Sitting of 8 June 1971

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

NORTHERN IRELAND PARLIAMENT (FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY)
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received an invitation from the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Northern Ireland to attend the ceremonies later this month in connection with the fiftieth anniversary of that Parliament. I hope that the House will approve my decision to accept and will grant me the necessary leave of absence.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: I thank hon. and right hon. Gentlemen.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beer (Specific Gravity)
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek powers to require brewers to inform him of all changes that they make in the specific gravity of their beers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): No, Sir.
    Dr. Gilbert: If the hon. Gentleman will persist in supporting the brewers in their contention that it is not the alcoholic content or the specific gravity but rather the taste of the beer that matters, will he at least do something to protect the interests of the beer drinkers in the light of all the closures of small breweries by which the choice of the beer drinkers is being restricted?
    Mr. Stodart: The whole trend is in line with public demand. I believe that it is a fact that today heavy beers are not wanted as they used to be and that there is a big move towards light ales and lager. Unlike the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends, we do not rejoice in requiring people to do things.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my hon. Friend aware that the choice of beers is now greater than ever, that the whole of the brewing industry is geared to choice, and that beer drinkers in the Midlands, particularly in the County of Worcester, are delighted with the gravity, the quality and the choice of ales offered to them in that traditional home of all British beers?
    Mr. Stodart: One has only to look at my hon. Friend to know what an authority he must be on this subject.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the brewer who is trying to promote a red revolution is supplying his money to the wrong political party? Would the hon. Gentleman advise the brewers to attach a notice to their bottles telling the public that a part of the cost of each pint is going to finance the miserable party at present ruling the country?
    Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman is being guilty of one of the seven deadly sins—envy.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further assessment he has made of the prospects for United Kingdom agriculture in an enlarged European Economic Community, following the recent agreement in Brussels on transitional arrangements for United Kingdom adaptation to the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The transitional arrangements we have agreed should ensure a smooth and orderly transition to Community price levels and enable our farmers to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Deakins: Has the future of production grants, particularly those for hill farms, yet been cleared up, or is it likely to be cleared up in the next round of negotiations? Is the hon. Gentleman's

    835
    interpretation of the functions of marketing boards, which will be allowed to continue under the common agricultural policy, the interpretation accepted by the E.E.C. authorities?
    Mr. Stodart: The production grant system and its future is still as it was. I have nothing to add to what I have said previously on that subject. Nor do I have anything to add to what my right hon. Friend and I have said about the future of marketing boards.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that, with the exception of the problems of horticulture and fishing, most agriculturists are satisfied with the transitional arrangements; but what concerns many of them is whether we are able to produce the extra food required to meet the needs of going into the Common Market?
    Mr. Stodart: Within the last few months there has been a radical change in outlook, and the farming community is now pretty confident that it could produce that food.
    Mr. Mackie: May I press the hon. Gentleman a little harder on the subject of marketing boards? Knowing the resounding success of two or three marketing boards, farmers are worried about this aspect of the matter. Could the hon. Gentleman make a statement a little clearer than his past statements?
    Mr. Stodart: It is always a pleasure to be pressed by the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on his return to the Front Bench. I have nothing further to add to what I have previously said.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the agreement for the transitional period of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market, in the event of Great Britain's acceding to the Treaty of Rome he will introduce legislation to control food prices during that period.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): No case for such controls has been established.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever our views on entry into the Common Market—and we do not appear to be entirely united on
    836
    this—all hon. Members are concerned at the prospective rise in food prices? Will he not give an assurance that if we do enter the Common Market the Government will control that rise?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I cannot give any assurance about controlling any rise in the price of food as a result of our entry into the Common Market. What I am able to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman is that revised figures of the increase in the cost of food on entry into the F.E.C. are now being prepared, and I will give them to the House as soon as I can. I am confident that they will show a markedly better picture than that presented in the White Paper of 1970.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the price of food may rise, those most affected will be protected?
    Mr. Prior: We have already made it plain that any increase in the price of food should be more than compensated for by the increase in the standard of living. We should save money on the Exchequer contribution towards agricultural support, and I am certain that some of that money can be used for helping old-age pensioners.
    Mr. Pavitt: Did not the right hon. Gentleman recently tell a Conservative Party conference that the rise in prices on our entry into the E.E.C. would not be all that much because of the rises which have already taken place? Is it part of the Government's policy to let prices rise so that the impact of joining will be lessened?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the likely cost of imported food in 1978 if the United Kingdom does, and if it does not, join the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Prior: The 1970 White Paper gave a wide range for the estimated effect on the cost of food imports of adopting the Common Agricultural Policy but recent trends in world prices, which have tended to rise more rapidly than Community prices, suggest that the effect on import costs might now be towards the lower end of the range.
    Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the studies by Dr. Josling, of the London School of Economics, recently published in The Times, which suggested that by 1978 the cost of our food import bill if we stay out might be greater than if we go in?
    Mr. Prior: I am aware of Dr. Josling's comments in The Times, which show what a wide divergence of views there is on the subject. The truth is that the import bill is rising rapidly, and the price of butter, for example, has gone up by 40 per cent. in the last 10 months.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, from information available to him from international sources, what proportion of the average family budget is spent on food in Western European countries; whether this proportion is increasing or declining; and what is the estimate for the future.
    Mr. Prior: The proportion of total consumer expenditure which is spent on food is declining in each of the E.E.C. countries and in the United Kingdom. This trend is expected to continue. As a number of figures are involved, I will, with permission, circulate the latest available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is it fair to assume that food prices, which even now

    CONSUMERS' EXPENDITURE ON FOOD EXPRESSED AS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL CONSUMERS' EXPENDITURE (AT CURRENT RETAIL PRICES)

    Year

    Belgium

    France

    Germany*

    Italy

    Luxembourg

    Netherlands

    United Kingdom

    1963

    26·5

    30·6

    20·4

    38·4

    28·3

    29·7

    27·2

    1968

    24·3

    27·5

    18·7†

    36·8

    25·7†

    25·2

    24·2

    1969

    Not yet available

    24·3

    1970

    Not yet available

    23·8

    *Figures include total expenditure in restaurants.

    †Figures relate to 1967.

    Source: EEC Countries—National Accounts of OECD Countries, 1950–1968.
    United Kingdom—Estimates from the National Income and Expenditure Blue Book adapted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the OECD Standardised System of National Accounts.
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish a White Paper on the effect the United Kingdom entry into the European Economic Community will have on horticulture on the terms now envisaged.
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will
    form only one factor in the cost of living, are likely to show a decrease in future?
    Mr. Prior: The cost of food index represents about one-quarter of the cost of living index. That percentage is going down in this country and all the E.E.C. countries, and is likely to continue to decline.
    Mr. McNamara: The proportion of money spent on foods and other things out of family income varies according to income. When publishing his figures, will the right hon. Gentleman give the proportions per £10 wage band so that we can make a true comparison of how this will affect the general population?
    Mr. Prior: That is a fair point, and I will see whether I can do it.
    Mr. Mackie: Monetary indications are sometimes misleading. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the quantity or quality of the food, which is much more important than the indications which the monetary figures give?
    Mr. Prior: The only indication I can give on that point is that in France the percentage is slightly higher and in Germany it is a good deal lower. But food eating standards from one country to another do not vary all that much.
    Following is the information:
    publish a detailed assessment in the form of a White Paper on the effect that membership of the European Economic Community will have on horticulture on the basis of the terms now agreed.
    Mr. Prior: The variety of horticultural commodities and the range of enterprises concerned with each commodity are too wide to permit an assessment other than

    839
    in general terms. The transitional arrangements that we have agreed with the European Economic Community should in general enable growers to meet their problems of adaptation.
    Mr. Body: Can my right hon. Friend say how many thousand people in horticulture will lose their livelihood and what kind of compensation they can expect?
    Mr. Prior: That is the sort of emotive question which I strongly deplore. I am surprised at my hon. Friend's mentioning this. The fact is that very few people in the horticultural industry need tear British entry, and where there are difficulties the Government are committed already to discussing with the industry the needs of these people for compensation or other help.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am personally very much concerned for the livelihood of those who grow tomatoes, cucumbers and other horticultural produce in my constituency, and that I make no apology at all on this or any other occasion on the ground that that may be an emotive approach? Will he not reconsider his answer and produce further information in regard to the horticultural position? Would he not agree that there is danger of horticulture being treated as a Cinderella in this matter, and that whereas we may not be getting very much out of the negotiations on other subjects, we do not even seem to be trying in respect of horticulture?
    Mr. Prior: That is a grossly unfair statement and is not borne out by the facts. I have recently been to the Lea Valley and have found there, amongst the growers, a determination to succeed whatever competition obtains and that they have to face from the Common Market countries. Unlike the case of some other industries which may be under pressure in the Common Market, we have agreed to consider forms of compensation for the horticultural industry.
    Mr. Nott: Will my right hon. Friend, in considering the listing of separate horticultural items, try to assess what the effects of entry will be on my part of the country? I believe that West Cornwall, with its broccoli, early potatoes, flowers and particularly horticultural produce,
    840
    will not be damaged. We are always having the global statement that horticulture will be damaged, but it should be broken down into separate items.
    Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. We know that 40 per cent. of the industry will be completely unaffected by entry. We are concerned with the apple and pear industry, and certainly with the glasshouse crops and early strawberries. I will do my best as time goes on to obtain a more accurate picture and present it to the House.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to the hon. Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Body). Will he withdraw the charge that the hon. Gentleman made an emotive point and accept that it was, indeed, a substantial point made on behalf of very large numbers of growers?
    Mr. Prior: If I believed that to be true, I would, but I happen to believe that it is not true.
    Mr. Moateasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the price of sugar to the consumer if Great Britain were to sign the Treaty of Rome on the terms outlined on 17th May.
    Mr. Prior: The price of sugar ex refinery in the E.E.C. is between 25 and 30 per cent. higher than in the United Kingdom. We would be adopting Community prices only gradually over the transitional period of five years.
    Mr. Moate: Is the Minister not being a little coy about the cost of sugar to the housewives if Britain should join the Community? Would he confirm that the retail price in the Common Market ranges from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. higher than current prices in this country? While a great deal has rightly been said about safeguarding sugar producers, should we not be concerned to safeguard the housewife?
    Mr. Prior: Of course we are concerned with safeguarding the housewife. The margin above the United Kingdom price is greater than 30 per cent. in some cases but no doubt this is due to the lower efficiency in distribution and higher margins on the Continent than here.
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the request by the European Economic Community that British domestic sugar beet production should be limited; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Prior: I have received inquiries from an hon. Member on behalf of his farming constituents. I explained in reply that the Community's proposals, which relate only to the period up to the end of 1974, are subject to further discussion in Brussels and that my officials are in touch with interests directly affected by them, including the National Farmers' Union.
    Mr. Strang: If any limits are placed on the levels of agricultural production in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that they will be to the benefit of our traditional Commonwealth suppliers and not to mop up surpluses artificially created in the Community?
    Mr. Prior: The position is that we are governed by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement up to the end of 1974. After that time, we would certainly seek for our own industry to be fairly compared with the industries in Europe. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement issued after the meeting with the Governments of the developing members of the Commonwealth and the talks on sugar last week.
    Dame Irene Ward: Even though it is not in his Department, may I ask my right hon. Friend why he does not point out to everyone in the House who is talking about food prices that the rise in gas, coal, electricity and all the things which really affect those living on small fixed incomes——
    Mr. Charles Morris: Food.
    Dame Irene Ward: No, the other things affect them much more.
    Mr. John D. Grant: They can live without gas.
    Dame Irene Ward: Why does my right hon. Friend not hit these people on the head for taking so biased and stupid a view and get on with it?
    Mr. Prior: I am always grateful for my hon. Friend's help.
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to reclassify the botanical names of bulbs, and particularly, tulips, to assist in Common Market nomenclature.
    Mr. Prior: I am not aware of any problem in this field for by Department.
    Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a great national disaster that anything beautiful or attractive should b; known by the name of Kaufman?
    Mr. Prior: I have known for a long time of my hon. Friend's interest in gardening, but it requires a considerable feat of imagination to think of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) as a tulip.
    Mr. Bodyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is now able to make a further statement about the prospects for the United Kingdom inshore fishing industry if the United Kingdom were to enter the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Prior: We have now made clear to the Six our view that the fisheries régime requires modification to meet the needs and circumstances of the enlarged Community, particularly as regards access to inshore waters. We do not consider that the existing provisions, including those relating to conservation, would adequately deal with the problem which would be created by additional fishing effort in waters which are already fully exploited. We have said that what is required is to safeguard all waters within the 6-mile limit measured from the usual base lines—which would, of course, include waters like the Minch and Cardigan Bay lying within straight base lines. We have told the Six that we see no practicable nor orderly way of dealing with additional effort in such waters unless fishing is effectively restricted to vessels genuinely belonging to the ports from which these waters are now being fished.
    My right hon. and learned Friend, who will be making a statement tomorrow on the progress of the negotiations, has left

    843
    the Six in no doubt of the need to secure a satisfactory settlement to this major outstanding issue in the negotiations.
    Mr. Body: Does my right hon. Friend therefore disagree with the view of those experts who believe that the most important conservation area now lies between the six and 12 miles limit?
    Mr. Prior: I think that that requires a great deal more scientific exploration. On the whole, I should say that the most important area is the nought to six, not the six to 12 miles.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the anger felt by the Clyde Fishermen's Association and others in Scotland about the lack of consultation with them before the Government made the six-miles limit concession to the Common Market countries? Will he give those fishing organisations an assurance this afternoon that the Government will offer them an emergency meeting for consultation purposes?
    Mr. Prior: I am seeing the Fisheries Organisation Society representing the inshore fishing industry next week, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be meeting Scottish fishing interests next week as well. I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that waters such as the Minch, the Firth, the Clyde, the Moray Firth and Cardigan Bay, lying behind straight base lines, would be subject to the régime, which we have suggested, of genuinely belonging to our own ports.

    Gross Domestic Product
    Mr. Douglasasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of the gross domestic product is contributed by agriculture; and what are his estimates of this percentage in each year to 1975.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Agriculture contributed 3 per cent. of the gross domestic product in 1970. There are too many unknown factors involved to make reliable forecasts for the remainder of the period.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in terms of imports agriculture plays an important part in the economy? Does he agree that any departure from the policies which have
    844
    resulted in this achievement—in particular, by support of the common agricultural policy in the E.E.C.—might have a detrimental effect on British agriculture and prices and the price level?
    Mr. Stodart: I agree that agriculture has played a very important part, but I do not go with the hon. Gentleman on the second part of his supplementary question.

    Prices
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what overall movement there has been in retail food prices since June, 1970, to the latest available date, as shown by the Food Index.
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much in percentage terms food has increased in price since June, 1970.
    Mr. Prior: Between 16th June, 1970, and 20th April, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 8·5 per cent.
    Mr. Barnes: Does not this figure mean that in the 10 months of this Government food prices have already gone up considerably more than in any full year under Labour? When can we expect this upward trend to be slowed down?
    Mr. Prior: Hon. Members must realise that it will take some while to get prices under control and that it is the policies of the last Government which are partly to blame. The main problem is one of increasing wages and increasing world commodity prices. Until these show more signs of stability, we shall find it hard to keep prices stable.
    Mr. Carter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the electors of Broms-grove are indebted to him for his intervention in the by-election, when he confidently predicted that under this Government food prices would continue to rise? Does he not feel that now is the time to be honest with the House and admit that it is due to Government policy that food prices continue to rise?
    Mr. Prior: Quite the contrary—it is due to the legacy we inherited, combined with the very high level of commodity prices

    845
    now ruling in the world. The sooner we can get both under control the better.
    Mr. Mackie: Surely the Government's policy is to give farmers their prices from the market. If farmers are to get such guaranteed prices, then prices to the consumer must rise. The right hon. Gentleman really must start to admit this and not keep repeating that he is going to get things under control. He cannot get things under control if he carries on present Government policy.
    Mr. Prior: The increases which will result from the introduction of the interim levy scheme will amount, as I have said several times, to about one-half of 1 per cent. on the cost of food index over the following year.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the expected movement in the price of bread?
    Mr. Prior: I see no reason for any increase in the price of bread resulting from the introduction of the levy policy.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will state, respectively, the increases in prices per centum, calculated as to retail, for home-produced foods and imported foods between June, 1970, and June, 1971.
    Mr. Prior: It is not possible, on the present basis of the Food Index, to identify separately the movements in prices of all home-produced and of all imported foods. Details for certain sub-groups of the Index, are, however, available, and I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the percentage increases for those sub-groups between 16th June, 1970, and 20th April, 1971, the latest date for which information is available.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an increase in food

    Per cent.

    Increase in the Index of Retail Food Prices between 16th June, 1970 and 20th April, 1971 of which—

    8·5

    (a)

    items the prices of which show significant seasonal variations*

    …

    …

    …

    2·8

    (b)

    others

    …

    …

    …

    10·0

    of which—

    (i)

    items mainly home-produced for direct consumption

    …

    …

    …

    14·5

    (ii)

    items mainly imported for direct consumption

    …

    …

    …

    7·5

    (iii)

    items manufactured in the United Kingdom

    …

    …

    …

    9·3

    of which—

    (1)

    manufactured primarily from home-produced raw materials

    …

    …

    …

    11·1

    (2)

    manufactured primarily from imported raw materials

    …

    …

    …

    8·3

    *Home-killed lamb, fresh and smoked fish, eggs, fresh vegetables and fresh fruit are the items the prices of which show significant seasonal variations.

    prices over the period amounting to about 8·5 per cent. is the cause of the gravest anxiety and that it is contrary to the undertakings given by our party at the last General Election?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend know that South Worcestershire is contiguous to Bromsgrove and that I am feeling excessively uncomfortable—[Interruption.] What hopes has my right hon. Friend of arresting these considerable increases in food prices?
    Mr. Prior: I am certain that as our policies are seen to come into operation they will then have—[Interruption.]—considerable effects on the cost of living.
    Hon. Members: When?
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not hear the answer given by my right hon. Friend because of the noise from the party opposite. Could you ask the Opposition to behave themselves?
    Mr. Prior: I am certain that our policies will succeed. My hon. Friend need have no doubts that we shall stand by the policies on which we have embarked, and in four years' time he will be returned for Worcestershire, South with an even bigger majority.
    Mr. Kaufman: Returning to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), would the right hon. Gentleman now give the House and country a categoric assurance that the retail price of the standard loaf of bread will not rise to 15p either this year or next?
    Mr. Prior: All I would say is that there is absolutely no reason at all at the moment for the price of bread to rise.
    Following is the information:
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the reasons for the recent increases in the prices of beef and butter.
    Mr. Prior: The recent increases in the prices of both beef and butter have resulted from a shortage of supplies on the world and United Kingdom markets.
    Mr. Hamilton: Since the right hon. Gentleman has already admitted that butter prices have increased by no less than 40 per cent. in the last 10 months and that beef prices have increased about 50 per cent. in the same period, is he aware that if this rate of increase continues we shall be damned glad to get into the Common Market to get reduced prices for butter and beef?
    Mr. Prior: That is a new point of view for the hon. Gentleman to put forward. Butter prices have gone up because of the drought conditions in New Zealand and Australia and shortages in other countries, particularly in the Common Market. As for beef, if only we produced more beef we would be less dependent on high-priced imports.

    Apples and Pears (Levy)
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that the proposed compensatory levies on apples and pears will be an effective replacement of quotas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The purpose of the compensatory levy on apple and pear imports is to align our prices with those of the Community over the course of the transitional period, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that it will meet this purpose as effectively as manipulation of the quota.
    Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is only a glorified tariff under another name, that it is a tariff reducing every year, and that for the last 20 years we have been told that tariffs are impossible to operate for apples and pears? Why, then, is there this complete change of heart?
    Mr. Stodart: Because the quota was regarded as being restrictive and offensive in the eyes of the E.E.C., and it is a fact, I believe, that the compensatory levy will meet the purpose as effectively.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On the question of apples—particularly Worcestershire apples—is my hon. Friend aware that Commonwealth apples have always flowed into this country without restriction or quota, and foreign apples have been allowed to come in at much too great a volume, a matter of 470,000 tons in this present half-year? What steps are we to take to protect our own growers against the depredations of unfair foreign competition from Europe?
    Mr. Stodart: It is very unusual for my hon. Friend to get his figures wrong, but on this Ocasion he has. We have always said that there is no doubt that there will be increased competition either way, whether by quotas or levy, for the apple growers. We have never tried to disguise that, and it is undoubtedly appreciated by the industry.

    New Zealand Lamb
    Sir Clive Bossomasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Great Britain's share of the lamb exported from New Zealand, and how this compares with her share in 1969.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The United Kingdom's share of lamb exported from New Zealand in 1970 was 86·31 per cent. compared with 88·7 per cent. in 1969.
    Sir Clive Bossom: Can my hon. Friend say what special arrangements will be made so that New Zealand lamb can be sold in Europe not only during the transitional period but, more important, after entry?
    Mr. Stodart: As my hon. Friend will have seen, this is a matter that is to be discussed at the next round of conferences in detail. I would only say that we are in the closest contact with the New Zealand Government on this subject.
    Mr. Mackie: Is it not right to say that New Zealand is the only source of lamb that we and the Continent have, and that after Britain's entry New Zealand should be quite happy about the market for lamb, if nothing else?
    Mr. Stodart: The spirit that New Zealand is showing in all this is admirable.
    Mr. Body: Can my hon. Friend say what penalties are now imposed upon

    849
    exporters of lamb from New Zealand to this country if they exceed a certain quota?
    Mr. Stodart: I would ask my hon. Friend to put down a Question on that subject.
    Mr. Faulds: In terms of our entry into the E.E.C., is it not time that we stopped choking over the question of New Zealand lamb? Has the hon. Gentleman made any examination of present needs for lamb and sheep in Iran and Middle Eastern Arab countries, which are much exceeded by the present production there? Is he aware that projections of demand in these two areas are enormous? Is it not time that we got New Zealand to think of providing sheep exports to some other countries?
    Mr. Stodart: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that New Zealand has been making the most strenuous efforts to find new markets for her lamb.

    Fowl Pest
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in view of recent developments, if he will now appoint an official committee of inquiry to consider the current outbreak of fowl pest.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) on 25th May.—[Vol. 818, c. 84–5.]
    Mr. Farr: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, may I point out that I have seen that reply. Does he feel that the committee which his right hon. Friend has announced will be sufficiently broad-based to obtain confidence in the industry which is so necessary? Secondly, can he tell me whether the committee will publish its reply?
    Mr. Stodart: The committee consists of men who are recognised to be of very high standing in the poultry world. They will carry authority. As to my hon. Friend's second point, the findings of the committee will be published in full.
    Mr. Mackie: Has the hon. Gentleman any doubt whatever that the reason for these outbreaks was simply the lack of
    850
    vaccination during the period since the Plant Report?
    Mr. Stodart: It would be very risky to say that there was no doubt whatever, but I would have said that the evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: While I welcome the appointment of independent members to the committee, may I ask my hon. Friend to give further consideration to the possibility of there being appointed extra independent members who are not directly concerned with the poultry industry but are concerned with the environment as a whole? Alternatively, if he is unable to do that, will he give an undertaking that evidence will be accepted from organisations more generally concerned with the environment?
    Mr. Stodart: Evidence will be welcomed from any source at all.

    Forestry Commission
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an interim statement on his review of the structure of the Forestry Commission.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: As I indicated in my reply to my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), on 11th May, the review is directed to forestry policy. As regards the timing of an announcement, I have nothing to add to that reply.—[Vol. 817, c. 194.]
    Mr. Clark: While I thank the hon. Member for that answer, and while I am sorry that he will not make a statement, may I ask him if, when he publishes his report, he will bear in mind the growing appreciation by the public of the Forestry Commission's policies on conservation and amenity? Will he give the House an assurance that he will provide the Forestry Commission with adequate financial compensation for this type of work?
    Mr. Stodart: These are the sort of matters being considered by the committee. We will consider its report when it has been presented.
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) whether, in view of the concern caused to employees of the Forestry Commission at Basingstoke by the proposal to uproot them for a second time, he will bear this fact in mind when assessing the advantages of a further move;
    (2) what estimate he has made of the cost of moving the Forestry Commission from Basingstoke to Edinburgh; and whether he is yet ready to make a decision on this matter.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends will be meeting representatives of the Forestry Commission Staff Side in the near future and they will take full account of their views, along with all other relevant considerations, including that of cost, before making a decision.
    Mr. Mitchell: May I urge my hon. Friend not to proceed with this proposal except under the most compelling circumstances and after full publication of the facts upon which a decision is reached?
    Mr. Stodart: I assure my hon. Friend that the closest consideration will be given to all aspects of this matter before any decision is taken.

    Artificial Insemination
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will make an announcement on the future of do-it-yourself artificial insemination.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The considerations raised by this proposal are complex and in some respects novel.
    A full examination is being made of it, but I cannot say at this stage when a decision will be reached.
    Mr. Mills: Does my hon. Friend realise what very real dangers lie ahead if this is allowed into the hands of private enterprise?
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Mills: Will my hon. Friend take this matter very seriously? Is he aware that it is terribly important not to undo all the good work that the Milk Marketing
    852
    Board has done for British agriculture over many years?
    Mr. Stodart: Hitherto I have always found my hon. Friend to be the chief exponent of private enterprise.
    Mr. Mills: Not on this.
    Mr. Stodart: I willingly say that health considerations in all this are absolutely crucial and so radical a step merits very close examination.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Could my hon. Friend say whether there are any films in preparation illustrating these techniques?
    Mr. Stodart: This is something I have had under consideration.

    Licensing Hours
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the effect on the price of beer of extending licensing hours.
    Mr. Prior: The question of licensing hours is within the field of inquiry of the Erroll Committee, which will no doubt have in mind the economic implications of any change it may recommend.
    Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Home Secretary over his hare-brained determination to inflict upon us some form of Continental licensing hours? Will he explain to the Home Secretary that if licensees are to meet all the additional overheads involved in drinking through the night with probably no additional revenue at the end of the week, then the price of beer may well rise by up to 5p a pint?
    Mr. Prior: No doubt the Home Secretary will read what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Import Food Levy System
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a Ministerial broadcast on the day on which the Government's import food levy system is introduced.
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir.
    Mr. Sillars: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would make a very important contribution to public knowledge, and, therefore, to the debate

    853
    about entry to the Common Market, if he reconsidered that answer and made a televised admission to the whole nation that entry to the Common Market means a permanent shift from a cheap food policy, which we have traditionally pursued, to a dear food policy?
    Mr. Prior: It would certainly be part of our policy within the Common Market to keep food prices as reasonable as we can.
    Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that farmers and farm workers in my constituency look forward with keen anticipation to the implementation of the import levy system?
    Mr. Prior: I feel that a better award for all connected with the farming industry, whether farmers or farm workers, is long overdue and will be awarded by farmers and farm workers themselves through much higher output, to the great benefit of the nation as a whole.

    Otter Hunting
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give advice to the Forestry Commission, or any other public body, that it should consider refusing permission for otter hunting in areas under its control.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend's jurisdiction in this matter is confined to the Forestry Commission in England. Otter hunting on land managed by the Commission takes place on a very limited scale and he sees no need to intervene.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister agree that it takes place, that there is a general loathing for this practice throughout the country, and that, in view of that loathing and the fact that otters are becoming increasingly scarce, it would be useful for the Government to give the kind of lead which may encourage others to take a more generous and reasonable view of the practice?
    Mr. Stodart: My information is that in England the only area involved is Dartmoor and that there is no evidence of otters becoming extinct there. Otter
    854
    hunting is comparatively regular in the North of England, but not on Forestry Commission property.
    Mr. John Wells: Will my hon. Friend tell us how much otter hunting takes place in the Rother Valley constituency?
    Mr. Stodart: Not without notice.

    Deep-Sea Fishing Fleet (Subsidy)
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the negotiations with the fishing industry on his review into the operating subsidy for the deep-sea fishing fleet after mid-1971.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to give his decision upon the terms of the subsidy for the deep-sea fishing fleet to come into operation in mid-1971.
    Mr. Prior: I am meeting representatives of the industry tomorrow to discuss the matter.
    Mr. McNamara: I am grateful for that information. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, first, that it is the Government's intention to maintain the subsidy to the fishing industry as it is at the moment; secondly, that it is their intention to maintain the present system of awarding efficiency grants and the subsidy; and, thirdly, what will be the effect upon the subsidy in the event of our entering the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Prior: I should not like to anticipate the consultations which I shall have tomorrow, nor to give views to the House now on the outcome of those consultations and the Government's decision; but I shall communicate that to the House at the earliest possible moment.
    As for the effect of entry into the Common Market on the deep-sea fishing industry, there are certain problems, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but subsidy is not a question which has yet arisen.

    Tractor Safety Cabs (Regulations)
    Mrs. Doris Fisherasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet agreed the amendment of the regulations on tractor safety cabs.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: It would be for the House to agree any amendment proposed after the statutory consultations that are still in progress.
    Mrs. Fisher: Will the Minister consider the noise level, because the majority of people are most irritated by excess noise? Will he make a study of the decibel level which farm workers have to tolerate when operating in safety cabs?
    Mr. Stodart: It is a factor of which I am well aware from personal experience. This matter has been put forward by the National Union of Agricultural Workers, and I assure the hon. Lady that the point is being studied very carefully.

    PRIME MINISTER (BROADCAST)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister whether he has now decided to make a Ministerial broadcast on 18th June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans for a Ministerial broadcast, but I have accepted an invitation to be interviewed on B.B.C. radio on 18th June.
    Mr. Barnes: Does not the Prime Minister think that he should make some kind of adjustment in public to the statement which he made a year ago, that his policies would have an immediate effect on moderating the wage-price spiral? Is he aware that the increase in food prices of 8·5 per cent. in 10 months, announced today, is already considerably more than in any full year under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: As to the moderation of price rises, the action which we took over the nationalised industries prevented prices rising as fast—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Labour Party has continually objected to our stopping the nationalised industries from raising their prices as much as they wanted. S.E.T. is being halved in July.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend please find time tomorrow morning to read the OFFICIAL REPORT, including the Adjournment debate tonight, depicting the Government raising prices in matters within their own jurisdiction by 600 per cent. and up to 1,000 per cent. on marine survey charges, which
    856
    is causing the most widespread dissatisfaction in our ports? Should not the Government set an example to both nationalised and private industry in moderating their own demands and being more temperate than private operators? Will the Prime Minister exercise his undoubted influence to abate this enormous increase in charges?
    The Prime Minister: The subject of marine survey charges is not without interest to me. I am prepared to read my hon. Friend's speech, even before he has made it; but perhaps he will await the reply which he will receive this evening.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Prime Minister say why, when he gave his previous reply concerning the keeping down of incomes, the Government decided that a consultant earning £202 6s. 5d. a week should get a rise of £60 11s. 11d. at a time when the Government were trying to hold down to half that amount?
    The Prime Minister: In my previous reply I did not deal with incomes. I was talking about prices, because that was the Question I was asked.

    MULTI-NATIONAL COMPANIES
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council at which he takes the chair he will seek to raise the topic of the operation of multinational companies in the United Kingdom economy.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Chairman of the Council, is considering the inclusion of this subject in the agenda for a future meeting.
    Mr. Douglas: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. Would he not concede that the operations of these companies, particularly in Scotland, might be having deleterious effects on the Scottish economy in that they are capable of manipulating their operations to ensure maximising return overall without having regard to the effect of the operations of the branch organisation in an area like Scotland? Will he press his right hon. Friend to make a detailed survey of the operations of these companies within the United Kingdom economy?
    The Prime Minister: If the Joint Committee which fixes the agenda for the N.E.D.C. were to ask for papers of this kind, I am sure that the point would be very carefully studied. In general, since 1945 Governments of both parties have encouraged international companies to come to this country, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Scotland has greatly benefited as a result. I have no grounds of complaint on the general policies of these companies as being, as far as they can make them, in our national interest and not governed by the interests of other countries. My predecessors probably would generally agree with that.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Matherasked the Prime Minister to what extent in his recent talks with President Pompidou the defence interests of an enlarged Community were discussed.
    The Prime Minister: As I told the House in my statement of 24th May, we had only a brief discussion of defence questions. We both recognised that these were matters for the future, after enlargement if it were to take place.
    Mr. Mather: I am grateful for that reply. Did the Prime Minister receive any undertaking that France would consider rejoining N.A.T.O.? Does he agree that this would be a highly desirable, if not essential, element in any terms agreed, both from the point of view of European security and as an earnest of France's good intentions?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the whole of N.A.T.O. would welcome France's return to the Organisation. She remains a member of the Alliance, but is not a member of the Organisation. These matters were not discussed in detail in the talks between President Pompidou and myself. We accepted that the positions of France and of Britain in defence are different. We are a member of the Organisation and France is not.
    Mr. English: If the right hon. Gentleman is committed to the unity of Western Europe, as he is, would it not be better to discuss the democratic control of its institutions before discussing, as
    858
    the right hon. Gentleman put it, matters of future control over its defence?
    The Prime Minister: The question of the democratic institutions of the European Economic Community is constantly under discussion, and in the last two years the European Parliament sitting at Strasbourg has increased its influence, and its powers have been widened. I have always made my view plain, which is that if the Community is enlarged the demands for the democratic institutions to increase their powers and influence will continue.
    Mr. Sandys: In view of the growing unwillingness of the United States to bear a disproportionate share of the burden of Western defence, does the Prime Minister agree that the European members of N.A.T.O. should, without delay, endeavour to rationalise their military organisations and standardise their equipment so as to enable them to make a bigger and more effective contribution with the least possible increase in expenditure?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend that, in the absence of an international agreement about the disposition of arms, such a movement is desirable. With regard to British policy, last autumn we took the necessary steps to help to strengthen the teeth of N.A.T.O., and then early this year, when we were asked to assist on infrastructure, we were able, in conjunction with the Federal German Government, to come to an arrangement for helping there as well.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Prime Minister whether he explained to President Pompidou at his recent meeting with him the processes which would have to be gone through in the United Kingdom to validate any British application to join the European Economic Community.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Statement which I made in the House on 24th May. I am sure that President Pompidou is well aware of the constitutional procedure which we will follow if we accede to the Treaty of Rome.—[Vol. 818, c. 31–49.]
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Neither the previous answer nor this one, nor any other answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given, has explained to President Pompidou or anyone in this country why

    859
    the people of this country will not be allowed to give their view on this most important subject and the fact that hon. Members will not be allowed the opportunity in future of changing their view, if they wish to do so, as they have been able to do on every other piece of legislation which has ever been introduced. Did he explain that to President Pompidou?
    The Prime Minister: It certainly does not lie in my power to prevent hon. Members from changing their minds or their views. It has come to my knowledge that some have already changed their views. I hope that others will remain stalwart in the face of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that if any of the consequential legislation in respect of our adherence to the Treaty of Rome becomes objectionable, this Parliament will have the right to annul it?
    The Prime Minister: What I am saying is that the procedure for Parliament to ratify a treaty is clearly laid down. If we are to accede to this Treaty, the procedure will then be followed. In connection with the ratification, legislation has then to be passed. That will go through the normal parliamentary processes.

    BRUNEI
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Brunei.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Dalyell: On his way to or from Australia at Christmas, would the Prime Minister stop off to discuss with the Asian Governments whether there are more important and urgent things for the British Government to do in Asia than to prop up the Sultan of Brunei?
    The Prime Minister: As I explained to the hon. Gentleman when he last asked a Question about this matter before the recess, there have been consultations with the Sultan of Brunei and we have reached an agreement which is to be signed later in the year. I have had
    860
    talks with many Asian Governments while I was Leader of the Opposition and since I have been Prime Minister. This is not a question which any of them has raised. Perhaps the explanation is that we are already doing a great deal to help the Commonwealth Governments in Asia.
    Mr. Tapsell: Is it not a fact that Brunei has long been in treaty relationship with us, that it is in an important strategic area, and that we have very large oil investments there? Therefore, is it not a country with which we should maintain the closest possible friendly relations?
    The Prime Minister: That is so. In addition, we have arrangements under the Five-Power Commonwealth agreement to help Malaysia, which is a neighbour of Brunei.
    Mr. Hattersley: Would the Prime Minister clarify a point which was not made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) when he last asked the Question; namely, the difference between the present Government's attitude and the previous Government's attitude when a previous treaty was negotiated? On a previous occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) made it clear that the treaty involved undertakings from the Brunei Government to move towards genuinely democratic institutions. Is that part of the new treaty?
    The Prime Minister: As I understand it, under the previous Administration—and obviously the papers are a matter for them—no progress was made on that point, which was raised by the previous Administration, and it was then dropped.

    COST OF LIVING
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received in his official capacity from residents of the London Borough of Bexley concerning the rise in the cost of living.
    The Prime Minister: Statistics are not kept which classify letters by the address or place of residence of the writer.
    Mr. Davis: I thank the Prime Minister for that very helpful reply. Whatever the situation, is he not aware that the votes of the electors of the London Borough of Bexley, and, indeed, of those in Bromsgrove, are more eloquent than letters and that, at a stroke, they indicated precisely what they thought of the right hon. Gentleman's pledges given on 16th June and his policies?
    The Prime Minister: I think that, like other hon. Members, I can satisfactorily look after my constituency without any assistance from the hon. Gentleman. However, in my constituency we held five of the eight wards and had 49 per cent. of the votes against the hon. Gentleman's party's 46 per cent.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Bexley Housewives Protection League, which sent him a number of letters, has kindly sent me copies of those letters, signed by several hundred of the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, who expressed the fear that before he finds time to reply to them he will have deserted his loyal supporters in the constituency of Bexley for a safer seat elsewhere in Kent?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will find that they, like all my constituents, will get very speedy replies.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the Conservative Women's Conference, Westminster, on 18tth May, concerning inflation, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Grant: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech, referred to a rather strange lady who suggested that she would like to take a bath in the dark with the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Faulds: It would do him the world of good.
    Mr. Grant: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the unlikely event of that happening, she would find, when
    862
    the lights went on, that, like all the other housewives a year ago, she had been duped?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that that part was in the hand-out.

    PRIME MINISTER (RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received since 27th April relating to the exercise of his responsibilities.
    The Prime Minister: About 7,000, Sir.
    Mr. Carter: May I ask the Prime Minister what replies he sends to the letters he receives on the subjects of prices and unemployment because, judging by the by-election results, it appears that the electors believe that he has ratted on the pledges he gave on both issues in the General Election last year?
    The Prime Minister: I have often given the House an explanation about this matter. Unlike the last Government, the present Government are not blown off course by unpopularity.

EAST PAKISTAN
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
Since the House debated the situation in Pakistan there has been a serious deterioration due to the flow of refugees from East Pakistan into India. The number is now estimated as upwards of 4 million.
It was clear in April that events in East Pakistan could be followed by the gravest consequences, particularly in relation to food supplies. That is why, when the American Secretary of State was here for the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation meeting, we jointly approached the Secretary-General of the United Nations and urged him to establish a United Nations team in East Pakistan so as to estimate future needs and to organise international relief on an adequate scale.
To the first appeal for money issued by U Thant in relation to the refugees

863
in India, Her Majesty's Government subscribed £1 million on the following day, the money to be used for that relief which seemed to those on the spot to be most urgent. In addition, we have pledged £750,000 worth of food. Of the contributions made in the two weeks following the appeal, Her Majesty's Government's represented 30 to 40 per cent. of the total subscribed. Other countries have subscribed direct to the Indian Government and I am glad to say that more are now subscribing to the United Nations relief effort, but much more is required if the Secretary-General's target of 175 million dollars is to be reached.
We have also promised to give more when we are told by those working on the spot what assistance is more urgently required. We made this immediate grant to ensure that the United Nations would not be short of funds and that essential needs would be met while the necessary international organisation was being set up to co-ordinate relief.
With the increasing flood of refugees and the declaration by the Indian Government of a cholera epidemic on 4th June certain priorities can now be identified—shelter, medical supplies, transport and food.
To help towards the first, the British charities sent tents out as early as 6th May in transport for which Her Majesty's Government have paid. We are now arranging to send large tents from Singapore. As I announced yesterday, we are prepared to pay for cholera vaccine, syringes and saline fluid, so that finance need cause no delay. Two mass injectors, over one million doses of vaccine and a mobile hospital have been despatched by the British charities. We have made available the transport necessary to make sure that the supplies arrive and we will continue to do this as necessary. I have told U Thant that we are ready to supply medical and qualified administrative staff. As far as food is concerned, our pledged aid will be channeled through the United Nations.
The response of the British charities to the challenge has been magnificent, but the size of this problem requires coordination and direction by a central body. The Indian Government have responded with generosity and resource but clearly the burden is such that it must
864
not rest solely on them. Her Majesty's Government believe therefore that the responsibility must be assumed by the United Nations.
U Thant has appointed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as co-ordinator. The High Commissioner himself is now in Pakistan and has representatives on the ground in West Bengal and in East Pakistan.
I have told U Thant that we are ready to make further contributions in money and kind as the situation demands and that I hope the co-ordinator will ensure that all the help from public bodies and private sources will be applied to the best advantage.
There are three problems which are inter-related. The first is that of the refugees. To halt the flow and to arrange their return to Pakistan requires the restoration of confidence in East Pakistan which in turn depends upon a political settlement. Secondly there is the ability of the Pakistan economy to sustain life throughout the whole country. No new aid is being supplied, but to stop development schemes already under way would throw thousands out of work and simply add new areas of misery to an already heart-rending situation.
There is, finally, the possibility of widespread starvation later in the year in East Pakistan by reason of the disruption of communications and of a shortfall in the rice harvest. Plans must be made by the Pakistan Government in co-operation with the United Nations coordinator urgently to anticipate this need.
I will keep the House informed as the situation develops.
Mrs. Judith Hart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement and very much share his own appreciation of the efforts of the British voluntary aid organisation. May I put three questions to him?
First, given the sheer scale of suffering and need, will he not consider giving substantially more now to assist the relief operations, both to U Thant's United Nations fund and directly to India, having regard to the fact that up to £2 million, even with the promise of more to come, is not a sufficient immediate measure of present British concern about the problem?

