—in these Amendments, and I am wondering why that is. I hope it is not going to be pleaded that it is not necessary to write it into the Bill. It has been said so often that courts, or equivalent bodies in the future, will not take the trouble to plough through discussions in either House; they go by what is in the Act. I therefore ask whether we can have some explanation, and possibly even an Amendment at this stage, although I am afraid it is too late, which would embody the words"an independent panel"in the Bill.
The other point I want to raise, which is of a more general nature, is something which has been brought to my attention not only by the article to which the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, referred just now but as the subject of correspondence I have received. It is the long-term position of some of the civil servants who will lose the jobs which they hold at present. A letter which I received to-day, I presume from one of the people concerned, says:
" The intention of the Government appears to be that people shall be directed into other employment, and the manner of accomplishing this is worthy of comparison with the war-time direction of labour, which of course was very necessary then because the country was in a particular situation."
The writer then continues:
" Is it right that the Government in its actions, as exemplified by this Bill, should once again use the precedent created in peace-time, which will lead, I fear, to repetition? "
I know it is felt in some Civil Service quarters that the present policy of the Government of hiving off certain sections of the existing structure of a nationalised industry like this will mean that they will hive them off into a limbo, where they will have to take their chance as to whether they can secure a job which not only is equitable in terms of remuneration, pension rights, and so forth, but takes advantage of their skills. It is now being thought that the Government will tread very cautiously on this matter, because if they are going to hive
780
off more in the future they will be gradually building up a pool of people who will feel that they have a right to some form of employment which can use the skills that they have acquired. I suggest to the Minister that in the last stage of this Bill in this House he should make a more detailed statement as to what the Government have in mind about this question, so that the anxieties which have been expressed can be allayed.
LORD BESWICK: May I just express my regret again that we are dealng with this Bill so late at night, because this matter is something into which we should go rather more closely. In moving this Amendment the noble Earl said, rather grandly, I thought, that those concerned would have three months in which either to accept or to reject the offer of employment. That sounds very grand, but it is rather like saying,"You can have what I am offering you or you can go without "—especially when we are dealing, as my noble friend Lord Burntwood said, with some individuals who have particular skills which can be employed in this particular direction, although they would have difficulty in finding other places where they could be employed. It is a fact that here, by Act of Parliament, we are deliberately transferring a whole body of men and women from one employer to another. There has been no real consultation with them. They have had nothing to do with this; they are just told that they can have three months in which to make up their minds whether they will change or not.
This is a matter which I think we ought to consider very carefully in the future. In the meantime, I should like to ask one question. I have not gone into this subject, but I take it for granted that there will be a transference of pension rights from the present position to the new position. Supposing that in six months' or a year's time one of the civil servants transferred to accept alternative employment finds that he can take up employment again within the Civil Service, would there still be transferability of pension rights? Are they protected for the future? Is this something which could go some way, at any rate, to give them the feeling that they are not being all that limited in this new field of employment?
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful for what has been said. I am bound to say that I had hoped that these Amendments might have been received with a little more enthusiasm, but I recognise the hesitation which noble Lords have over them, and that it is a genuine hesitation. I will try to deal as best I can with the points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, was concerned that those civil servants who are transferred should, if necessary, have the right of appeal, and that this was not written into the Bill. If I may say so with the greatest respect, I feel that his fears over this matter are a trifle groundless, because it is written specifically in this Amendment No. 20 that at the moment when these people are transferred from their existing employment to the Civil Aviation Authority the Authority must give contracts of employment and terms and conditions of service equally as good as those which they have received previously. That is absolutely written into the Bill, and therefore this is an obligation upon the Authority. Equally, written into the Bill—I think it is Schedule 9—is an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that these contracts are fully as good as the ones which they had received prior to that date. In the event of a dispute, as I explained at an earlier stage, my right honourable friend has said that he will set up a panel to consider such disputes; if these two provisos do not satisfy the people concerned, my right honourable friend would be prepared to set up a panel to investigate, and if necessary the findings of that panel would be made known to those who were complaining. I should have thought that was as good an assurance, both oral and written into the Bill, as one could get.
LORD BURNTWOOD: The noble Earl does mean an independent panel? That was the expression used on the Select Committee, twice.
EARL FERRERS: I think I am right in saying it would be an independent panel, yes. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that I had rather grandly suggested that this offer was open for three months. I think that is a harsh way to put it. The people involved in both the A.R.B. and the C.A.A. know that this transfer is hound to take place. They are going to be required by the
782
Civil Aviation Authority because of their expertise. They have the assurance that their new employment is going to be at least as good, taken as a whole, as the employment they have already got. Having received this assurance and having known these facts, they are then given three months in which to make up their minds. But that does not mean they have not been thinking about it. In other words, when the formal otter is made, it is open for them for three months, if they do not wish to make up their minds earlier. I should have thought that this on the whole should satisfy most people. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, said about the article that appeared in Flight. I have not seen it but I understand the reasons which might have prompted it. I think it would be impossible to say that once people have become members of a new authority, and are therefore no longer civil servants, the whole way through their life their conditions should be absolutely parallel to those which would have existed had they remained Civil Servants. Their expertise is required, and the Authority will be a responsible body to liaise, discuss and negotiate with the people concerned on their terms and conditions; and they will have their contracts of employment. Obviously the numbers of personnel in the Civil Aviation Authority are going to be fewer than in the Civil Service, but I should not think that in the long term it would necessarily affect the livelihood of those concerned, although by its very nature it may curtail the promotional prospects. If there are fewer positions to be promoted to, the number of promotions will be fewer—but then there will be fewer people to be promoted.
I hope that what I have said will have gone some way to meet what I recognise are genuine worries. We think that we have met these points not only in the assurances, but also by what is written into the Bill. My understanding is that pensions will be transferable as well.
LORD BESWICK: Back?
EARL FERRERS: Back?
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry, I was simply trying to find out whether there would be a possibility of going back and taking back pension rights?
EARL FERRERS: If I understand it correctly, when they move from the Civil Service to the Civil Aviation Authority they will take their pension rights with them, and if there is occasion for them to move back again, those pension rights will go with them.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 26, at end insert (" ;and before the Secretary of State approves in pursuance of this sub-paragraph the terms of a contract to be offered to a person employed in employment to which paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 to this Act applies it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that those terms, taken as a whole, are not less favourable to that person than the terms on which he is employed as aforesaid on the date when the offer is made.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD KINGS NORTON: I would only say that this is another point which I made forcibly in Committee and, so far as I am concerned, it has been met admirably by means other than those I proposed.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 5, at end insert—
(" 13A.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in the last two preceding paragraphs, it shall be the duty of the Authority to make, to each person who at the passing of this Act and on the date when an offer is made to him in pursuance of this paragraph is employed by a relevant body, an offer of employment by the Authority on terms which, taken as a whole, are not less favourable to that person than the terms on which he is employed by the relevant body on the date when the offer is made; and an offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall be so made before the expiration of such period as the Secretary of State may determine and shall not be revocable during the period of three months beginning with the date on which the offer is made.
(2) In the preceding sub-paragraph"relevant body"means a body which by virtue of section 27(1) of this Act is to cease or has ceased to have functions conferred on it in pursuance of section 7 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 ".)—(Earl Ferrers.)
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Application of enactments relating to statutory undertakers, etc.]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall stand Part of the Bill?
11.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Paragraph 7 of this Schedule is a very technical point. At the present moment the aerodromes which are to be transferred to the Civil Aviation Authority belong to the D.T.I. Therefore, if development is proposed to be carried out in aerodromes in the hands of anybody else, the Department does not have to apply for planning permission, but works under the Circular 100 procedure, whereby it consults with the local authorities concerned, and one hopes that they reach agreement. On transfer, the aerodromes are to become the operational land of the statutory undertakers under this Schedule to the Bill. There will have to be regulations made, first of all defining the classes of operational land and, secondly, I should think, inserting a new class in the Schedule to the general development order, whereby certain development on the operational land will be given planning consent. On both of those points, I would expect it to be normal for the Department concerned to consult with the Association of Local Authorities, and to do that before the Statutory Instruments are presented to Parliament. I hope my noble friend can tell me that, as in the past, this will be done.