865
Second, as to the future aid programme to Pakistan, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, at the forthcoming meeting of the Pakistan aid consortium, against the background of the extremely serious foreign exchange and economic crisis in Pakistan, the Government will, as they have said, regard a peaceful political settlement as essential for any resumed or future aid programme?
Third, given that the effects of this conflict—a conflict which began within Pakistan—have now extended beyond the borders of Pakistan and constitute a very real threat to international peace and security in Asia, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the matter can no longer be regarded as one of purely internal concern within Pakistan? Will he consider raising it as a matter of urgency within the Security Council or within some other suitable international body?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to the right hon. Lady's question about more money being made available now is that we will certainly consider whether that should be done. We have had no direct request from the Indian Government, though there will be a meeting of the Indian consortium on 17th June. I would rather wait to see if there is an Indian request, as we anticipate, at that time.
The Pakistan consortium on aid will meet before long. All the members of the consortium have made it clear to the Pakistan Government that there must be a proper political framework within which aid can be injected.
The answer to the right hon. Lady's final point about this not being an internal matter for Pakistan or India any longer, and about it being raised at the Security Council, is that this must be an issue first for Pakistan or India, and neither proposes taking such action at present.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House, and, I believe, all our constituents throughout the country, regard this in terms of sheer scale as the worst human tragedy that the world has known since the war, apart from war itself?
While certainly not at this stage wishing to approach this matter in anything of a
866
censorious way, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that there is some feeling in the country that there seems to have been a lack of urgency over this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] If hon. Gentlemen opposite insist on interrupting, I must repeat what I said, which is that there is a feeling that there has been rather too much concern with "protocolaire" questions rather than getting on with the job of getting aid through.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware, for example, that it is several weeks since the Prime Minister asked me not to press him on a matter of urgency and importance and that the House has not had a report from him on that question in the weeks that have elapsed?
The right hon. Gentleman is now talking about waiting, on an important aspect of this, until 17th June. Will he make urgent representations, preferably here and now from the Government Dispatch Box, to the Leader of the House to discuss through the usual channels within a matter of hours whether the House can be given an opportunity to debate this urgent subject tomorrow? [HON. MEMBERS: "There will be a debate."] I said that we should debate this urgent matter. The aid debate tomorrow will be constrictive in terms of all the various aspects that hon. Members on both sides may wish to raise. It would be unfair if in a general aid debate most of the speeches were about Pakistan.
Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore urge his right hon. Friend to rearrange the business of the House—we do not want the Government to lose time—to make a debate on this important subject possible, perhaps by making the aid debate longer? This is one of the most urgent human problems we have ever had to face. We would be guilty of showing a lack of urgency if we did not arrange to debate this matter tomorrow.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is, of course, one of the most terrible tragedies we have seen for many a day, and nobody has ever sought to disguise that. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of urgency. Perhaps he did not hear what I said, which was that 40 per cent. of the help that had been given in this past week or so had come from the United Kingdom.

867
As for the date, to which I referred, of 17th June, that was mentioned because the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) had asked me about a request from India. I understand that that is the date on which such a request is likely to be made by India in the consortium which will be meeting then. If between now and then anything extra is sought, we will supply it.
I hope that instead of concentrating on criticism of this country, which is not justified—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to help other people to subscribe to this international effort.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While applauding the vigorous lead from the point of view of aid which has been given by Her Majesty's Government and which has been an example to the world, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, through the Pakistan Government or through our Deputy High Commissioner at Dacca, he has been able to ascertain what are the factors which are causing this immense number of human beings to flee from their homes to a foreign country, whether these factors still continue and whether they can be reversed?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The overriding influence on these people is fear. They fled because they felt that the Pakistan Army was using measures to suppress the population which were intolerable to them. They have, therefore, fled over the Indian frontier. The only way to get these refugees back is for a political settlement to be contrived which will give them the necessary confidence to return to their homes. I have seen the Pakistan High Commissioner frequently. We have impressed on the President of Pakistan the need for such a political settlement. He says that it is his intention to try to contrive this as soon as he possibly can. When that happens we will find some of the refugees returning, but I am afraid that they will not return until that happens.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, at this stage, it is apparently proposed to withdraw Her Majesty's representative in Dacca; and what arrangements are being made to replace him?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: He is being withdrawn because he has been under severe strain and must have a short rest. We are replacing him now.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: To what extent are the facilities, personnel and supplies in Singapore proving useful in this eventuality?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have been able to use aircraft from Singapore and we have been able to supply between 30 and 40 large marquees, as well as other forms of shelter, from Singapore. This has been a useful place, therefore, and we have used it as much as possible.
Mr. David Steel: Were the Government aware of the report of the co-ordinator of the British charities dated 7th April, three months ago, forecasting the indescribably desperate situation which, alas, has occurred? If so, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there has been enough co-ordination between his Department and the Ministry of Defence and between the British Government and other Governments about the use of military aircraft to speed up the delivery of urgently required supplies to this area?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think it is true to say that all the transport that is required can be provided and that there is some to spare if further requests are made in the next few days or weeks.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prompt action which Her Majesty's Government have taken in this matter and the measure of what they have done well expresses the feelings of the whole nation over this issue?
Will my right hon. Friend give particular consideration to a problem which seems to be arising in the acutest possible form, namely, the need to prevent these refugees from getting into Calcutta? Is he aware that this prevention may have to take priority over cure from the cholera point of view? This being so, will he give as full consideration as possible to any request that he may receive from the Indian Government for Commonwealth co-operation to help to provide physical strength on the ground to prevent the refugees from getting to Calcutta?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I understand that the Indian Government feel that they

869
have this matter under control. However, if they want any help they have only to ask for it.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: I appreciate what the Foreign Secretary has said about the necessity to achieve a political solution if the refugees are to return home. Is he ruling out not only the suspension of development aid, to which he referred in his statement, but a restriction on credit, in view of the fact that the Pakistan authorities will not be able to continue with this war unless the rest of the world provides them with the finance? Will he seek to ensure not only that we but other international organisations are not providing the money with which Pakistan can continue this war?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are not providing money for Pakistan to continue the war. The aid that we are giving to Pakistan is strictly related to development projects; these provide employment, and I have pointed out that if this were stopped serious misery would be caused. I see no point in doing that and thereby adding another area of misery to that which already exists. However, the consortium will give careful consideration to the conditions under which aid should go to Pakistan.
Sir F. Bennett: Recent reports suggest that the refugees are increasingly and predominantly Hindu. Can my right hon. Friend confirm or deny these reports? It is obvious, looking back to 1947, that a different situation now arises. If they are leaving on communal religious grounds, then the question of fear being removed—my right hon. Friend referred to this in answer to an earlier supplementary question—would not seem to have any effect, because the bulk of those who went out of India into Pakistan and out of Pakistan into India never in fact returned to their homes.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that fear is the overriding influence.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his reply of 24th November about my proposal for a world disaster stockpile, a suggestion which I made at the I.P.U. Conference at the Hague? Does he recall using the word "urgency" and saying that he would act urgently in the matter? Could not this have been the subject of an important British initiative?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not accuse me of dragging my feet, as I think he did yesterday, after I tell him what I did. I wrote then to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. He set up machinery to examine the possibility of a permanent body to try to use preventive action so that we could anticipate the worst dangers in advance of such tragedies. The report is coming out in a month's time. If that report can be expedited, I will ask the Secretary-General to do so, but he has given very full consideration to these possibilities.
Sir R. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the arrangements in hand for the co-ordination of the flow of foreign aid to this disaster? Is he aware that all kinds of aid from voluntary and governmental sources will converge on to an area where administration is virtually collapsing? Does he think that the United Nations will have the necessary resources to inject personnel capable of dealing with this, and might it not be wiser to ask the Indian Government to devote additional personnel to handle this, which is their problem on their own ground?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think that the administration is in a state of collapse. The Indian Government are doing a great deal, and it is for them to judge whether they can do more. What is wanted is co-ordination of all the supplies of aid which are coming from overseas. This cannot be put on the shoulders of the Indian Government alone, but must be undertaken by the United Nations co-ordinator. He and his team are now on the spot. We have offered U Thant help and administrative personnel, and we will send them if he requires them.
Mr. Shore: I welcome the aid which has been given and the further aid pledged by the Foreign Secretary to help the refugees, but is not the heart of the matter the policy of the Pakistan Government in East Bengal which is continuing to cause the efflux of refugees across the border? Has the Foreign Secretary any suggestions or proposals to make to ease the situation and help to bring forward the political settlement which he rightly believes is the only possible answer?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The first thing to do is to carry conviction with the President of Pakistan that such a settlement is absolutely necessary if this country is to be reunited. I think that the President of Pakistan is convinced of this. He tells us that he is busily engaged in trying to create the political structure on the ground in East Pakistan which will give the necessary confidence to the refugees to return. I gather that he has acquainted the High Commissioner for Refugees with the prospect of some political settlement in East Pakistan which may give confidence to some of the refugees to return. I do not think that we can do anything more at the moment, but I am naturally keeping a very close eye on this.
Mr. Longden: While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, and in no way criticising Her Majesty's Government for what they have done, may I revert to the future? Why is it that there are inevitably these endless, unconscionable delays between the happening of an international catastrophe and the world's waking up to do something about it? Why has not the United Nations long since set up this central body on a permanent basis?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a matter for the United Nations. I told the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) of the initiative I took following the proposal he had made. I hope that the examination by U Thant will reveal that it is possible to set up such a body, so that we can lay hands on medical supplies and personnel as required and in good time, not missing the vital days so often missed when emergencies take place. The report, as I say, is coming out shortly.
Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement about the help which has already been given to India, but do not his figures reveal that the amount of aid required is out of all proportion to the amount of aid already given, and that what is needed is a massive demonstration of what can be done for these suffering millions now?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am sure that there will be enough money. What is wanted now on the ground is organisation and administration, in the hope that the cholera epidemic can be checked. The
872
equipment is there, the vaccine is there and there is enough saline there, and one hopes that the epidemic will be controlled.
Mr. Tom King: I appreciate the short-term concern about this urgent problem, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that East Pakistan is the clearest warning of what the population explosion problem will present to the world? Does he not recognise the need for Her Majesty's Government to give greater urgency to world discussion of this problem?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Indian Government have taken an initiative in this matter, and certainly Her Majesty's Government are interested in the point my hon. Friend has raised.
Mr. John Mendelson: With reference to an earlier reply made by the Foreign Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my experience, which must have been that of other hon. Members during the last few days, is that when I have deliberately quoted all that Her Majesty's Government are already doing many constituents of all political and religious persuasions have asked whether there could not be more urgency and whether there has not been too much delay. It is the duty of hon. Members to raise this matter here and the Foreign Secretary should welcome the opportunity to reply and not be irritable about it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I knew this would be controversial, but the right hon. Gentleman should welcome the opportunity to reply to questions genuinely raised. Has not the time now come to go beyond relief and ask the President of Pakistan to accept a United Nations Commission in East Pakistan so that the people who are afraid to return or to stay could have international supervision to make them feel more secure?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is now an international team in Pakistan assessing the need for aid. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that Pakistan is an independent country and we cannot dictate a political settlement. I hope that I showed no irritation at the right hon. Gentleman, but I think I am justified in asking the House when we have done so much to recognise that and perhaps urge other people to do more.
Mr. Braine: My right hon. Friend has indicated this afternoon that a catastrophe

873
of even greater proportions will loom ahead in East Pakistan as a result of the failure of crops and the break-down of communications. In view of the slowness of the United Nations to respond to this terrible situation, will my right hon. Friend say whether there could be preliminary talks with the food-producing Commonwealth countries—Canada, Australia and New Zealand in particular—about stock-piling against the day when food on a massive scale may be required?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is why the Americn Secretary of State and I took the initiative we did in April. Now there is a United Nations team on the spot which should be able to assess quickly what the needs may be in September, October and November. I will certainly press for that estimate and if we can assist by alerting Commonwealth countries to the possible need to supply food and keep it in reserve, I will do so.
Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is widespread appreciation among the charities in Britain of the humane and sympathetic way in which he responded to their requests? Reverting to the earlier answer he gave about approaches to the United Nations, does not he appreciate that there are special reasons why India has not asked for this to be raised? India does not wish to be accused of trying to stir up trouble in East Bengal, and has been meticulous about that. If the Foreign Secretary will discuss this question with the Indian Foreign Minister when he arrives next week, and if the Indians feel that they would like this to be raised in the Security Council, will the Foreign Secretary do so on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and of the world community who are now utterly disgusted that a military régime is suppressing the population of East Bengal in the way the Foreign Secretary revealed in answer to the question raised by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Of course I will talk over all these matters with the Indian Foreign Minister. If the Indian Government make a direct request to us for assistance we shall of course consider it favourably. I hope I made it clear to the right hon. Lady and others that we accept no limit to the additional money we could give. We want to see what is
874
needed, and we will give more money if it is required. The question of the Security Council must be for the Indian Government.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the Foreign Secretary or, if he prefers, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, now say whether he is prepared to have discussions through the usual channels so that there can be an urgent debate? It would not be the intention of anyone in the House to make it a debate in which there would be a vote, but the concern shown by the whole House on the problem, both national and international, surely justifies a debate. May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman, or whoever answers, if he is aware that there will naturally be a desire for a Standing Order No. 9 Adjournment debate, which might be difficult because of the aid debate. The aid debate is not the right way for this subject to be handled, because many of the questions put to the right hon. Gentleman, and many of his answers, go far wider than would be in order in a debate on aid.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I fully appreciate the concern of the House in this matter. Tomorrow, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it has been planned to have a debate on aid on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House. What is raised on the Motion for the Adjournment is not for us but will naturally range widely. Of course, I am prepared to discuss through the usual channels the possibility of seeing whether today and tomorrow might be split between these two subjects, or some similar arrangement. I am very ready to have discussions through the usual channels.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his ready response. We shall be ready to co-operate in such a way that the Government do not lose Government time: for instance, by having a debate until 7 o'clock or 8 o'clock on the problem of India and Pakistan and then, if the House is agreeable, extending the period so that there could still be a reasonably full debate thereafter on all other aid aspects.
Mr. Barnes: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under

875
Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for the British Government to increase greatly their contribution towards providing for the refugees who have come from East Pakistan to India, and at the same time to clarify their policy towards Pakistan."
I realise that there is an overseas aid debate tomorrow, but the question of Britain's contribution is so urgent and so specific that it would be entirely wrong for it to become submerged in a general overseas aid debate. Secondly, it should be known in this House that there is considerable confusion in India and also in the British High Commission about exactly where Britain stands on the question of coming to the rescue of the Pakistan economy, which is a totally separate question from the overseas aid commitments referred to by the Foreign Secretary and which are to be debated tomorrow.
For these reasons and in view of the great concern both in the country at large and in the Press, I beg to suggest that this is a fit subject to be debated specifically on its own as an emergency tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and urgent matter of public importance, namely,
"the need for the British Government to increase greatly their contribution towards providing for the refugees who have come from East Pakistan to India, and at the same time to clarify their policy towards Pakistan."
Under Standing Order No. 9, Mr. Speaker is assumed to take account of the factors set out in the Standing Order and also, I think, to take note of what takes place on the Floor of the House. Having regard to these matters, I have considered the hon. Member's application, of which the hon. Member was kind enough to give me notice, but I am afraid that I cannot accede to his request.
Later—
Mr. Whitelaw: In view of the exchanges I had with the Leader of the Opposition, it might be helpful for the House to know that discussions have already taken place through the usual
876
channels. It is proposed that tomorrow's debate on the Adjournment—the situation in Pakistan—should continue till about eight o'clock and that the debate on aid should start thereafter, with a suspension of the Rule for one hour for that debate till about eleven o'clock. The Orders of the Day will be taken thereafter. I hope that this arrangement will be considered satisfactory to the House and that at the same time it will be thought that adequate notice has been given to the House of the change in tomorrow's business.

ULSTER DEFENCE REGIMENT
Mr. McManus: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The disclosure by the Minister of Defence that it is intended to create a full-time regiment within the existing Ulster Defence Regiment."
I raise this matter at the earliest opportunity because it is of the utmost importance for one or two reasons, namely, since the Press carried the story at the weekend there has been no satisfactory clarification coming from the Ministry of Defence, and since the notorious Mr. Craig, a member of a House in another place, appeared to have advance notice of the plan, both factors have created in the public mind in Northern Ireland great confusion, and, given the state of Northern Ireland at the moment, confusion is not only undesirable but very dangerous.
The matter is of great urgency, because the minority fears that the proposal may mean a return of the B Specials or worse still, the resurrection of some force similar to the hated Black-and-Tans. This is a fear which could reach panic proportions unless there are categorical assurances to the contrary.
The matter is of the utmost urgency, because the minority now feels that the British Government have broken faith and, contrary to stated policy, are now conniving in some way in the hard-line policies of the Unionist Government. I therefore ask the House to adjourn in order to discuss this urgent, important and specific matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) begs to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The disclosure by the Minister of Defence that it is intended to create a full-time regiment within the existing Ulster Defence Regiment."
I have already referred to the terms of the Standing Order, and I think that one of the other matters I am entitled to take into consideration is what matter is to be debated on the actual day when such an application as this is made. I am afraid that in the circumstances I am unable to submit the application to the House.
Mr. Kaufman: Further to the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), Mr. Speaker, and to your Ruling, would it be in order to ask that one of the Ministers taking part in today's debate should make a statement on the subject about which my hon. Friend has asked?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point for me, but no doubt the matter will be noted.

CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION ANNUNCIATORS
Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that we have just come back from the Whitsun Recess to find that the House is being televised? From where I now stand I can see three television sets. I am not aware that the House has been advised that these sets were to be installed. Apart from their being an architectural monstrosity—and I am not sure that they are even readable, though I imagine that they are there for the benefit of strangers and the Press—as there has been so much discussion about whether the House should be televised and what manner of communication of proceedings in this House should be given, I feel that the first to be asked about this should be the Members of the
878
House. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I am a member of the Committee appointed by yourself responsible for the Arts and chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford). I should have thought that, as a question of decoration if not of communication, the matter would at least have been referred to that Committee.
I would be grateful if you could advise us, cither now or later, whether this matter has had your approval and whether you feel that it should be put to the House.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that the Services Committee considered the matter. I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that the House is not being televised in any way at all. These screens merely show what business is going on in the House. It was felt that such annunciators would be for the advantage of the Press and of people in the Strangers' Gallery in appreciating what was going on in the House and would not intrude to any great extent on Members of the House.
I should like to make the experiment. If the Press and people in the Strangers' Gallery do not like the sets, and if Members of the House object, we will consider the subject again, but we thought this was a comparatively simple way of helping those in the Press Gallery and in the Strangers' Gallery.
Mr. Rankin: Many of us are glad to hear that the House is not being televised. Many of us on hearing the first statement were alarmed, because it appeared that the wrong side of the House was being televised.
Mr. Speaker: The matter has been raised and the Leader of the House has made his statement. If I am allowed to comment, I think that this innovation is some slight reflection on the audibility and clarity of our proceedings. However that may be, T think the matter can rest there.

LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES (CONTROL OF PREMISES)
4.10 p.m.
Mr. T. L. Iremonger: J beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local health authorities to control the establishment and conduct of premises used for advising on and dealing in goods connected with sexual intercourse.
In commending the Bill to the House, I want first to dispose of two incidental points. The first is that the Bill would not in any way interfere with present commercial arrangements for dealing with birth control appliances and substances through responsible agencies or with marriage guidance counselling as at present organised. Secondly, the Bill is not connected with town and country planning legislation, which is not in my opinion the appropriate instrument of control when criteria are involved far beyond the sphere of town and country planning.
My initiative in seeking leave to bring in the Bill springs from the concern expressed to me by constituents about local developments, and my reaction as expressed in the Bill springs from three fundamental beliefs.
My first proposition is that our civilisation is based for its security on love, marriage and parenthood. My second proposition is that people must have the right, and must accept the responsibility, of choosing whether and to what extent their concepts of love, marriage and parenthood and their right to privacy in these matters are publicly to be assailed. My third proposition is that it is the duty of the legislature to be vigilant and active in protecting the most vulnerable members of society.
The provisions of the Bill would apply those beliefs to practical reality in the following way. The agency of control I propose would be, in effect, the local councillors, because in the last resort it is open to all who care to determine the nature of public policy to decide how it shall be followed through their power to elect and influence members of councils who give effect to public policy. The agency which would exercise day to day control, subject to the direction of the elected representatives, would, as I envisage it, be the local authority medical officer.
880
I think that this would be wise, because in the first place physical risks are involved in allegedly aphrodisiac substances and appliances generally and, secondly, because the most vulnerable members of society are the babies, born and unborn, and their young mothers and young women generally. Medical insight is imperative in their case both because venereal disease and the increasing evidence of resistant strains make promiscuity a hazard and because the psyche and the soma are one, if I can put it that way—the body and the soul—and medical men incline to be both more aware and more reverential about this and better able to give advice with the authority of responsibility that commands respect than mere salesmen in what might be called, perhaps, a sex shop.
Here we are touching on profound matters, and the House might think it presumptuous for me to deliver a homily. I can therefore, quote an unsolicited letter I have just received which expresses in a remarkable way the considerations that I think the House might like to have in mind. My correspondent says, with respect to these establishments, whatever they may be:
"The effect of such shops by their symbolism and as a manifestation in our culture is to make sex a commodity; to separate it off from the whole complex of love and personal relationship; to concentrate on sexual functions in a psychopathological way; to make the sexual life seem a thing of machinelike functioning, and thus to thingify or objectify it. This I believe is done in a sick and menacing way, and we have had rather too much of it. The air of frankness and liberation with which such interpreters conduct themselves is, of course, disguised to cloak the essential pervertedness of their business. Moreover, I believe that they are also selling their lists of addresses to firms selling pornography. I wrote for a catalogue to the one in Marble Arch, for a study of sex in our society, and since then I have had advertising material from a Danish firm of pornographers, and recently from one in Victoria Street".
That is what my correspondent says, and I think that he has a message for us at that rather deeper level. For myself, I would merely add that the first of my propositions, love, marriage and parenthood as the basis for the security of our civilisation, indeed the basis of our whole civilisation, is increasingly under challenge and attack from the New Left, not least in respect of the values on which

881
love, marriage and parenthood are themselves based. Underlying the Motion for this Bill is the conflict of ideas between established society and the New Left, and the House should make it clear where it stands.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Iremonger, Mr. Sutcliffe, Sir G. Nabarro, Mr. Biggs-Davison and Mr. Fell.

LOCAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES (CONTROL OF PREMISES)
Bill to empower local health authorities to control the establishment and conduct of premises used for advising on and dealing in goods connected with sexual intercourse, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday fortnight (Friday 25th June) and to be printed. [Bill 181.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [21ST ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  ARMED FORCES
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
  4.20 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): During the past year we have had many debates on defence. We had the debates on the supplementary White Paper. Then we had the two-day debate on the annual White Paper, in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took part. We had the debates on the Armed Forces Bill. We had the three separate Service debates, covering the Army, Navy and Air Force, and there has been a whole range of debates referring to the Army's deployment in Northern Ireland.
  Usually when we debate defence matters we concentrate on the broad strategy and the general aims of the Government's defence policy. Inevitably this means that little time can be left to the human element, to discussing the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces and who make a reality of the defence policy set out by the Government. Yet it is on their ability and skill that we depend and rely for the meeting of our defence needs. For this reason I thought I should concentrate mainly this afternoon on recruiting and conditions of service. I wish to talk about the main problems which face us and the steps which we are taking, or intend to take, to attempt to solve the problems of recruitment.
  However, before discussing these subjects I should like to take the opportunity to bring the House up to date with the recent N.A.T.O. Ministerial meetings and also to say a word or two about the recent developments in the arms control field. I will add a brief word about the part played by the Services in responding to the requests for help in combating the cholera epidemic amongst refugees now in India.
  As a moment or two ago hon. Members raised the question of the possibility of the Ulster Defence Regiment being expanded to include a full-time element,

  883
  perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to refer to this matter in passing. As part of our continuing review of the security forces in Northern Ireland and our wish to improve recruiting to the Ulster Defence Regiment, we are considering the possibility of raising a full-time battalion within the Ulster Defence Regiment. I think the important point to mention in passing is that this would not be a separate force but, like the rest of the Ulster Defence Regiment, would be part of the British Army itself. However, I want to make it clear that I am only mentioning this because it was raised by hon. Members a few moment ago. No decision has been taken, and if it were decided to have such a unit, legislation by this House would be required.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so early in the debate. I take it that the proposal for, or the possibility of, setting up this permanent unit of the Ulster Defence Regiment does not preclude discussion about dealing with the gap that arises when soldiers have to be withdrawn to garrison, the problem that arises about the gap between soldiers on the one hand and civilian police on the other?
  Lord Balniel: No, I do not think this relates to it. The Ulster Defence Regiment is firmly part of the British Army. It is not a paramilitary force which is outside the control of the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Turning also to a subject which has been raised in the statement today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I should like to refer to the part which the Services are playing in helping in the distressed area in India where the East Pakistan refugees are faced with heartrending problems. The Services in recent months have played a vital rôle in helping a number of distressed areas. There has been the work which they did in the floods in East Pakistan, and then the floods in Malaysia, and then the work which they undertook as the aftermath of the fighting in Jordan. Now, in co-operation with the charities, they are embarked on a similar kind of task.
  Yesterday a Hercules aircraft left this country carrying a mobile hospital which
  884
  had been donated by the charity War on Want. Today a VC10 leaves Brize Norton carrying 33,000 1b. of medical supplies which have been donated by Oxfam. Tomorrow another Hercules will leave with more medical supplies, and also tomorrow a VC10 will carry 15 civilian medical personnel, more medical supplies and a 20-bed field hospital donated by the charity War on Want. Service aircraft are also collecting medical supplies tomorrow and later in the week from Geneva, at the request of the World Health Organisation. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said, further airlift capacity will be made available to the World Health Organisation or the consortium of British charities if they need it. Any request from the United Nations, the World Health Organisation or the consortium of British charities for airlift capacity will be considered most sympathetically.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Defence Department will agree, I think, that it has received the greatest co-operation from Mr. Frank Sargeant, our Deputy High Commissioner at Dacca, during the time of the flood disaster. Does the hon. Gentleman understand, following the question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) this afternoon, that many of us are very concerned to be assured that there has been no pressure from the Pakistan Government for the withdrawal of Mr. Sargeant? Whereas this may be mainly a Foreign Office affair, I would be grateful if, in winding up, there could be confirmation of the fact that in no way has there been pressure from the Pakistan Government for the withdrawal of Mr. Sargeant.
  Lord Balniel: With respect, I think this is a matter which falls completely within the responsibility of the Foreign Office. However, I did hear my right hon. Friend explain that Mr. Sargeant had returned home because of illness through pressure of work, and that he was being replaced immediately. I think that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this matter, it would be more appropriate to put down a Question to the Foreign Secretary.
  Referring to the recent progress in N.A.T.O., my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently

  885
  attended the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Planning Group meeting in Germany, the N.A.T.O. Defence Planning Committee in Brussels, and also, in the capacity of chairman, the Eurogroup meeting in Brussels on 27th May. The Eurogroup—that is, most of the European members of N.A.T.O.—concentrated mainly on the implementation of the European Defence Improvement programme which I announced last December. This defence improvement programme is a mixture of force improvements and an extra European contribution to N.A.T.O. infrastructure funds. The whole programme is valued at about 1,000 million dollars over the next five years alone.
  At the Eurogroup meeting all the countries which are intending to make force improvements, including the United Kingdom, confirmed that they had now got firm programmes, and the meeting agreed to press ahead as quickly as possible with the implementation of the infrastructure element. Pressing ahead with this infrastructure element will enable N.A.T.O. to proceed with the N.A.T.O. integrated communications system and also with the hardening of the airfields to provide shelter for the aircraft against attack. The United Kingdom will, of course, be contributing its full financial share of £32½ million to the infrastructure programme.
  The progress which was made was welcomed by the Defence Planning Committee the next day, and the Committee also welcomed Mr. Laird's reaffirmation of President Nixon's undertaking that, given a similar approach by the allies, the United States would maintain and improve its own forces in Europe and would not reduce them except in the context of reciprocal East-West action. This is a really important pledge from the United States, especially when taken in the light of the understandable congressional pressure which exists for reductions. It does, though, emphasise a theme which I have constantly reiterated, that the European members of N.A.T.O. must continue to contribute our own proper share to the defence of Western Europe.
  I turn briefly to the question of arms control and disarmament. I should like first to say something about the question of mutual and balanced force reductions—something which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described when
  886
  taking part in our defence debate the other day as being "a very great prize". It is sometimes forgotten that the suggestion for East-West talks on this subject was made originally by N.A.T.O. at a Ministerial meeting in 1968 and was reiterated in the 1970 Ministerial meetings in Rome and Brussels. N.A.T.O. Ministers meeting in Lisbon last week, therefore, welcomed the recent response which we have received from the Soviet leaders. What is now needed is to determine whether common ground exists between N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact countries.
  We welcome the steps which were proposed by N.A.T.O. Ministers at Lisbon to intensify exploratory talks and contacts with the Soviet Union and other interested Governments on the basis of the considerations put forward at the Rome Ministerial meeting of May, 1970, covering issues like verification and assurances that vital defence interests are not adversely affected. A further high-level meeting of N.A.T.O. is likely to take place at a fairly early date to consider further steps designed to facilitate a move towards negotiations so soon as may be practicable.
  I wish to say a brief word, also, about the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks between the United States and the Soviet Union.
  The House will know the immense importance which we attach to the S.A.L. talks. We, therefore, welcome the joint statement which was made by the American and Soviet Governments on 20th May, which said that they have—
  "agreed to concentrate this year on working out an agreement for the limitation of the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems".
  They stated also that—
  "together with concluding an agreement to limit anti-ballistic missiles they will agree on certain measures with respect to the limitation of offensive strategic weapons."
  Throughout the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, the Americans have taken great care to consult their allies, and we have been kept fully informed throughout the discussions. This process is continuing. The talks will be renewed at Helsinki on 8th July.
  I turn now to the question of manpower and conditions of service in our Armed Forces. I am exceedingly pleased

  887
  to be able to record a marked improvement in recruiting over the past year. Just under 39,000 male other ranks were enlisted. This is the best achievement for four years. Allowing for technical recording adjustments, there was a true increase of 5,000, or 15 per cent., over the previous year's figure. It is particularly encouraging that this improvement has taken place and had its impact on all three Services.
  Recruiting now has virtually returned to the level of five years ago, before the effects of the last Government's frequent changes of policy had their full impact. In particular, the recruitment of Army juniors is going well, and applications for commissions in the Royal Navy have shown a striking increase.
  I am exceedingly glad to be able to record this improvement at the end of the present Government's first year of office. Nevertheless, we still have a long way to go. No one responsible in defence matters and no one concerned in general terms with this country's ability to meet its defence commitments can look at the manning situation with any scintilla of complacency.
  This year's Statement on the Defence Estimates showed that in the long term the steady annual requirement for male other ranks is of the order of 43,000. Later calculations which we have made show that this figure is, if anything, on the low side, but, roughly, the steady-state requirement of our Services is about 43,000 men.
  Forty-three thousand is about 10 per cent. above the level which we achieved last year. The continuing upward trends which I have seen in recruiting in the past few weeks, which are not reflected in the figures which I have given, give me hope that we may go some way towards closing the gap. But the gap still exists. Also, it is important to emphasise that merely to top the 43,000 mark just once is not enough. We must achieve an average of 43,000, taking the good years with the bad, in the foreseeable future.
  Moreover, one is bound to point out that we are recruiting now in conditions of increasing difficulty. Boys are tending to stay on longer at school, the school leaving age is to be raised, and there is the development of higher education. All these trends are desirable and valuable
  888
  in themselves, but they create big problems for the Services. In broad terms, they mean that the number of young men available for recruiting is declining.
  However, recruiting the men and women whom we need for the Services is only part of the problem.
  Mr. John Morris: Before leaving the subject of the highly satisfactory improvement in recruiting, which we greatly welcome, will not the Minister say that he has been materially assisted by the concept of the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the first instalment of which came on 1st April last year, and the second, for single men, on 1st April this year; and will he agree, also, that his best recruiting sergeant is the rising unemployment?
  Lord Balniel: I agree that the military salary has been a valuable contribution towards the improved recruiting, but the trouble with right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that, although they may do one good thing, they do 10 bad things. The bad things were their frequent changes of policy, which, without question, had an unfortunate effect on recruiting during their years of office.
  The right hon. Gentleman may be right in suggesting that unemployment is an assistance to recruiting, but I must say that all the professional advice which I have been given is that unemployment has very little result on recruiting to the Services. The Services are no longer a form of employment to which a man goes when he cannot get a job in civilian life. In fact, the Services provide some of the best training in this country and also some of the most exhilarating technological work which one can conceivably do. It is not, there for, the impression of those who advise me professionally that unemployment is a major factor.
  I was saying that recruiting is only part of the problem. We must persuade the men and women in the Services to stay on, and also, if possible, to prolong a short engagement into a long-term engagement. We need, therefore, to decide what kind of Service engagement structure is likely to produce the required force levels and also the proper internal balance within the Services between age, rank and the different trades.

  889
  In the years which followed the ending of National Service, the Services, probably rightly, pinned their faith to long-term engagements of six, nine or 12 years. They felt at that time that this was the only way to keep the Services up to strength after the conscripts had left. Eventually, this policy of insisting on long-term engagements had to be modified, for the simple reason that not enough recruits were coming forward.
  For that reason, all the Services now offer to adults shorter engagements of three, four or five years in the non-technical branches. Nor have boy recruits been overlooked. By accepting the main recommendations of Lord Donaldson's Committee, we have given boys the choice, on reaching the age of 18, between confirming their original engagement and shortening it so that they need serve only for a further period of three years plus any balance of uncompleted training. Although it has not attracted much publicity, the acceptance of the recommendations of Lord Donaldson's Committee is a marked advance on the previous position. I think it will be of help to parents, teachers and youth leaders discussing with young boys and girls whether they should enter the Services.
  Having pointed to the attractions of the short engagement, I ought to say that from the Services' point of view a long engagement is, on the whole, usually preferable. Long service brings greater experience. It gives a better return on training investment, and it enables the Services to plan much more steadily into the future. When we are extending short-service opportunities in the Forces, we are in no way turning our backs on the long-term Service men; quite the reverse; what we have done is to recognise that men join the Services for a variety of motives and with a variety of career expectations.
  The general picture is that the Services have been modernising their engagement structures to try to attract different types of recruit with different wishes—a person who expects a range of options and is not necessarily prepared to take it or leave it when offered a long-term engagement. I am convinced that the policy which we are following and which right hon. Gentlemen when in office also followed is the right policy if we are to get the right number of men into the Services.
  890
  Of course, the Services must always have binding engagements, because no military force can function without a binding engagement. But the emphasis is on the voluntary character of our Armed Forces. We want the men who have enlisted voluntarily to continue to serve voluntarily not merely because they are committed for a number of years but because they find the life enjoyable and the work rewarding. If we can achieve this, we shall have done a great deal to improve the Services' standing in the eyes of the public, and this in turn will help recruiting. This process of modernisation of the Services' engagements is not complete and we have been examining various possibilities for further improvements over the past few months.
  However, there is one particular problem in manpower which has caused special concern. This is the manning of the medical, dental and nursing services. Despite the improvements from time to time in one or other of the medical services of the Armed Forces, the general recruiting pattern, particularly of qualified doctors and nurses, does not, so far at least, reflect the more encouraging trends which we have seen in other parts of the Services and to which I have referred. This is a matter of great concern.
  I have therefore decided to set up an independent committee of inquiry to /Carry out a full-scale review of the arrangements for providing medical, dental and nursing services for the Armed Forces. We have been exceedingly fortunate in that Sir Edmund Compton has agreed to act as chairman, and eminent representatives of the medical, dental and nursing professions are to serve as members. One factor which has an important bearing on the attractions of the medical services for young doctors and dentists is the availability of post-graduate training. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has decided to set up a standing committee to keep under review all matters affecting postgraduate training of these officers and to ensure that the medical services are kept fully informed of developments over the whole of medical and dental training outside the Services. This committee, the chairman of which is Mr. Harold Edwards, an eminent consultant surgeon, and which also includes representatives of the medical and dental

  891
  professions of course, had its first meeting quite recently.
  Dr. Alan Glyn: Would not my noble Friend agree that the shortage of doctors in the Services is not due entirely to the terms of the Services but is to some extent a reflection of the general shortage of doctors throughout the country? All hospitals to my knowledge are under-staffed. Is there not a connection between the two? I welcome the suggestion about postgraduate training, which I am sure will encourage doctors to join the Services.
  Lord Balniel: I am grateful for that welcome for the idea of postgraduate training, which I believe would be of great value. I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. There is, of course, a shortage of doctors throughout the country, but it seems to be right to establish a special and well-qualified committee of inquiry, because the Armed Forces have special problems and I felt that it was right that they should be examined independently of the general Health Services problems.
  Mr. James Ramsden: My noble Friend did not say anything about the attitude of the B.M.A. Has he discussed the matter with the B.M.A., and does he have its full backing and cooperation in this interesting initiative?
  Lord Balniel: I have not had a formal representation from the B.M.A., but it has invited me to lunch in a few days' time. I have no reason to suppose that it does not in any way support the setting up of this independent committee. Many of the members of our advisory committees are members of the B.M.A., and their advice is of the utmost value.
  Many things go to make up whether a Serviceman is happy. One of the difficulties is separation from his family. There will always be some separation in Service life. Sailors have to go to sea. Soldiers and airmen are called away on operational tours. One has only to look at the strain which the situation in Northern Ireland has imposed on the Army to understand how men have to go on unaccompanied duty at short notice.
  892
  The problem must be tackled in two ways. First, we must ensure that separation is reduced to the minimum. The Navy, for which the problem of separation is probably the most serious, has recently reduced the maximum length of ship deployments from 12 to nine months at a stretch and from a total of 18 to 15 months in any 30-month period. It has also reduced unaccompanied shore postings from 15 to 12 months.
  Secondly, we must see that everything possible is done to help the family which is separated. This is partly a question of money. Various cash allowances exist for this purpose, and, as announced in the last Defence White Paper, the number of free travel warrants available to married men when separated from their families has been increased. There must also be proper support for families while men are away. Young wives, as we all know, in stations overseas—in Germany, for instance—often have difficulty coping with domestic problems.
  Mr. Carol Mather: As my noble Friend has been looking into the problem of travel warrants for separated families, will he consider the problem of men serving in Northern Ireland when they have come from battalions posted in Germany and when their wives are living in Germany? When I was in Northern Ireland recently, this was one of the complaints raised with me. I was told that soldiers based in Britain but serving in Northern Ireland could get a free warrant to visit their families, but that those whose families were in Germany could get a warrant only as far as the United Kingdom and could not get a warrant for the extra bit on to Germany.
  Lord Balniel: I know that my hon. Friend has recently visited units in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Army will be devoting much of his speech to the problems of Northern Ireland, and he will make a point of dealing with this matter then.
  I was saying that help is often needed by wives who cannot cope with domestic problems when their husbands are away, and this help must come from within the unit itself. This is often the best form of help. The wives of officers have a long tradition of helping in such situations, and I should like to take this opportunity

  893
  of thanking them for this voluntary work which they do so admirably. However, we are trying to extend the network of family support. The Army's Housing Commandant Organisation, which we announced in the last Defence White Paper, is, I believe, a valuable initiative in this direction. We will watch its progress to see whether it should be developed.
  Separation arising from ships being at sea for lengthy periods is one of the main deterrents to re-engagement in the Royal Navy. A similar deterrent to re-engagement in both the Army and the Royal Air Force in Germany is the shortage of married accommodation. I think that every hon. Member who has visited B.A.O.R. and talked to soldiers and airmen there is aware of this problem.
  We are, therefore, taking urgent steps to bring about a major improvement in the amount of family accommodation in Germany. Our new married quarter requirements are met by leasing blocks of what are called "multiple hirings", built and financed by private developers. There will be difficulties about getting land and finding developers who will undertake this work, but we are going to keep up strong pressure to avoid any delays.
  In Berlin arrangements have been made for the provision of about 300 additional long-term hirings. This should solve the problem of married accommodation there. Whilst these quarters are being built, we shall take on more short-term hirings.
  In Germany overall there is a shortage of about 4,300 married quarters. Approval has been given to acquire this number, and arrangements have already been made with private developers for nearly half of them. Agreements covering the balance required will be arranged as quickly as possible.
  For the R.A.F. in Germany the married quarter situation has been made worse by the re-equipment of squadrons, which has caused a large build-up in station strengths. To meet the shortfall, authority has been given to acquire over 750 additional long-term hirings, some of which should now become available for occupation.
  Our single soldiers in Germany are housed in a variety of accommodation, including some barracks built before the
  894
  First World War, some during the Hitler era and some of post-war construction. The standards therefore vary widely, and our aim is to achieve a uniform standard more in keeping with present-day needs. This will mean alterations, modernisation, new construction and an extensive, though rather long-term, programme. This is being planned at the moment. The measures I have described indicate the extreme importance we attach to ensuring that the conditions of life of those who serve our country in the Armed Forces, where we can conceivably improve them, should be improved.
  Mr. John Morris: The House will welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement with regard to the improvement in the married quarters situation. He has given figures for hirings in Germany, including Berlin. Over what period of time is it proposed to acquire them? Who will finance the cost?
  Lord Balniel: The cost in Berlin is financed from the Berlin budget. As I have said, arrangements have been entered into for half the 4,300, and we are making arrangements for the balance to be entered into as soon as possible. I cannot give an accurate answer on the period of time they will take to build, but I repeat that we shall press forward as rapidly as we can. The long-term problem lies in the accommodation for the unmarried soldiers. Progress will be rapid in the provision of married quarters.
  I think that the House would like to hear something about the improvements that we have made in the amenities for our troops in Northern Ireland. Their task there is difficult, dangerous and uncongenial. We owe it to them to make their tour of duty as reasonable as possible, but it is no good disguising the fact that for some units living conditions are not good and not easy.
  We have arranged to provide travelling libraries, to send more television sets and film projectors, and to provide more funds for the purchase of sports kit and games equipment. Through the courtesy of the B.B.C., requests for and from the troops in the province are now included in the Sunday "Family Favourites" programme. I am also grateful to the Post Office staffs in London and Belfast who have arranged for the speedy installation

  895
  of additional coin-operated telephone boxes in unit locations. A great deal of use is made of these by the troops telephoning their families at home, and I would like the Post Office to know how greatly this service is appreciated.
  We are also considering ways in which very short leave passes of perhaps 24 hours only can be put to the very best use locally. Further, we are looking into the possibility of reducing air fares in order to enable more Servicemen to take slightly longer periods of leave away from Northern Ireland. I should also mention the very valuable co-operation we are receiving from the various voluntary organisations, which do much to contribute to welfare and to the entertainment of the troops on service in Northern Ireland.
  But I in no way feel that we have done enough. The measures we have taken so far do no more than contribute to improving the conditions of the troops in Northern Ireland. We must constantly press forward with ideas which will ease their living conditions. But basically, of course, one comes back to the hard fact that real improvement will only be secured when they no longer have to patrol the streets of Belfast and when indiscriminate and mad bombings are a thing of the past.
  I returned yesterday from Cyprus. As all hon. Members would agree, a visit to a defence establishment and talking to the soldiers, sailors and airmen there is enormously heartening and is invariably a great pleasure. The range of work which the Services now undertake and the highly professional skills they possess are very remarkable. Whether they are based at home or are at sea, whether they are in Northern Ireland or in the Far East or in Cyprus with the U.N. force, or in Germany, our Servicemen all have tremendous enthusiasm. As this is the last of the four annual Supply Day debates on defence, I end by expressing our support and admiration for the way they do the work that we ask them to do on behalf of this country.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomson: As the hon. Gentleman has said, this is the end of the year's defence season. The Leader of the House asked recently whether the new arrangements for these
  896
  defence debates were agreeable to the House as a whole. I make it plain that we on this side not only accept the new arrangements but welcome them. They enable a wider spread of debates in time and, therefore, enable us to take account of developments in defence. Today we have been able to hear a first-hand and immediate report from the hon. Gentleman about the N.A.T.O. meeting in Lisbon last week. I think that our only criticism is that the debates are still too crowded. That is a matter for the usual channels and not for the hon. Gentleman or for me. For my part, I regret that, as we are now at the end of the defence season, there is about six months to go before the next defence White Paper is likely to be published. It would have been useful if we could have had a defence debate still in hand for use on the resumption of Parliament after the long Summer Recess.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: That is a most important point. In the past we had three days—one on each Service—and another day on a special Vote, while in July we invariably had another day or two on defence. Does not the right hon. Gentleman expect another debate on defence in July?
  Mr. Thomson: The procedure we have now existed before and we are now on what was normally the last of the defence Supply Days.
  The hon. Gentleman's report about the N.A.T.O. meeting made it clear that this is a most important period for the Atlantic alliance. I congratulate Dr. Luns on taking up his post as Secretary-General of N.A.T.O., and at the same time I pay a tribute, which I know will be shared on both sides, to the work which Signor Brosio has done as Secretary-General for a considerable number of years.
  Dr. Luns brings to his extremely responsible task at a most important time a long international experience—really quite unprecedented among Foreign Ministers of Western Europe. In addition, he brings qualities of temperament singularly appropriate to the post—qualities of robustness combined with flexibility and with a sense of humour which those of us who have had the good fortune to work with him will always cherish. During his long period as

  897
  Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, he has had deep experience in East-West relations which will be particularly useful to N.A.T.O. at present.
  It has often been said that N.A.T.O. operates in three D's—deterrence, defence if deterrence were to fail, and détente to reduce the burden of deterrence. At different times in the history of N.A.T.O., one element or another of these three has been uppermost in our minds. There is no doubt that in the forefront of our minds now is the possibility of N.A.T.O. contributing to a détente within Europe. I am glad to note that the N.A.T.O. communiqué was unique amongst N.A.T.O. communiqués in being almost entirely devoted to the possibility of better East-West relations.
  It was as far back as 1968 that N.A.T.O. itself first proposed to the Warsaw Pact mutual and balanced force reductions. It has taken the Soviet Union a considerable time to respond. Mr. Brezhnev's recent reply came at an interesting period when Senator Mansfield's motion was before the United States Senate. We are bound to conclude that the Soviet Union could have sought to exploit the Congressional pressures but did not choose to do so. Equally, on the S.A.L.T. talks, the Soviet Union could have exploited the Congressional pressures, which I certainly found in Washington when I was there last month, to settle for a partial S.A.L.T. agenda confined to A.B.M. systems. It has not done so, and we have had the welcome development of an agreement on an agenda which covers both offensive and defensive aspects of strategic nuclear weapons.
  One must always be cautious about interpreting the Kremlin, but we are bound to conclude that there must be those in the Soviet Ministry of Defence who argue that they have only to wait for unilateral American reductions and, given the European desire to limit the defence budgets, the Soviet Union would then gain military advantage at no cost. That argument is bound to be being put forward on the other side of the hill.
  But one hopes that a wiser view of the Soviet Union's real interest will prevail—that mutual reductions offer real advantage not only to the West but to Eastern Europe as well, and that pushing
  898
  one's opponents into one-sided reductions produces real risk for Europe as a whole. For example, unbalanced reductions would lead to a lower nuclear threshold and to demands for nuclear arms by non-nuclear members of N.A.T.O. That may not be a development desired by the Soviet Union any more than it is desired in Western Europe.
  Having said that, I must draw attention to the fact that the technical problems of mutual and balanced force reductions are formidable. The withdrawal of manpower and armour over a few hundred miles of land does not equal the withdrawal of the same weight of manpower and armour over several thousand miles of sea. The essential concept to which we must cling in these complicated matters is the concept of equality of security; that is, that the reductions agreed in negotiations must not leave either side feeling less secure at the end of the day.
  There remains the need to make progress over the Berlin problem as the most immediate task in détente. This is not to erect any precondition by the West but constitutes a simple and sensible test of the earnestness of Soviet intentions and one which would have immediate human benefits for those who live in West or East Berlin. I was in Bonn yesterday and had some conversations there about these problems. I was happy to find a good deal of confidence about the v/ay the Berlin talks are going.
  N.A.T.O. communiqués tend, in my experience, to be rather dusty and theological documents, suitable for the kind of textual analysis which we normally apply to utterances of the Kremlin. It is the price we pay for achieving concensus among so many different Governments. However, I commend this communiqué to the House. It bears examination. It is more positive about détente than any of its predecessors, and it commits the alliance to a timetable for progress on Berlin and mutual and balanced force reductions, with the target of achieving a situation in which a constructive conference on European security becomes possible.
  For our part, we hope that the Government will not in any way drag their feet in N.A.T.O. over this. We cannot afford to stand pat on the present balance of forces in Europe because the present

  899
  balance will not last. That is the one thing that is certain in an otherwise uncertain world. The present balance will be changed before too long, either in a balanced or an unbalanced way. The Minister is absolutely right in saying, if I understood him correctly, that the pressures behind the Mansfield Resolution are deep in the present American situation and will persist. Those of us who value our alliance with the United States ought to hope that the United States will have the opportunity to divert resources from its defence budget to securing a more stable and satisfactory social base at home. That is the basis for a constructive American effort in the world at large.
  President Nixon brought up some big guns to combat the Mansfield Resolution, but I do not think it passed unnoticed that they were all old guns. The voices of the younger generation were missing in the debate. Now is the time to work hard to convince the Soviet Union and its allies of the mutual advantage to Europe, East and West, of balanced force reductions.
  I turn from N.A.T.O. to the important subject of manpower and recruiting. The House will have been glad to hear of the increase in the recruitment figures. I rather regretted that the Minister was not content simply to express satisfaction and take credit for the figures but instead felt that he ought to go on to make some partisan debating points. He put forward the theory that these figures were the result of departing from the frequent changes of policy of the Labour Government. The Government can certainly claim credit for not having frequent changes of policy. They can claim credit for not having any change of policy at all. They have taken advantage of the painful process of adaptation that this side of the House properly faced up to during its period of government, and they have adopted the overall policies in terms of defence budgets that we had come to the conclusion best fitted the economic resources of this country.
  The welcome trend in the recruiting figures is due to a number of causes, and I do not wish to take away from whatever contribution the hon. Gentleman,
  900
  who has accepted special responsibility for this, is entitled to claim. Equally, he conceded that the military salary which was introduced by the Labour Government and carried into its second instalment by the present Government has obviously made some contribution. I am bound to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), who intervened earlier, that these recruiting figures cannot be wholly unconnected with the steady rise in the level of unemployment.
  For example, the figures for men deciding to remain in the R.A.F. and the Army show sharp increases, and I am bound to think that this must be because of the difficulties men now experience, not being sure that the kind of job they want in civilian life when they leave the Services will be available to them. In view of the Minister's remarks, I cannot resist noting that the only aspect of the Government's overall economic strategy that does seem to have produced positive results has been to do with recruiting for the Armed Services.
  I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman when he argues that one of the most effective ways of attracting recruits to the Services is through the concept of the shorter-term engagement. The Army's three-year engagement for soldiers, and shorter-term commissions for all three Services, the Navy's new four-year engagement for long technical branches—all of these, if I understand the figures correctly, show a welcome increase.
  I draw basically the same lesson from this as the Minister, that a short, initial term of service, which relies on the attractiveness of the Service to persuade the Serviceman to stay on is likely to be one of the best ways of attracting people to the profession of arms in modern conditions. Incidentally, people who come in for a short term and decide to stay on are the best advertisement to their friends of the benefits of a Service career.
  From this side of the House I would like to welcome the additional announcement the Minister made about the committee of inquiry into shortages in the medical and dental branches. I would particularly like to welcome what is said about the efforts that the Government are carrying on to improve the arrangements with regard to separation and to make

  901
  even better arrangements for the welfare of Service wives. We welcome on this side of the House, what seemed to be a substantial programme of new hirings. All these factors are constructive moves, bound to have a real and helpful effect on the problem of maintaining an adequate level of voluntary recruitment to our Forces.
  I turn now to one or two areas in defence policy on which we would like some more information. I hope that the Minister will feel able to give us some details about the arrangements for the defence rundown in the Gulf. Now that the Government have decided, however coyly and quietly, to terminate the treaties in the Gulf and to adhere to the timetable of the last Government, we are overdue some physical details as to what is happening and what is to happen on the ground there. Is our land-based presence in Bahrein to be removed altogether? What arrangements are being made to dispose of the substantial fixed assets in Bahrein? What is to happen at Sharjah? Are we to retain facilities there in relation to the training areas and the ranges? What has been decided about the rôle of the Navy in the Gulf after the withdrawal? I assure my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that these are not rhetorical questions but real questions seeking information. We will decide our views in the light of that information.
  Mr. Mather: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Conservative Government followed the policy laid down by the Labour Government. What was it that made the Labour Government change their mind? They had been intending to stay out there until 1975, but suddenly they changed their mind. Can he explain how this happened?
  Mr. Thomson: There is not a great deal of time available and the hon. Gentleman would do better to ask these awkward questions of his right hon. Friend. Why have they changed their mind? They are the Government now. We have answered often enough as to the reasons that made us adopt the policy that we did.
  Finally, on the Gulf, what is proposed about naval deployment after termination of the treaties? There was a most alarming
  902
  report in the newspapers the other day about difficulties between the Royal Navy and the Royal Iranian Navy. I hope that we can be assured that everything is being done to maintain the traditional friendship and co-operation between these two navies. As the Royal Navy withdraws from the Gulf it will be the Royal Iranian Navy which will be the main stabilising force there. Apart from that, we have very valuable overflying rights, as a CENTO ally, with Iran. If this newspaper report has any foundation—there was wild talk about shooting taking place between forces of the Iranians and ourselves—then it would be very worrying indeed.
  May I ask the Minister to tell us whether the withdrawal from Singapore continues to go according to the plan and timetable laid down by this side of the House? May we be told whether the married families are coming out at the end of July, as was originally planned?
  I would like now to raise a number of detailed points. Can the Government give some information about their reported plans to scrap the ceiling that the Labour Government put on the number of vessels remaining in service with the Royal Navy? There have been reports that the ceiling has now gone. What is not clear, if this is so, is what is to be done with the naval ships concerned.
  Are they to remain in service or are they to be put into mothballs? If they are to remain in service we would be fascinated to know where the manpower is coming from to enable that to be done. If they are to be put into mothballs, what is the defence justification for this, and, in any case, what is the cost of it? Having got the cost from the Government, we would be grateful for some information as to what other economies will be made elsewhere to meet the extra cost of this operation, because the Government are operating within a fixed defence ceiling.
  I turn now to the point raised by the Minister with regard to the Services' contribution in the present tragic situation in Bengal. We all welcomed the announcement he made about the contribution by the R.A.F., which is now taking place, to transport needed supplies and men and women to the stricken areas. We particularly welcomed the very good undertaking that he gave that if the United

  903
  Nations or the World Health Organisation or the British charities need airlift capacity, then, if it is humanly possible, the Government will provide it. That, as I understand it, was the pledge he gave.
  I want to raise a rather wider question which is emphasised by the cholera and refugee tragedy in Bengal. This is the need for a really effective United Nations disaster force. I am not talking simply about the need for United Nations funds to co-ordinate relief; I am thinking much more of something that goes beyond that, of the establishment, under United Nations auspices, of an organisation that would have available the physical forces needed to move relief supplies at short notice to stricken areas.
  British Forces, as the Minister conceded, mounted a fine combined operation in the recent East Pakistan floods. We now have a new tragedy in that part of the world involving two Commonwealth countries. It would be wholly appropriate if the lead in this matter were to come internationally from the British Government and they were to take an initiative towards the setting up of an effective international disaster organisation which would have earmarked for it logistic forces from the national air forces of the member countries.
  The Labour Government committed themselves in principle to earmarking British Forces for United Nations peacekeeping operations. I should like the Government to consider a United Nations disaster organisation which would be able to call on national forces specially trained and equipped for these purposes. The Pakistan tragedy emphasises for many hon. Members on both sides of the House that when these things happen there is first an inevitable delay, then confusion about what is needed, and sometimes, by the time the needs are established, the wrong kind of things are going out. I think that a more effective international organisation with earmarked forces would make a considerable difference to dealing with that kind of crisis.
  Finally, I turn to the situation in Northern Ireland with which I understand the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army is to deal in more detail in winding up. It is tragic that this should be the main battlefront on which our
  904
  troops are engaged. It is tragic that this should be taking place inside the United Kingdom. I do not think that in the postwar period our forces have faced a more difficult task than in Northern Ireland today, nor a task in which they have to show greater restraint in the face of provocation from factions on both sides of the argument there.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) earlier today mentioned reports that the Government were proposing the setting up of a permanent battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Minister confirmed that the Government, although they have taken no decision about the matter, are actively considering this possibility. I do not think that that kind of proposal is likely to contribute constructively to making things better in Northern Ireland. The sooner the Government abandon their consideration of this proposal, the better it will be. The Minister had some indication of the fears and suspicions which are aroused from the brief exchanges which took place this afternoon. However unjustified the fear may be, if the Government were to go ahead with this proposal for a full-time force the fear would persist that it would be a force which, in its composition, was biased towards one community in Northern Ireland and against another. We cannot get away from that as a hard fact.
  The purpose of the debate is not to discuss the historic political causes of the Northern Ireland emergency, nor its political solution, even if I had any solution to offer to the Government, but it is legitimate to mention the basic principles which justify the deployment of British troops there. They are, first, that there should be no relaxation of the momentum towards establishing the same equal rights for all citizens in Northern Ireland as are enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom; secondly, that the responsibility for military policy in Northern Ireland rests clearly and unequivocally with the Government in Whitehall; and, thirdly, that Ministers in London should exercise their responsibility for policy in Northern Ireland, and should be seen to exercise that responsibility for policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when Home Secretary, set an impeccable example of how this difficult task should

  905
  be undertaken. Without being patron-ising, I do not think that the present Home Secretary can do better than strive to maintain the standards set by my right hon. Friend at that time.
  I am sure that many hon. Members on both sides feel, as I do, a sense of frustration and dismay at our inability to make suggestions which might assist towards a solution in Northern Ireland. It is a desperately intractable problem. In such a situation one thing which this House can do is to make it plain to our Service men that they have the support and confidence of Parliament in carrying out their distasteful duties.
  The use of military force in support of the civil power has at times in our history evoked strong feelings. One of the troubles in Northern Ireland is that too many on both sides are the prisoners of their memories and emotions. In the modern world, in a situation like that which prevails in Northern Ireland, our soldiers are, in the real sense of the term, the guardians of democracy and of the civilised decencies of life. When violence erupts, it is the professional soldier, professionally trained in that most difficult of skills—the minimum use of force—who prevents much more widespread suffering and loss of life taking place. The British Service man has earned and deserved a worldwide reputation for his skill in the minimum use of force. It includes spectacular episodes, like the confrontation with Indonesia, where, over a considerable period, aggression was restrained over a jungle frontier 1,000 miles long without a bomb ever being dropped, and lighter versions of the same difficult skill, which I remember as Commonwealth Secretary, when the sending in of the Marines not with fixed bayonets but with a band and bugles blowing did more than anything else to calm down an otherwise dangerous situation.
  The soldiers in Belfast are doing a dirty and unpleasant job. Yesterday I talked to the commanding officer of one of the battalions. He described how his soldiers were doing an 18-hour day seven days a week—126 hours a week—with no rest or recreation in any meaningful sense of the term. They are separated from their wives and families in addition to the normal separation which they accept
  906
  as part of their Army service when they have to go abroad. The soldiers are accustomed to roughing it, and often they like roughing it. It is one thing to rough it in challenging and romantic outdoor conditions overseas; it is another to rough it in conditions of urban squalor, washing in the chipped basins of an old-fashioned school, and jeered at by some of the children they are there to protect.
  I think that the soldiers get thoroughly browned off at times at some of the critics on both sides of the argument in Northern Ireland who seem more anxious to catch them out than to recognise that the uncontrolled violence which would follow their departure would mean a bloodbath for the whole community in Northern Ireland. The soldiers, deploying controlled force, are the real safeguard for all the sections of the community in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the best contribution that the so-called silent majority of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland could make to this dreadful problem would be to throw away their silence and give the security forces the support and the information which they need. In any case, in this final debate of this defence season in this Session, the message which should go out from this House is one of trust in the integrity and the professionalism of the Services in Northern Ireland.
  5.29 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Wall: I welcome the strong and wise words of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) in the concluding part of his speech when he spoke about Ulster. I very much hope that some of the events he hoped for there will take place. If not, heaven knows what the future holds for that part of the United Kingdom.
  I should like to take up three points in the right hon. Gentleman's most interesting speech. The first concerns withdrawal from the Gulf. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the misapprehension that defence policy had not changed since he was in Government. I understand that the Foreign Secretary made an offer to the rulers in the Trucial sheikdoms that if they federated British assistance, both military and economic, would be given to them. As yet, we have not had a definite answer to that offer. Should the offer be rejected, I understand that our options are still open and the Government

  907
  will decide whether to retain troops in that area and, if so, how many. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm this point when he replies.
  The other point which the right hon. Gentleman made under the same general heading concerned the question of a fixed ceiling for defence. We well recall that seven years ago his party fixed a defence ceiling of £2,000 million a year, at 1964 prices, for five years. That was the root cause of all the difficulties which the Labour Government faced in the defence debates in those six years. We on this side of the House have not proposed a fixed ceiling for defence for the next five years. We have merely set a target which we hope to achieve. It is not sacrosanct. I personally hope that it will be exceeded because I believe that in the next five years we should spend slightly more than we are now spending on defence.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the new arrangements for the defence debates. He concluded that, broadly speaking, he was in agreement with the new proposals, although they had certain defects. One defect is that we are having two defence debates on the first day after the return from the recess. I hope that this will not set a precedent which Whips' Offices will follow.
  I was caught out by the change in the arrangements for the defence debates. During my 17 years' membership of the House I have always participated in these debates, particularly in the debate on the Navy Estimates. I made my maiden speech from the back benches and my maiden speech from the Opposition Front Bench on that subject. This year I missed that and other Service debates because I assumed, as I think many hon. Members on both sides of the House assumed, that the defence debates would be completed by Easter, and they were not. Unfortunately, I had made arrangements to complete a study of guerrilla warfare in Central Africa after Easter. I was therefore very pleased to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I might speak on this most important subject as it is the last time that we shall be able to do so in this parliamentary year.
  One good thing about missing debates is that we have time to study what our colleagues on both sides of the House have said. Hon. Members will probably
  908
  agree that when we want to participate in a debate we think much more about our speeches and the dispensing of all the points which we wanted to make but which have been made by preceding speakers. When we have not participated in debates, we can read other Members' speeches with an unjaundiced eye. When I did that it seemed to me that three facts emerged from this year's defence debates.
  The first concerned the Opposition's complaint about Conservative attacks on them when they were in office. I believe that the state of the Armed Forces today leaves a lot to be desired. If that is so—and I shall attempt to show that it is so—right hon. and hon. Members opposite must obviously take most of the blame. The present state of the Armed Forces shows that our protests were valid.
  Secondly, it seems that the Front Bench speeches this year were much the same as Front Bench speeches over the past five years. They were fairly complacent. They failed to answer many of the positive questions which were asked. If that happens again the Government must expect similar attacks to be made on them as were made on the Labour Party when they were in office.
  The third point which emerges from the debates is that the main theme this year has been welfare. The debate on the Army Estimates was dominated by Ulster and welfare. The debate on the Navy Estimates was dominated by welfare and the Royal Naval Detention Quarters. The debate on the Royal Air Force Estimates was dominated by welfare, with a certain amount being said about arms. I feared that today the debate would again be dominated by Ulster, but I am glad to say that that has not yet happened. Ulster is vitally important, but so are the activities of the Armed Forces outside that part of the United Kingdom which are equally or more important.
  Having spent 16 years in the Royal Marines, I do not under-estimate the importance of welfare, particularly when it is associated with recruiting, which is vitally important for all three Services. But it is not the only matter of importance. Challenge, comradeship, responsibility and adventure are perhaps the best recruiting agents for the Services, together with, above all, the knowledge that

  909
  the Services are equipped with the best possible weapons in adequate numbers. It is on that point—hardware—that I wish to concentrate my remarks.
  There are serious hardware deficiencies which both parties, when in government, appear to do their best to cover up. They are not always honest with the House. I do not believe that the reason for that is bound up with security. Any potential enemy has only to read Service publications to find out what he wants to know. To illustrate my point, I should like to quote from one such periodical.
  I wish first to quote from Michael Chichester's column in the latest May issue of "Navy". I read two short paragraphs. The first states:
  "it now appears clear that is Government, like its predecessor, has no overall plan for the future of the Senior Service, has as yet made no decisions regarding the new ships and weapons which it so urgently needs, and is just as reluctant to increase the naval budget so as to restore the harm done in the past six years."
  Further on, this point is made to which I hope the House will pay attention because it is valid:
  "It is a sobering and humiliating prospect that unless something is done soon, by 1978 Britain will possess no naval long-range reconnaissance and strike system, the primary antisubmarine weapon of her surface ships will be of Australian design, her torpedoes will be American, and her only surface-to-surface missile French."
  The Services are far more important than party politics, and the Government must be more open with the House on these important topics.
  I should like to illustrate further what I mean and to deal with some of the defence deficiencies in the Royal Navy. I refer first to surface-to-surface weapons. The 1966 White Paper stated:
  "We shall develop a small surface-to-surface guided weapon for use against missile firing ships."
  The 1967 White Paper said:
  "Extensive studies have been made of the possible ships or weapon systems which the Royal Navy will require as replacements in the Fleet of the middle and late 1970s."
  The 1968 White Paper said:
  "Studies are in hand to improve the effectiveness of submarine-launched anti-ship missiles."
  In 1970, the Labour Government's last White Paper said:
  910
  "Studies are on hand on anti-ship guided missile systems."
  This year, the Conservative Government's White Paper said:
  "Major projects include studies of anti-ship guided missiles, including submarine launched weapons."
  In other words, five years of studies have resulted in Exocet, a French weapon costing, I understand, £70,000 apiece for which, we are informed by the Press, a £70 million order has been signed between the British and French Governments. I understand that this weapon is not to be built on licence, although components are to be built in this country. Therefore, we have no strategic control over it. I do not suggest that the French would refuse to supply it to us—as some British Governments have refused to supply weapons to other friendly countries—but if it is our only surface-to-surface missile it would be much better if it could be constructed under licence in this country.
  But that is not the main point that I wish to make. The range of the Exocet is short—about 20 to 30 miles, probably less. It is therefore excellent for use against fast patrol boats armed with the Soviet-manufactured Styx missile, which has a range of 18 miles. Which is the missile that sank the Israeli destroyer "Eilat". But it is useless against the Soviet missile Shaddock, which has a range of 200 to 300 miles. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) made this point very strongly on 4th May when he asked what counter the Royal Navy had to this Russian surface-to-surface missile. He received the reply, such as it was, in c.1301, that some of the counters were Sea Slug, Sea Dart, AS 12 and "Ark Royal"—in other words, aircraft carriers.
  Sea Slug and Sea Dart are surfact-to-air missiles with a surface-to-surface capability. Their range is a secret, but it is well known that the range of Sea Slug does not exceed 30 miles at the outside and that that of Sea Dart does not exceed 40 miles. What good are those weapons against a ship armed with a surface-to-surface missile with a range of over 200 miles?
  AS12—the right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) will remember this argument, because we have had it out in the House before—has a range of 7,500 yards. It is a wire-guided missile

  911
  controlled from a helicopter. Is he really telling the House that this weapon can be of any use against Soviet cruisers and destroyers?
  With "Ark Royal", we come to the nub of the problem. We are glad that the Government have decided to run on "Ark Royal" for at least the majority of this decade. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, she will carry Phantoms, Buccaneers and Gannets. But naval fixed-wing flying training has finished and we have often asked two questions. The first is, who will fly these aircraft while the aircraft carrier remains, and who will fly the vertical or short take-off aircraft which will take over from them—we hope—in later generations? I am referring to vertical take-off aircraft operating from the new cruisers and other ships.
  What answer have we had?
  Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before, as to who will fly the vertical take-off aircraft. But he has answered it in his own words. He said that "we hope" that they will be operating. As I have explained before, no decision has been taken to operate the vertical take-off aircraft. Evaluation trials have been proceeding, but no firm decision has been taken, so it would be improper of me to answer a hypothetical question.
  Mr. Wall: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has made this point since I am coming on to that matter. I maintain that, as we are going to phase out aircraft carriers, during this decade, since the Labour Party, when in power, decided to phase out the aircraft carriers at the end of this year, and since neither party will provide surface-to-surface weapons, this decision should have been taken a long time ago. The Harrier has been in gestation—not in operation—for over ten years. But it has been bought and operated by the American Navy and Marines, while we—the people who produced it—have not been able to finish the trials. There must be something wrong in this.
  When asked who would fly these aircraft, the Under-Secretary of State said on 29th October that it was still under review. On the same date, the Minister of State said:
  912
  "When the fixed wing flying task has been completed, the Fleet Air Arm will continue to operate rotary wing aircraft from frigates and larger ships."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 404–5.]
  On 19th November, the Minister of State said:
  "What is still under review is a deck backup for the Fleet Air Arm."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1970; Vol. 806, c. 1533.]
  On 26th November, he said:
  "The question which service would operate them does not therefore arise yet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th November, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 186.]
  On 8th March this year, the Minister of State, when I asked him who would provide the maintenance and deck crews for the aircraft operating in the remaining one or two aircraft carriers, said that he would let me know, and very kindly wrote to me. He said that presumably both Royal Navy and R.A.F. pilots would operate towards the end of the life of "Ark Royal". It has now been decided that the deck and maintenance crews should be provided by the Royal Navy.
  The other question that I asked him in the House was how much experience the R.A.F. pilots who will fly these aircraft will have, since I understand that the R.A.F. has said that it will be one tour in ships, and one only. I cannot—obviously—expect a clear answer to that at the moment, but if the R.A.F. are only to fly one tour from H.M. ships, they will not have any experienced senior officers. Will there be R.A.F. pilot officers with more experienced Royal Naval pilot officers in charge of them? This is in some ways a very good inter-Service operation but it would be very difficult to implement.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend and I have an identity of purpose on this point. We had a fairly fruitful debate on the subject on 28th May, just before the recess. With vertical take-off aircraft of the Harrier type, it does not matter quite so much as it did in the past, because the basic skills of take-off and landing, for example, are just the same essentially as they are on land. One does not need the arrester gear, catapults or the mirror landing aid and so on, or the same experience.
  So it could make sense—I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend, as I always

  913
  am—to have a proportion of the squadron crews as naval officers to make sure that there is naval experience, but we should have the economic and logistic advantage of the flying training and backup being provided by the R.A.F.
  Mr. Wall: I have always been in favour of both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force operating planes from H.M. ships—aircraft carriers or other forms of ship. But if fixed wing training is to stop in the Royal Navy, that puts a complete stopper on any future fixed wing flying by Royal Naval pilots, because they will not be coming through the sausage machine and will therefore not be available.
  Therefore, unless something is done about this and a definite decision made in future, the vertical take-off aircraft which are being deployed in the Fleet are bound to be flown by the Royal Air Force. That is an extraordinary decision, which I believe will not work. And I think that naval opinion will back me up.
  I apologise for boring the House by mentioning these lists of replies, but it is important to note how many times certain questions have been asked and how long certain decisions seems to have been delayed. To return to my list, on 4th May, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, in the debate on the Navy Estimates, said:
  "… the Fleet Air Arm hopes that there will be Harriers in the Fleet and that it will fly them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 1299.]
  On 28th May, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), first, how we counter the surface-to-surface missiles of the Soviets, the Streia with a range of 100 miles, or the Shaddock with a range of 200 to 300 miles, and second what happens after the aircraft carriers have been phased out. In other words, he asked the same question that I am asking today.
  He was told at the end of that debate first,
  "Shore based aircraft for maritime operations will be provided by the R.A.F…."
  From what bases? What priority will the R.A.F. give to the protection of shipping and maritime operations, and with
  914
  what aircraft? If we are talking about the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, which are our main trading routes today, I suggest that there are no bases from which existing aircraft can operate, with the possible exception of Nimrod, unless my right hon. Friend is thinking of having bases on the continent of Southern Africa.
  On the question of vertical take-off aircraft, my hon. Friend got the reply that V.S.T.O.L. aircraft
  "… would obviously be valuable and would complement shore-based aircraft and the ships' own weapon systems."
  To put it crudely, that is absolute rubbish. Without vertical or short take-off aircraft, the Fleet of the future would be unable to defend itself.
  Winding up the debate on 28th May, the Under-Secretary of State said:
  "We are, naturally, concerned to establish whether the costs of deploying aircraft of the V.S.T.O.L. type would be commensurate with the return which would be obtained from such an investment, measured in terms of operational capability compared with meeting the task with shore based aircraft"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 769, 770–1.]
  To put it crudely again, this is Civil Service claptrap. We have few bases, few aircraft, the R.A.F. are bound to give a low priority to maritime protection, and even in the future the M.R.C.A., if it is ever built, will not have sufficient range to perform this task. Unless the Fleet of the future can carry an aircraft or a surface missile, it will be annihilated. Every naval officer knows this. It is time the Government of the day faced up to it.
  So much for aircraft carriers. What about submarines? We have some excellent submarines, but only three of them of the Polaris variety are available now that the fourth is being refitted. I remind my right hon. Friend of the pressure that we exerted when we were in opposition for a fifth Polaris submarine to be built to make the deterrent credible. We may have to choose between going for a fifth Polaris submarine or Poseidon. One or other will be needed if the deterrent is to remain credible.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) said:
  "The prime need for the Navy is to shift the emphasise of the shape and structure of

  915
  the Fleet towards submarines"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 1201.]
  I am sure he is right. He advocated the building of more Hunter Killer submarines, but he was unfortunately not able to do much about that when in Government. When we were in opposition we made the same case, though it was difficult for the Labour Government to make strides forward in this connection because of the devaluation crisis with which they were faced. However, I gather that nothing has been done since we returned to power.
  Originally, the programme was for one new Hunter Killer a year. The Labour Government lengthened that time-scale to one every 18 months. I gather that that schedule is being maintained. Is that time-scale to continue? Are our words in opposition to be meaningful, now that we are in office?
  Perhaps the Government feel that their first task must be properly to arm the existing four Polaris, nine Hunter Killer and 27 conventional submarines with something better than the conventional Mk. 8 torpedo which started life in the 'thirties. At least I can congratulate my right hon. Friend for having obtained £50 million from the Treasury for research and development and for giving priority to the Mk. 24 torpedo. I urge him to conduct further studies, if I cannot urge him to seek more expenditure, and to consider what the hon. Member for Sutton said about the need for a submarine-launched air flight missile. This type of missile appeared and disappeared in various White Papers published by the Labour Government. So far we have heard nothing more about it. It costs £25 million to build a submarine. It must be provided with the most modern weapons, and this is particularly true of the hunter killer.
  I can sum up my remarks so far by saying that during this decade the Service looks like having only one aircraft carrier, no long-range, shore-based aircraft, possibly no V.S.T.O.L. at sea and, therefore, no answer to the Soviet long-range guided missiles. All our submarines are equipped with slow, semi-obsolete torpedos. In other words, we have fine ships but poor weapons, and are contemplating throwing away the Fleet Air Arm before developing a surface to surface missile.
  916
  I say that we have fine ships, but do we? Compare the ships that we are building with their counterparts in other navies. Our "Devonshires", guided missile destroyers, are armed with one sea slug and the Type 42 with one Sea Dart. The U.S.S. "Bainbridge", on the other hand, is armed with two Terriers, while the Soviet "Kresta", "Kynda", "Kashin" and "Krupny" are all armed with double-ended guided weapons. In other words, because their vessels are armed at each end, they can take on at least two targets at once. Our ships can engage only one target at a time. I thought that we had learned our lesson from the last war about the need to engage two, if not four, targets simultaneously.
  Our "Bristol", of 5,650 tons, is the biggest guided missile destroyer we have under construction. She has one Sea Dart, two 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, one 4·5 in. Ikara and Limbo as antisubmarine weapons, and one helicopter carrying anti-submarine torpedos. Compared with that, the "Vladivostok", of 6,000 tons, carries two Shaddock missile launchers, two GOA surface to air missile launchers, four 57 mm anti-aircraft guns for anti-submarine operations, two 12-barrelled and four six-barrelled launchers, 10 torpedo tubes and a helicopter. If it came to a fight, in which ship would the Minister rather find himself? In other words, on very much the same hull, the Russians are carrying twice the armament. This is not only a question of expense but one of design.
  On the question of expense, I echo the plea that was made during the last debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) when she asked what had happened to the fast patrol boats in which we used to lead the world. She pointed out that we had only two left and that they were both in reserve. She was told by the Minister that the trials of three boats bought as target towers from Vospers were now taking place but an order for further vessels was probably not worthwhile. Meanwhile, the Russians are going ahead with their "Osas' and "Komars" and are selling them to small navies throughout the world.
  I will not delay the House by considering at length the question of hovercraft and hydrofoils. I would like to be

  917
  told, however, what we are doing on this score. A great deal of experimentation work into hovercraft and hydrofoils is taking place in the United States, not to mention the Italian, French and other navies. This development might prove the answer to the fast submarine for anti-submarine purposes.
  I have detained the House sufficiently long without spending much time on the remaining Services. My right hon. Friend will have heard me refer in the past to the need of the Army for modern tactical nuclear weapons. The doctrine of a flexible response, which is now the N.A.T.O. doctrine, must depend on the credibility of tactical nuclear weapons.
  We now have the 8 in. howitzer, which is to be tracked and Honest John. Production of the Honest John in the United States has ceased and it is being replaced by Lance. The ranges are 68 miles for Lance as against 23 miles for the Honest John, and Lance has a crew of six whereas Honest John has a crew of 12. Lance has inertial guidance as against free flight, and has a mobile and air-dropping capability. It will be in full production this year. What will the Government do to re-equip B.A.O.R. with modern tactical weapons in the years to come?
  When we come to consider the question of support, the Harrier is undoubtedly the best aircraft in the world. It is now being operated in B.A.O.R., though its mobility will not be fully exploited without a medium-lift helicopter for the supply of fuel and missiles. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) emphasised this in our last debate when he said that he understood that orders for the Chinook or Sikorsky 53 would be made shortly. I do not believe that that has been confirmed. May we be reassured on this point today? My hon. Friend also suggested that if these helicopters were to be ordered, they should be ordered from European countries where they are being built under licence from the Americans rather than from the U.S.A. direct, but he had no answer.
  Now that B.A.O.R: is almost wholly equipped with the Chieftain, which is probably the best tank in the world, what thought is being given to the next generation of tanks? Are we to have a European-designed one? Are we co-operating
  918
  with the Germans or French in a post-Chieftain European venture? I hope that we are, and I certainly hope that we will be given information on this point. Unfortunately, we have not been very successful in selling the Chieftain to other countries, excellent though it is.
  We do not seem to have sold Chieftain except I understand to Iran but have sold Centurion, but there has been a Press report that ammunition for Centurions bought some years ago by Middle East countries is now not only in short supply but is restricted and will not be available in quantity for several years. Is this true? If it is not true, the report should be denied. This is the kind of thing that makes countries refrain from buying British weapons.
  My only point on the R.A.F. is the lack of long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft. The TSR2 initiated by a previous Conservative Government was cancelled. The Fill was substituted, and that was cancelled, and now we are told that our whole future depends on the MRCA. I am sure that it will be a first-class aircraft, but I repeat what I have said many times to the House, that the range of the MRCA is said to be about half that of the TSR2. It is questionable whether this is enough for the European theatre. It certainly is not enough for carrying out the rôle now given to the R.A.F. of protecting shipping in the maritime regions of the world. I understand that the final decision on the MRCA will be made this year. I know this aircraft is a compromise between the requirements of three nations, and I hope that something can be done about the range. This is the strike reconaissance aircraft on which the R.A.F. will depend in the 1980s; it must be right; and I suggest again that the present design range is far too short.
  To sum up, we have a missile gap which cannot be filled because we have not sufficient long-range aicraft or bases from which they can operate and because we have not developed—I think rightly—a surface-to-surface missile. We have excellent submarines, but inefficient weapons to use from them. Should it ever come to the test, the Army deterrent will be not be credible unless the Army is rearmed with modern tactical nuclear