There is, however, one subsidiary point. I believe that even when development which is permitted by the general development order is carried out, if it is of any importance, the Government have an undertaking from the British Airports Authority that in those circumstances they will still consult the local planning authorities. I hope that in a similar type of case the Department will obtain an assurance that the Civil Aviation Authority will also consult the local planning authorities. Incidentally, paragraph 5 of Schedule 5 should delight the heart of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, since it looks like part of the Marshalled List of the Industrial Relations Bill.
EARL FERRERS: I really do not think we want to start on that topic at this hour of the night. But the Government will consider seeking from the Civil Aviation Authority an assurance, similar to that

785
which was given by the British Airports Authority, to consult with local planning authorities, save in very minor works which are urgently required when that would be unreasonable.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Schedules 6 to 8 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Transitional provisions]:
11.32 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 86, line 49, at end insert—
(" 3A. For the purposes of paragraph 10(2) of Schedule 1 to the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 and section 13(1) of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 (which relate to changes of ownership of businesses), there shall be deemed to be transferred to the Authority on the appointed day the business of any body which by virtue of section 27(1) of this Act is to cease or has ceased to have functions conferred on it in pursuance of section 7 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 and a body whose business is deemed for those purposes to be transferred by virtue of this paragraph shall on the appointed day be deemed for the purposes of the said section 13(1) to terminate in connection with the transfer its contracts of employment with persons employed by it immediately before the appointed day.").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is also to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton. We really have listened to what noble Lords have said and have tried to meet their points. At an earlier stage of this Bill, we undertook that if the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, would withdraw his Amendment, we would try to put down a suitable Amendment to deal with the position, under the Contracts of Employment Act 1963 and the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, of the employees of the Air Registration Board who are later in the employment of the Authority. For the purposes of the relevant parts of the Acts, the A.R.B.'s business is deemed to be transferred to the Authority with effect from a day to be appointed. For the purposes of Section 13(1) of the 1965 Act, which deals with the change of ownership of a business, contracts of employment with the Air Registration Board are deemed to be terminated immediately before
786
the appointed day. This will ensure that service with the Board will count as continuous with service with the Authority, and so will affect the amount of any entitlement under the Redundancy Payments Act should a person be declared redundant while he is in the Authority's employ. The Amendment will also prevent entitlement to payments under the Redundancy Payments Act arising on transference, in order to ensure consistency with the treatment to be accorded to civil servants who are transferred to the Authority, and because if redundancy payments were made that would frustrate the objective of providing for continuity of service. I trust that this meets the noble Lord's point. I beg to move.
LORD KINGS NORTON: All I wish to do is to express my satisfaction, and that of my colleagues, with this Amendment. It is certainly very different in form from what I proposed earlier in Committee, but it produces the same effect and I am very glad to have it.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was claiming a good deal of credit for having listened to what was said at an earlier stage. He might also have paid a little tribute to the quality of what was said, which may well have had something to do with the fact that he has been able to meet our position. Since he appears positively to enjoy wallowing in nectar, I am pleased to add my thanks to those that have already been expressed.
EARL FERRERS: I am quite sure the noble Lord would not think I did not consider the remarks which were made to be of the highest quality. Of course they were. That is the reason why we have been able to accept so many of the points which were made. I believe they really have improved this Bill, and we are very grateful for what noble Lords have said.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments; Report received.

  THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
  THE HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
  CHELTENHAM TRAFFIC CONTROL
  CHELTENHAM TRAFFIC CONTROL
  CHRONICALLY DISABLED: LOCAL WELFARE SERVICES
  CHRONICALLY DISABLED: LOCAL WELFARE SERVICES
  BUS LICENSING AND RURAL TRANSPORT SERVICES
  BUS LICENSING AND RURAL TRANSPORT SERVICES