  919
  weapons, and the R.A.F. must have a long-range strike reconnaissance aircraft.
  I am not suggesting that these deficiencies are the fault of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have only just assumed office. I regret the complacency which we have heard from the Labour Ministers for six years and which is being echoed from the Opposition Front Bench this year. I detect what has been termed the dead hand of the Treasury, which all Ministers fell, but I am sure the Service Ministers appreciate that they must fight for the hardware which is essential for defending this country. We shall expect answers to these questions by next year. This will be regarded by the Services as the test of the Government. The Services are looking carefully at what will happen during the next few months, but I have complete confidence that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will respond to this challenge.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: I rise to make a brief speech about one specific aspect of defence policy, which was touched on briefly by the Minister and which I hope will be touched on in more detail by the Under-Secretary when he winds up, and that is the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland, and, more particularly, the potential political pressures exerted on the Army in Northern Ireland.
  By the Army I mean both the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment. When two years ago the Army first went on to the streets of Londonderry and Belfast some things were already clear. The first was that it was obviously the duty of the British Army to preserve law and order, life and property in what was and will remain part of the United Kingdom. The second was that the Army would behave with a dignity and discipline of which we should all be proud, and that has been confirmed over and over again during the last two years. It was equally obvious that the Army would make occasional mistakes and receive a degree of criticism disproportionate to those mistakes. I will not weary the House with examples of the criticisms that were received during my years as Minister of Defence. They have come from both sides in the Northern Ireland
  920
  dispute and not least from some of the most radical figures in Northern Irish politics who were most vocal in their demands that the Army should go into Londonderry and Belfast in July and August of 1969. I believe that the Army is capable of demonstrating the almost invariable invalidity of those criticisms, and showing that without its presence in Northern Ireland we should have had a holocaust of unimaginable proportions.
  What now concerns me is a growing political pressure of another sort on the Army. I do not think it will be possible for the Under-Secretary of State to say that that pressure either does not or might not exist, but I hope it will be possible for him to say that that pressure will be resisted. If he says that, I will accept it unequivocally and at once. By political pressure I mean this. Over the last two years there has been a growing desperation in the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, which is overtly political to a degree which I have not known in any other political organisation in any part of the world during the 20 years I have been involved in politics.
  Senior Ministers of the Stormont Government freely talk about what must be done to preserve their Government in office, as if this were the total and only obligation facing the people and the Government of Northern Ireland. In the last six months we have heard continually and publicly the comment that unless the Army does this thing or that thing the Stormont Government cannot survive. This was particularly so three months ago during the week of what was described as the I.R.A. funeral, when, to some embarrassment and against the law of the United Kingdom, men who had been shot by the British Army whilst performing a lawless and deplorable act were buried with considerable pomp, and the Army was unable to intervene. At that time it was openly said in Northern Ireland that if the Army let such an event pass again the Government could not survive.
  I am strongly in favour of Mr. Faulkner and his Government surviving. I see no virtue in Mr. Faulkner and his Government other than that what might come after would almost certainly be a good deal worse. Notwithstanding that qualified support, I want him to survive. But it is impossible for the Army to tailor its

  921
  tactics and strategy to make sure that he does. By its tactics and strategy I mean the insistence which I suspect is being heard more and more in the Joint Security Committee that the Army takes what is called an increasingly tough line.
  We know that we shall be told by the Under-Secretary of State that the Army remains under the control of the Government in Whitehall and that the decisions on how the Army conducts itself will be taken by the Ministry of Defence and by Her Majesty's Government here in Britain. I want the Under-Secretary of State to assure us that, whilst those decisions are in fact and in law taken by the Government here in Whitehall, they will be taken as a result of what seems practical and sensible in terms of a military operation and not in terms of what seems necessary as a public relations demonstration to prove that the new Government of Northern Ireland are a good deal more tough on terrorism than their predecessors. That is not only necessary in military terms but for the future survival of a law-abiding Northern Ireland.
  If the Army is to succeed in what it must do in Northern Ireland, it can only do so by maintaining what it has at this moment, the confidence of 95 per cent. of the law-abiding people of the six counties. It is essential, therefore, that on occasions the Army does not and cannot pursue the terrorists, urban guerrillas, thugs and assassins, whose presence we all deplore and whose swift demise we all hope for, with the rigour and determination which could be applied were the Army operating in a different context. The Army cannot afford to alienate even a small proportion of the law-abiding majority of the people in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give a categorical assurance that the Army, which I believe wants to operate on a sensible and moderate basis, will not be subject to the pressures which are building up but which it is easy for the Under-Secretary of State to say will be resisted and must be resisted.
  My second point concerning the Ulster Defence Regiment is in a sense identical to the one I have made about the Regular Army. The Ulster Defence Regiment worked because it achieved a great deal of support amongst the people of Northern Ireland. It achieved that support
  922
  because it was thought of, at least in the minority community, as being the necessary concomitant to the abolition of the Special Constabulary. It had that support amongst the frightened minority because of the conscious steps we took to centralise arms, to ensure that the regiment was not in any way related to what had gone before, to ensure that the regiment recruited as many Catholics as reasonably possible—and I, as I believe the present Minister has done, went out of my way to encourage Catholics to join—as a demonstration of the multi-religious nature of that organisation and as an assurance that that, together with its control from Whitehall, would ensure that it was not a weapon of sectarianism.
  A good deal of the confidence that has been achieved amongst the minority and the majority communities in Northern Ireland could easily be dissipated if that body again becomes an instrument for political decisions. To take an example, during the last eighteen months there have continually been attempts to establish a ceiling for that regiment's recruitment in no way related to how many men could be recruited and how many could be put on the streets, but related to what would make some people feel was a demonstration of toughness by the British Government—not X thousand, which was a reasonable prospect, but X plus Y thousand, which sounded a nice large number related to the size of the B Specials which have been abolished, but not related to a realistic appraisal of what needed to be done and what could be done.
  I hope the Under-Secretary of State will give an assurance that that sort of decision—in a sense a detail but in another sense crucial—will be taken according to operational merits rather than according to what seems to be acceptable to the Government of Northern Ireland and what makes them feel more politically secure as opposed to the Province feeling fundamentally more secure.
  This brings me to my last point which concerns the Regular battalion. The confidence of the minority community in Northern Ireland, which is crucial if we are to make progress, cannot be maintained if such a battalion is created. Already a good deal of confidence has been dissipated by this proposal first

  923
  seeing the light of day in newspapers during the weekend and being confirmed by the Minister this afternoon. It will not do for the Government to deal with such sensitive matters by off the record Press briefing. The similarity of the stories in different newspapers on the same day can lead to no other conclusion. It will not do for such sensitive matters to be floated in this way and then confirmed, almost reluctantly, by the Minister three days afterwards.
  Already a great deal of confidence in the Ulster Defence Regiment has been dissipated by this step, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give us a robust assurance that he is convinced that the future of security in Northern Ireland depends on the minority community feeling a continued confidence in the Ulster Defence Regiment and that the. Ulster Defence Regiment will continue to be operated according to military obligations rather than short-term political necessities.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I hope the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting and important speech, but I suspect there are enough hon. Members on "both sides of the House representing Northern Ireland constituencies to keep that subject going for some time. I hope too that my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) will forgive me if I do not follow the interesting points he made in his excellent speech.
  I have only four points to make. They are minor ones, but they are exclusively of interest to my constituency of Aldershot.
  My first point is that the White Paper on Local Government Reorganisation has put a question mark over the future of the three military members of the Aidershot local authority. This is a unique fact. We are the only local government authority to have military members, and, save for Oxford and Cambridge, there is no other local authority with any similar arrangement.
  The three military members form one eighth of the council, if one leaves out the aldermen, of whom there are eight, and it is the view of the Aldershot Borough
  924
  Council that the military membership should be retained. There are more soldiers than civilians in Aldershot, and the soldiers occupy physically a larger area of the town than do the civilians.
  There is an immense military investment: some £30 million has recently been spent on new buildings, and I believe that there is contribution to the rates of some £415,000 a year made by the Treasury. Whatever may be the fate of Aldershot after the Secretary of State for the Environment has finally decided on the reorganisation of local government, we trust that this unique and very satisfactory arrangement of having three military members will be retained.
  My second point has to do with the Army medical services, and especially with the decision taken by the former Government to build a new military hospital in Woolwich. I hope that the committee of inquiry into the medical services of the Armed Forces, which has been referred to in the debate, will shortly come out against that decision. The decision is strongly disliked by very many Army consultants, as it could not fit into any three-Service amalgamation of the medical services, which I believe to be desirable in the medium term.
  Nor does Woolwich enjoy advantages of geography in any way comparable with those of Aldershot or, indeed, with those of a military hospital in the Surrey area. In view of the opposition to the proposal, to build a new military hospital at Woolwich, I wonder whether it might not be wiser to postpone work until the views and recommendations of the newly set-up committee are known.
  My third point is that there is now a proposal which comes from the garrison in Aldershot, for the renovation of Rush-moor, which many of my hon. Friends will remember as being the place where a number of remarkable Army displays took place in the years before the war. I hope that my hon. Friend will look favourably upon this suggestion for the renovation of Rushmoor, and will use his influence to see it is brought about.
  Finally, there is the question of the construction of a lido in that part of Aldershot which is occupied, if that is the right word, by the Army. Any such lido would be open to the civilian population of Aldershot, so that any advantage to the Service families would be

  925
  widely shared. I understand that the Royal Engineers have a scheme whereby they could build the lido, or help in its construction, and the Commander of the Aldershot Garrison, Brigadier Mann, has opened a fund to bring this lido into existence. I am told that £100,000 is needed; and that the Department for the Environment has been approached. I hope that here, too, my hon. Friend will intervene, and use all the influence he can muster to extract from the Secretary of State a handsome contribution so that this facility may be granted to Aldershot, both civil and military.
  6.19 p.m.
  Miss Bernadette Devlin: I make no apology for returning to the subject of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, even though hon. Members opposite seem quite upset. Although they have 9,000 British soldiers on what they claim to be British territory, if not a colony as such, we have a situation so extreme and unusual in our democracy that its merits taking up all their defence debates.
  It has always struck me personally as being a particularly naive attitude on the part of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides who debate political matters as though the Armed Forces and defence policy were something apart from politics. We talk of defence and the Army's rôle when political solutions are necessary, but one has to accept before attempting even to understand the Northern Ireland situation that the armed forces of any Government are people who are trained, disciplined and organised for one particular purpose, which is, with the aid of the many delightful weapons mentioned earlier, to enforce the political decisions of Governments which make up their minds to act one way or the other.
  That being so, I repeat, although it upsets other hon. Members, that the rôle of the British Army in Northern Ireland is not and cannot politically and objectively be seen to be a humanitarian rôle. The Army there cannot be seen as a body of men determined to do good and prevent one section of a Christian Community living in the Middle Ages from slaughtering the other section. The rôle of the British Army in the North of Ireland is to maintain in Northern Ireland the British economic and imperialist interest. The fact that from
  926
  time to time the Army has stopped mindless militants and violence is secondary to the rôle of the British Army of maintaining the British interest in Northern Ireland and in other parts of the world.
  That brings me to the subject of the Ulster Defence Regiment. When some of us debated the relevant Bill and fought late into the night and the following morning against the setting up of any such regiment we were given complete assurances at that time by the Labour Government and by Tory Party Front Bench spokesmen about the rôle of the Ulster Defence Regiment. We were told that it was an essential part of a reorganisation of the police and of the defence strategy of Northern Ireland; that it was a part-time regiment which would not be asked to become more than that or to serve outside Northern Ireland. We were told that it was something better than the old B Specials and the paramilitary force, and that, as usual, it was necessary to maintain the peace.
  Since 1969 the defence policy in Northern Ireland has shown itself singularly to have failed. There are 9,000 soldiers there, and it may well offend the niceness of Opposition spokesmen that British soldiers have to wash their faces in chipped basins in schools while school kids jeer at them. Such hon. Members would do well to remember that to a large extent the troubles in Northern Ireland come from the fact that ordinary people—who do not wear uniforms, who are not soldiers—have had to live in those conditions, and have had people jeer at them for their economic position in society. If something were done to change that position, we could well bring home those ill-treated and ill-cared for soldiers and give them decent productive jobs.
  But if the Minister thinks that the political pressures applied not just by the Unionist Government but of necessity applied by the British Government on the Army in Northern Ireland can solve the problem there, he is mistaken. If he thinks that he can meet terrorism, however mistaken that terrorism is, by the polite terrorism of statements in the columns of the Sunday Mirror, which everyone knows come from the Minister and the Ministry, and out-terrorise a terrified people by saying that he is setting up the Ulster Defence Regiment as a

  927
  permanent force within the Army, he is doing nothing but repeat policies formerly declared in this House; to wit, the setting up of the Trucial Oman Scouts in order to maintain an imperialist policy in someone else's country which time and experience have shown does not work.
  I tell the Minister that before this debate ends he should make a categorical retraction of any suggestion that such a force will be set up, because it will be seen that the majority of people, respectable people, in spite of their religions, are not supporting the British Army in Northern Ireland. Their reasons are different. Those people are on different sides of the religious and political argument, but it is a fallacy to say that 95 per cent. of them want the presence of the British Army. They do not.
  If the Minister thinks that he can get away with it, all he will do will be to succeed in creating a situation in which young men who join the Army because they cannot get a living wage in Coventry, Glasgow and Birmingham may be brought home in their coffins to their mothers, while others in Northern Ireland are taken to Belfast and Derry. An active imperialist Army will be needed to retain British interests there. This sort of policy has not worked in the past, and it will only give increased credibility to the existing wave of terrorism. I say to the Minister: on his head be it.
  6.27 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell: I had not expected to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), otherwise I would probably have gone home earlier. I attended one of these Irish debates once before and was not called, and most of the points I had then were on matters of defence. I had hoped to go over some of the points introduced earlier by my noble Friend, and to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) referred.
  Like the hon. Lady, I am too young in this House to be able to decide whether this new cycle of defence debates is any good. I have found it utterly frustrating, because the larger strategic issues of defence are invariably
  928
  overshadowed by the tactics of the latest "banging on" going on at present. Tonight it is Ireland, so we are back to dirty washhand basins, but the fact remains that if we are to have a proper defence policy were must have a far broader look at it in Parliament.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) talked of his 17 years in Parliament and 16 years in the Royal Marines. I have had only 25 years in the British Army, but I know that during that time one of the most irritant factors has been the failure of Members of Parliament to debate defence as we hoped it would be debated; instead they have got themselves tied up in minor tactics. There are more minor tactical battles fought on the Floor of the House of Commons than ever there are on the battlefield.
  If we are to look at the meaning of war and peace in the world today we find that both have changed but, paradoxically, both are becoming more alike. In this nuclear age war is an expensive luxury which only the weak can truly afford. The strong cannot successfully fight the weak any longer, because modern advanced societies like our own lack the will to match ideologically, and their nuclear destructive arsenals are neutralised because they are unusable. That is a fact now of military life and of diplomatic behaviour. Because of our new global nervous system, which one would refer to as mass communication, this age, which people said will be free of war, is likely to be dominated by what the hon. Lady was talking about just now, though perhaps she did not know it—or she may have known it—as an escalating global anarchy. It is global anarchy with which we are faced in Ireland today, and which I shall talk about in a few moments because the hon. Lady has brought up the subject of Ireland. Co-operation obviously is the answer, and we were all impressed, as we have always been, about the consultative ties which were discussed earlier in the debate by the Minister and by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East, about the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, about the Conference on the Security of Europe, the Mutual and balanced Force reductions, the Berlin four-Power conversations, the Middle East, the aim to get a peace

  929
  initiative, and even now the great defence advantages, which have sprung up in the last two weeks, of going into the E.E.C. First we had the economic reasons, and now we have the defence argument for going into the E.E.C.
  Global anarchy is as relevant to Ireland as to anywhere else. The point where co-operation becomes impossible in international and diplomatic terms is where these urban guerrilla forces are involved. My personal theory and practice on the subject of terrorism is this: the only way to destroy terrorism is to terrorise the terrorists, and the difference between what we are talking about in this House most of the time—that is, the open palm of peace which we all want, or the clenched fist of war which we have all got to pay for—lies, if I may coin a phrase, in the form of a limp handshake. If one does not go for one or the other, it is a limp handshake. If we get involved in a military situation against urban terrorism and if we are not prepared to be tough, we are doomed to failure. We shall see it in Ireland unless we change our methods slightly.
  The background against which our armed forces exist, so we have been told tonight, includes the possibility of substantial American reductions in Europe and also growing isolationism and growing anti-militarism. That we all accept. The fighting Services are essentially conservative—with a small "c". The fighting Services, despite very sophisticated weapons and modern technology, consist of people who believe in the old and true virtues, which they practise. Those who wandered last evening on to Horse Guards Parade and saw the massed bands of the Scottish regiments marching up and down in front of Her Majesty will probably appreciate that that is part of the things which appeal to people in the Services and is one of the reasons why people join and why many of us love the Services. It is as simple as that. It is an emotional experience, and an attitude which people have towards a way of life and a practice of virtues of which they approve. Whether that is acceptable is immaterial. To me it is a fact.
  There is a danger in the House of overlooking this human factor. Today we have heard some encouraging stories about increases in pay, the number of
  930
  railway warrants, quarters which are being hired, and such practical considerations. But I appeal to the House, when they are thinking about why people join the Services, to consider the deeper psychological reason why men and women volunteer to serve their country, and what is their motivation. We are told nowadays that this has something to do with a public image and with good public relations. All of that is true, but the fact remains that at heart the majority of people who join the Services do so for reasons of old-fashioned patriotism.
  We have in the central control of this complicated Ministry of Defence, which we were discussing earlier, a difficulty in expressing military effectiveness in financial terms. I was very impressed by the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice about the Navy and the inadequacy of our plans, when he said that neither one side of the House nor the other had a monopoly of virtue or vice in effecting these plans for our defence and our security. I shall stick my neck out slightly by saying that the best value for money that the British Treasury has ever had is the Battalion of Infantry. The cheapest and the most useful tool that we have in the defence arsenal has been basically the same for hundreds of years. It is the Battalion of Infantry who are in Ireland at the moment, to which I shall refer later.
  We have in this sophisticated problem of the Ministry of Defence deciding how the Treasury's money is to be spent the difficulty of relating cost to effectiveness and of quantifying effectiveness in a military sense. Although we have these modern techniques, with scenarios, which can measure various things, but they cannot measure human considerations—considerations like morale, surprise and efficiency. I believe also that it is difficult to assess the cost of production, of research and development and, indeed, the running costs of many of these sophisticated weapons which we have been discussing earlier in the debate.
  Again there is the difficulty of time-scale which came up so poignantly in connection with the question of our naval missiles. Something which is introduced at a certain time soon loses its advantages when other systems come in and outstrip it in this very speedy technological age. The value of these cost-effective

  931
  studies which the Ministry of Defence pursues must not lead us to an air of certainty and exactitude about these matters. We must be more flexible, in this House and outside, in our approach to the certainty of weapons systems. A very large degree of human judgment will always be needed. In fact, that is where the real skill comes in to the cost-effectiveness studies, in identifying the area in which human judgment has got to be exercised.
  I believe that we are very short of reliable information in this House about defence matters. When one worked in the Ministry of Defence there was always a most interesting series of strategical capability and intervention studies, cluttered up with heavy gradings of "Top Secret—Not to be seen by anybody", which were perfectly harmless documents and which would have added greatly to one's enjoyment of the Library here. If my noble Friend would at some stage look into the quality of literature which is available to us, it might enable us to participate in these debates with slightly more intelligence. Such things as the use of our armour east of Suez and the size of our paratroop drops are discussed, and these I call military cloud-cuckoo-land factors. There are other matters about which we need information—for instance, the future of our amphibious forces and the size of our helicopter lift. If we had more facts about these sorts of things, I for one could contribute a little more to these debates.
  As to the future structure of the Army, I thought that my noble Friend's remarks could only be taken by everyone with great enthusiasm. There is no doubt that the sociologists write a lot of rubbish about the out-moded public image of standing armies. The fact is that we have a jolly good public image of our standing Army and of our Navy and Air Force. When we go round to our constituencies we find that everybody is proud of our Services. Some of this rubbish that is written ought to be thrown into the waste-paper basket.
  I believe also in what my children call the International Rescue type of activity, particularly in terms of contingencies like the cholera outbreak in Pakistan. Greater publicity of this sort of activity would in our modern age get over a great deal
  932
  of the criticism from young people about the image of the Services. The public relations department of the Ministry of Defence should now be grinding out every bit of worth while propaganda about what the Services are really doing and, rather than issuing some of these advertisements in the newspapers about recruiting, which are subject to criticism, we should flood the schools with photographs and descriptions, from the Ministry of Defence, of what we are doing, which would carry great weight in the future.
  The day will come, I suppose, when the Services have that as their main rôle, when they are devoted to the international help and rescue type of operation. But behind it all, we shall need in our Services a hard hitting—this is how I should call it, and there is no better phrase—terrorist-killing anti-subversive group of people who can go in and sort out that sort of terrible problem.
  I revert, in conclusion, to affairs in Northern Ireland. If one has to put in the military to support the police and the civil power—dressed in any language one likes—one must never put oneself into such a position that they take over from the police, for, if one allows that to happen, what does one do when the time comes to take the military out again? One day, the military must be taken out. So, amid all the argy-bargy which is going on about whether the Ulster Defence Regiment should be this size or that, or whether we should have this or that unit in Northern Ireland, we must always remember that the day will come when the British Army is withdrawn. It makes military sense, therefore, to start building up a force which can take over from it.
  The first year of this Government in office has given one a feeling that a forward-looking and imaginative policy is coming into our defence effort. If we concentrate on what I have described as the modern human appeal but at the same time not over-sentimentalising about the real problem of anarchy on our doorstep, the Services will have an extremely promising future, and so shall we, under their earnest protection.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I very much agreed with what the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) had

  933
  to say about the quality of information on important matters which comes out of the Ministry of Defence. There is a remarkable contrast here. On welfare matters or "do-good" matters, no Ministry takes more trouble about the giving of information to Members of Parliament than does the Ministry of Defence. For example, when I raised specialised questions of this nature in the debate on the Royal Air Force, I received an excellent and full reply—obviously, a lot of trouble had been taken—about opportunities in civil aviation, about entry from the Forces into the teaching profession, about the mechanical apprenticeship scheme, about housing and about language training.
  All those may be interesting and important matters, but they are by no means the cruicial issues. The moment one tries to obtain information from the Ministry of Defence on strategic or equipment issues, however, one runs into all sorts of absurd classifications and various degrees of secrecy.
  I agree, therefore, with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said on that subject, if not on such subjects as urban terrorism, about which, perhaps, one difficulty may be that he and I have rather different views on who may be the terrorists in various situations and about the relative virtues of the confronting sides. However, I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that it is important to discuss such an issue as the one on which I wish to concentrate; namely, the results of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks now proceeding in Helsinki. I wish to use this opportunity to probe the thinking of Ministers, in the light of the S.A.L.T. negotiations, on the possible consequences of those discussions for the British Armed Forces.
  As I understood him, the Minister said in opening that he welcomed the joint statement of 20th May. It is easy to be cynical about these things, and any advance is an advance for the good, and I certainly have no wish to sneer at any hopeful statement coming out of Helsinki, but, before coming to my questions to the Minister, I must put to the House a firm view—albeit a pessimistic and contentious view—of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks thus far.
  We have now become accustomed to the spectacle of political leaders grossly exaggerating the importance of international
  934
  arms control agreements. For example, President Nixon made a euphoric statement about the breakthrough at S.A.L.T. With the best will in the world, as far as I can see it is based simply on an agreement to attempt to negotiate an agreement on a numerical limit on offensive and defensive nuclear missiles. It is simply a question of an agreement to attempt to negotiate an agreement.
  Whatever else it is, I do not think it can be described as a "remarkable break-through". I fear that the West is being far too optimistic, revealing a depressing lack of understanding of the real hazards of the nuclear arms race and of the type of agreement required at SA.L.T. to reduce such hazards.
  The British Services must be aware that there are at least three major advances in military technology which threaten to erode the all-too-fragile strategic balance. First, there are the improvements in the reliability of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Second, there are the further improvements in the accuracy of these missiles. Third—this is vital—there is the deployment of the true multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle, the M.I.R.V., the importance of which was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) in our previous debate.
  Does the Ministry of Defence doubt that, taken together, these three lines of technical advance add up to the prospect that both East and West may, for the first time, and within the next few years, acquire a genuine first-strike capability? Is it the Department's view that we have here, for the first time, the ingredients for the possession by East and West of a genuine and credible first-strike military capability, and does the Department accept that no S.A.L.T. agreement at present on the horizon will affect the movement towards a very dangerous situation; that is, the possession of a first-strike capability made possible by new technical developments?
  I want to hear from Ministers—I put it as a genuine question—what, if the S.A.L.T. agreements are to be quantitative rather than qualitative, the consequences are likely to be for the British Forces. I am not asking the Government to have a row with the Americans

  935
  on this issue; I merely say gently but firmly that it is about time that some direct questions were put to our American allies about the British position, and it is about time that a report on these vital matters was given to Parliament.
  It is astonishing that these crucial discussions have been going on in Helsinki for many months now but, as far as I know, no statement on the progress of the talks has been made to the House of Commons. If it be said that the talks do not directly concern us, that they are talks between two foreign Powers, I can only remind the House that the Minister himself said today that the Americans had taken great care to consult their allies. If that be so, the House of Commons ought to have been kept in the picture about the Helsinki talks.
  The crucial question on which I should like to hear some comment today is whether these new technical advances, and the M.I.R.V. in particular, have created a situation in which East and West now have a powerful and credible first-strike weapon. It is a most important question, and I hope that attention will be paid to it.
  I come now to one or two other issues. I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said about Senator Mansfield's position. We have to accept that whether the Mansfield amendment were adopted or defeated, anyone who has recently been in the United States knows perfectly well that the impetus behind the substance of the Mansfield amendment is there. True, President Nixon had the full weight of some "Old Guns", wheeled in to support him, and he may have been successful this time, but the next time the question comes up the President of the United States will not be successful, and, on any view, the question has considerable consequences for our whole economic and military thinking. I want to know what contingency plans are being thought out in the event of some future Mansfield amendment—perhaps not by Senator Mansfield himself—being successful, because at that time the policy of the United States might be different, whoever the next President may be.
  I want to add my voice to what has been said about the need for some kind
  936
  of United Nations permanent force on disasters. I do not want to take up the time of the House because the matter has already been eloquently dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East; I merely want to let hon. Members know that many of us echo what has already been said by him on this subject.
  From the three previous debates I should have thought that no one has a very clear idea of the position of the M.R.C.A.—the multi-rôle combat aircraft. We are entitled to some progress report. My information is that it is running at least a year behind schedule, and that real difficulties have arisen not only with the Italians but with some of our other partners. Industry, in particular, would like an assurance about the future of this project. This may present some difficulty for the Government, because there are all sorts of unknown quantities, but it is not merely Members of Parliament who ask these questions; many people—especially in the electronics industry, which is going through a bad phase—want to know for the basis of their future planning what the future of the M.R.C.A. is likely to be.
  I had hoped that the Minister, with his recent experience in the "Ark Royal", would be able to give us some account of the Harrier trials. I understood him to say, in answer to an intervention, that an evaluation was proceeding but that no decision had been arrived at. I should like to know when certain decisions will be made. I also understood that no account would be given to Parliament of the results of the Harrier trials. I was on the "Ark Royal", and every officer behaved correctly and properly in regard to information; I could not have had better hospitality. Nevertheless, a genuine and widespread interest exists in the Harrier and the possibility of its success, and I should have thought that this was a precise example of what the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West was getting at when he said that there was too much unnecessary secrecy.
  1 do not see why we should not be told, at any rate in outline, what the general estimate of the Harrier trials is. It cannot be all that secret, and it is of some interest. If the Minister and the Department of Defence want a genuinely

  937
  informed interest to be taken in the Services, I should have thought that that information was the kind of information that we could be given.
  Some of us await with anticipation the report of Lord Nugent's Committee. I gather that it is bogged down. I have a constituency point to raise, because the question arises of the Engineer Park at Livingston New Town, West Lothian. The new town development corporation wanted these acres, and it is not obvious to us that they are of essential military importance. They are of considerable importance to the new town, however, and I should like the Department to consider in the light of the correspondence that has taken place between the Department, the new town corporation and myself, whether the Engineer Park could not be made available to the new town.
  I should have thought that similar cases could be made out in respect of areas throughout the country, because I have the impression that some land is held not for any clear military purpose but because it suits the slight empire-building nuances of certain commands to keep land within their jurisdiction. I am not making any great criticism on this point; I am merely saying that there seems to be a resistance to change and to giving anything up, and that a clear directive—after the Nugent Committee has reported or even before—would be welcome.
  This afternoon the Minister announced that he was having a full-scale inquiry into the medical and dental facilities of the Armed Forces, and that it was to be carried out under Sir Edmund Compton. I can think of no better chairman than he; I spent three years under his tutelage on the Public Accounts Committee. We all know what an extremely able Whitehall civil servant he is. But to set up a committee is shelving the problem. This question has been widely discussed in Government circles, as anyone knows who has had anything to do with the Department of Health. I can reveal what the simple problem is in respect of the dental and medical facilities in the Armed Forces. It takes no great genius to do that. It is a matter of money—of pay and differentials.
  Lord Balniel Lord Balniel indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dalyell: If I am wrong, let me be told so in a letter, or in the Minister's winding-up speech—unless the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene now.
  Lord Balniel: I can think of many other factors that are involved. There is the relationship between the Armed Forces medical services and the National Health Service. There is the relationship within the Services themselves. Of course pay is a factor, and it will be considered. The point is that the committee under Sir Edmund Compton has a very wide remit, and will be able to consider all aspects—the relationship with the National Health Service, the structure of the organisations within the Services, and, no doubt, the points raised by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Dalyell: If I am wrong in thinking that this is a bogus committee I am glad, because something must be done about the problem.
  Of course there is the question of the relationship between the medical officers in the Armed Services and those in the National Health Service. The relationship is that, on the whole, those in the Armed Services are paid very much less than those in civilian practice. That is what I meant. There is a real problem here. People of equivalent rank in the medical military service would have to be paid substantially more than those in the teeth arms. That would lead to a good deal of friction. But there is no earthly chance of making up the manpower deficiencies among medical and dental officers unless there is this differential, and we had better face up to that fact. It is merely shelving the issue to set up a committee, however distinguished its chairman, and however hard working its members. It seems to me that this is one of those superficial committees that hon. Members opposite often complain about, often rightly in my view, as being unnecessary. We know what the problem is. The question is whether we have the will to face it and do something about it.
  As will appear from my questions to the Prime Minister, and those put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), some of us are concerned about precisely what the Government think they are up to by underwriting the British Armed Forces Gurkhas in Brunei. When the Prime

  939
  Minister goes to Australia—which I gather he will do this Christmas—I hope he will take time to talk to some Asian leaders to discover what they really think about propping up a régime in Brunei which, although not necessarily a dangerous one, is a bit of an anachronism in the modern world in South-East Asia.
  It may be true that no one will complain at Prime Ministerial level about British policy in Brunei. I accept from the right hon. Gentleman that no one has complained to him. That may be because the question has not been considered sufficiently at the moment. Nevertheless, I hope the Prime Minister will talk to people in South-East Asia. They do not want to fall out with Britain on this matter. The Indonesians do not want to have a row with us, but they think it rather odd that we should have done this—and that goes for many other Asians.
  The question is not serious, but it could become serious if there were internal trouble in Brunei—as there might well be—because one cannot conceive a situation in which the Gurkhas will not then be involved, especially as they are partly financed by the Sultan of Brunei. They remain under British command because the King of Nepal will not have it otherwise—probably rightly. There is a potential danger here. I hope that it does not flare up, but it would be a little unfortunate to have gratuitous trouble just because we have a policy that might seem all right on the surface but is very far from all right if considered under the surface.
  I want to raise finally a substantial issue of a kind that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West would like to see discussed in this debate. This is the whole philosophy of the subject of replacement. I do not understand precisely what the hon. Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) wanted when he talked in terms of a replacement for Polaris and Poseidon, but sooner or later in the strategic scenarios set up in the Ministry of Defence this question will be discussed, and discussed probably in depth.
  I should like to draw the attention of the Department and the Minister to the evidence given to a Senate sub-committee by George B. Kistiakowsky, President Eisenhower's science and military adviser,
  940
  when asked about a replacement for Polaris and Poseidon. He said that he was already "well insulated" against the possibility of being labelled an "uninformed pacifist radical". He went on to say that a new generation of missiles could be safely deferred and that there was no need to develop an anti-ballistic missile system, or bomber system, to succeed the B.52.
  On the Pentagon's proposal for an extensive new defence system against aircraft, Kistiakowsky observed that since Nixon himself had publicly conceded that a reliable anti-missile defence was impossible, it would be "preposterous" to spend billions on a defence against aircraft. He also expressed opposition to the Navy's plans for building a new fleet of submarines to replace the Polaris/ Poseidon fleet. The present boats, he noted, were virtually invulnerable. If a break-through in research should render them vulnerable, their successors would be no more secure, no matter how much had been expended on their design and construction. The Navy's desire to proceed, he testified,
  "could become another example of rushing into costly programs to react to an imaginary threat just because more advanced technology appears to be possible."
  This is a very important view as it is clearly indicated that Kistiakowsky is far from being one of the extreme left in the United States—he was the science and military adviser of Eisenhower. Here is a serious man saying that we have gone to the limit of military technology.
  In the light of what Rayner and others have published and what was said in the ill-attended debate just before the Recess, we should not embark on the next generation of extremely sophisticated weaponry, be it Polaris, Poseidon or some successor to the MRCA. Surely one has to recognise that a limit can be reached where just to have a new weapon for its own sake is unnecessarily expensive and not justified in defence terms. This is the point of view of those who recognise serious defence to be necessary. I hope that the Government will take heed of the evidence that Kistiakowsky and others have given to the Senate sub-committee.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Carol Mather: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the matter of defence secrets

  941
  and the need for hon. Members to know more of these matters and to be better informed. It is my impression that there is very little that one will not know if one looks for it. I am not suggesting that I have access to any more information than the hon. Member. There is a disadvantage if one is privy to secrets, for to begin with one cannot remember what is confidential and what is not and to some extent that muzzles one if one wants to speak on these matters.
  I want to discuss the most exacting rôle which British Forces have today, and that is the rôle in Northern Ireland. I visited a battalion there last month. To some extent we have become so used to facing this kind of situation in various countries that we tend to normalise it, but it is not a normal situation. As has been said by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), this is happening in the United Kingdom itself. It is a civil war in as much as it is an attack directed not against any particular community, but the State itself. About 14 months ago the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that we had as many troops involved in Northern Ireland as in the confrontation in North Borneo. The situation has not altered. At worst, the manpower problems posed are acute enough to imperil the whole of our defence strategy; at least they are a running sore and a constant drain on our resources.
  The situation has changed during the course of 1971 as compared with the two previous phases, the phase in 1969 when the whole business erupted and British Forces were called in, and the situation in 1970, which was a period of incipient terrorism and the stirring up of the civil populations. Now the situation has changed in that the tactics have switched to indiscriminate bombings culminating in the attack on the British Legion hall and the attack on the Springfield Road police station. Combined with these are the daylight gun attacks against military patrol vehicles, which have never occurred before, which means that the terrorists are coming more into the open.
  When I visited Northern Ireland last month there was a certain air of confidence, but I cannot honestly believe that one can say that the situation is improving. Any improvement which may be possible to detect starts from a very low
  942
  base line. From the air Belfast is a beautiful city with the mountains enclosing it and the city enclosing the bay, but looking down into it one sees the sand-table model and the parallel lines of the streets—grim lines of Clonard, Falls and Shankill Road—in which are sandwiched the Catholic and Protestant areas which are the flash points in this situation.
  One of the things about which the troops complain is the atmosphere of unreality over there, in that everything seems to be normal, with cups of tea and English voices, and the next moment the shooting starts. It is the very treachery of the situation which they find difficult to take.
  In the so-called "no-go" areas, the situation is not so unreal, with the boarded-up windows and the burnt-out vehicles and the unswept streets and the slogans on the walls. That immediately hits one in the face as a situation which is very much a reality. According to the Army the "no-go" areas have never been "no-go" but have always been patrolled, and the Army has never failed to go in, but one must say that in some areas the Army does not go looking for trouble and in some areas the police consider it unwise to go in unescorted. In the Falls Road area one sees the local peace lines with barbed wire entanglements reminding one of nothing so much as the Berlin Wall. Not only in the centre of the city but on the outskirts in Ballymurphy and New Barnsley the writ of law does not appear to run. One sees the I.R.A. slogans on the walls there and the local authorities find it difficult to enter the areas to sweep the streets, showing that these are I.R.A. strongholds.
  Across the road from the Ballymurphy area is the New Barnsley estate which was a Protestant estate and where there are 200 Catholic squatters who a month or two ago stoned the Protestant occupants of the houses and who are still in occupation. This shows that the thin line between law and anarchy in Belfast has been breached in this area.
  One reads of the I.R.A. marching in para-military uniforms and carrying illegal weapons at funerals and even firing fusilades of shot. The Army says that this is an extremely difficult situation to control because there are sometimes as many as 3,000 people in the streets. It only by occupying the ground in

  943
  advance, which has been done successfully on one or two occasions, that the situation can be controlled. But one needs at least a battalion for this kind of job and in order to be able to control such situations it is said that we would need double the number of troops we have there now.
  The marching season is upon us again. I understand that the number of marches has been reduced drastically by mutual agreement. But one of the main troubles with the marches is the lawless bands of youths who attach themselves to the tail end of a march and who are out for any kind of trouble and are the main flash point in this kind of situation.
  I had the opportunity to discuss the question of the powers, and especially the special powers of arrest, and internment. The Army pointed out that it has greater powers than were used in Cyprus, in that soldiers have the power to arrest and detain. Any question of bringing internment back would lead to those interned being made heroes of and also to the possibility of hostages being seized from our side.
  It is true that in the 1956–62 situation there was power of internment on both sides of the border, but this has not for various reasons been brought in on this occasion. The last Ulster troubles were somewhat easier to deal with in that a small number of large units of the I.R.A. were operating, whereas today there is a large number of small units which are difficult to trace and deal with. Nevertheless, dealing with the situation by due course of law, by arrest and proper trial, is a very slow and lengthy process. One can only compare it with trying to charge a tank with cavalry. It is a slow and cumbersome process. One has the situation where the terrorists are playing outside the rules and our security forces are playing within them.
  The police reorganisation has gone well and recruiting figures are up, but the main point here is that the police are not trained to deal with a situation of this kind. They are not being trained to take over the rôle of the Army when the time comes for the Army to leave, and it is essential to have some kind of organisation to take the Army's place when the time does come.
  944
  I spent a day with a battalion on security duties on the ground. Contrary to what has been said, the troops' morale was pretty high—I think for the reason that they were on operations and not actually engaged in training. But they lead a tough life. They are virtually on duty the whole time. They axe on call all day and during the night are patrolling and frequently do not turn in until 3 a.m.
  During the four months of their tour. with this tough life, they get six days' leave back with their families in Germany or in the United Kingdom, but for the soldiers who have not got families to go back to there are not enough facilities in Northern Ireland itself, and when they go to Bangor, the main leave centre, the same insecure situation exists and it is not really a proper holiday. One thing which has revolutionised the situation for the troops is the introduction of the riot gun with rubber bullets. This means that they can force people throwing petrol bombs to stand their distance, because these guns have a range of 15 to 30 yards. This has immensely improved the feeling of security of the troops.
  There has been speculation as to what extent alien interests have been involved. It is a clear threat against the State. The aim of the I.R.A. Provisionals is to overthrow the Government, whether in Stormont or in Dublin. The objective is to commit such acts which will soften up public opinion in this country so that in course of time the public will demand the return home of our troops. The I.R.A. statement when hostilities were ended on the last occasion in 1962 said that there was going to be
  "… a period of consolidation, of expansion and of preparation for the final and victorious struggle".
  That is the situation today. It was not clearly understood at the time that the civil rights movement was used as a front by the People's Democracy party, whose followers included participants in the student riots in Berlin and Paris. They were relying on Mao's theory of "internal contradictions" which it was their objective to exploit. These were considered to be the flash points in any society. The situation in Northern Ireland follows the classical revolutionary pattern through the various stages of exploitation of these contradictions and the setting of one community against the

  945
  other, finally ending in a situation of civil war.
  To summarise, a substantial proportion of the British Army is pinned down in Northern Ireland and the longer it remains and the more consolidated its position becomes the harder it will be for the police to take over. Neither the Royal Ulster Constabulary nor the Ulster Defence Regiment is trained to control the kind of riots that go on there at present. Nor was this envisaged by the Hunt Report. The Hunt reforms to a certain extent drew the teeth of the local security forces and also destroyed the local intelligence system. As I have said, whilst the security forces are playing by the rules, according to peacetime law, the terrorists are doing the reverse. There seems to be one law for the terrorists and another for the security forces. In this situation, I ask the Government to reconsider the respective rôles of the security forces involved—the police, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Army itself.
  7.17 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McManus: I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will forgive the hesitancy and awkwardness on my part because a recent enforced vacation, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would have wished to be much longer, has left me much out of practice. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Col. Colin Mitchell) has left the Chamber because I wanted to say a number of things to him. I wanted to say to him that I would prefer the obvious honesty of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) to the arrogance and cynicism expressed by him. I doubt whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any concept of human beings as individuals. He talked a great deal about out-terrorising the terrorists. It sounded to me a bit like sour grapes because his own adventure in that direction was apparently a failure.
  The hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather), like many other Englishmen, has failed abysmally to understand what it going on in Northern Ireland. Rarely have I heard such nonsense spelt out with such deliberation. But there are one or two points in his speech to which I must refer briefly. First, he mentioned Ballymurphy
  946
  and New Barnsley. He said that 200 Catholic families are squatting in New Barnsley and intimated that 200 Protestant families had been stoned out by the Catholics. That is rubbish. There are nothing like 200 Catholic families squatting there. There are a few—and they were burnt out of their homes in the Falls Road and sought accommodation in these houses. Several Protestant families left New Barnsley but they did not leave as a result of stoning, as anyone who knows the situation understands.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the civil rights movement had been used by the People's Democracy movement for serious anarchistic motives. Everyone knows that the People's Democracy movement never counted for a great deal in the civil rights movement. It brought to it probably the intellectual flair that it would otherwise have lacked, but nothing else. He talked of the civil rights movement being a front for the I.R.A. in some way. A great deal has been talked about the riots. I promised you, Mr. Speaker, to be as brief as possible, and it was not my intention to raise these aspects. But they have been raised, and, in fairness, they must be answered.
  The entry of the I.R.A. into the affairs of Northern Ireland was inevitable. The civil rights movement came to a standstill when a few paltry concessions were thrown by the Government. The old Unionist attitude of "This far, and not an inch further" reasserted itself, and the mass of support which the non-violent civil rights movement had was then confronted by a dilemma—"What shall we do?" The more moderate or the ordinary people asked themselves, "What are we to do? We have protested non-violently as long as we can." Many went home, but more determined spirits said, "Nothing is to be gained by continuing to talk to these people because their minds and hearts are closed." Consequently, the ground was prepared by the Unionist hard-liners for the entry of the I.R.A. into the affairs of Northern Ireland.
  The Minister spoke about the conditions of the Army in Northern Ireland and the problems which confront it. Those conditions are hard, but there is a simple remedy and he should be actively working on it. If the Army were removed from Northern Ireland, it would no longer have to suffer these conditions.

  947
  The Army's problems are undeniable. There are mainly two problems—those from bombing and shooting and those from riots. Indiscriminate bombing and shooting which endanger civil life must be condemned by any sane person, but the riots are a different matter.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McManus: No. I feel that I should not give way. I have not been here for a long time, and I think the hon. Gentleman should allow me to finish.
  Many of the rioters are ordinary men and women on both sides of the political divide defending their homes against damage or their wives and families against abuse. Many of the riots—and it will be unpopular to say so in this House—are provoked by the British Army. The British Army, as the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West would have us know, is trained to fight and is spoiling for a fight. In Belfast there is no fight available, so it goes out, not on all occasions but certainly on a great number of occasions, to provoke a row. To a certain extent I cannot blame the soldiers. They have been sent in as fighting men to impose a political solution, and I can appreciate how frustrated they are.
  I want to deal with the proposal to establish a new force within the U.D.R. I must impress upon the Minister and the House that this is the most disastrous move made by this or any other British Government for a long time. First of all, there was the method of announcement—a leak to the Press which opened the door on rumour which went wild—and, secondly, the confident predictions some days beforehand of the notorious hardliner Mr. Craig which made it evident that he knew in advance of this plan.
  I am appalled at the notion that a self-confessed Unionist hard-liner who, by his own admission nourishes notions of U.D.I, should have advance knowledge of Government planning. Let me impress on the Minister as deeply as I can the horror with which the minority regards this proposal. I have moved about and I know for a fact that the vast majority of the minority share my view that this is the resurrection of the "B" men under
  948
  another name. For 50 years the minority walked about in dread——
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present when my hon. and noble Friend made an announcement about the matter. He stressed that there was no definite proposal, that it was merely one being considered, and that if it was decided to set up such a battalion, legislation would have to be placed before the House. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is rather running ahead of himself.
  Mr. McManus: I do not think it is anything of the kind. The same sort of smoke-screen was thrown out at the time of the conception of the U.D.R. We were given this, that and the other reason. When the "B" men went we breathed a sigh of relief! After two years of demands from the Right wing for the return of the "B" men and after two years of refusal by the British Government, we now have a proposal to set up a full-time unit within the U.D.R. which it is admitted by commentators, and by an hon. Member opposite in a radio interview the other day, would be predominantly Unionist and Protestant. What is the minority to do?
  Small wonder that it fears the return of the "B" Specials and that it has lost faith in the British Government, small wonder that it fears that the British Government are giving in to the demands of the Right wing of the Unionist Party, spearheaded by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, and small wonder that many have voiced the fear that the British Government are now conspiring with the Unionist Government to take back by force of Protestant arms the little gained by non-violent protests.
  What, I ask the House and myself, are the British Government trying to do? Are they trying to escalate their age-old strategy of divide and conquer? Are they attempting to set up a native Army to subdue one section of the community, to encourage Irishmen to get even more savagely at Irishmen's throats? I appeal to the Minister and those responsible not to do this damnable thing but to think again. If they judge that more troops are needed to maintain a system which it has been shown is unworkable in Northern Ireland—British-held territory—let them use British troops but do not

  949
  let them perpetuate the divisions between Irishmen and put further away the day when a solution can be achieved to our problems.
  If the Minister and the Government really want to improve the conditions of the Army in Northern Ireland, and generally, they should be actively considering ways and means by which the days can be brought nearer when not one British soldier will be necessary to keep the peace in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, he has said in this House that bombers and killers were to be condemned, but before his own constituents the other day he said that he could not find it in his heart to condemn violence. Which does he mean?
  Mr. McManus: What the hon. Member refers to is true. At a Press conference I gave a longish explanation, something similar to what I had said in this House, about the emergence of violence and how, because civil rights demands were not met, many had resorted to violence. I pointed out that many of the riots were caused by people defending their homes or families against abuse or damage. That is the sort of thing I had in mind, and those were the sort of people. I could not now, and never will find it in my heart to condemn any man who defends his home against a real or imagined enemy on either the Unionist or the anti-Unionist side of the fence in Belfast or elsewhere. He cannot be condemned because he is merely doing his duty to himself.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Rafton Pounder: I had no intention of participating in the debate until about two hours ago, when I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). With great respect to him, he was not and could not be regarded as speaking as an ordinary back bencher but as a former senior Minister in the last Administration, in the Ministry of Defence. It was with considerable anxiety that I listened to the hon. Gentleman and to his arguments, all the more so as he opened his speech by saying that Northern Ireland was a sensitive subject. I regret to say that his speech showed considerable insensitivity. He is not
  950
  present and I propose to go no further in referring to his speech because it would be unfair to do so. I had no idea I would be called and I did not wish to write to him and give him notice in case I was keeping him unnecessarily.
  As for the speech we have just heard by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), I leave the House to judge his words, the more so in the light of the intervention of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). It really is absurd for anyone to talk about Northern Ireland, and I quote from his speech, as "British-held territory", when it is the will of the vast majority of the people of that part of the United Kingdom, a will repeatedly expressed at every election over the last 50 years, that they shall be part of the United Kingdom. To talk as though it was some territory which was being held down by force of arms, be they civil arms in the sense of police or military, in the sense of the Army, is quite absurd. As for talking about the Army spoiling for a fight—that is one of the most disgusting and foundationless smears I have ever heard.
  May I turn now to the subject of the Ulster Defence Regiment and make some reference to the Army in Northern Ireland. I make no secret of the fact that I was the hon. Member to whom the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone was referring when he spoke of a radio interview. He had the advantage of hearing it. I did not and therefore do not know how much was kept in and how much was cut out. What he attributed to me is true. It is reasonable to assume that any force will reflect, broadly, the breakdown of the population as a whole and in Northern Ireland that is roughly two-thirds to one-third.
  I certainly welcome the idea of a full-time battalion attached to the U.D.R. I do so for a variety of reasons which I hope briefly to enumerate. The U.D.R., as it exists, varies in its effectiveness from area to area. I do not want to single names or battalion numbers at either end of the spectrum but my experience has been that some units have appeared, for whatever reason, to be more efficient and effective than others. It could be that they are up to strength and others are not. I do not know. This is the impression I have got. As things stand

  951
  and bearing in mind the total number of soldiers in the British Army, and the percentage in Northern Ireland, soldiers cannot stay on the streets of Northern Ireland indefinitely.
  One point that was forcibly impressed on me when I had the good fortune to visit the British Army in Germany recently was that highly-trained specialist units are being sent to Northern Ireland in an infantry rôle. I am no soldier but that strikes me as being less than the maximum effective use of soldiers. Although it may be a long time before it can be carried out, we ought to plan for the time when the soldiers in Northern Ireland are reduced to garrison strength.
  We cannot have a situation where one day we have a full-armed professional army handing over to an unarmed Royal Ulster Constabulary. There must be an interregnum, there must be a security force in the country, run on military lines, as the U.D.R. would be, but drawn from perhaps less highly-trained persons than would be found in the Regular Army. I therefore entirely agree with the observations made on this point by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell.)
  One point impressed on me over the last two years by senior officers in Northern Ireland has been that static guard duty is immensely consuming in manpower terms. This is something which is undertaken by the U.D.R. and which obviously could be undertaken by the new battalion if it became a reality.
  There is a tendency among certain employers in Northern Ireland to be less than helpful towards some employees who wish to serve in the U.D.R. This may be a factor in some of the resignations from the regiment that have occurred recently. It seems a little unreasonable for employers to take this attitude towards members of the U.D.R. when a different attitude is taken to those who belong to the Territorial Army.
  The hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to those in Northern Ireland who are anxious about security. I am with him 100 per cent. on this anxiety. There are many people in Northern Ireland, moderate law-abiding and reasonable
  952
  citizens who are profoundly concerned about security. It is this danger, that people may lose faith in the efficacy of the security forces, which is one of the greatest dangers we may face.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) referred to the lack of local intelligence. We know that it takes a considerable time for an effective intelligence network to be built up. I do not wish to stray too far from the confines of the debate, but one of the reasons why the intelligence network was dislocated and has therefore to be built up again, was the disbandment of the Ulster Special Constabulary which meant the loss of an extremely effective local intelligence force. It will obviously take time to build that up again, through the Army intelligence services. The lack of Army intelligence is more than a little serious.
  Lest it be thought that I have my priorities wrong let me without further ado say that I and everyone with whom I deal, have nothing but the highest praise for the conduct of the Army in Northern Ireland. It is doing a difficult, if not almost impossible, job. It is having to work long hours and the men are separated from their families for a considerable time. This makes for a very hard four months for the soldiers in Northern Ireland and they deserve, despite some of the sneers and sniping which come from various politically-motivated opponents, the appreciation of all right-thinking and decent people in Northern Ireland. Let there be no mistake on that score.
  Another matter which I find a little disturbing when talking in terms of the Ulster Defence Regiment, or more particularly thinking aloud on the subject of the possible new battalion, is the efficacy of the force rather than holding back merely because one is seeking to achieve a particular balance. We obviously want to achieve a balance between the communities in the Regiment. However, it would be unfortunate to hold up the efficacy and the training and such-like—"mobilisation", if that is the right word—of a defence regiment unit because the balance may not be exactly what we wish.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman was present during the long debates on the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. He will therefore know

  953
  that it was the firm view of the then Government, with the agreement of the then Opposition Front Bench, now the Government, that it was essential to delay the building up of this force to have a properly balanced force. I hope that he is not irresponsible enough to wish to go back on that piece of political machinery.
  Mr. Pounder: I do not wish to go back upon that. This was and still is the idea, but we have at some stage to say: even if the balance is not practicable, do we hold back the formation and utilisation of the force?
  In the 18 months which have elapsed since we last discussed the matter in detail, the situation has changed. Many people were envisaging a three-year Army commitment. That period is now unrealistic. Now we are talking of a considerably longer period.
  There is also a slightly altered pattern of disturbance. The emphasis has shifted from street demonstrations and rioting to the terrorist bomb attacks on private individuals, public officers, police stations, army personnel, and so on. I hope that I am not consciously going back on the unanimous belief in the House at that time. Nevertheless, the circumstances have changed. Can we really go on asking the Army to shoulder this burden without endeavouring to create some force which, although it can only be used for static guard duty and patrols, could at some future date act as an important adjunct to the security forces at a time when the Army is phasing out and the civilian police are taking over to a greater extent? I hope that I am not going back on the belief at that time. I merely hope that I am up-dating it to the situation as it exists.
  One cause for anxiety—this has been said frequently by my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland in previous debates—is that very tough statements are made from time to time by senior Army officers saying that if such-and-such happens they will do such-and-such or will reserve the right to do such-and-such. Then, soon afterwards, such a circumstance arises and the Army does not retaliate in the manner which it had led the general public to believe. This has a weakening effect on public confidence at a time when it is vital that public confidence be shored
  954
  up completely behind the Army and the security forces. I could list the occasions on which this has happened. However, there is no profit in raking over quotations and subsequent facts.
  The Army must win virtually every confrontation. A draw simply is not enough. Unless the Army can visibly be seen to be winning each and every round the likelihood of a long and tiresome process of attrition will go on and a substantial Army commitment will remain in Northern Ireland at a time when the Army as a whole could not be said to be overmanned.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Brynmor John: It is inevitable, from the way that the debate has proceeded, that every speaker will comment on Northern Ireland. This is right in the sense that it is a problem of the most appalling magnitude. But I confess straight away that I have been chilled this afternoon to hear the contributions of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut-Col. Colin Mitchell). I had thought that there was a reasonable amount of bipartisan approach to this matter. However, when the hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of his only solution being to out-terrorise the terrorists, it made my blood run cold.
  Can any hon. Member say with a clear conscience that the balance with the minority people in Northern Ireland in the past has been so impeccable and just that no grievances can arise? If grievances emerge and exist, then we must remove them, or no amount of out-terrorisation of terrorisls will have any deterrent effect. It is no use the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West putting forward the theory of world anarchy and being so vague. One of the worst features about this was the murmur of support which he received from hon. Members opposite. We have to look at the reasons which cause people to rebel, not merely at the rebellion itself.
  I appreciate the sincerity of the hon. Member for Belfast, South. I think that he was trying to put the position as he saw it. However, it underlines how little understanding there is of the apprehension which something like the Ulster Defence Regiment on a permanent basis

  955
  causes amongst the minority people in Northern Ireland. It is not good enough to say that we must hand over to a force between the Army and the police. The one constant factor which we must have at all three levels, assuming the intermediate tier to be necessary, is the confidence of all the people of Northern Ireland in those forces to keep order impartially and justly. I do not agree with many of the things which have been said by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, but it is patently clear that the minority people for whom they speak would not trust such a body on a permanent basis because it would lead to that same domination by the Protestant majority and the fears of oppression of the Catholic minority. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] I believe that the onlooker often sees more than the player. Many hon. Members are finding it increasingly difficult to tolerate the prejudice of hon. Members on both sides who cannot see any reason other than their own justification.
  I now turn to the more general subject of the debate—defence. The Minister, in reply to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris), said that unemployment was not proved a causal factor in recruitment. If that is right, then we must recognise that there is only a certain fraction of the population which is attracted towards Service life whom we can hope to attract into the Services.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West mentioned the appeal of patriotism. I commend him to consider the Report of the Estimates Committee and the work that it did on the recruitment of Forces. In the evidence given on behalf of the Navy it was pointed out that it was recognised that this appeal is a diminishing factor. Obviously it is a factor which attracts insufficient people because there is always a shortfall of recruits. We must therefore direct our minds to considering what other factors will bring the forces up to the adequate level that we need. If only a small fraction of people is attracted to Service life, we must try to maximise recruitment among that fraction.
  It is said that attraction to Service life is one-Service motivation—in other words, a person is attracted to the Royal Air
  956
  Force, Royal Navy or the Army as an ideal and no alternative Service attracts him. It is time that we directed some of our effort towards people who may not be able to fit in to the Service of their choice and tried to attract them to another Service. It is wrong that there should be enough recruits in a particular trade in one Service and yet an insufficient number in the same trade in another Service.
  I know that the Service careers information officers liaise as much as possible to ensure that no possible recruit is lost. But in many cases the information services of each Service are dispersed round a town. Some time ago I asked a Question about how many careers information officers were shared by the three Services. The answer was that out of 302 only two are tri-Service offices. This is a source of wastage of potential recruits which we cannot afford.
  Having obtained the recruits, we must retain them. The Minister of State omitted to mention this crucial fact. He spoke, rightly, about the difficulties of recruitment, but we must also consider the question of retaining recruits once they have been attracted to the Forces. At a time when manpower questions are crucial in the Armed Forces wastage rates—the number of recruits who drop out during or at the completion of their basic training—are far too high. The situation is best in the Royal Air Force. In the Army 20 per cent. of adult recruits leave after their initial basic training. In the Navy, 23 per cent. of adult recruits leave. In the Royal Marines the wastage rates are staggering—25 per cent. among junior recruits and 35 per cent. among adult recruits.
  It is time that we considered this matter. Having attracted people to the Forces, the net figures for retention should be increased. It is no good saying that we are attracting 10,000 recruits if wastage rates are so high. The Minister of State will recall writing to me on this subject on 5th April. I ask him to bear in mind that consideration about how to reduce wastage of recruits to the Forces should be given priority.
  I do not pretend to have the solution or infallible knowledge, but there are three factors which could diminish the wastage rates which the Minister might consider. The first concerns central

  957
  selection centres. The Army has two and will have two more in the foreseeable future. The R.A.F. has one. The Royal Navy has none. In the evidence given to the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee on behalf of the Army, it was said that the wastage rates from such central selection centres had diminished quite remarkably. This suggests that more of them in the Army and the Royal Air Force and their introduction to the Royal Navy might be beneficial in retaining more recruits.
  Secondly, we must discover in far more detail than we appear to want to discover why people leave the Forces after basic training. I know that some are inadequate and prove utterly incapable of training. Some leave because they find that Service life does not please them. That is not always the fault of the individual. In some cases it is the fault of the Services. This is wastage which action on our part might prevent.
  Thirdly, the Minister should act to avoid such minor irritations as the problem of unpaid leave. In evidence to Sub-Committee C of the Estimates Committee, the following information was given by Colonel Sewell on behalf of the Army. He said:
  "What we try to do, although this is not always possible, is to enlist him"—
  that is, the recruit—
  "and send him on unpaid leave for a week or a fortnight."
  He was questioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and others. Sir Eric Errington, who was the Chairman, said:
  "Why is it unpaid leave?"
  Colonel Sewell replied:
  "This is because he is not doing anything for the Army at the time."
  The Chairman said:
  "He is; he is waiting about?"
  The colonel said:
  "I agree."
  He pointed out that if the rules could be altered it would be greatly appreciated by the forces. That evidence appears on page 70 of the report of evidence.
  I agree that this is not a vast problem on a global scale, but it is the sort of
  958
  minor irritation which can dissuade people from entering the forces when basically they are well disposed towards them. It is the sort of minor irritation which we cannot afford, bearing in mind the recruitment position.
  I welcome the Minister's announcement today of the independent Committee. On a previous occasion, I raised the problem of the shortfall in doctors. I very much welcome the fact that the Committee will look into this matter. This underlines the need for the body which the Opposition proposed on a previous occasion, namely, a Select Committee on recruitment which could keep matters of this kind under review. Can the Minister recruit from the Commonwealth, particularly from the coloured Commonwealth, doctors for the Armed Forces, especially as the postgraduate training given in the forces is excellent?
  It is not only in the medical and dental branch of the forces that there has been a considerable shortfall. In previous years the engineering branches have been very short of recruits. I should like the Minister to deal with this problem when he replies to the debate. What is the shortfall this year? Is it reducing, or is this an accelerating problem? If it is an accelerating problem, the Minister will need to deal with it.
  I was glad to note that the negotiations on Exocet appear to have been completed. The Minister did not mention this weapon in his speech today, but I was able to glean from the television news last week that a firm commitment has been entered into by the Government to purchase it from the French Government. If that is so, since the House seems invariably to be the last to know about these things, perhaps the Minister will repair the omission and tell us when it is expected to come into service, whether it is delayed beyond its initial estimated time of supply and whether, as was reported by the defence correspondents of The Guardian, the costs of the weapon have escalated since its inception.
  It is right that right hon. and hon. Members should pay tribute to the Armed Forces. I join in that praise. But the function of the House on an occasion like this is to highlight those areas in which improvements can be made. I hope that the Minister will take my points in that spirit.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Stokes: I welcome the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in widening the scope of the debate and considering defence as a whole, not merely in the context of Northern Ireland. Hearing so often from Scottish, Welsh and Irish Members, I sometimes wish that we had home rule for England.
  The hon. Member quoted from some document, saying that patriotism is a diminishing factor today. If that is so, surely it rests with every hon. Member to do all he can to rectify that deplorable situation——
  Mr. John: That was not my point. The point is that we must recognise the realities—that not enough people are being recruited in this way and that, therefore, there are insufficient career structure and incentives to attract the forces in the numbers we want.
  Mr. Stokes: I follow the hon. Member.
  My hon. Friend the Minister referred in his speech to the human side of defence; we in this House seldom have the opportunity to dwell on that most important aspect. I am glad, therefore, to mention this now and to take this opportunity to pay a general tribute to the three Armed Services.
  I sometimes wonder whether people realise how much we all owe to the Forces. In an age like ours, when standards almost everywhere are declining, the Forces have maintained theirs, and to a remarkable degree. At a time when selfishness and self-interest are only too apparent in all walks of life, the Forces do their sometimes unpleasant and dangerous duty in a cheerful and willing way, which is an example to those of us in other occupations.
  When discipline is under attack in almost every institution in our society, the Forces still maintain superb discipline and order, often under severe provocation. The Forces also, while maintaining the finest traditions of their respective corps, have also coped fully with the best modern trends in man management, communications, organisation, public relations, training and so on which could put many commercial and industrial concerns to shame by comparison. Indeed, it is
  960
  significant that industry has now started to send some of its most promising executives to the staff college courses run by the Services.
  I hope that the country will not place too great a strain on the human resources of the Forces. When one hears of artillery regiments being used as infantry—as I believe has been the case in a certain area—one realises how near we must have come to scraping the barrel. I feel that our reserves must be severely stretched, and barely adequate, for the many emergencies they may be called upon to undertake.
  With the virtual elimination of the Civil Defence Corps by the late Government, the Armed Forces are now the only body available in a civil emergency or disaster which can assist the much smaller number of police, fire and ambulance personnel available. I hope that the Government will never boast of saving money over defence. I believe, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall), who spoke with such effect earlier, that our present-day defences are barely adequate, and that there are unfortunately serious shortages, not only of weapons being developed but of present weapons as well. Apart from the numerous peace-keeping actions in which the Forces are constantly involved all over the world, year in, year out, we must not reduce our commitment to N.A.T.O. or drop our guard over Berlin, particularly in view of the possibility—whatever President Nixon may say—of the United States, in the future, reducing its forces in Europe.
  Nor should we forget, nearer home, the relentless task facing our intelligence and security services in coping with massive attempts at subversion in this country, subversion which never stops, which goes on day and night, which is far greater than most people believe, in an attempt to permeate all the vital functions in this country, and ultimately to destroy our nation by causing the maximum dislocation and havoc. I hope we can have some reassurance from the Under-Secretary on this vital matter when he sums up.
  Never before have the Services offered such excellent conditions to attract young men and women of the right calibre, who wish to serve their Queen and country in a life full of interest and adventure. I still believe that the desire to serve Queen

  961
  and country is paramount. Judging from the calibre of men now retiring from the Services, whom I see every day in the course of my business, I can only conclude that the initial selection has been excellent and that a good record in the Armed Forces is a first-rate recommendation for a sound job in civilian life.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: In this debate some hard things have been said about the situation in Northern Ireland. Before saying a word or two about that, I should like to hark back to a theme mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell). It seemed to me that this was a theme of hope for the future which we might dwell upon in this debate. It was the concept that the Armed Forces are there not merely as a bastion of our security—that has been made clear from the contributions made in the debate—but as a force to ensure in various disaster areas in the world that some help can be given by a disciplined body in a position to render it.
  This is a vital rôle. It is such a vital rôle, which the Armed Services alone can fulfil, that consideration should be given as to whether the Ministry of Defence should not be renamed. I know that changes of name may not mean changes of substance, and I would not want a change of name until the change of substance could come, but if I have gauged rightly the tempo of this debate there is a strong desire that the change of substance should come.
  The change of substance would be that the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces would be there not merely to ensure security, although that is their primary rôle. They would be there also as an arm of rescue to help people and communities in distress. The Armed Services have always done that, but I would like that rôle to be given full recognition. To do this simply in a name would pinpoint the idea—that the Ministry of Defence should make itself into a Ministry of Defence and Rescue. No doubt there could be other names, but that covers the substance of the point.
  This is closely linked up with the concept of recruitment. Recruitment among young people in this country at present is more likely to be successful if
  962
  they can see that they are not only entering the security services but can play some rôle of assisting the community in ordinary peacetime activities. If the Armed Forces concentrated on this in their advertising for recruits, I am sure that recruiting would be improved. I welcome the Government's statement that recruiting is up. However, the Armed Forces could, by the means I have suggested, tap a new form of recruitment.
  I also welcome the Government's announcement of the committee which is to look into the shortfall of medical and dental personnel in the Armed Forces. I welcome this in the vein in which I have been speaking, namely, that if the Ministry of Defence is to become a Ministry of Defence and Rescue and have a wider civil rôle—a rôle officially recognised and enshrined in its activities—the Services' medical side will have the widest part to play in the fullest sense, because disasters of a civil kind invariably require medical assistance, from the cholera outbreak in India and Pakistan to the hurricane disaster and the war in Nigeria. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will accept that this is to be a substantial committee which will be concerned with one of the most important aspects of the Services in both peace and war.
  We should not forget that the Armed Services are not simply armed. They are providing services, and this must be particularly borne in mind if we are to present the Services to the public in this new light for the remainder of this century and in the years after. We must consider in a realistic way the functions which the Forces are called on to fulfil in various parts of the world.
  This brings me to the functions which they are called on to fulfil nearer home, in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) spoke with sincerity on this issue and said that it was essential for the community in Northern Ireland to have faith in the security forces. This must be an essential first step if we are to achieve lasting security, but one should not hide behind it and fail to take the long-term steps which must be associated with that first step. For example, one should never shelter behind the dangerous task of keeping security in Northern Ireland and by so doing avoid the responsibility of

  963
  reforming the state of the community in Northern Ireland.
  As a Scottish hon. Member, I view with horror what is happening in Northern Ireland. If there is anything positive that I can do to help I would like to do it, but as far as I am aware, some citizens of that country do not enjoy the same rights as the citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom. Until we can put our hands on our hearts and say honestly and truthfully that Northern Ireland citizens enjoy the same rights in substance if not in detail as other citizens of Great Britain, we are asking the security forces to perform an impossible task.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a sincere and thoughtful speech and I do not want to be acrimonious. As one who has played some part in fighting to bring changes about in recent years to improve community relations in Northern Ireland, I must ask him what further changes he sees that could be made legislatively and that would do anything to improve community relations in that country. I accept that a great deal could be achieved by bringing about changes of heart and mind. What legislative changes does he have in mind?
  Mr. Murray: I do not with to enter a debate on the detail of the matter. I simply submit that until the time comes—the hon. Gentleman will not maintain that that time has come—when we can put our hands on our hearts and say that the rights of the Northern Ireland community are substantially the same as those of the rest of the United Kingdom, we must beware of sheltering too much behind the security forces.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South went on to mention the faith that people had in the security forces. He should have mentioned, too, faith in the possibility of genuine democracy being achieved in Northern Ireland—that is, the effective working out of the legislative reforms which admittedly have been going through the Northern Ireland Parliament in recent months.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: I urge the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept that if he is making this sort of point—when he
  964
  is talking about people putting their hands on their hearts and admitting certain things and wants the time to come when people enjoy the same rights in the community in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom—he must say what further rights he wants implemented legislatively. That is the difficulty today. Is he aware that it is not simply a question of legislation? In my view, all that could be done by legislation has been done. We should now be saying that to the world and convincing those who have been misled by propaganda into believing otherwise. They should be told the truth. They should be told what has been done and that, in democratic terms, democracy is in some ways even further advanced in Northern Ireland now than it is in England.
  Mr. Murray: I do not wish to be drawn into a deep discussion of this issue, partly for the reason the hon. Gentleman gave. I do not wish to take part in an internal debate on how far things have gone in Northern Ireland. I said that I accepted that some essential reforms have gone through the Northern Ireland Parliament in recent months. I have not the slightest doubt that Northern Ireland is a very different place compared with some of the criticisms that could have been made three or four years ago. I do not want to sling mud, but it is obvious that changes must take place.
  Perhaps I could best explain what I have in mind by giving two clear illustrations. First, until local government in Northern Ireland is entirely on an elected basis one cannot say that Northern Ireland is on a par with the United Kingdom generally; and I can think of at least one part of Northern Ireland in which local government in the sense that we understand it does not exist.
  Secondly, if one has faith in the process of democracy and if this is a genuine faith which one expects the people of Northern Ireland to accept, one must be prepared to say openly that one will accept what the people there will vote to do democratically, wherever that vote leads. I do not know if the two communities there are prepared to accept this as common ground, but I suggest that having faith in the process of democracy means that if the people of Northern Ireland were to vote democratically for a

  965
  closer link with Eire, that should happen. On the other hand, if they were to vote for a closer link with Britain, that should happen. Until that state of affairs comes about and until it is recognised on all sides that one must follow the democratic vote of the people, wherever it leads, one cannot accept that a satisfactory state of affairs has been reached in Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman accept those two criteria?
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: They are criteria which already exist. There is one part of Northern Ireland in which there is a commission operating in local government, accepted by most of the parties concerned there at the moment. Everybody knows that there will be local government elections in 1972. Everybody also knows that there will be universal franchise in those local government elections. When the hon. and learned Gentleman talks about a democratic vote for perhaps a closer link with the Republic——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. This is going beyond the terms of the debate, which is concerned with the Armed Forces. I hope that hon. Members will restrict their remarks to the subject under discussion.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: I will conclude what I was saying and then the point will have been answered and justice will have been done on both sides. In countless elections held on universal franchise the people of Northern Ireland have voted for closer links with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Murray: I do not mean to take any more time on Northern Ireland, except to make one final comment. The rôle of our Armed Forces in Northern Ireland is accepted on both sides of the House as being a difficult and crucial rôle and it is one in which the Armed Forces should be conceived as playing only a temporary part. This should be part of a rescue operation in which the Armed Forces deal with a crisis which should strictly be regarded as of limited duration. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) mentioned 1972, and I hope we can look forward to 1972 as being the latest date by which these security arrangements come to an end.
  966
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the S.A.L.T. negotiations which have been going on for a considerable time in Helsinki without visible result. I should perhaps mention in this context the parallel negotiations which have been going on with a view to outlawing certain kinds of chemical and bacteriological warfare. The Army, the Navy and the Royal Air Force today have a responsibility for ensuring our security, and a heavier responsibility than their predecessors with the massive armoury of nuclear weapons and the possibility of genocidal weapons, of a bacteriological or chemical type. The responsibility of the commander and the ordinary soldier in the field has been highlighted by the trials and complaints in the United States about massacres in Vietnam. Our officers and men in the Armed Forces are faced with the problem of what to do when they are given a command which seems to them to be unlawful or may conceivably be unlawful. We in this House who have responsibility for the Armed Forces should consider whether we do not owe our young people whom we recruit to our Armed Forces a great deal more assistance than we are prepared to give them.
  Nuclear weapons of mass destruction are genocidal and against the Geneva Convention of 1948. Bacteriological weapons and chemical weapons are illegal in terms of the Geneva Convention of 1925. While we are living in the uneasy balance of nuclear power, with the two nuclear giants, the Soviet Union and the United States of America, and the United Kingdom taking a small part in this nuclear balance, we owe it to our young people and to our citizens who may be involved in various aspects of hostilities to try to convince the world that weapons of this sort are illegal, immoral and not to be tolerated.
  I know it will be said that we must maintain the uneasy balance under which the peace of the world has existed since nuclear weapons were first used in 1949. While the substantial security of the world must depend on such a nuclear balance, at the same time, if we are to carry the good will and sincerity of our young people, we must do all we can in international forums to ensure that these weapons are genuinely illegal and that the

  967
  international postures taken up in negotiations such as S.A.L.T. are not merely strategic but are paralleled by a genuine effort to get rid of these weapons of mass destruction.
  I suggest that the Government might have the courage to do what no other Government have done in this country, although the Governments of Sweden and Canada have made efforts to get this matter raised at the United Nations, and that is to raise in the United Nations the question of legality of these weapons, and to take effective steps in the international forum to have them outlawed. It is a simple step. No one pretends that it will by itself increase the security of the world, but it will be an earnest of the sincerity of this country in seeking security not merely by weapons but by moral defences also.
  8.25 p.m.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) said that he would welcome the independence of England from the Celtic countries of Ireland, Wales and Scotland. I think he was provoked into that statement by the interventions of the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) and Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and I can well understand his view. We have had two thoughtful speeches from Wales and Scotland from the benches opposite, and I am grateful for the contribution which they made. It is hard to get a good debate going in defence matters, and their contributions have helped.
  The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) spoke of the importance of bridge building, maintaining understanding between communities and reducing suspicion, bitterness and hatred. This was a most laudatory intervention, praising the British Armed Forces, and was in marked contrast to what was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, who made a statement which, in my 11½ months in the House of Commons, is the most shocking I have heard. He said that he could not condone the use of terrorism or indiscriminate bombing when it affected civil life. Implicitly he did not condemn terrorism and bombing which caused the death of
  968
  British soldiers who are keeping the peace.
  To get away from Ulster, in my short contribution I shall dwell mainly on the manpower aspects of defence. The two-day defence debate is the right forum for strategy. The three single Service days are for an examination of the budget and hardware and procurement policies. This extra day gives the opportunity to discuss the manpower aspects of our defence strategy.
  My noble Friend in his admirable introduction spoke first of the Lisbon meeting of the N.A.T.O. Foreign Ministers. I welcome the contribution there of the Foreign Secretary, whose speech was in marked contrast to that of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), who typically waxed eulogistic about détente. I understand the inspiration that leads him in that direction particularly as he has come hot-foot from social democratic contacts in West Germany. I was also impressed by the part of his speech in which he stressed the importance of equality of security. This I am sure is the framework which we should try to achieve in our defence policies in Europe.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, East also said that we should not erect any pre-condition on the Berlin issue. He did not spell out the pre-condition for what, but implicit was the assumption of a Berlin settlement not being a pre-condition for any settlement either of mutual and balanced force reductions or strategic arms limitation or of Ostpolitik and de jure as opposed to de facto recognition of the status quo in Eastern Europe. This is a most dangerous doctrine, and I hope my noble Friend took note of this nuance in the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  It is time, a whole generation after the Second World War, for a new initiative to be taken in defence planning. Continuity in defence has great virtues, and this is the main virtue of the Government's policy. There is nothing so upsetting to the Service man as perpetual uncertainty and not knowing what is to happen next in terms of policy. I remember in my own short period as a Service man being totally frustrated at not knowing, for example, whether my

  969
  own Service, the R.A.F., was to have the TSR2, the F111 or the AFVG, whether we were going east of Suez or west of Suez or whether we were to be confined to a totally Eurocentric policy. So it is a most important step forward that we should have laid down the clear strategy under which we are working.
  We can break down the whole generation of post-war British defence planning. First, we had the cold war era, based on traditional hot war ethos plus the concomitant of conscription, which enabled us to carry out successfully the Berlin airlift, to fight in Korea, to meet the emergency in Malaya and to quell the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya, but which foundered over Suez. Then came the great hiatus, the great change in emphasis in the 13 years of the previous Conservative Administration, with the Sandys White Paper of 1957 which changed our posture. We then had imperial—if I may say so—responsibilities without the political will, the economic strength or, above all, a defence policy in terms of manpower to make it credible.
  This led inevitably to the period of the former Administration, which was a period of severe over-stretch. We had in the seven-year period before that been able to carry out the Kuwait operation, do peacekeeping in South Arabia, quell mutinies in East Africa and, above all, reach the apogee of the concept of minimum force in Borneo over confrontation, but thereafter, and particularly during that operation, came over-stretch. But when further economic difficulties and devaluation were superimposed a whole series of precipitate policy changes were forced on the Government, which the then Secretary of State tried to justify as being the latest word in forward thinking in defence. It was nothing of the sort. It was short-term expediency and reaction to events.
  Now we must take new initiatives, and in manpower planning the first thing I emphasise is that we should continue the process of relying increasingly upon short service engagements. My noble Friend has told us earlier how well we are doing in recruiting. He said, in particular, that recruiting of other ranks was going well, as was recruiting for commissioned service in the Royal Navy. I am glad of the larger commissioned entry in the Royal
  970
  Navy, because this was a point of considerable anxiety for many years past. But, as the White Paper itself made quite clear, it is the short service engagement that is doing best of all, while the scheme for short service engagement linked with industry is also going well.
  We should continue this process further. In other words, if we over-rely upon the long service engagement I believe that we do not create the proper career structure for the real high flyers, the people of real ability who want to get to the top in the Armed Services and have responsibility at an early age. That is the main argument for the short service engagement. It is not only that it will increase the area of contact, between the civil community and the Services, but that it provides a better career structure for the Armed Services themselves.
  But I do not think that we can have a policy of relying more upon short service engagements without a commensurate expansion of the reserves, because it is reasonable and right, and, as it were, a rider to this, that short service engagements should be accompanied by a reserve commitment. My noble Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Minister of State have announced most admirable increases in our reserve forces in particular the 10,000 increase in the Territorial Army which will enable us to carry out our policy of flexible response and provide a better conventional capacity within N.A.T.O. This is quite right, fitting, proper and wholly in line with the Government's manifesto pledges.
  On the naval side, too, there has been the announcement of an increase in the special reserve category for the Fleet, and a small augmentation to the Royal Marine Reserve. Here I point to that part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in which he echoed the words used on an earlier occasion by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), when she was stressing the value of coastal forces. It is well known, and I have said it before, that there are some 11 Royal Navy Reserve divisions around the country, geographically well located, with a good spread for recruiting which do a jolly good job. They provide a valuable mine-sweeping addition to the Fleet, but if we look at coastal forces and realise the full implications of the

  971
  surface-to-surface weaponry of high-speed patrol boats, this is just the sort of exacting, demanding, worth-while and professional rôle that reservists are capable of, and that we should be examining.
  Steps are also to be taken on the air side. I have heard rumours of increases in headquarter staffs for the Auxiliary Air Force and one or two other moves to augment ground reserves, but the time is ripe for rationalisation of our reserve structure, and perhaps an examination of the benefits that could accrue from the merger of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve. This merger has already happened for the Royal Navy: why should it not happen for the Royal Air Force? The old auxiliaries no longer have their individual flying squadrons in the fighting rôle, so to do this would be appropriate. Were it done, I suggest that there could exist, through the air experience flights which have a geographical distribution in the same sense as the R.N.R., the basis for some reserve flying rôle at a future date. It should not be ruled quite out of court.
  We should, in keeping with the philosophy of the Conservative Party, be seeking ways to "hive off" in order to reduce overall expenditure. This is one of the great virtues of a reserve force. There are a number of ancillary rôles, such as liaison, forward air controlling, certain search operations, air experience, perhaps even primary training, that could be done by the reserves more cheaply than by Regulars, and we could thereby release extremely highly trained, very highly qualified personnel for the more sophisticated functions that are appropriate to long-service Regular Forces.
  That broadly concludes my remarks on reserves, but I must just say that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force said in the debate on that Service that there was a shortage of pilots in mid-career. The advantage of a fairly short service scheme of, say, eight or twelve years would be that we would retain pilots to their early thirties before they went into civil airlines—and this is the time of their lives when they are of most use to the Royal Air Force. I hope that my noble Friend will remember this.
  972
  When trying to create a new structure for the next 25 years we must envisage reforms, such as the Cardwell reforms those which were created by Haldane, or the sort of Jackie Fisher-Churchill partnership in naval terms. We must think of something really new. Reference has been made to the value of emergency services, perhaps on a tri-Service basis, in the future to capture recruits. This was echoed by various hon. Members when speaking about the medical services. It is not inconceivable that by the turn of the century we could be operating something not altogether dissimilar from the Canadian system. I understand the reasons that cause my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice to shudder and groan. None the less, there are a great many functions which could cross established Service boundaries.
  If, as my hon. Friend is so precise in pointing out, we are working to fixed targets of expenditure in our strategic planning, we must ruthlessly eliminate areas in which we are spending too much. Obviously, areas which spring to mind include my hon. Friend's own fine fighting force——
  Mr. Wall Mr. Wall rose——
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am not going to allow my hon. Friend to intervene. If anything, I am suggesting that the green uniform could be donned by the other arms! I am not suggesting that professionalism or specialisation should be ruled out. Of course, it is a specialist function to be an amphibious soldier, as no doubt my hon. Friend was. It is professional to be a highly-trained pilot. It is professional to drive a tank. But there are so many areas of overlap—the Royal Air Force Regiment and the Marines, the chaplaincy and the medical services—that it is important that a greater understanding of inter-Service attitudes and a less prejudiced approach be indoctrinated into Service men at the earliest stage of training.
  Mr. Wall Mr. Wall rose——
  Mr. Wilkinson: Perhaps my hon. Friend and I could discuss the point outside the Chamber.
  A few years ago I submitted evidence to the Howard-English Committee which was recommending a pattern of service education for the 1970s, as the right hon.

  973
  Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) will remember. It is important for the long-service professionals that they have outstanding career opportunities.
  Mr. Wall Mr. Wall rose——
  Mr. Wilkinson: May I be allowed to continue?
  All three Services run different officer-education schemes. The Royal Air Force has carried the process of a university education not ad absurdum but certainly to an extreme. The Royal Navy has instituted a new scheme—I refer to a Written Answer of 3rd March—in which, in addition to the university cadetships, there will be special degree courses at the City University for those who have completed their professional training. The Army has something between the two. It is still possible after Sandhurst to get a place at university, I believe. It is certainly true that the Army relies heavily on university cadetships, but, of course, Sandhurst is still most important for providing the main bulk of the officer entry.
  I would welcome the establishment of an inter-Service cadet college. My suggestion to the Howard-English Committee was that it should be at Greenwich. The last Government, when they toyed with the idea, suggested that the defence college should be at Shrivenham, and the late Mr. Gerry Reynolds made this clear at the Joint Service Headmasters' Conference in 1967 on the subject of officer education. The Royal Defence Academy, a federation of the three existing academies, was an inadequate scheme. It was insufficiently inspiring. It had not the conceptual grandeur to take us into the next century. But I believe that much value could come from the establishment of an inter-Service cadet college at Greenwich, near the capital, in fine Wren buildings of international, let alone national, fame, and with the National Maritime Museum at hand with its reminders of our great maritime and peacekeeping tradition ever present. I believe that an inter-Service year there—unlike Howard-English, I suggest that it should be before professional training—would be most valuable.
  The Donaldson Report on boy entrants emphasised the value of the further education establishments within the Armed Forces. That Report dealt specifically with other ranks, but the same is true
  974
  for the officer training establishments. I am sure that Cranwell, Dartmouth and Sandhurst could fulfil their professional function better if they concentrated on the professional training, and if the other aspects such as drill, discipline, traditions of the Service, military history and so on were learned in a joint environment.
  If I am asked what people would do there and what courses they could meaningfully engage in, I recall that the Report of the joint Service Headmasters' Conference held at Shrivenham said that the proposed joint college would have three schools, one dealing with applied science and weapons technology, another with political and strategic studies, another with economics and management studies.
  I feel that this breakdown of disciplines commends itself as reasonable for people in the post-sixth form stage of their education. Thereafter, they should do their professional training, prove that they can do it, and be sent if good enough as sponsored students to university, where Captain Roskill and others who are in a good position to judge would say that they were a good example to their generation of all the virtues of military life about which my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Stokes) was so enthusiastic.
  We should put greater emphasis on reserve forces. We should train a smaller number for the highest positions of leadership and responsibility within our Armed Forces, and a very good method of doing that would be the establishment of a joint Service cadet college of the kind which I have proposed.
  8.49 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The last day of a long string of defence debates is always bound to be something of a Scran Bag affair. The House will know that the scran-bag in the Royal Navy is the stowage for any odds and ends and bits and pieces lying about a ship from which items can be retrieved only on payment of a fine of one inch of "pusser's" soap.
  Before coming to a few Scran Bag items, I wish to raise one strategic matter. I detected in the opening speeches from both Front Benches today something of an obsession with N.A.T.O. I know that my noble Friend the Minister of State

  975
  cannot be accused of this, but any Minister is to some extent a prisoner of his Ministry, of his advisers and of the policies which he has inherited. The policy which this Government inherited was almost unhealthily obsessed with N.A.T.O., and it did not pay heed to the wider issues—such as questions of east of Suez policy which have so often been discussed in the House. It is no good burying our heads in the plains of Europe and forgetting President Kennedy's warning that the greatest danger to the West is of being nibbled to death in conditions of nuclear stalemate. Certainly the meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly which I attended in Brussels 10 days ago was inclined to accept the absurd situation much too easily—recognising the threat north of a certain line on the map but refusing to admit the existence of any threat outside the N.A.T.O. area.
  Each day of the year 120 merchant ships enter the ports of Western Europe to discharge over 1 million tons of cargo. I urge the Minister of State never to forget the importance to this country, and to Western Europe as a whole, of the security of our trade routes at sea. I do not apologise for making this plea. The pages of HANSARD throughout this century are studded with appeals to the Government of the day not to forget this fact, very often in speeches by "former naval persons"—if I may use that phrase.
  One of the ways in which we can best meet the political threat which we face in the aftermath of Empire is by a sufficiently widespread deployment of naval and air forces to present credible evidence of our ability and intention to protect these sea trade routes. For surveillance is abosolutely necessary to enable "hot line diplomacy" to be effective. We all devoutly hope that "hot line diplomacy" will be a substitute for shooting wars in the future.
  Two practical points arise if the Minister of State agrees with my philosophy in this respect—and I see him nodding. First, there is the need for seaborne aircraft. When I raised this point with him in the Air debate earlier this year my right hon. Friend said that he was shortly going to observe the trials of the Harrier aircraft on board H.M.S. "Ark Royal". I pulled his leg about the fact that we were still having trials 10 years
  976
  after we had first seen this aircraft flying at Farnborough.
  I hope that the Minister of State will be able to tell the House what impression he gained during the trials of the Harrier, and what was the result of those trials'? I hope that he will be able to tell us how much longer we are to go on with those trials? And also why we apparently need more and more trials although the United States Marine Corps has been sufficiently impressed with the aircraft to place a large additional order since the Air debate?
  Lord Balniel: I shall not be winding up the debate. That task falls upon the shoulders of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. When I attended the "Ark Royal" the evaluation trials had to be postponed. Nevertheless, I had the pleasure of being catapulted off the "Ark Royal" in a Buccaneer, which showed me the advantages of the vertical takeoff, as being a more comfortable way of leaving an aircraft carrier.
  In view of the requests made by many hon. Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—for some kind of statement about the evaluation trials at an early opportunity, I shall try to make one. Hon. Members will appreciate that the details of the evaluation trials cannot be disclosed, but I shall try to give the House the general picture.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. I am sure that it will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The second practical point arising on this subject is that the present cost of defence is so great that we cannot lightly forgo the help of any allies. The South African Government still give us facilities at Simonstown. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government sold the naval helicopters to the South Africans. But what about the Nimrods? And what about the frigates that the South Africans are bound to require to replace three of their six frigates dating from the Second World War? There seems to be a deafening silence about the supply of those

  977
  arms. I should like to know what is happening. After the Prime Minister's resolute stand at Singapore I am sure that we do not want to see such orders to go to other countries?
  Now I dip into the scran-bag for a couple of items, and the first is the Royal United Services Institution, that very valuable establishment in Whitehall. As I understand it, the rent of that Institution, which has a Government lease, is to be raised from £500 to £12,000 a year, a crippling increase for any independent institution. The Government will pay tribute to the R.U.S.I., and its work in the United Kingdom and abroad, especially in the United States? Will they declare that their policy is not to close down the R.U.S.I, or merge it, but to help it to continue its useful independent existence—by hook or by crook? More than 20 hon. Members from both sides of the House belong to the R.U.S.I., which is valuable for providing informed debates about defence matters away from the sort of fixed firing lines which we are all too apt to adopt in the House. The Labour Government encouraged the R.U.S.I. a good deal, and I should hate the present Government to allow it to slip away.
  The second scran-bag item to which I refer is H.M.S. "Belfast". Here, instead of sniping at the Government, I should like to thank them very much for the extremely helpful reply which has been given to the trustees of the H.M.S. "Belfast" Trust. My right hon. Friend the Navy Minister has written to me giving approval in principle for the ship to be handed over to the Trust as an outright gift, subject to two or three simple conditions. The first is that if the scheme should fail and the ship should have to be sold the funds would revert to the Treasury; nobody could object to that. The second is that there should be no further expenditure of public funds on putting the ship on exhibition, and we entirely agree to that, because we hope that the scheme will be self-supporting and financially viable. There are certain details, for instance, the docking, which we hope to accept after some discussion.
  But it is now four months since Early Day Motion No. 363, signed by 87 Members from all parts of the House, appeared and three months almost to the day
  978
  when the issue was first raised by me in an Adjournment debate. The trustees are beginning to be anxious about the time-scale. It is difficult to agree costings with the Ministry about every small particular. I am the last to wish to enter into a "battle of experts" about details. We want to get on with the scheme while the tourist season lasts, because if the scheme is to be viable and self-supporting we must get her on exhibition before the tourist season this summer comes to an end.
  H.M.S. "Belfast" is to be berthed at Hay's Wharf, which is not only the best berth in London but the best in the world. We are confident that we can arouse great interest in this ship when she comes up the river. The trustees entirely agree with the Navy Minister that H.M.S. "Belfast" in the eyes of the public would always remain a Royal Navy warship, and we are very happy that that should be so. The trustees want to do the job properly or not at all.
  I hope that the Minister of State, having been so helpful about this matter so far, having swallowed a camel, will not strain at a gnat. I hope that he will allow the ship to be handed over and put on exhibition as soon as possible.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. John Morris: I welcome the Under-Secretary for the Army to the first time that he participates in our defence debates. I do so as the oldest surviving inhabitant of these Front Benches in defence debates, going back some nine years or so. He comes in to bat late in this the last of the current series of defence debates.
  I endorse what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the spread of these debates. I hope that this practice will continue. Perhaps it would be preferable if the fourth day were kept until somewhat later in the year so that there was not so long a gap as we shall now have, but this is an improvement on the previous position when it would have been next March before we could have had a formal defence debate in Government time. It would be churlish not to say that this is an improvement in recent use of the fourth day. Last year the then Opposition chose procurement as the special subject to be discussed on the fourth day. This year, as the Minister

  979
  said, we have had more defence debates than usual. We have had two White Papers and two debates upon them. The Armed Forces Bill came before us on two occasions. We have also had the usual debates on the Estimates.
  This traditionally has been the tidying up debate. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) need not apologise for going through the scrambled egg part of the ship. It is right that on this occasion some of the points which have not been covered earlier should be raised. It would be wrong to expect the Under-Secretary of State to deal with all the points raised, especially those in the latter part of the debate, but I hope that he will follow the usual practice and write to hon. Members on those matters which he is unable to resolve tonight.
  I welcome the Minister's statement about recruitment. He was perhaps a little partisan in saying that the reason for the increased recruitment was that there were no longer changes in policy. But as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said, the Government have adopted, with some small exceptions, the last Government's policy in money terms, which is what matters to the troops. I know that the situation causes as much dissatisfaction to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) now as it did during the last Government's term of office.
  Mr. Wall Mr. Wall indicated assent.
  Mr. Morris: I see the hon. Gentleman nodding his head. Parts of his speech today were reminiscent of his chastisement of me from this side of the House when I was at the Ministry.
  We welcome the increased recruitment but note that there are still difficulties in some aspects. The hon. Gentleman referred to the medical and general services, and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) mentioned some of the engineering parts of the Services. There always have been these difficulties, and that is why flexibility in terms of service and other attractions must exercise the minds of Ministers from time to time. If unemployment is not a major source of assistance in improving
  980
  recruiting, and if they do not give any credit to the military salary introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), we should at some stage have a statement from the Government about what major factors they believe do assist recruiting. If unemployment is not one of those factors, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us the advice he gets on the matter and how he justifies it.
  The military salary was brought in in two stages—on 1st April, 1970, and 1st April, 1971—and I believe it has been a major factor in increased recruitment. We were also conscious at the time that it would create a number of problems and anomalies from time to time, and presumably some anomalies have been coming up since we left office. I hope that most of them have been resolved.
  But I am also confident—if I am wrong, no doubt the hon. Gentleman can disprove it—that one of the major recruiting agents has traditionally been unemployment. It has happened in the past and I am afraid that it is not entirely a coincidence that recruitment has risen along with the high unemployment figures. The unemployment figures for last April were the worst since 1940. Regrettably, it appears that there will also be high unemployment throughout next winter, which may also come to the aid of the Government in recruitment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us—and if necessary set up a study—what are the factors which influence people to join the Armed Forces and whether there are parts which call for improvement.
  A great part of the debate has been concerned with Northern Ireland. Perhaps this was to be expected, although I do not see here any of the hon. Members who took part from below the Gangway, with the exception of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). I have known him a long time and would expect him to be here, as he is a very courteous man. Indeed, the debate has been dominated to a large extent by Northern Ireland.
  I echo the words of my right hon. Friend, who said that our troops are there as guardians of democracy and to use the minimum amount of force to preserve the peace. Although we have had one or two dissident voices, it

  981
  should go out that there is wide commendation and support for and confidence in our troops in Northern Ireland in their most difficult and distasteful task. If there is any doubt—and one hears murmurs occasionally—among the soldiers about it, I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Minister will make known to them the feelings of the House in that they have our support and confidence.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South used a rather odd word, although I am not sure that I caught it right. If I am wrong, I hope that he will correct me. He referred to the Army's task of "retaliating". Perhaps, on reflection, if he did use that word, he will now withdraw it.
  Mr. Pounder: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I did use the word, in the context of statements made after actions. It was perhaps not the happiest choice of words, and I accept the correction.
  Mr. Morris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has withdrawn that word because it would be quite wrong to use it in connection with the task of the Army. Perhaps its duty is to react, but certainly I would hope not to retaliate. The hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell) used some odd words which I am sure caused some surprise when he said that the task was to out-terrorise the terrorists. Below the Gangway on this side of the House the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) said: "Many of the riots have been provoked by the British Army." I find these words, coming from all sides of the House, quite out of place and quite out of character with my understanding and that of the majority of hon. Members, of the rôle of the troops in Northern Ireland.
  I much preferred the wise and somewhat sharp words of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, endorsed by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) who called for the building of bridges and the curing of evils which caused the disturbances and the troubles. I hope it is that note, struck by the majority of hon. Members, which those who will read our debates in Northern
  982
  Ireland will adopt rather than the odd statements we have heard from some of the hon. Members I have quoted.
  One of the issues raised was that of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Perhaps we could be told more about that regiment in the closing speech. Perhaps we could be told something about the recruiting position. Does it vary in different areas, and what is the problem over the substantial number of resignations which have taken place? What is the up-to-date balance of the religions? An effort was made, despite all the difficulties, to try to get a balance of religious persuasions into the Regiment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned the suggestion about the full-time battalion in the Regiment. It was the Minister of State for Defence who said that this was being considered but no decision had been reached and in any event it would need legislation. I endorse the remarks that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East. I find it extremely strange that in newspaper after newspaper on the same day this suggestion appeared, but not in the House of Commons. In The Times of yesterday there was this statement by the defence correspondent:
  "The Ministry of Defence is considering setting up a full-time battalion in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the part-time Army which acts as a kind of home guard in Northern Ireland. A statement confirming this from the Ministry last night emphasised that discussions were still at a very early stage and no decisions had been taken."
  It is odd that this kind of statement has appeared in all the papers one after another. Whatever the merits of the proposals, it seemed a very ham-handed, elephantine way of approaching a most delicate problem—allowing fears which undoubtedly exist——
  Lord Balniel: I was abroad when this statement appeared but I understand that the position was that one newspaper had an article on it. Very naturally, other papers sent their reporters to the Ministry, and the statement which the hon. Gentleman has quoted was the response of the Ministry of Defence to the inquiries being made. That is the explanation why it appeared in so many papers.
  Mr. Morris: I know the difficulties of trying to trace sources of articles in newspapers. After five and a half years as a Minister, I know of the difficulties that face the hon. Gentleman. However, he made in the House today an off-the-cuff statement in his opening remarks, in response to an attempt by an hon. Gentleman on this side of the House, below the Gangway, to obtain time for a debate on the subject. It seems to be a casual and cavalier way of treating the House of Commons.
  Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman is getting over-excited about this. I have also answered a Parliamentary Question on the subject today.
  Mr. Morris: It must have been a Written Question. I do not know when it was put down, whether it was in view of the articles which have appeared in the newspapers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can advise us whether it was an inspired question from someone on his own side. I do not know; I have not had the advantage of seeing it.
  Lord Balniel: I must continue to assist the right hon. Gentleman. The question was put down by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who was naturally interested in the subject. I answered the Question in accordance with parliamentary practice.
  Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman can hardly accuse me of being over-excited on this matter. There were fears, and attempts have been made by his predecessors to alleviate those fears in that part of the world. It seems odd, when the newspaper articles appeared out of the blue, that he did not take the trouble to come down to the House and tell us what the situation was, rather than merely acting in response to an indication given by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone this afternoon. The Government have acted in a ham-handed way and have undoubtedly added fuel to the fires of fear. I suggest that the Government should think hard about this issue. There were real fears about the "B" Specials. An effort was made to start afresh, and there has been a measure of success. It would be wrong for the Government to take any step which would mean the loss of confidence which has been brought about in the intervening period.
  984
  Concerning the statement made by the Minister this afternoon, it is odd that, although he dealt with the rumour and the suggestion by saying that the matter was being considered and there had been no decision, he did not put forward one argument why it was being considered. We shall expect to have some assistance on this important matter when the Minister winds up.
  I welcome the statement made by the Minister a few minutes ago regarding the Harrier trials and his intention of placing before the House some of the results so that we may have more general information. I had the privilege of attending some of the earlier trials. I hope that they are successful. It would be of advantage if the Minister would place the maximum information before the House, within the usual provisions of security, so that we can have a fuller debate upon it.
  The hon. Member for Haltemprice asked what the Government's views were about the ordering of an increased number of hunter-killer submarines. He said that nothing had been done by the present Government beyond what the previous Government had done. The hon. Gentleman said, "If our words in Opposition are to mean anything, there should be an increase in the number", and presumably in the total amount of defence expenditure. I have raised this matter in previous defence debates. We should be told specifically whether there has been any change of policy from that of their predecessors, whether their intention is to increase the number or to maintain the policy which on so many occasions they attacked when in Opposition. If the Prime Minister means what he says by "frank and honest government" then the hon. Member for Haltemprice, who has taken a great interest in this matter over the years and cross-examined me when I was a member of the Labour Government, should be told how the matter stands. I do not share his confidence that there will be a substantial change of policy, but he should be put out of his misery one way or the other.
  Another matter which has caused concern in previous defence debates relates to torpedoes. I know a little about some of the difficulties attendant upon that subject. We should be told what the present

  985
  position is and whether matters have now been sorted out.
  I should like to know how the Government's organisation of the dockyards is proceeding. I was glad to note the announcement recently about Plymouth. How is the dockyard board there sorting itself out? Is it an improvement on the previous system? Has it now been properly set up? Who are the outside members?
  Concerning refits, I know of some of the problems regarding the policy of the typing of yards and getting the right ships to the right yards to be refitted. At times some ships have had to wait many months to be refitted. In view of the vast amount of capital involved when ships are not available as soon as they might be because of delays in being slotted in to be refitted, I should like to know whether the position has improved, is the same or is worsening. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about this matter in due course.
  I raised a similar point in the debate on the Royal Air Force concerning aero-engines and the time taken to have them refurbished and the capital amount involved. Given the constraints on defence expenditure, I am sure that we shall be able to make a greater amount of equipment available if some of the bottlenecks can be tackled in a better way. I am aware of the problems, but perhaps we could be brought up to date about the position.
  I should like to refer to the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the future of Foulness and Shoeburyness and the third London Airport. He was asked who would bear the cost of re-provisioning Shoeburyness. About £25 million may well be involved in re-provisioning the Army's essential needs at some other place. When I asked him who would bear the cost, he said:
  "It will be through the normal Ministry of Defence Estimates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 40.]
  The impression conveyed to me by the right hon. Gentleman was that the cost would be carried by the Ministry of Defence and presumably would come within the defence ceiling.
  On 13th May I asked
  "what effect the Government's decision to locate the new London airport at Foulness will have on Ministry of Defence financial
  986
  estimates; and how the cost of the movement of Shoeburyness facilities will be borne."
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement replied:
  "The cost of replacing the Shoeburyness facilities will not be a charge to the Defence Budget. The actual allocation to financial Votes is under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 144.]
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister of State for Defence Procurement cannot both be right. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the cost would be borne by the normal Ministry of Defence Estimates. He has made a number of observations in the House which have had to be corrected. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement is not ad idem with the Secretary of State when he says that the cost of replacement
  "will not be a charge to the Defence Budget."
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: I was right. The cost will not be borne on the Defence Vote. Probably my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was thinking of accountancy procedures, or something of that sort, when he was asked the question off the cuff. The answer is as I gave it in reply to a Question which, unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was not able to ask but which was published as a written reply.
  Mr. Morris: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has reiterated what appears in a Written Answer. I hope that he will convey to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the need for him to come to the House and amend his answer. I was present when he made the announcement about Foulness. He was asked twice by me who would bear the cost, and he said specifically that it would be borne under the normal Ministry of Defence Estimates, washing his hands of the whole affair. It is time that the Secretary of State was a little more House-trained and was able to say what the position is.
  Mr. Wall: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the cost on the Ministry of Defence Vote which is being saved is £25 million—exactly the cost of a hunter-killer submarine? The House may draw the right moral. I hope that the Government will.
  Mr. Morris: That is a matter for the Minister and not for me. The hon. Member for Haltemprice still has had no satisfaction on this point from the Government.
  I wish to deal briefly with other matters. The question of Exocet has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd and the hon. Member for Haltemprice. What decision has been taken? Will the Government tell us what it is if a decision has been made? How many ships will have it, and over what period? There was some query by one of the defence correspondents that the existing gun might have to be displaced on some of the ships. Is that right or wrong?
  There were rumours of dissatisfaction in British industry with the share out of the work, in that only the "garage work"—some of the assembly work—would be done in this country, and that the bulk of the money would go to France. I remember the times when I stood at that Dispatch Box being chastised because of foreign purchases. The Government should tell the House the position: what proportion of the money will go to British industry, and what are the terms of the order. Do we understand that the cost has escalated and that the Government are buying fewer than they originally intended?
  We still have not been told the Government's intentions over a trainer for the Royal Air Force. Before the recess we expect a statement on the M.R.C.A. There has been no statement since last July, and we do not know what the position is. We have been promised a statement this July, and it would be wrong to go into recess before we knew whether the difficulties over Rolls-Royce have affected the position, or made the engine which Rolls-Royce was to supply for the M.R.C.A. any less competitive. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could reassure us on this score.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does it really lie in the right hon. Gentleman's mouth to chastise the Government about Exocet when this purchase was made necessary by the absolute inaction on the missile front by his Administration over five long years and more?
  Mr. Morris: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will have studied the White
  988
  Papers on this issue. He will not know, and perhaps he will accept from me, that when the Government came to the House and announced like some dens ex machina, that they had started negotiating with the French—as if this were something quite new—it was some surprise to them to know that the naval staff had been engaged in discussion, with the blessing of my right hon. Friend and myself, for some time on this very important issue.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not know that in this field there have been a substantial number of difficulties. [Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman may laugh, but he will know that in some of these fields one is on the frontiers of knowledge. Whatever the amounts involved, there are enormous difficulties. I am sure that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is going through enormous difficulties—just as I did—in the torpedo field, for example. Here we are essentially dealing with guided weapons, and are venturing into the unknown. With the best will in the world, the best scientific and technical advice, the best people whom the Royal Navy can put at our disposal, it is not always easy to ensure absolute success.
  While there is success on many fronts, I know, as I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will know, that there are disasters from time to time. I am not in any way chastising the Government on Exocet. All I am saying is that it is time the House was told what the position is. I hope that there will be statement from the Government on this very important development.
  Concern has been expressed in the House about the provision of the relief and supplies in the tragedies that have befallen citizens of the Commonwealth in India and Pakistan. I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement today, and obviously we shall have to return, in the debate tomorrow, to the amounts involved and the question of urgency. I am glad to know that the Royal Air Force has made available six aircraft to carry necessary supplies and that more will be avilable, according to the statement, if necessary.
  Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have inherited a first-class transport fleet in the Royal Air Force. These are tasks

  989
  which the R.A.F. do so well. A number of calls have been made on the R.A.F. over the years, and I am confident that whatever calls are made, however great they may be, the Royal Air Force will match the needs of the times.
  In addition to the rôle that the R.A.F. can and does undoubtedly play, have the Government thought of other assistance which our Forces could give? I am thinking, for example, of the Royal Marines in Singapore and the invaluable assistance they gave during the floods. Perhaps not the same sort of troops are required in this instance—on that occasion troops in small boats were required—but it would be wise for the Government to look right through the resources of the Ministry of Defence to see whether other forms of assistance could be made available.
  One hears much about the shortage of mass injectors. I recall that, as a Minister, I was shown a mass injector at Porton which had been devised there. I am not sure whether it is the same sort of equipment as is being discussed in the cholera context, but the Government should ensure that the resources of Porton are being utilised so that as many people as possible may be injected against cholera in the crisis that is now faced.
  I can best sum up my appeal by urging that to avert enormous human misery in India and Pakistan, there should be a speedy response to any request that is made and that every effort should be made to look at the entire resources of the Ministry of Defence, in addition to the R.A.F., which has a great transportation rôle to play, to see that every possible assistance is given.
  I am confident that our Forces can be relied upon to carry out this and other difficult tasks in all parts of the world, including on our own doorstep. I wish them well. They can rest assured that they have the support and confidence of this House in what they are doing, and I trust that this message will go out from this debate today.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): The right hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) began by rightly referring to the fact that he was a veteran of many defence debates and that this
  990
  was the last debate of the defence season. He also correctly pointed to this as being my first appearance at the Dispatch Box as Under-Secretary.
  I wish to open my innings by agreeing with him that it is appalling that we should not have our defence debates spread over a wider period. After listening to the contributions today, I cannot wait for March until we have another of these debates. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his cordial welcome, and the same goes for his right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson). Hon. Gentlemen opposite have, on the whole, taken a constructive approach to the problems that we have been discussing. I am sure that our Forces appreciate this immensely. Indeed, they are bound to be appreciative of our trying to maximise the areas of agreement.
  It is obviously impossible for me to cover in the time available to me all the points that hon. Members have made in what, to use a new Parliamentary term to me, has been a scran-bag of a debate, and any major points with which I do not deal I will reply to by way of correspondence.
  I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Aberavon conclude his remarks by commenting on the theme which has run through many speeches, and that is the rôle which our Armed Forces can and do play in helping countries which are afflicted by disasters. We all welcomed the statement which was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and particularly his reference to the initiative which we had taken at the United Nations in this respect.
  My noble Friend referred to the help which is given by our Services to civil communities. I was privileged earlier this year, during a visit to the Mediterranean and the Gulf, to see some of the work done by British Forces in Malta and the Gulf. This work has been much appreciated. This aid to civil communities is a continuing programme for our Armed Forces.
  I would like to be able to give a more detailed answer to some of the questions posed by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East. He said that he was not asking a series of rhetorical questions

  991
  about our position in the Gulf, though he raised the issue of our dispositions and asked what would happen to the sale of our assets. His questions, if not rhetorical, were certainly hypothetical. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made it clear that we strongly support the development of a union of the Arab Emirates. Discussions are going on with the local States concerned about the matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised with me. The House cannot expect me tonight to anticipate the outcome of those discussions.
  The right hon. Member for Dundee, East asked me about our plans to maintain relations with Iran. We are fully aware of our need to retain the friendship of Iran and recognise the major part which Iran has to play in the long-term stability of the Gulf. He also mentioned the rôle of frigates; they will normally be deployed east of Suez and probably visit the Gulf area three or four times a year.
  Mr. George Thomson: Is the Under-Secretary of State saying that the Government will not terminate the treaties with the rulers in the Gulf at the end of the year, as his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced to the House just before one of our defence debates? If the treaties are to be terminated at the end of the year, what will be the status of British Forces there beyond that point in time? If they are to be terminated at the end of the year, should not the forces be moving out now? Has not the deadline already been passed?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: My right hon. Friend said that the treaty arrangements were to be terminated, and, if a federation were not achieved, he would come to the House and make another statement. I cannot go further than that this evening.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked about the rundown of our forces in Singapore, and that is proceeding satisfactorily. There have been a few changes in the previous plans to take into account our decision to maintain a British presence in Singapore after 1971. Some units have left earlier than planned, but we are spreading the withdrawal of families through until December instead of withdrawing them all in September as originally
  992
  planned. This will reduce the spell of family separation. Our Forces permanently stationed in the area after 1971 include one battalion which will be accompanied. I will later come to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman and many hon. Members on both sides of the House about Northern Ireland. I do not want to duck that at all.
  Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the fact that we are leaving troops in Singapore enables us to maintain communications and intelligence, and, above all, storage facilities, which we would have lost had the Labour Party's plan been carried out?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: Yes, I am glad to confirm that. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the running on of certain destroyers and frigates in the Royal Navy and said that he had heard that we were increasing the number of ships planned for the Royal Navy under the previous Administration. This is indeed so, and none of them is to be put in mothballs. There is no need for him to suggest that there is anything secretive about the decision. It was announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy to the House in the debate on the Royal Navy on 4th May, when he said that we are keeping in commission a number of frigates which were on previous plans due to be phased out in the next year or so. He explained that it is not the practice to reveal the detailed numbers, but the ships involved will provide a most useful contribution to the Fleet at relatively low cost and add to our total declaration of ships to N.A.T.O. I have myself gone into the question of manpower, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the men will be found from the numbers available to the Royal Navy at the time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) raised the question of Exocet, as did the right hon. Member for Aberavon. My hon. and gallant friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) gave part of the answer to why it was necessary for us to buy this equipment. There was a gap, a decision had to be taken, and it had to be taken urgently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice compared this system with the

  993
  Russian Shaddock missile. It is true that Exocet is not a counter to Shaddock and is a horizon range weapon only, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, there are other methods of dealing with missiles of the Shaddock type. First, there is the option of attack on the ship which launches the missile. The attack can be delivered by aircraft, whether carrier-borne—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—or shore-based, or by submarines. In the context of carrier-borne or shore-based aircraft, may I say how important the rôle of the Harrier could be. As we have heard, there have been trials on aircraft carriers. One has to consider also their possible use on cruisers. Secondly, the Shaddock missiles can be countered by the surface-to-air missiles now fitted in our warships and by the improved systems which have succeeded them—Sea Dart and Sea Wolf. It is important to remember that long-range missiles of the Shaddock type encounter problems of acquisition which may be very severe. Usually they must rely on a form of mid-course guidance which is vulnerable to attack. If the mid-course guidance system is destroyed the capability of the missiles to exploit their full range must be severely impaired if not altogether removed.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Does not this fact further emphasise the importance of naval air power? The guiding instrument will probably be a long-range patrol aircraft, of which the navy of the Soviet Union has some 500. It is, therefore, all the more important that the Royal Navy should have its own integral air cover.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: It emphasises the importance of air power—no one denies that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice spoke of submarines and of air flight missiles launched from them. I can assure him that studies of such a project are under way.
  The hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Aberavon referred to the M.R.C.A. As has been said before, the M.R.C.A. fills a crucial place in our plans for strike reconnaissance but, as my hon. Friend explained in the debate on 19th April, the project is due for review later in the summer. I therefore do not think that this is a good time for me to go further now. Nevertheless, I can assure the House that the question
  994
  of the range of this aircraft is kept constantly in mind.
  Mr. John Morris: Will a statement be made to the House before the Summer Recess?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: We must complete the review before I can give a categorical assurance that there will be a statement such as the hon. Gentleman seeks before the Summer Recess.
  Mr. Morris: I have raised this matter at Question Time on at least two occasions, and I think that I was given the assurance on earlier occasions that a statement would be made before the Summer Recess. I want to know exactly what the position is. If the hon. Gentleman does not know, I will accept that, but if he does know I want to be told what the position is. Are we to be told before the Summer Recess what the position is?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: I do not know, because the review is not completed, and I cannot genuinely say that there will be a statement until we know when the review is completed.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) referred to an important welfare matter affecting very many of our men in Northern Ireland, and that is the issue of free travel warrants for soldiers normally based in Germany but at present serving in Northern Ireland. The troops in Northern Ireland are very much occupied with their duty. This requires constant alertness, and opportunities for leave, especially for those from units in Germany who are serving a four-months' unaccompanied spell of duty are few. Only a few are able to get a short leave, perhaps 24 hours or, at the most, 72 hours, and even the latter period would hardly allow a soldier to make the trip to his family in Germany even if he could use the aircraft charter service from Luton. We are examining the possibility of reducing the air fares from Northern Ireland to Great Britain for Servicemen, and on compassionate grounds air passages would be arranged if appropriate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) raised the question of military members serving on the Aldershot Council. I assure him that we have always been very pleased to see

  995
  those representatives in such a militarily oriented area. I will consider the point he made, but I am sure he will realise that in the last resort it is the local authority which must judge whether this is a practice which should continue. I will also look at his points about Rushmoor and the proposed lido.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian raised the question of lands held by the Services, and I want to clear up this point. Too many people too often get the impression that the Services hold on to land because they are rapacious landlords who never disgorge what they have gained from war. The fact is that since the war we have reduced our land holdings very substantially. We held 7 million acres in 1945, and the holding is now 600,000 acres: 4,000 acres have been disposed of in each of the last four years.
  There is constant and heavy pressure for land, and that is why we have arranged for the committee under Lord Nugent to make a wide-ranging study of land requirements. The committee will not be able to report today or tomorrow—the study will take some time—but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be patient, as I think we all have to be on this subject.
  I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East and his hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon for their approach to the subject of Northern Ireland and for pledging the support of the Opposition to the troops we have there. The right hon. Gentleman, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would like some assurance of our attitude on this side to the rôle of the troops in Northern Ireland. This came out more specifically in the speech of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook when he spoke of political pressures on the Army. He asked for a categorical assurance that the conduct of the Army's operations is influenced entirely by military considerations and is under the direction of the Government in London. I think that that is a fair paraphrase of what was in his mind.
  In reply, I would say first, and I am sure that it will not be forgotten, that the Northern Ireland Government have a very real interest and responsibility in matters of public order and security in
  996
  the Province, and they are entitled to have and to express views on the way in which public order and security should be maintained in Northern Ireland. In so far as they affect the Army's rôle, these views are fully considered by the G.O.C. and by the Westminster Government, but the final decisions on the conduct of military operations rests with the military authorities in Northern Ireland under the direction of the Ministry of Defence and the Westminster Government. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. and right hon. Members that the actual conduct of operations will continue to be guided by the principle of restraint in the use of force—minimum force, but, I hasten to add, adequate force. It is recognised very clearly that, legal requirements apart, the success of the anti-terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland depends considerably on isolating the violent extremists from the population at large and, therefore, avoiding indiscriminate force. This is resorted to because injury to innocent bystanders could result in the alienation of large elements of the population on whose support the security forces depend for eventually routing out and defeating the terrorists. It would be a self-defeating tactic. However, let there be no doubt that while every effort will be made to avoid involving peaceable sections of the population, the terrorist when identified will be dealt with as forcefully as necessary to counter his activities.
  I think hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been there, or who have read about and discussed the scene in Northern Ireland, will be aware that there has been a marked change in the security situation since the Army assistance was first provided in 1969. At that time and, throughout 1970 there was serious large-scale communal strife, and the British Army's contribution was largely one of keeping the peace between the communities, although increasingly the Army became the target of attack from the elements of one community or another.
  Now we have a situation in which communal rioting on any significant scale is a rarity but where, instead, a small number of terrorists are engaging the Army by particularly vicious attacks.

  997
  Eight soldiers have been killed this year, the first deaths since 1969. The organisers of this campaign of gangsterism must know that it cannot succeed. If they believe that they will eventually break the will of the British people to support the task of the Army in Northern Ireland, they are seriously mistaken. The British Army will remain in Northern Ireland for as long as its assistance is needed. It has no imperialist rôle, I say to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), and there will be no irresolution of purpose on our part.
  The Government of Northern Ireland—an assurance was asked for in this connection—are committed to a reform programme which is now well under way, and there is no slackening in zeal at Westminster to see that this programme is carried out successfully. The Army will play its part, with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in helping to bring violence to an end so that in an environment of peace and order the full fruits of the reform programme can be seen. All this is anathema to the gunman and the bomb thrower whose purposes are served only by fear, hatred and frustration. They have failed to provoke the Army into over-reaction against the population, and in this and all forms of hostility, as the House has generously recognised today, the British soldier has remained restrained and will continue to do so because this is the hallmark of the professional, as we know the British soldier to be.
  A point was made by a number of hon. Members about the Ulster Defence Regiment. There was no leak by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We do not like the way the information came out in the way that it did, any more than does the hon. Member who raised the point. The statement which he read, which appeared in the papers on the Monday, arose out of inquiries made with the Ministry following a report which appeared in one paper—I think, the Sunday Mirror. I was telephoned about this. What should one do—tell a lie or tell the truth? Quite rightly, the Ministry of Defence spokesman told the truth. I am sure that it was the right way to act.
  We have heard about misgivings that people have, but I am bound to say and emphasise that we wish to improve recruiting to the U.D.R. We are considering
  998
  the possibility of raising a full-time battalion because we think—it is under review; no firm decision has been taken—that this could possibly help the task of improving our security forces. But I cannot emphasise too much that the principles on which a full-time battalion would operate would be the same as those which apply to the existing units of the Regiment.
  The Ulster Defence Regiment is now well into its second year of operational duties. The Regiment has quickly found its place in the Northern Ireland security system, and it has provided an important public example of successful non-sectarian co-operation.
  Here are some interesting facts. In its first year, over 120,000 man-days of operational duties were undertaken throughout the Province on tasks which would otherwise have fallen to our Regular troops. Nearly one-sixth of these operational days were carried out in February this year alone. Apart from its routine duties in support of the Army in guarding key points and undertaking patrols on the Border and in rural areas, the Regiment has been particularly useful, in times of emergency in taking on some of the Army's routine tasks on the periphery of Belfast and assuming complete responsibility for certain rural areas.
  The full-time call-out of some members of the Regiment in such circumstances interferes, I know, with normal civilian life, and I pay tribute to the way in which the members concerned, and their employers, have met the challenge.
  As regards recruiting, the Regiment's strength is now over 4,000, and we hope to build up steadily to the ceiling of 6,000 envisaged in the Government's White Paper published in November, 1969. I cannot forecast how quickly we shall achieve this. Obviously, we should like recruiting to go at a faster rate. As regards wastage, the House will appreciate that invariably one finds a rather higher wastage rate in a part-time volunteer force, but, with the exception of two weeks, there has been a net weekly increase of srength. This is encouraging and it suggests a solid foundation.
  Mr. George Thomson: Could the hon. Gentleman give us the present breakdown of the force as between Catholic and Protestants? Also, since he has

  999
  given a welcome reassurance of Whitehall control over these military matters, could he tell us whether the answer reported this morning as being given in the Stormont today in reply to a question about a full-time battalion was agreed with the Ministry of Defence before it was given?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: I am not aware of the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. If I may, I should like to study that statement and write to the right hon. Gentleman about it, taking up at the same time the question which he raises about the breakdown between the different religious groups.
  Mr. Thomson: I am sorry to press the Minister at this point, but the breakdown of the existing force as between Catholic and Protestant is crucial to the whole argument which he is putting. We ought to know.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: I appreciate that. I said that it was a good example of non-sectarian co-operation. I recognise the point very well, and I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the breakdown when I deal with that and the other point which be has raised.
  As this is the first time that I have spoken from the Dispatch Box, and I have only recently taken up this appointment, I should like to say a few general words in conclusion. I have been very struck by the professionalism and sense of purpose of the individual Service man wherever I have been. His adaptability is apparent, and, indeed, legendary, not only in the Province of Northern Ireland but in the rather different circumstances of Cyprus, Aden and Borneo.
  The image of the Armed forces in this country has steadily but perceptibly changed. I think that our soldiers are more accepted now as part of the community. There is less "bull" than there used to be, but the Service man's smartness and general turn-out are as high as ever. Discipline has changed, in my view for the better; it comes more from the man himself, and it does so because the Armed Forces give him more responsibility. No one can fail to be impressed by the maturity and awareness of the junior N.C.O. who commands a detachment either in Belfast or on the peace line in Cyprus.
  1000
  I have no doubt about the resources on which we can call, not only in terms of men and equipment but in terms of leadership and morale, and I am sure that the whole House will agree that the British Armed Forces of the 1970s are a credit to their country.
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Law Reform (Jurisdiction in Delict) (Scotland) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

LAW REFORM (JURISDICTION IN DELICT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

MARINE SURVEY FEES
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
10.1 p.m.
Sir Gerald Nabarro: I seek to raise a matter that is causing grave concern throughout the coastal areas of Britain and on many inland waterways; namely, the precipitate, extortionate, exorbitant and arbitrary increase of marine survey fees by the Department of Trade and Industry, which inherits the responsibility for this important matter from the previous Board of Trade.
I was assaulting the Prime Minister this afternoon on this matter in a supplementary question. I alluded then to this arbitrary increase in the amount of fees by sums varying from 600 per cent. to 1,000 per cent., whereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) intervened—I am not sure whether the OFFICIAL REPORT heard her, but in

1001
view of her characteristic tones I hope that it did—to say, "900 per cent.".
Dame Irene Ward: 952 per cent.
Sir G. Nabarro: Then, 952 per cent.; I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's correction, presumably from examples culled from the Tyneside or the surrounding area.
This matter came to me in a curious way. I was challenged by a television company, whose representative said, "How is it that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South has an interest in a marine matter of this sort?". It arises from the fact that there is one passenger-carrying vessel—a pleasure craft—plying on the River Avon, which runs for a considerable part of its course through the Worcestershire, South constituency. This pleasure craft is 22 tons, has accommodation for 144 persons, and plies in smooth waters, except when in flood, on the River Avon from Evesham to Fladbury, an ancient village in my constituency.
Formerly the owners of the vessel paid the sum of £15·40 per annum for the statutorily compulsory marine survey fees. On 2nd May last the surveyor arrived in Evesham to carry out his normal annual inspection and informed my constituent, the owner of the vessel, in Evesham, where the vessel was moored, that the new charge would be £92·40, whereupon my constituent gazed at him in stupefaction and said, "My good man, you have clearly made a mistake. No Government Department exhorting wage-earners in industry to abate their claims for advancing wages to a limit of no more than 5 per cent., or one-twentieth per annum, in the interests of stabilising prices, would have the temerity to multiply charges by six times, or an increase of 500 per cent.". The inspector dithered and replied, "But my instructions are so to advance them", whereupon my constituent said, "I shall go to my Member of Parliament without delay".
To me he came, on the morning of 8th May. I took his note, and I came to the House on 10th May and set down a Parliamentary Question, which appeared on the Order Paper for the first time on the morning of 11th May. It was seen by the Press for the first time at 9 o'clock on the morning of 11th May. At 10 o'clock on the morning of 11th May an
1002
official of the Department of Trade and Industry telephoned my constituent at Evesham and said, "You need not pay this for the time being. The Minister is very concerned about a Parliamentary Question, and he has decided that for the time being you need not pay the increased charges—just pay the £15·40. We will deal with the matter later.
The Parliamentary Question was duly taken, and, because the Question could not be reached, a Written Answer was received. I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
"Why his Department has required payment of £92.40 instead of £15.40 previously per half year for a passenger certificate for 'Gaiety', a craft of 22 tons, and 144 passenger capacity, plying on the River Avon in smooth waters in daylight, except when the river is in flood, from Evesham to Fladbury; whether he is raising charges by 500 per cent. generally in this trade; and whether he will make a statement."
The reply appeared:
"Mr. Anthony Grant: The increase results from a revision of 'he Department's marine survey fees on 1st May. These fees, which previously were intended to recover 50 per cent. of the cost of providing the surveys but were failing to do so, have been increased so as to recover the full cost in accordance with Government policy. On average they have risen by 330 per cent. but the actual increase varies from different classes of survey."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 204.]
Lieut.Colonel Colin Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that this increase is also hotly resented by the Scottish Trawlers' Federation and its English counterpart and that what he is raising in principle is a matter of great detail to the trawler men, who have the support of hon. Members opposite, too?
Sir G. Nabarro: I am delighted to have the support of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell). This is a matter of great moment in Aberdeen, Peterhead and Stonehaven.
Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: And to fishermen in Tiverton.
Sir G. Nabarro: And to fishermen in Tiverton.
Dame Irene Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that I, too, asked a Question at about the same time? The answer showed an increase of 952 per cent. for some Tyneside firms which manufacture

1003
lifebuoys and lifebelts and so on. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I got the same reply, in writing, too.
Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have support from Aberdeen, Stonehaven, Peterhead, Tyne-mouth, Tiverton, Evesham and North-East Essex, which brings in Felixstowe and Harwich. We are taking a trip around the United Kingdom. I hope that I am impressing on my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry that this is not a parochial matter for County Worcestershire, or a matter relating only to the ancient Borough of Evesham, where all this parliamentary nonsense began in 1265, but a matter which affects the whole country.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is also of concern to trawler men working out of Leith and Granton. Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is not only charges which are germane to this matter but the somewhat dictatorial attitude on the part of the inspectors who seem to choose a place and time, even though they may be inconvenient to the trawler owner or the trawler skipper and may cost them a great deal of money because they have to remain in port when they could be at sea fishing?
Sir G. Nabarro: I am getting support from all quarters, which is most acceptable on this important occasion.
I said that this increase in charges was arbitrary. We are a seafaring nation. We depend on lifeboats voluntarily manned at all our ports. I was appalled to read a report in the Daily Mail, which I have since learnt to be strictly accurate, to the effect that this arbitrary decision by the Ministry would mean raising lifeboat charges by 1,000 per cent., or 11 times the former charge. I quote the Daily Mail of 25th May:
"Charges may 'sink' lifeboats.
Britain's two biggest lifeboat makers are threatening to stop production.
They say they cannot carry on because of a 1,000 p.c. increase in the Government charge for compulsory marine surveys on the boats.
Viking Marine, of Gosport, Hampshire, and Watercraft, of East Molesey, Surrey, produce 80 p.c. of ships' lifeboats made in this country.
1004
The annual marine survey bills will go up to about £45,000 from £4,000 for Viking and £20,000 from £2,000 for Watercraft."
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Scandalous!
Sir G. Nabarro: I agree—scandalous. The report goes on:
"Mr. Derek Gill, managing director of Watercraft, said yesterday: 'For our £20,000 we will get one man, usually the same chap, who works about two-and-a-half days a week carrying out tests on our boats.'
Both firms have protested to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department, Mr. Anthony Grant, has promised an inquiry.
Last night a Department spokesman explained: 'The costs were increased with Treasury backing in order to recover 100 p.c. of the full cost of a marine survey.
Surveyors' salaries, travelling costs and expenses have to be met. And the surveys on lifeboats are very strict.'"
I agree with all those platitudes. The Under-Secretary of State loves teaching his colleagues to suck eggs. I am not impressed. If it is the fact that the Department recovered only 50 per cent. of the true economic cost before these increases, and if it had decided, very properly, to recover the full economic cost, it would have led to a doubling of the charges. But, even allowing for increases in overhead expenses, increases in office accommodation and all the other inflationary tendencies of the last 12 months, it would not have been possible to raise the true economic cost of this operation by more than two and a half times. This is a manifestation of the position comparing the pre-increases with the post-increase charges, the post-increases applicable from 1st May.
But it is not two and a half times. It is 10 times. Therefore, it seems evident to me that no proper accounting or financial homework has been done in the Department. This has been some sloppy bureaucratic operation without due regard to the true circumstances, and I propose now to lead a deputation to the Minister, who will receive me, on behalf of all coastal and inland craft subjected to this exorbitant and extortionate increase in these legislatively compulsory charges from which a craft owner has no escape.
Mr. James Hill: Is my hon. Friend aware that even for a simple thing like an inflatable life raft

1005
the charge is doubled for weekend work? It seems that on a Saturday it is only £20 per hour to inspect an inflatable life raft plus £10 per hour for travelling, which in an area like Southampton is a minimal amount. On Sunday, however, when a vessel may want a quick turn-round at the weekend, the charge is doubled to £40 per hour for inspection and £20 per hour for travelling.
Sir G. Nabarro: I am grateful for that ample confirmation from the Port of Southampton. We have gone round all the principal ports.
Mr. Heffer: Including Liverpool.
Sir G. Nabarro: I had the hon. Gentleman's intervention earlier carefully recorded in HANSARD. I repeated it because he speaks for Liverpool. He uttered the single word "scandalous" and has given me the ample support which I sought.
I want to quote now from that representative journal, the Western Morning News of 19th May. It said:
"Angry South Devon boatmen met at Teignmouth last night and decided to fight the new Government survey fees for pleasure boats. Increases of over 600 per cent. were suddenly announced by the Department of Trade and Industry last week, and many boatmen fear their livelihoods are now in jeopardy. Some charges have risen from about £20 to over £130."
Their spokesman, Mr. Stan Hook, of Teignmouth, concluded his statement by saying:
"'I would like Edward Heath to know that if he got into trouble on Teignmouth Bar it would more than likely be one of the boats that is paying this exorbitant fee that would rescue him'."
I pray, for the sanctity and security of the Conservative Party, that "Morning Cloud" does not get into trouble near Teignmouth.
These charges are a direct threat to the lifeboat service. They are a direct threat to many classes of coastal craft essential to our livelihood. They are a direct threat to innumerable pleasure craft on inland waterways, notably where, for example, the teeming millions of industrial workers in the Midlands seek their recreation at weekends, at Stour-port-on-Severn, in Worcestershire, at Evesham, in Worcestershire, at Stratford-on-Avon, in Warwickshire, where many boats in this class are moored.
1006
We have learned to our discredit that the index of retail prices has risen by 8·8 per cent. in the 12 months since June, 1970. I was informed at Question time today that food prices had risen in the same period by 8·5 per cent. as well. These are grave and anxious figures. But, as I told the Prime Minister today, the Government should set an example. The Government should not lecture the workers that they cannot have more than 5 per cent. per annum increase in their wages; the Government should not lecture motor manufacturers that they may not give 10 or 15 or 20 per cent. increases; the Treasury should not be lecturing firms as to the level of their dividend distribution in relation to their profits. Governments should practice what they preach. Governments have no right whatever to demand 600, 800, 900, 1,000 per cent. increases in fees overnight.
I thoroughly resent this. The whole House resents it. The people of this country, when they learn about it, will resent it. It is not going to rest on the outcome of this short debate. I will harry the Government with these simple words: they will as long as I sit behind them practice what they preach and demonstrate to the people that they are intent on stopping inflation and not stoking the fires of inflation as this disgraceful increase of marine survey charges so amply demonstrates.
10.17 p.m.
The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has spoken strongly on a subject about which many other hon. Members also feel strongly. I hope that in the short time available to me I shall be able to do justice to the arguments he has put forward.
I must first try to give some idea of the background to this proposition. To do that it is necessary to go back to 1923. The Fees (Increase) Act then laid down that the fees charged for marine surveys should recover not more than 50 per cent. of the cost of providing the services. This continued to be a statutory requirement by virtue of the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, until it was repealed in 1935. The fees, however, continued to be fixed at levels which were intended to recover only 50 per cent. of the cost of providing the fee-earning services.

1007
The previous Administration looked at this and towards the end of 1968 decided that from a date to be announced the fees should be increased so as to recover the full cost of the fee-earning services. The then Government notified the shipping industry in April 1969 and consultations have since taken place.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Not true. Will my hon. Friend allow me?
Sir J. Eden: When we came into office and had the chance to study what was being proposed, it was clear that the objective was in line with our own general policy that services should be paid for by the industries which made use of them. This is very much in keeping with the general intentions behind the reference in Command Paper 4515, the White Paper describing the new policy for public spending published in October of last year, in which it was said that the scope of charges in the public services generally ought to be in line with costs where appropriate.
We had to set about revising the fee. This was a difficult operation and I would like to try to explain how this has taken place, since it may show why such large increases were necessary and why they have had to affect small boat operators as well as the large ocean-going passenger liners in the way that they have.
Mr. Ronald King Murray Mr. Ronald King Murray rose——
Sir J. Eden: I am sorry, I cannot give way. I beg the House to allow me to proceed because I have a lot to say and I must try to get through it. In the first place, although the fees in force before 1st May had nominally been intended to recover 50 per cent. of the cost of providing the fee-earning services they were failing to do so by a very substantial margin. This was because of cost increases since they were last generally revised in 1967. Together with other factors this meant that for 100 per cent. recovery we had not merely to double the fees in force before 1st May but to increase them on average by a factor of 4·3. The difference between the cost of the services and the revenue we were recovering was running at a rate of more than £100,000 a month.
Apart from that the fee structure had become distorted over the years so as
1008
to produce variations in the proportions of their costs recovered by different surveys. Ideally what was needed was a complete recosting of the service in detail so as to ensure that every separate function recovered its proper costs.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: Would the hon. Gentleman give way on this point which I think would assist him?
Sir J. Eden: This would have been a massive task and to have carried out a survey of that detail would have involved quite a disproportionate amount of time and effort, and even if that had been done we could not have guaranteed that the charge in an individual case would have matched the costs actually incurred because the amount of work can vary from ship to ship. We then considered charging for every job according to the time spent on it by the surveyor. This was the point implied by my hon. Friend in one of his observations. This certainly had attractions but it also had disadvantages particularly in the scope it offered for endless argument about what is a proper charge in particular circumstances. The disadvantages seemed to be more substantial than the attractions. The only other possibility was a limited costing, designed to remove major anomalies between the various broad classes of survey. This is the one we chose.
This exercise produced the range of multipliers to which my hon. Friend has referred, from 2 for tonnage measure-meant to 9·6 for safety equipment certificates. The increase in the fees for passenger certificates was of the order of 6·1. This applied to the smaller craft as well as to the larger ones. I am sure that it is right to insist, in the case of small craft, that they should be surveyed. Although most of them to do not go far out to sea, and in the case of those belonging to my hon. Friend's constituents probably not at all, many are capable of carrying substantial numbers of passengers who may be at least as much at risk as on board an ocean liner.
It is for this reason that there is the statutory requirement that every vessel carrying more than 12 passengers for hire or reward should be issued with a passenger certificate and undergo the necessary survey. This may not be a very complicated matter for a small vessel but

1009
it does take up a certain amount of the surveyors' time, it involves travel and it does mean having qualified staff available. There are costs which have to be recovered. Because of the way in which the costing was carried out I would not claim that any particular fee represented the exact cost of performing a particular survey on a particular vessel.
My hon. Friend has spoken about two cases especially: the small passenger craft and the manufacturers of lifeboats. I have had a very close look at these matters. As the House knows, my hon. Friend is away, or he would have been at the Dispatch Box instead of me. I have had a very close look at these matters, and I am doing my best to try to find a way of meeting cases of particular hardship.
I believe that the case of the small passenger boat operators is one such, both because of the size of the fees themselves and because, in the absence of any national organisation specifically representing them, they did not receive the same notice of our intentions to increase the fees by this amount, or to increase them at all, as did the larger boat operators.
Sir G. Nabarro: May I ask my hon. Friend one quick question? Will he please concentrate on the lifeboat position, which is of critical importance?
Sir J. Eden Sir J. Eden rose——
Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the Minister also deal with the cost——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order.
Sir J. Eden: I have therefore decided——
Mr. Murray: On a point of order——
An Hon. Member: Do not be silly.
Mr. Murray: Is it in order for the Minister to give way to an hon. Member from his side and not to give way to an hon. Member from this side?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister gives way to whomsoever he chooses, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows.
Sir J. Eden: I have therefore decided to introduce a new step in the scale of
1010
fees for passenger certificates applying to vessels not exceeding 25 tons. The fee for a full passenger certificate for vessels in this category will be £67 instead of the present £134, and there will be corresponding reductions in certain related certificates of limited validity. As these are statutory fees, it will be necessary to amend the Merchant Shipping (Fees) Regulations, 1971, now before the House, and I will arrange for the introduction of amending regulations as quickly as possible.
Another point which has been specifically raised which needs to be looked at very closely indeed concerns the inspection and certification by the Department's surveyors at manufacturers' works of lifeboats and lifejackets forming part of a production run. This is a service which I am sure the industry value because it enables manufacturers to market their products with the benefit of the Department's certificate of approval, with considerable benefit to their export business. The service is in the class which has attracted the highest increase, and, like the small boat operators, they had virtually no notice of it. Because much of their business is on the basis of fixed price contracts they are thus faced with substantially increased costs which for some time to come they will be unable to recover.
This is not a statutory service, but one which the Department provides contractually. Even so, there seems to be a case for finding some means of mitigating the impact of the new fees. I propose to do this by reducing the amount of inspection undertaken by the Department's surveyors where production items form part of a run conforming to an approved prototype and relying more on inspection arrangements operated by the firms themselves with the Department's approval. These will have to be so organised that there is no diminution in safety. The details have yet to be worked out, but it has been estimated that it will be possible on this basis to reduce the amount of inspection by the Department to about one-quarter of its present level, and I propose to reduce the fees to the same extent. The fees for inspection and certification of a prototype would, however, have to remain at the levels effective from 1st May.

1011
These changes are being made to meet the special cases of hardship highlighted by my hon. Friend and by the observations which have been made both through Parliamentary Questions and in correspondence with the Department. I know that they do not go as far as hon. Members would wish. I should say to those who have mentioned the trawlermen that, in general, fishing vessels are not required by Statute to be surveyed. This is a voluntarily operation on their part. However, representatives of the two trawler federations have been having further discussions at the Department today and we shall be pursuing this matter with them. I hope that, limited though
1012
they are—which I recognise—these reductions will be of some help to those whose interests my hon. Friend and others who have interjected have so effectively represented tonight.
Sir G. Nabarro: Before my hon. Friend sits down, I should like to express my gratitude for this crumb of comfort. I shall certainly examine his revised regulations with much avidity and great care, as will all my hon. Friends interested in this critically important matter. I am grateful for the crumb of comfort which he has given this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  New Zealand Butter
  New Zealand Butter
  Agricultural Support
  Agricultural Support
  Bull Licensing
  Bull Licensing
  Small Farms
  Small Farms
  Orchard Grubbing Scheme
  Orchard Grubbing Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Sterling
  Sterling
  Civil List
  Civil List
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Tax Assessments
  Tax Assessments
  U.K. Balance of Payments Transactions
  U.K. Balance of Payments Transactions
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Medical Appeal Tribunals (Findings)
  Medical Appeal Tribunals (Findings)
  Doctors' Lists (Removal of Patients' Names)
  Doctors' Lists (Removal of Patients' Names)
  Rehabilitation (Tunbridge Report)
  Rehabilitation (Tunbridge Report)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
  South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board (Geriatric Services)
  South East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board (Geriatric Services)
  Department's Staff (Executive Officers)
  Department's Staff (Executive Officers)
EMPLOYMENT
  Food Index
  Food Index
  Woollen Textile Industry (Wages)
  Woollen Textile Industry (Wages)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Agricultural Training Board
  Agricultural Training Board
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
SCOTLAND
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Young Persons (Hospital Accommodation)
  Young Persons (Hospital Accommodation)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Licensing Hours
  Licensing Hours
  Prisoners (Freedom Training)
  Prisoners (Freedom Training)
  Prison Building Programme
  Prison Building Programme
  Ringtord Bypass
  Ringtord Bypass
  Road Maintenance (Local Authority Responsibility)
  Road Maintenance (Local Authority Responsibility)
  Prison Population
  Prison Population
  Historic Buildings Council
  Historic Buildings Council
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  East Pakistan
  East Pakistan
  Students (Military Training)
  Students (Military Training)
  India and Pakistan (Aid)
  India and Pakistan (Aid)
  European Code of Social Security
  European Code of Social Security
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (WEST COUNTRY)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (WEST COUNTRY)
  SCHOOL LEAVERS (EMPLOYMENT)
  SCHOOL LEAVERS (EMPLOYMENT)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
ENVIRONMENT
  Sewage Disposal (Working Party)
  Sewage Disposal (Working Party)
  Thames Barrier
  Thames Barrier
  Historic Buildings Council for England
  Historic Buildings Council for England
  Invalid Cars
  Invalid Cars
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Carriers (Insurance Responsibility)
  Carriers (Insurance Responsibility)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Firearms Act, 1968 (Convictions)
  Firearms Act, 1968 (Convictions)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Continental Shelf (Production Licences)
  Continental Shelf (Production Licences)
  Private Companies (Minority Shareholders)
  Private Companies (Minority Shareholders)
  Companies Act, 1948 (Section 210)
  Companies Act, 1948 (Section 210)
  Metal Imports
  Metal Imports
  English Channel (Navigation)
  English Channel (Navigation)
WALES
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)

Preamble
Reassembling after the Whitsun Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

LORD BLAKE
Robert Norman William Blake, Esquire, having been created Baron Blake, of Braydeston in the county of Norfolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Earl of Longford and the Lord Coleraine.

ROAD TRAFFIC CONTROL AND AMBER LIGHT SIGNAL
LORD SEGAL: 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 evidence is available of the effects on traffic movement at busy road intersections, of the abolition of the amber light, and whether they will consider this change for an experimental period in certain areas of London.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries would not regard the abolition of the amber light as a safe measure. Two experiments have been carried out to evaluate the effect of omitting the amberplus-red signal but in neither case was there any significant change in the total number of accidents; there was, however, greater delay to traffic.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. But may I ask him whether he is aware that the present system is working unsatisfactorily in some parts of London; that some motorists try to crash the lights as soon as the amber light appears? Is the noble Lord's mind completely closed to the advisability of trying out the abolition of the amber light, even for a restricted period?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with great respect, I think I can say that my right honourable friend's mind is never completely closed to anything. We have behind us the experiments which were carried out about nine years ago and 15 years ago, and since those days we have adopted a new timing system for the lights. I take the noble Lord's point about traffic crashing the lights, but that is really a matter of enforcement for the police. It is an offence willingly to cross lights at amber. If we were to do away with the amber phase after red, it is suggested that there

3
would be a greater number of the nose-to-tail type of accidents. Furthermore, there would not be an absolute offence if traffic crossed at red, which at the moment is the case.
BARONESS BURTON or COVENTRY: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask the Minister whether he can do anything to draw attention to the problem of the pedestrian and filtering traffic? Is he aware that, where traffic is almost continuous, because of filtering it is practically impossible to get across the road? And am I not correct in assuming that under, I think, Section 47 of the Highway Code that is an offence?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think we are getting on to a somewhat different question. But I take the noble Baroness's point and I will look at it.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, is it Government policy, where traffic lights are concerned, to be guided by experiments which are ten years old or older?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have explained to your Lordships' House the fact that those experiments did not show any significant danger point. Since those times we have changed the system, and Her Majesty's Constabulary are now happy with the new system.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, under the changed system will the noble Lord not press for an extension of warning signals allowing pedestrians either to cross or not to cross?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is all a matter of observance of the law. In the big cities we have very good systems, with signs indicating"Do not cross"and"Cross"; and there are lighted-up gentlemen and ladies and signs of that sort. I believe that if people are observant of the law these accidents will not happen.

GATWICK AIRPORT
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, now that a decision on the Third London Airport has been taken, they will make a statement on the future of Gatwick Airport; and in particular whether they can confirm that there is now no question of building a second runway.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government expect that the opening of the Third London Airport by 1980 will make it unnecessary to provide additional runways at the other London Airports, including Gatwick. Gatwick will need to be fully used on a one-runway basis until then, but after 1980 some restrictions may be possible.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am very much obliged for the Answer which we have had, because it will give great relief to thousands of people in Surrey and Sussex. May I ask the noble Lord when we may expect the report from the inspector who has recently been conducting the inquiry at Gatwick about the existing runway and extensions to the existing runway? We have been waiting for that report for several weeks.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give an exact date to my noble friend but, as he says, the report is now awaited.

HOUNSLOW HEATH HOUSING SCHEME
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 how many houses are proposed to be built by the local housing authority on Hounslow Heath; whether the site comes within the 55 N.N.I. noise boundary of Heathrow Airport; and to what extent the new housing

5
development comes within Her Majesty's Government's policy of reducing the noise nuisance at Heathrow Airport.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT FOR 'THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I understand that the Greater London Council's proposal is that some 2,000 dwellings should be built on Hounslow Heath. All but the North-East corner of the site is outside the 55 N.N.I. noise contour. The Council's planning application involves a substantial departure from the development plan, and they have just referred it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment so that he can decide whether to call it in for his own decision. I cannot therefore comment on the merits of the application, but I can confirm that aircraft noise is one of the factors which my right honourable friend will take into account.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has been able to tell us. I am glad to hear that the application may possibly be called in by his right honourable friend. Would not the noble Lord accept that it makes a nonsense of a good deal of the agitation about the noise around London Airport if a local authority is allowed to go ahead and build (as I understand it) 2,400 new houses within an area most of which is defined as being unacceptable from a noise point of view?
LORD SANDFORD: As I think I said, my Lords, that decision has not yet been taken, and I cannot comment on it further.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, apart from the noise factor, may I ask whether the 2,400 houses are going to occupy a substantial part of the available open space in that area, and whether that open space has any amenity value for the local inhabitants?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the exact proportion of the total space that will be allocated to public open space—that is, the exact proportion of the area covered by the planning application—I cannot say, but a substantial amount will remain as open space. In this problem we have to balance at least three considerations: the need for open space, the
6
desperate need for housing within the Greater London Area and the harmful effect of aircraft noise.

LAW REFORM: LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME
2.54 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to implement the recommendations contained in—

(a) the 17th Report of the Law Reform Committee on Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence;

(b) the 40th Report of the Law Commission on Civil Liability of Vendors and Lessors of Defective Premises;

(c) the 42nd Report of the Law Commission on Polygamous Marriages;

and, if so, in each case when the necessary legislation is likely to be introduced.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSIIAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the Government accept in principle the majority recommendations in the 17th Report of the Law Reform Committee on Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence. Legislation will be introduced when Parliamentary time allows. The 40th Report of the Law Commission on Civil Liability for Defective Premises is still under consideration. The 42nd Report of the Law Commission on Polygamous Marriages contains a Memorandum of Dissent by one Commissioner and raises some difficult issues. The Government need time for further consideration. and would welcome public discussion of the Report before a final decision is taken.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, may I ask, with regard to the 40th Report of the Law Commission, whether there is any particular obstacle that prevents the Government from coming to a conclusion about this Report, which was published last year; whether he appreciates that a Written Question in January and a Written Question in,

7
March produced the same Answers as that given to-day; and whether, refreshed by the summer, there is a reasonable prospect that if I ask the Question again in October some conclusion may have been arrived at?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the 40th Report of the Commission on Civil Liability was published in December, 1970—that is, less than a year ago. It contains four recommendations, of which two are controversial. The two controversial recommendations are Clause 1, declaring a duty on house builders to build properly; and Clause 3, the duty of care with respect to defects known on disposal of premises. There remains at least the question of Clause 3, which has come in for strong public criticism, in particular from the Law Society. Comments from the Bar Council, which may also be critical, are expected soon. I would hope soon to be in a position to consult my colleagues in the light of this public criticism, but until the comments are all in I think I should be unwise to do so. I hope to put proposals forward fairly soon after they are all in, but there is no chance of legislation this Session, at any rate.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would define public discussion in the context of polygamous marriages? Would he welcome discussion by the women's organisations as well as by the various legal authorities?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I should more than welcome discussion by the women's organisations. This is not a purely legal question: it is a question of important social policies, in which there are very powerful arguments in both directions, and the more ventilation it can have among the public and the more public discussion there can be the happier I shall be. It could, of course, be made the subject of a Private Member's legislation, because at the end of the day it is something about which the Government are traditionally rather neutral.

EAST PAKISTAN
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on East Pakistan at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
2.59 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. These Amendments to Standing Orders, apart from that to Standing Order No. 36, all arise from the Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, to which your Lordships agreed on Wednesday, May 26. The Amendment to Standing Order No. 36 is merely to correct a printing mistake in the Amendment made to this Standing Order a few weeks ago. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
Standing Order No. 29
Leave out Standing Order No. 29 and insert the following new Standing Order—
("No Lord to speak more than once to a Motion.
29. No Lord is to speak more than once to any Motion, save only:—

(a) when the House is in Committee;

(b) the mover of a Motion in reply;

(c) with the leave of the House, which may only be granted:—

(i) to a Lord to explain himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced); or

(ii) to the Chairman of Committees, or in his absence a Deputy Chairman, the Chairman of a Select Committee on the Report of such a Committee, or a Minister of the Crown.")

After Standing Order No. 29
Insert the following new Standing Order—
("Leave of the House.
29A. Leave of the House or of a House. Committee of the House must be unanimous in those cases where, if Leave were granted, the House or Committee would be deprived of a Question which would otherwise have been put from the Woolsack or the Chair. In all other cases where Leave is sought, it is granted by a majority of the House and the objection of a single Peer does not suffice to withhold it.")
Standing Order No. 32
Leave out Standing Order No. 32.
Insert the following new Standing Orders—
("PNQs and Statements.
33A. Questions of which private notice has been given may be asked, and statements made, without notice given in the Order Paper, but these should not be made the occasion for immediate debate, unless the House so order.
Unstarred Questions and Motions.
33B. Questions which may give rise to discussion (known as Un-starred Questions) and Motions of which notice is required shall appear on the Order Paper of the day on which they are to be taken.")
Standing Order No. 36
Paragraph (3), leave out ("shall, if he so desires,") and insert ("if he so desires, shall") Standing Order No. 37
After paragaph (3) insert—
(") Commons amendments to Bills and Commons Reasons may be considered without notice at any convenient time during Public Business")
Paragraph (5), line 2, leave out ("immediately after starred questions") and insert ("at anytime by leave of the House.")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question on the item"After Standing Order No. 33"? Could he say who is responsible for giving sanction to such a Question being asked on notice of a statement to be made on a particular subject? Will the procedure be similar to that which operates in another place?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord's question is that in the case of some Questions the unanimous consent of the House is required; that is, if one noble Lord dissents, then the Question, as it were, falls. But in the case of others—and these were itemised in the Fifth Report
10
of the Procedure Committee—the majority assent of your Lordships' House is required.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I really wanted clarification as to whether a noble Lord in seeking to ask such a Question would need the permission of the Leader of the House or of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack?
EARL JELLICOE: No, my Lords, it is the consent of the House as a whole. If the noble Lord will refer to paragraph 10 of the Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee I think he will find that is made quite clear.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Orders amended accordingly.

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a purely consolidating Bill, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, will be pleased to see it. If given a Second Reading it will be considered in due course by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I say that I am very pleased to see it.
Moved, That the Bill now be read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This again is purely a consolidation Bill. It catches up with the last Bill which was passed as recently as April 8. It is simply a law reform Bill designed to consolidate the law.
Moved, That the Bill now be read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

REDEMPTION OF STANDARD SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: 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 Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]
Schedule 3 [Chief Registrar and Assistant Registrars, National Industrial Relations Court and Commission on Industrial Relations]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 275H I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 375M.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 275H:
Page 130, line 40, leave out paragraph (6)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment in order to probe the thoughts of the Government on this measure; and I suspect that in doing so I have very much in mind the thoughts which prompted the noble Lord, Lord
12
Drumalbyn, to put down Amendment No. 275M to make a change in this provision. The point I wish to raise has absolutely no Party content whatever. It is this. In this Part of Schedule 3 one is dealing with the appointed members of the Industrial Court. In a sense, they are assessors to assist the judges but they are also themselves judges. They will be called upon to exercise purely judicial functions and will take part in the judicial processes for the purpose for which the Industrial Court is set up. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will feel the importance of the principle that in framing constitutional provisions one should be extremely careful as to their impact on the power of removal by an Executive Minister.
I am not suggesting that the power of removal should be as restricted in scope as it is when applied to judges proper, if I may so describe them. A High Court Judge does not enter into this category; although of course there are special constitutional provisions which apply to his removal by Parliament as a whole. But in the case of other judges the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has vested in him certain functions in respect of which he is required to exercise a most important, difficult and delicate discretion. The country as a whole always has complete confidence in the Lord Chancellor in the way in which he approaches matters of that sort.
The question I am putting to the Government and on which I should he grateful to ascertain their thinking is: does either the wording which at present appears in paragraph 6 of Part II of Schedule 3 or the wording which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn would wish to substitute for it really strike the right note? The appointed members of the Court will hold office for only a limited period of time. They are not like the judges of the county courts or Metropolitan magistrates who are appointed for a very long period of years. The period of office of the appointed members is rather short when compared with the normal period for the holders of judicial office in this country. Is it desirable, in the opinion of the Government Front Bench, that there should be a virtually unrestricted power of removal for incapacity? The Amendment which

13
the Government wish to substitute introduces the note of misbehaviour. I accept at once that should it unhappily occur—and fortunately in our country it occurs very rarely, if ever—that a person entrusted with judicial duties can be said in any way to misbehave, the Government must have the power to remove. is it not rather more difficult to try to define circumstances in which an Executive Minister, including the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, exercises his powers in this context? Is it desirable that, together with the Secretary of State, those Executive Ministers, should have the power to say that in their judgment a particular appointed member has shown during the limited period of his office that he is just not up to it?
One has in mind a situation in which the appointed member, by his judgment or by his dissenting judgment, may have obviously indicated that he does not agree with the view which generally would be held by the Government. I hope that noble Lords will not think that I am imputing had faith to anybody; but one cannot foresee how circumstances would work out and it would be unfortunate if at some future time, perhaps years hence, a member was removed by the noble and learned Lord or the Secretary of State—a member of whom it was known that he had habitually held a view which was in conflict with general Government policy. I put the question interrogatively and I hope that the Committee will think that the point is important, and it has no Party content whatever. The Government have set up a Court which this House approved on Second Reading. It is controversial, of course, but the Court having been set up I am sure that the Committee would wish it to function as efficiently as possible and command all the respect which it must have from the public and from both sides of industry if it is to be able to address itself to its judicial functions with any success.
I shall be most grateful if one or other of the noble Lords in charge of this particular aspect of the Bill would be so kind as to indicate what is the Government's thinking. If they invite me to suggest alternative language I would say that it is difficult for me to do so. The alternative which I would put for their consideration is whether it would not be
14
a wise course not to vest in anybody power of removal on the ground of incapacity. After all, the holder of the office holds it for only a limited period of time. Obviously, he will have been chosen with great care, and one would have thought it most unlikely that the choice would fall on someone who, within the limited period that he would be in office, would be so incapable of performing the duties he would be called on to perform that his removal would become necessary. That is the question of principle which I should like to raise; and it goes not only with my Amendment but also is in close association with the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. The appointment is for only three years. I do not wish to accuse anyone of malevolence or of any wrongful action against an individual, but I think that this power should not be put in the hands of the Executive. Here we are in a new field which overlaps into industrial affairs. We are trying to manage human affairs by Act of Parliament. Although it may sound a little ponderous, I think that no one should be removed without the approval of Parliament. Some such action should be taken to protect these people from any Government who might take a different point of view. As for misbehaviour, my noble friend knows that in this country, fortunately, that seldom happens. It has never happened with Lord Chancellors; or it has happened only once in history, when a Lord Chancellor used his Great Seal to cook pancakes for his mistress. I am quite sure that nothing like that would happen in modern times. I think this power should be vested in Parliament and not in the Executive.
3.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is quite wrong in what he said about Lord Chancellors. I think the waffles story is probably apocryphal. If the noble Lord would like to come and see the Great Seal, I will not actually let him try to cook waffles on it, but I think he will see that the story is inherently unlikely. There were, of course, a great number of other scandals relating to certain of my predecessors which I will not now recount

15
to your Lordships, but the noble Lord is quite wrong in thinking that the Office is quite so free from blame as he supposes.
If I may now turn to the substance of Lord Stow Hill's Amendment, I must apologise to him for having been absent during the first two minutes of his speech but I think I heard enough of what he said to be able to answer him. I must first point out that, as at present drafted, it is not true that, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, the appointment is for only three years. What paragraph 4 says is that a person shall not be appointed for a term of less than three years, which is, in a sense, quite the opposite. It would be for not more than three years if the period were for only three years, but it says that the period is not less than three years. In a sense that supplies the answer to what has been said, because it is by no means certain that these appointments will be for only three years. Obviously in cases of gross misbehaviour I do not suppose anyone would doubt that someone ought to have the power to remove.
I am afraid hat I must also press on the Committee the view that it is necessary, unfortunately, to deal with incapacity in the same way. By"incapacity"I mean something more than incompetence. Let me give an example—this is not an imaginary example, but I will not specify it; it is something which I have known to happen —that a person holding a judicial office has a stroke. People of our age do have strokes. I knew of one man who was quite unable to speak or write. He could not resign and no one could take it upon himself to say that he knew that this person would resign if he had the chance. Some people suffer from mental incapacity almost without warning, and it is not really satisfactory to have someone in office who cannot resign but who is incapable of carrying out his functions even though his term of office may be relatively restricted.
I think that there is a good deal in the constitutional point put by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and it is for this very reason that, if the Committee agrees, we are changing the original form of words appearing in the Schedule to the form of words contained in the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. There is a good
16
deal in that constitutional point. The phrase we have chosen,"incapacity or misbehaviour"has a very respectable precedent because when I introduced the Courts Bill into this House we were going to remove the circuit Judges for inability or misbehaviour. It was the official Opposition in another place which suggested substituting the words"incapacity or misbehaviour", which we accepted as an improvement on the wording in the Bill. So these words which we have chosen are the Opposition's own words, although admittedly applied to circuit Judges and not to lay members of any court. The industrial tribunal chairmen are subject to similar powers of removal. I quite take the noble Lord's constitutional doctrine, which I accept, but on reflection I would ask him and the Committee to take the view that, defined as it will be in the amended form—where I think it is not open to objection on constitutional grounds—the power is a necessary reserve power to be held in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, where I trust it will be safely held, even though he is a member of the Cabinet.
LORD STOW HILL: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has just said. The only slight doubt in my mind is whether the word"incapacity"would be construed as being limited only to something in the nature of physical incapacity. If it were, I should be absolutely content, but the slight doubt which lingers in my mind is whether it would be so restricted. I entirely follow and accept what the noble and learned Lord says, upon the understanding that that really is the meaning which would be attributed to the word"incapacity"in the courts, if it ever came before them. As I say, I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment follows on what we have been saying, and I beg formally to move Amendment No. 275M.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 40, leave out from ("may") to end of line 3 on page 131 and insert ("remove an appointed member on the ground

17
of incapacity or misbehaviour").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE) moved Amendment No. 275K:
Page 132, line 1, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—
("(2) The rules shall be made by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session.")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment provides that N.I.R.C. rules will be made by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord President of the Court of Session, instead of separately by the two authorities for England and Scotland. The separate rule-making powers provided by paragraph 18(2) and (3) are comparable to those governing the High Court and the Court of Session. In the case of the High Court, the different traditions of English and Scottish law, together with the fact that the two courts are separate, require that the rules be made by different authorities, but in the case of the N.I.R.C. there are no such different traditions, and though one or more N.I.R.C. judges will sit only in Scotland there will be no separate Scottish branch, and accordingly separate rule-making power is unnecessary, but specific provision has, of course, been made for consultation with the Lord President. I beg to move.
LORD HOY: It all seems a little difficult when the Amendment says that the Lord President will be taken into consultation. I assume that the reason for this is that we can always question the Lord Chancellor but we cannot question the Lord President. If it does not mean any more than that. I have no objection, but I should not like to see the Scottish courts being in any way looked upon as a secondary consideration. I assume that it is for the reason I have mentioned that it is not done jointly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right about this. The Lord Chancellor can be questioned and the Lord President cannot. There is a slightly different tradition, as my noble friend pointed out and as the noble Lord will know, between Scotland and England, because Scotland has no Lord Chancellor and is therefore driven to choose
18
either a judge or a minister, but cannot have the hybrid who is both.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY THE EARL OF DUDLEY moved Amendment No. 275N:
Page 132, line 15, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 17, and insert ("keep its proceedings as informal as appears to the Court to be appropriate in the circumstances of those proceedings.")
The noble Earl said: The Consultative Document made two specific references to the proposed character of the Industrial Court. Paragraph 17 says:
"It is intended that access to the N.I.R.C. and the I.T.s should be easy and their proceedings relatively informal."
Paragraph 25 reiterates that:
"The procedure of the N.I.R.C. and the I.T.s should be as informal and as free from technicalities as possible."
In the Bill before the Committee, as drafted, Schedule 3 paragraph 18(6) requires that the Court:
"shall seek to avoid formality in its proceedings so far as it appears to the Court to be practicable to do so."
And the explanatory paper distributed by the Department of Employment at the time of the publication of the Bill commented:
"It is proposed that the procedure of the N.I.R.C. should be as informal as is practicable."
There can be no doubt that the Government wish the proceedings of the Industrial Court to be informal, nor any doubt that they intend the Bill shall spell that out. The noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, and I propose this Amendment for two reasons. First, we believe that to require the Court to be informal will be more suitable for the purpose of the Schedule than to require the Court to seek to avoid formality. Secondly, we think that the adjective"appropriate", as applied to informality or to the avoidance of formality, is likely to be more helpful to the Court than the adjective"practicable".
If there is to be a legal framework for industrial relations, the Committee will agree, I am sure, that the Court should be informal. It is to be hoped that it will be a modern court, in the sense of dispensing with many trappings of our traditional courts and with any mediaeval or legalistic mumbo-jumbo. One would

19
expect the Court to be broad-minded about the appearance, manners and behaviour of parties or witnesses to a complaint. It may be that the Court can conduct its business more appropriately without wig and gown and without formal procedures, and justice can thereby be done and be seen to be done more rapidly, more cheaply and more conveniently.
The Government seek an informal Court, but I suggest to the Government and the Committee that informality need not necessarily always be achieved through the avoidance of formality. For instance, there may be judges whose easy and informal attitudes depend upon the familiar contact of wig and gown and who would be uncomfortable and unhappy and therefore more formal without those old friends. Moreover, to require the Court to avoid formality poses the question of what action it should take to fulfil that requirement. Though clearly there are varying degrees of informality, the Court should be able to decide without much difficulty whether it is or is not being informal. but the answer to whether it has succeeded in avoiding formality may not be so clear-cut. And if the members of the Court turn for help to the Schedule, they will find that the only yardstick by which they can resolve to what extent to avoid informality is whether it is practicable to do so. The difficulty with the adjective"practicable"is that it can apply to so many contradictory alternatives. To comply with the wording of the Bill, the Court may have to decide whether to leave off wig and gown, to shed coat and tie, to allow parties to speak to the Court while seated, or even to use first names. All these actions are"practicable", and all are less formal than the contrary, and there-for ex hypothesi all could be required by the Bill to become practices of the Industrial Court.
To remove these difficulties, the yardstick with which the Court should measure the degree of informality required in the conduct of its proceedings should not be whether the avoidance of formality is"practicable"but whether the informal action or behaviour is"appropriate". I suggest to the Committee that, the word"appropriate"would give more flexibility to the Court
20
than the word"practicable", and it seems to be right that the Court should have more discretion in the conduct of its business than the wording of the Schedule allows. There may well be certain circumstances Which both the Court and the parties to a complaint will feel that they require and justify somewhat less formality in the proceedings than usual. There are also, for example, personalities whose informality might encourage confusion or delay or disturb the proceedings of the Court and who could best be allowed to speak by the Court using more formal proceedings. I think that the Government would be wise to give the Court more room for manœuvre. That is why the noble Viscount and I commend to the Government, and to the Committee, the use of the word"appropriate"instead of"practicable"as a measure of the degree of informality required in the circumstances of the proceedings. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to support the noble Earl and the noble Viscount in this Amendment, having had experience in the past of taking people before the systems of tribunal that have grown up. Since this legal framework is entirely new and consequently it is an emperical and pragmatic one, I believe one should try to aproach it as informally as possible so that the layman appearing before this new type of court should not feel that his environment is a strange one. Many of our people who have not had the opportunity of the magnificent background of education of learned judges may have plenty of wisdom and may be very able people, but in a very formal atmosphere they do not have the ability to put a case forward. Perhaps the Government would look at the Amendment of the noble Earl and his noble colleague to see whether something can be done in this direction.
LORD BROWN: I believe the Bill is quite right as it stands. There is a school of thinking in the business schools of America that constantly reiterates the need for"informal organisation '. I never tire of pointing out that the two words"informal"and"organisation"represent a contradiction in terms. You cannot embrace informality. All you can do if you want to be informal is to give

21
up formality and to stop using organisations and institutions that might otherwise have been used. You cannot embrace informality, and the moment you begin to define it it becomes formality. I believe the Bill is quite right as it stands and should be left in that condition.
3.32 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I thought I agreed with the last speaker, but I came to the opposite conclusion. What I do not like about the words in the Bill as they stand is that they suggest there is something wrong with formality. There is nothing necessarily wrong with formality. What is wanted in a court is predictability. People want to know the sort of way in which the court is going to behave and what they can expect from the procedure. Very often the court develops its own lines of procedure: in fact the previous paragraph has stated that the court will have power to regulate its own procedure. I rather doubt the need for this paragraph (6), but, if it is to be there, I do not think the words are very good on account of the suggestion that there is something intrinsically wrong with formality in a court. There is nothing wrong with formality in a court, if what is meant by formality is predictability, that the court generally behaves in the same way and has its rules and customs of procedure.
On the whole, I think that my noble friend who moved this Amendment had a sound basis for his observations. I think his words avoid some of the difficulties in the Bill as it now stands. I am not entirely happy about them, and indeed I would not be excessively unhappy if the whole paragraph were omitted; but, if the paragraph is to appear in some form, there is some substance in the criticism that has been brought to light by this Amendment.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I should not have spoken if Lord Cones-ford had not spoken, and, with his legal experience, I value what he has said about formality. However, my legal experience has been through arbitration courts and particularly redundancy courts, whose purpose it is to judge whether or not a man is entitled to redundancy payments. Nine times out of ten when people come into such a court they are apprehensive, as they might be with a
22
normal legal procedure; but it is noticeable, that as soon as the chairman tells the applicant that things are being run on an informal basis the applicant accepts the informality and expresses himself as he wants to without any regard to the legal trappings or phraseology. I suggest that if these courts are to be conducted on a formal basis they will have a practical value to people with legal knowledge, but they will have rather a bad effect on applicants who come without legal knowledge but with a vast knowledge of the practical problems they are facing. It is for that reason that I support anything which allows these court proceedings to be conducted informally, although with an awareness of the responsibility that the judgment is important at the end of the day. I am for informality every time when dealing with courts of this character.
LORD SHINWELL: The only assembly I have ever attended where there is complete informality is your Lordships' House. Nevertheless we have to abide by the Standing Orders, as we have seen only this afternoon, when we assented to a Motion on Standing Orders moved by the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal. Quite frankly, I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what"informality"actually represents. If a case has to be tried and if an argument has to be presented—which presumably is the purpose of the Industrial Court—either related to redundancy, an unfair industrial practice or any other allegation, obviously there must be certain prescribed rules which determine how the case should be presented and how it should be dealt with by those who are responsible in a judicial capacity.
I could understand the noble Earl when, in moving the Amendment, he referred to"scrapping the wig and gown". He used an expression that I would never have dared to use, certainly not in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—though he was not present at the time—namely,"legalistic mumbo-jumbo". What a caricature of the courts of justice in this country! I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has now arrived, and perhaps I may explain to him that when he entered the Chamber I was making no accusation against Lord Chancellors in general or in particular. I was merely

23
referring to the noble Earl opposite, who in the course of his argument said that these Industrial Courts might be less formal than a normal court of justice and who actually referred to"legalistic mumbo-jumbo I had just suggested that this was a very odd expression to use in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who un-fortunately was not present— and then he suddenly appeared.
It seems to me we are becoming involved in a misunderstanding. It matters not which court we prescribe, whether it is a normal court of justice or an assembly of persons who are called upon to come to a decision on the facts presented to them. There must be formality of some kind. Yes, scrap the wig and gown: I accept that there is no reason for those. But what do we mean by"informality"? Does it mean that the members of the Court may indulge in smoking, or that they might perhaps at some stage ask an attendant to bring in alcoholic refreshment? You cannot run a court in that fashion. As I said earlier, even in this Assembly, which is the most informal assembly I have ever attended, there are rules prescribed to which we have assented. It seems to me that, however much we seek to depart from formality and to achieve informality, in the long run we have to accept that there must be rules for any court created as a result of legislation.
3.40 p.m.
LORD JANNER: I should like to support the contention that has been put forward by the noble Lord who has just spoken. It seems to me that the question of informality is one which has to be defined somehow or other for whatever court or tribunal may be sitting. The way in which the word is used here indicates that the Court could decide for itself what is formal and what is informal. I think that some thought should be given to the question of a definition of how far the Court can deviate from the normal rules that prevail in a court or in a tribunal. For example, a large number of appeals are heard, and indeed allowed, on the ground that a court has not adopted certain rules which it should have adopted and should have considered in the course of coming to a verdict. If we are going
24
to leave it entirely to each court to decide for itself what kind of procedure it is going to adopt—whether evidence should be given in a formal way or not, and so on—then I think there must be some rules which must be complied with by the Court.
I am all against many of the formalities that prevail in other courts. But when it comes to the question of dealing with these cases, I quite agree that an individual coming to a court of this nature should feel at ease. Perhaps the Court itself, or the tribunal, should be held in a place which makes the individual feel that he can talk freely. But what will happen assuming that he is pressed to give certain evidence which is contrary to the kind of evidence which could be asked of him should there be rules of evidence prevailing? I put this matter before your Lordships because I think there must be some guidance for the people who are presiding over the tribunals, and there must be protection for the individual who comes before the tribunal in case they overstep what would be right in accordance with those rules.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD JELLICOE): Perhaps I may make a brief entrance into the discussion at this point; and it will be brief because my noble friend Lord Lothian wishes, with your Lordships' consent, to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place. With the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Conesford and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, I do not think there is a great deal of difference between noble Lords on this matter. I happen to agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, that there is a great deal to be said for this particular Court, whether or not we agree with its being set up—and I know that there are noble Lords who do not agree—acting, on the whole, in as informal a manner as possible. Nevertheless, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Conesford that it should, like any court, be predictable, so far as possible; and clearly minimum rules of procedure (this, to a certain extent, answers the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Janner) are essential to the administration of justice.
But, that said, it is our belief that it is unnecessary, and indeed undesirable, that the Industrial Court should be tied to the trapping, as it were, of the High

25
Court. This means, for example, as I think my noble and learned friend has already explained to the Committee, that judges in this Court will not robe, and the formal rules of appearance will not be applied. Certain of the features of the Industrial Court which will make it a plain man's court are clearly set out in the Bill—for example, its composition—and others will be covered by its rules of procedure. It is our belief that it is, on the whole, desirable to insert in the Bill, for the guidance of the Court and to indicate the intentions of Parliament, an enjoinder that the Court should avoid formality wherever it is right to do so. This does not mean that everyone should be allowed to smoke, chant or do anything else in the court.
Knowing that the majority of your Lordships approve the idea behind subparagraph (6) of paragraph 18 of Schedule 3, and the idea behind my noble friend's Amendment, I find the choice of phraseology here pretty narrowly balanced. In one respect, if one is after informality,"seek to avoid formality"is rather stronger phraseology and rather more positive than"keeping its proceedings informal". On the other hand, especially with the sort of point that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has in mind, it seems to me that"appropriate"is a rather better word than"practicable". What I would suggest to your Lordships—and this is really a fairly semantic problem—is that I should think about this Amendment. My personal instinct at this moment is to keep the first part of the phraseology,
"…the Industrial Court shall seek to avoid formality in its proceedings so far as appears to the Court",
and then to add the words suggested by my noble friend,"appropriate to do so". This is not because it is a compromise, but because I think it would be right. This is the suggestion which appeals to me. What I would propose to my noble friend is that we should have an opportunity of looking at this between now and the Report stage, when I shall be glad to discuss it with him and other noble Lords, and I can come forward with a suggestion on Report.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I have no wish to delay the passage of the Bill any further. I hope that, without being semantic, I have drawn attention to the
26
point. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and other noble Lords who have supported me, and I apologise if I did not present my argument as well as I might have done. This is a necessary conclusion, because, like Father William, I was stood on my head, and there were various noble Lords who were presenting contrary arguments as mine. So clearly I could not have been putting the arguments as well as I might have done. In view of the generous suggestion of the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed.

EAST PAKISTAN RELIEF PROGRAMME
3.50 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"Since the House debated the situation in Pakistan there has been a serious deterioration due to the flow of refugees from East Pakistan into India. The number is now estimated as upwards of 4 million.
"It was clear in April that events in East Pakistan could be followed by the gravest consequences particularly in relation to food supplies. That is why, when the American Secretary of State was here for the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation meeting, we jointly approached the Secretary-General of the United Nations and urged him to establish a United Nations team in East Pakistan so as to estimate future needs and to organise international relief on an adequate scale.
"To the first appeal for money issued by U Thant in relation to the refugees in India Her Majesty's Government subscribed £1 million on the following day, the money to he used for that relief which seemed to those on the spot to be most urgent. In addition, we have pledged £750,000 worth of food. Of the contributions made in

27
the two weeks following the appeal, Her Majesty's Government's represented 30 to 40 per cent. of the total. Other countries have subscribed direct to the Indian Government and I am glad to say that more are now subscribing to the United Nations relief effort, but much more is required if the Secretary-General's target of 175 million dollars is to be reached. We have also promised to give more when we are told by those working on the spot what assistance is most urgently required. We made this immediate grant to ensure that the United Nations would not be short of funds and that essential needs would be met while the necessary international organisation was being set up to co-ordinate relief.
"With the increasing flood of refugees and the declaration by the Indian Government of a cholera epidemic on the 4th of June certain priorities can be identified—shelter, medical supplies, transport and food.
"To help towards the first, the British charities sent tents out as early as the 6th of May in transport which Her Majesty's Government paid for. We are now arranging to send large tents available in Singapore. As I announced yesterday, we are prepared to pay for cholera vaccine, syringes and saline fluid, so that finance need cause no delay. Two mass injectors, over one million doses of vaccine and a mobile hospital have been dispatched by the British charities. We have made available the transport necessary to make sure that the supplies arrive and we will continue to do so. I have told U Thant that we are ready to supply medical and qualified administrative staff. As far as food is concerned, our pledged aid will be channeled through the United Nations.
"The response of the British charities to the challenge was magnificent. But the size of this problem requires co-ordination and direction by a central body. The Indian Government have responded with generosity and resource but clearly the burden is such that it must not rest solely on them. Her Majesty's Government believe therefore that the responsibility must be assumed by the United Nations.
"U Thant has appointed the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as Co-ordinator. The High Commissioner himself is now in Pakistan and has representatives on the ground in West Bengal and in East Pakistan.
"I have told U Thant that we are ready to make further contributions in money and kind as the situation demands and that I hope the Coordinator will ensure that all the help from public bodies and private sources will be applied to the best advantage.
"There are three problems which are interrelated. First, that of the refugees. To halt the flow and to arrange their return to Pakistan requires the restoration of confidence in East Pakistan, which in turn depends upon a political settlement. Secondly, there is the ability of the Pakistan economy to sustain life throughout the whole country. No new aid is being supplied, but to stop development schemes already under way would throw thousands out of work and simply add new areas of misery to an already heart-rending situation.
"There is finally the possibility of widespread starvation later in the year in East Pakistan by reason of the disruption of communications and of a short-fall in the rice harvest.
"Plans must he made by the Pakistan Government in co-operation with the United Nations Co-ordinator urgently to anticipate their needs.
"I will keep the House informed as the situation develops."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement. It does not add a great deal to what the House will already know from having read the newspaper reports of recent days. May I say to the noble Marquess that there is grave disquiet in this country and throughout the world about the inability of Governments and countries to respond to one of 'the gravest problems that has confronted the world for many a year. There may be some 5 million refugees who have come from a very poor country who are seeking shelter in a country which already

29
has its own food and health problems, and is quite incapable of looking after the welfare of 4 or 5 million people. There is also the matter of cholera, pneumonia and many other diseases that can follow from malnutrition and starvation.
I do not think that this is a moment to go into the rights or wrongs of how this situation has come about. If we are a civilised community we have to react in a much stronger and more precise way than we have done in the past week. In the political field—which is the long-term solution to the refugee problem—is there not a choice open to Her Majesty's Government? They can either take the initiative with the Government of Pakistan to seek a political settlement by which these refugees can return to their homeland, or, if the Government view is that that is not possible, to approach the Security Council of the United Nations to see whether they can use their services to bring about a political settlement in Pakistan? Having said that, I am deeply conscious that this is an internal matter. But it is an internal matter that has now flooded forth into India and, therefore, more drastic, urgent steps are needed.
In regard to health and food, I am glad that we have given some £1¾ million, but that kind of sum is utterly inadequate in the circumstances in India. I hope that the Government will not feel that they have done what is due of them by making those sums available to the United Nations and rely upon the United Nations to produce a co-ordinated programme. I hope that the Government will feel that, as one of the senior members of the Commonwealth, this is very much a Commonwealth matter and that they will make a real effort, first, to galvanise within the Commonwealth a real interest and real effort in this matter, and also to take a very active role at the United Nations. This is not a short-term problem. It may be possible to deal with cholera and other diseases that may arise, and also immediate starvation, but this is a problem that will go on for very many months until a political settlement is arrived at. Therefore, the Government should be very active in this matter.
My Lords, I do not wish to say anything further at this stage. I hope that
30
the Government will come back next week with yet another Statement as to what progress has been made in this field, and will give a much clearer insight as to what is the problem in India.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches endorse exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, and would express our horror at the scale of human suffering involved in this tragedy. I should also like to endorse the expressions of pride in the Statement at the way the British charities have responded. While in no way belittling Government aid, I would support what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. This is going to be aid which will eventually be counted in tens of millions, if not in hundreds of millions, of pounds, and I hope that some new momentum will be given to the whole question of organising aid for the food, medical and equipment requirements.
On the longer term, what most of us are worried about is that there does not appear to be any initiative coming from anywhere to get a political settlement. I do not think that Her Majesty's Government can accept the full responsibility for that. This is a world and an international responsibility which must be shouldered. But, having said that, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to use their best endeavours in the United Nations, or with the major Powers, to ensure that we get a political settlement which will not only enable refugees to return but immediately prevent more refugees from coming out. Because unless confidence is increased we shall get another flood of refugees, and instead of 5 million refugees we shall have 10 million. This is the urgency of the matter regarding a political settlement. Once again, may I plead with the Government to take the initiative in trying to get a permanent emergency force within the United Nations, properly deployed strategically, with its manpower, its equipment and its stocks, and, moreover, with the power to direct supplies as soon as an emergency occurs? I believe that the creation within the United Nations of a permanent emergency force is something vital for this decade.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Byers,

31
for what they have said. I fully share with them and the rest of the House our horror at the present situation, and would echo what they have said with regard to the splendid achievements of the British charities. Of course I will, as my right honourable friend in another place has undertaken to do, keep the House informed as to progress, not only on the humanitarian aspect but also on the political aspect, because, as both noble Lords have said, in the end we must have a political solution to this problem. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will certainly use their best endeavours in this respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a suggestion that this matter might be referred to the Security Council, but he also qualified that with the remark that this is an internal matter and would not strictly be taken by the Security Council unless a threat to peace could be proved. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said about the need for a United Nations emergency force, this is something which is very much in the mind of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, as long ago as last February we sent a suggestion to this effect to the Secretary General, and we are obviously going to continue to press for this. In the immediate instance the fact that the High Commissioner for Refugees has been appointed a co-ordinator on the spot will do something to alleviate the difficulties in this specific case, but I agree that something is needed more generally.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I join others in thanking the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement and for the supplementary statement he has now made? As Members on the Back Benches are not allowed to make a speech. may' I put twos questions separately? The first concerns relief. Is the noble Marquess aware that many of us who are intimately concerned with this tragedy are now relieved to think that peoples and Governments are now awakening to its extent? While we recognise that Her Majesty's Government acted immediately, it soon became clear that much more was necessary, and other Governments have not done sufficiently. May I ask the noble Marquess whether, in view of these circumstances and the absolute impossibility of India's dealing
32
with this situation, with her own appalling problems of poverty, Her Majesty's Government will immediately raise this issue at the Security Council of the United Nations, with a view to a call on all Governments to make contributions, coordinated by the Commissioner whom U Thant has proposed? Will Her Majesty's Government deal with this matter with the urgency the tragedy demands?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am not certain whether I can undertake to raise this matter with the Security Council, but I can certainly undertake, and assure the noble Lord, that Her Majesty's Government will use every effort to persuade other countries to produce funds or supplies to help the Government of India.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House and the noble Marquess can arrange for a Statement to be made next week. This would do much to allay the concern which I think is felt throughout the House. If we could have that undertaking, we should be very happy to proceed with the Business of the day.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to have a word with my right honourable friend about that suggestion. He has undertaken to keep another place informed. I do not quite know the precise timetable, but I will do what the noble Lord suggests.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, many people will think that British charities and the British Government have given a magnificent lead in bringing aid in this terrible tragedy. The noble Lord opposite mentioned that a number of other countries have not done very much. Are any steps proposed to try to pull in more aid following the lead given by Her Majesty's Government?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would the Government think it appropriate, in view of the terrific possibility of pandemic cholera, to take an initiative at the United Nations to see whether we could not get the four great Powers involved together? Here is an opportunity for the Soviet Union, the United

33
States, China and Britain to do a constructive job of humanitarian work in helping refugees which might also do good in regard to the tensions in the world at the moment. Could some approach of that kind be made?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to consider the noble Lord's suggestion. Regarding what my noble friend, Lord Grimston of Westbury, has said, of course we want to encourage increased supplies from wherever we can get them, whether from private charities or from Governments.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is true, as newspapers report, that the majority of refugees coming into India are Hindus? If that is the case, is it realistic to suppose that a political settlement within Muslim East Pakistan will solve the problem of Hindu refugees in India? Is not the problem for the future, therefore, going to be one of supporting the Government of India in dealing with what may become for it a permanent problem?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that that is looking rather ahead. I am afraid that I have no information about the religion of the refugees to whom the noble Lord has alluded, but this is obviously a problem which is going to be very much in our minds and is one of the greatest complexity. But I think this point is slightly ahead at the moment.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, as one engaged in one of the voluntary organisations, may I first ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that they will be very grateful for what has been said about them by your Lordships? Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he has any information on whether it is going to be a little easier in the near future to recommence relief operations for the people of East Pakistan in East Pakistan, the difficulty about which has held up a good deal of relief work? Thirdly, may I ask whether it is not fair to say that, while we are all greatly in sympathy with the ambitious plans which many noble Lords have voiced, there is always for the Government a problem, in bringing aid into countries which are at loggerheads with each other, of being very careful about
34
the relationships between us and each of them?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely accept that last point of the noble Lord. Regarding his point about East Pakistan, we hope that now that the High Commissioner has a representative on the ground in East Pakistan the situation will become easier, and that it will be possible for relief to flow more adequately.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the second question, of which I gave notice, on the political issue? Seeking to be careful about words—because one does not want to aggravate the situation—may I ask this question'? Have the Government any knowledge about the leader of the party who was elected by a great majority, not only in East Pakistan but with some support in West Pakistan, of whom there has been no knowledge since he was arrested? Will Her Majesty's Government, through the United Nations, urge that a political solution must be found by discussions between representatives of the party which obtained this majority and the President? Further, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? I think he used the phrase that no new aid was being given to the Pakistan Government. Is he aware that many of us feel very deeply the tragedy that it should have been Western arms that have been responsible for what has happened in East Pakistan? Will Her Majesty's Government deny aid until discussions take place for a political solution?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, no new aid is being given to the Pakistan Government. So far as future aid is concerned, we shall ensure that this will be dependent upon a return to political life in East Pakistan and, of course, on a cessation of hostilities. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any information on the first part of his question regarding the leader of the party in East Pakistan, but I of course take his point regarding the need for political discussions with all parties in that country before coming to a settlement.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess inform the House

35
whether the Pakistan Government is actively co-operating in relief measures within its territory of East Pakistan; and would it be fair to ask the Government to use their influence to persuade the Government of Pakistan to refrain from any repressive measures of any kind, so long as the present toll of human misery continues?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, we shall do our best so far as the West Pakistani Government is concerned. I am afraid that I do not have much information as to how the Government of Pakistan is co-operating with relief authorities, but as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, now that the representative of the United Nations High Commissioner is there, the presumption is that there is co-operation.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether there is any chance of increasing the number of mass injectors that can be sent to this part of the world? I am sure he knows that the British charities who have arranged to send two such injectors have said that they could do with many more. There might be a dozen available in this country if they could only be lent to them for this purpose. Is anything being done in this direction?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly look into that question.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.14 p.m.
House again in Committee.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 275L:
Page 133, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
("(1) Any award of compensation made by the Industrial Court in proceedings in England or Wales shall have effect for all purposes of enforcement, and of devolution on death or otherwise, as if it were a judgment for the like amount in the High Court or the appropriate County Court (as the case may be) as may be determined in accordance with Industrial Court rules").
The noble Earl said: I suggest that this Amendment, which is the substantive one, might be considered with Amendment
36
276AA, which is consequential. The Amendments deal with the enforcement of awards of compensation by the Industrial Court. Amendment No. 275L provides for the enforcement through the High Court or the county court, depending on what is said in the rules to be made by the Lord Chancellor. Paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 at present leaves the enforcement of Industrial Court awards of compensation entirely to the county courts. This is a very considerable discretionary power. Where a large award of compensation was made under the Bill it would mean that the county court judge would have to decide whether such an award should be enforced and the sum involved could be greatly in excess of his normal jurisdiction.
As your Lordships may recall, the County Courts Act of 1959, as amended, provides that the county court shall not hear actions in contract or tort where the amount of the debt, demand or damages claimed is more than £750. Cases involving larger amounts go to the High Court. Under this Bill as at present drafted, the result might be that a case would be argued before the county court after being argued before the Industrial Court, and most of your Lordships would probably agree that this would be undesirable. These Amendments, if the Committee agree to them, will ensure that awards of compensation made by the Industrial Court will be enforced by a court accustomed to dealing with and enforcing awards of the sort of amount which would be involved. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: Amendment No. 276AA, as I have indicated, is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 133. line 36, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
("(3) In the preceding sub-paragraphs any reference to an award or order of the Industrial Court—

(a) does not include any award or order which, on being reviewed, has been revoked by the Court, and

(b) in relation to an award or order which, on being reviewed, has been varied by the Court, shall be construed as a reference to the award or order as so varied.")—(Earl Jellicoe).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 276BB:
Page 134, line 8, leave out ("assizes and quarter sessions") and insert ("certain courts").
The noble Lord said: I would again suggest that your Lordships might like to consider with this Amendment No. 276CC. These are purely drafting Amendments which take account of the new judicial machinery established under the Courts Act 1971. The method of enforcement will remain completely unchanged if these two Amendments are agreed to. On the assurance that they are purely drafting I hope that the Committee will agree to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: I beg to move Amendment No. 276CC:
Amendment moved—
Page 134, line 9, leave out from ("those") to end of line 10, and insert ("provisions any reference to a court of assize or to the Crown Court")—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 3, as amended, shall be a Schedule to the Bill?
4.19 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I would like to raise another constitutional question, of which I have given the noble and learned Lord notice. It is not violently dissimilar to that which I raised a short time ago with reference to the Industrial Court. Both the last Government and the present Government would desire that the Commission on Industrial Relations should be a body which commands sympathy and inspires confidence on both sides of industry and in the public. The respective Governments assigned very different roles to the Commission. It is a matter of Party controversy as to which of the two was right and I do not here enter into that controversy at all. The present scheme which sets up the constitutional framework of the Commission is described and set out in Part III of Schedule 3. That scheme follows closely although it is not completely identical with, the constitutional scheme which was set out in the last Government's Bill. The question that I should like to raise with the Committee is whether it is right as it at present is formulated.
38
As appears quite clearly from paragraph 29(2) of Schedule 3, it is desired that the Commission shall be an independent body. It is now to be a statutory body. I think I am right in saying that hitherto the existing Commission has taken the form of a Royal Commission. Now it is to be constituted by Statute. Paragraph 29 provides that the Commission is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any special governmental position. It is to be an independent body, and that, clearly, was the desire of both Governments. One respectfully submits to the Committee that unless it is a body which both sides of industry regard as independent in a broad sense it will not really be able to address itself to the tasks imposed upon it by this Government, or which would have been imposed upon it in a very different form by the last Government.
The Government having in that paragraph provided that the Commission is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown, and is in other words to be an independent body (if I may paraphrase), one then looks at other provisions of Part III of the Schedule to see whether the Government nevertheless retain some measure of control over it and, if so, in what measure they reserve to themselves the right to control it. And are they right in so doing? I emphasise that this is a question which arises on the present Government's scheme and would have arisen on the scheme of the previous Government, because although, as I have said, they are not identical they are closely similar. To begin with, if one looks at paragraph 30(5) one again sees a power to dismiss a member of the Commission. Members are to be appointed as persons who hold qualifications which enable them to discharge the special tasks which will be imposed upon the Commission. In the case of the Commission it is the Secretary of State not the Lord Chancellor acting together with the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State alone—who is to be able, by notice in writing, to terminate the appointment of any member of the Commission who is
"in the opinion of the Secretary of State. unfit to continue in office or incapable of performing his duties as a member."

39
That is the same language as was used with regard to the Industrial Court before the Amendment was carried in this Committee a short time ago, changing that language to words which referred to"incapacity"and"misbehaviour".
I think I am right in interpreting the minds of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in saying that they agreed with me with regard to the members of the Industrial Court, to the length at any rate of accepting that the power of removal must be a very restricted one. The noble and learned Lord explained to the Committee that the word"incapacity"as he thought it would be interpreted by the courts would be limited to something in the nature of a physical incapacity. Therefore the first question I ask is this: although I agree that the Commission is in no sense a judicial body, would it not be right to limit the power to remove members of the Commission in the same way? The noble and learned Lord may answer"No"because one is a judicial body and the other is an administrative and executive body; but am I not right in pointing out and emphasising that although one is judicial and the other is administrative they have the common property that they cannot go about the discharge of their functions unless they are universally respected and trusted?
Should the worst eventuate, the sort of thing which might happen over the years with regard to the power to dismiss as it is at present contained in Part III of the Schedule, surely is this. Suppose one gets a member of the Commission who obviously holds views which are unpopular in certain sections, say, of the other place, or quite unpopular and unacceptable to public opinion at large, and he attracts to himself the reputation of being either an iconoclast or a diversionist or a person who really cannot see eye to eye with what other people regard as common-sense approaches. In my submission it would be most unfortunate if the Secretary of State, a purely executive Minister who is not invested with the unique position which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor holds, were to go down to his place in the House of Commons and find a Question
40
put down to him as to whether he would not remove such and such a member of the Commission on the ground of incompetence. I am certain that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me at once that if that were to happen it would be most unfortunate and would introduce a wholly undesirable atmosphere into the functioning of the Commission. If the Secretary of State has put upon him the duty of removing or not removing members of the Commission on the ground of their incompetence, he is certainly open to that sort of question.
In the other place and in this House we try to act with responsibility; but passions rise, and if passions rise that sort of thing might happen. I have known the noble and learned Lord well enough over the years to be certain that he would agree with me that that would be a highly undesirable situation. Should it not be avoided, either by incorporating in this Part of the Schedule in relation to the Commission the same language which the Government have adopted by the Amendment in relation to the members of the Industrial Court? Then the responsibility of the Secretary of State with regard to removal would be drastically curtailed. It would be exercised only in the case of misbehaviour, which everybody would accept, or actual incapacity of a physical character, or at any rate something closely allied to that which would be restricted in scope. I submit to the Committee that that would be a more desirable arrangement. That is the point I want to make on that aspect of Government control—because I think I am right in describing it in that way.
There is one other paragraph which I think the Committee should have in mind, and that is paragraph 34, which provides that in determining its procedure and quorum and so on, the Commission is to
"act in accordance with any general directions which may from time to time be given…by the Secretary of State."
I do not want to repeat my argument, but I make the same sort of comment about that provision. Is it really necessary? I ask, in general with regard to the power to dismiss, is that really necessary when we are talking of people who hold office for a limited time and need not be reappointed?

41
The Committee may think that the cogency (if they think there is cogency) of that kind of consideration is reinforced when one looks at the very general power which is conferred upon the Commission in, for example, paragraph 37 of the Schedule—the power to take such steps as it thinks fit for the purpose of remedying a defect. That is a wide power, conferring a very wide discretion, and those who exercise that discretion will find it difficult to give effect to the views they may perfectly rightly hold unless they command wide confidence and are thought to be independent of any form of indirect control, perhaps by a Government which is not in sympathy with the broad section of the people. I am not making a Party or controversial point; that sort of situation may arise whatever Government is in power. Therefore, to summarise the questions I should like to put, I would simply ask noble Lords on the Front Bench whether they are satisfied that the constitutional set-up under the Bill is rightly framed. Do they feel that it ought to be further looked at between now and the Report stage in the light of the kind of consideration I have urged, namely, the imperative need of making certain that this Commission is thought by everybody concerned to be independent and, so far as it possibly can be, free of any control, direct or indirect, by the Government?
LORD DIAMOND: Before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replies I wonder whether I might raise one further point? I did not do what my noble and courteous friend did and give notice to the Government that the point was to be raised, so I shall understand if the reply is more for consideration than immediate action. The point I want to raise in essence relates to the position of the Registrar although it is tied up with the question of overlapping jurisdiction. The Registrar is covered in Part I of this Schedule. At present the Registrar is regarded by the unions as a friend. I imagine the Government would therefore wish that situation to continue. It will not help it Ito continue to turn the Registrar into a policeman as well as being a Registrar. The reason why I am raising this point on this Schedule is because I do not think it is necessary for the Registrar to have the judisdiction with which he is at
42
present supposed to be invested. Let me say why.
At the moment if a union member complains that he has been injured by a breach of the rules he can go to the Registrar under Clause 79(3). He can also go to three other bodies. He can go to an industrial tribunal under Clause 103(3); he can go to the N.I.R.C. under Clause 97(1)(b), provided that he can show that the breach amounted to action in contravention of the principles set out in Clause 63, as in fact it would be most likely to. So he can go to the Registrar, the industrial tribunal, the N.I.R.C., and indeed to the High Court if the breach of rules is a breach of contract, because the High Court, as I understand it, retains its jurisdiction in that respect. Therefore, there are four ways in which he can seek to remedy the breach of rules by his organisation. That in itself, I suggest, may want looking at. But the point I am raising at the moment is that there is such an abundance, such an embarras de richesse, of ways of seeking satisfaction, that there is no need to include the Registrar as well.
It is clearly in the Government's mind that the Registrar should be only a very small policeman, if I may put it in that way, because the powers granted to him under Clause 80 are so limited that under Clause 99 he is given a power to make complaint to the N.I.R.C. so as to get their help when he is unable to solve a problem himself. I am saying, therefore, that for the sake of these very limited powers, it is a pity that in order to make him into a very small policeman indeed he should be turned from being a friend of the union into either a doubtful friend or a hostile individual. I should have thought, therefore, that the Government would be wise to reconsider whether, in these circumstances, that unnecessary jurisdiction should be given to the Registrar.
While the Government are looking at that point, may I ask them to look at the closely related point that the Registrar is given independent power to investigate without anybody making a complaint at all. If the Government's view is that somebody should have that jurisdiction, it would seem sensible in this context that it should not be the Registrar.
4.36 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: First of all, may I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. We on this side entirely agree with the point of view that he advocated in this case. We think it absolutely essential that the Commission on Industrial Relations should retain its independence and be an independent body. From that point of view we agree that it should be free from Government control. Its function is to carry out investigations, to improve the general relationships between the two sides of industry—this obviously is the main function—and to assist employers and unions in the voluntary reform of the institutions and the procedure of industrial relations. The noble Lord wondered whether the power given to dismiss was compatible with the independence of the C.I.R. We fully accept what he says about this. The Committee has already accepted an Amendment—I think it was Amendment No. 275M—in regard to the reasons for terminating the appointment of a member of the Court, and we would propose to bring it exactly into line, to use the same words, as far as the Commission is concerned. If the noble Lord would be good enough to leave the matter with us, we will introduce an Amendment to that effect at Report stage.
He then introduced the questions of procedure and of the quorum. I did not have notice of these questions, but I would judge that the question of a quorum must be related to the size of the Commission itself; and as the Commission may have anything from 6 to 15 members the power to fix a quorum would presumably be related to that. If I am wrong, 1 shall let the noble Lord know.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, went into the whole position of the Registrar and suggested that it would be better that he should not be put into the position of being a policeman. The Registrar is primarily a custodian of the rules, and it is, I think, logical that complaints of breaches of the rules, so far as individuals are concerned, should be considered by him; and this is an easy method of doing that. He will be able to examine the complaints as they come in to see whether there is justification in them. He will be able to mediate in the first place, and it will only be if that
44
sort of conciliation fails that he will then either himself refer the matter to an industrial tribunal or to the Industrial Court; or, of course, the individual himself can bring a complaint before a tribunal. As the Registrar has those powers, it would seem strange if he were not able to investigate on his own behalf as well—and when I say"on his own behalf", of course he will be acting on information received. The noble Lord may think that it is sometimes a little difficult to distinguish between cases where the complaint comes from the individual concerned or from other sources. If the Registrar is to be able to investigate in the one case, there seems very little reason why he should not investigate in the other cases as well. I hope that I have covered the point that the noble Lord wanted answered, and I hope I have also dealt with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill.
LORD STOW HILL: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for what he has said, and for the indication he has given as to his intentions. May I couple that with an apology to him? I had wrongly supposed that it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who was going to reply because he dealt with the last rather similar Amendment. I am most grateful for the attention the noble Lord gave to this matter, and for the answer we have received.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Provisions Relating to Industrial Tribunals]:
4.41 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 276B:
Page 153, line 23, after ("expenses") insert ("provided that no individual workers shall be subject to attachment of earnings, distraint upon his property or imprisonment arising from any such award")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 276B. Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if we discussed Amendment No. 276D at the same time, as that raises precisely the same point in almost identical wording. It may be that this Amendment is not too happily attached to this Part of the Bill, but one has to find a hook where-ever one can, and this seems to be the appropriate one on which to put it. I do

45
not think I need speak at length on these issues, especially as they arise in a more acute form in, I think, Clause 124. This is really to give an opportunity to the Government to reconsider their attitude and to say quite clearly (because the words themselves are very clear indeed) whether or not an individual worker is going to be subject to these matters.
What is worrying is the attachment of earnings. What is even more worrying is the distraint upon one's personal property; and what is most worrying is imprisonment arising from any such award. One wants to make the position absolutely clear—and, as I understand it, there is no doubt at all, and the Government have never hidden this—that commitment to prison for contempt of court exists, will continue to exist after the revision arising, I believe, from the Payne Report, of the law on collection of debts, and will result not only from a contempt of court arising out of an injunction, but from a contempt of court arising out of an order to pay a certain sum of money by way of compensation or by way of fine. Therefore, at the end of the day, the final sanction is imprisonment.
Although the first two matters I have mentioned are of increasing importance, I repeat that the most important of all, and the one which causes the greatest possible anxiety and which will do the greatest possible damage to the atmosphere of industrial relations is, at the end of the road, the threat of imprisonment arising out of a matter of industrial relations. I do not think I need say anything more than that, except to ask the Government to say either that they will accept this Amendment, or will meet it in some way or another in some part of the Bill at some later stage.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I am a little short in replying to the speech of the noble Lord, I must explain that there has been some misunderstanding here because I was told, perhaps through error, that this Amendment was not going to be moved. The result is that I have listened to the noble Lord and will give him an off the cuff reply, because I am not as fully briefed on this as I would otherwise have been.
First of all, may I get rid of this business of contempt of court, I hope once
46
and for all. I have said before, and I say again, that on August 2, which I think is before this Bill can become effective even under the commencement provisions, the Administration of Justice Act 1970 will come into force, and imprisonment for debt will be finally abolished in this country. In order to inform the noble Lord once more about this, let me say again what I have said before. At present it is true, of course, that judgments, or awards for money sums, can, in the last resort, be enforced by imprisonment, but they can only be enforced by imprisonment under the proceedings for contempt of court. On August 2 all that comes to an end; it will come to an end before this Bill becomes law. Therefore, that point is wholly unnecessary. I hope that I having said it for the third time during this Committee stage, the noble Lord will finally be persuaded that it is true. From August 2 there is no more such imprisonment for contempt of court, and therefore that part of the Amendment is wholly unnecessary.
Schedule 6 provides that the awards of industrial tribunals should be dealt with through the county court. They do not, of course, have power to award injunctions, so far as I remember, and therefore there is no question of contempt of court arising from the awards of tribunals. The only question is, supposing the tribunal does what it has the power to do, to award a sum of money, how are you going to enforce that award? The answer is, in the same way exactly as a county court judgment will be enforced after August 2; namely, by distraint in the case of a relatively wealthy man—but that is not a very effective method in county court cases in respect of many judgment debtors on the county court scale—and, in the case of somebody otherwise, by attachment of earnings. Attachment of earnings is the substitute for the contempt of court proceeding which, until August 2, is the method of doing this.
The only effect of the rest of the Amendment which the noble Lord has proposed is to take away from an award by an industrial tribunal any power of enforcement at all. I cannot believe that this is what the noble Lord really intends. Once the Committee has decided that the industrial tribunal has power, in

47
certain circumstances, to make an award, then it must have power to enforce it. I should have thought that, if it is a money award, if it is not to be by fieri facias or by attachment of earnings, I have yet to discover how it can be done.
LORD DIAMOND: I return to this topic not because anybody hesitates to accept the well known dictum"What I tell you three times is true", even when it comes from the noble and learned Lord, but because there are others who take a different view. What the noble and learned Lord said was that after August 2 there will be no imprisonment for contempt of court.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: For debt.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble and learned Lord did not add"for debt".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If there was, by any chance, a misunderstanding, let me say what I intended to say, and what I think I did say. If, by any slip of the tongue, I did not say this, then I can only apologise to the Committee. As matters stand, and until August 2, judgments cannot be enforced by imprisonment unless there is contempt. Where there is contempt a committal order, absolute or conditional, can be made. After August 2, that will no longer be true and even the jurisdiction in contempt will be taken away from money judgments. If I misled the Committee I apologise, but I was not aware that I had done so.
LORD DIAMOND: I raised the matter again because I thought the noble and learned Lord would wish me to do so, as he did not add the relevant words"for debt"which I assumed him to have in mind, thus making it perfectly clear. The noble and learned Lord will accept that there are those outside your Lordships' House who are even denser than I am and who take even longer to learn a lesson, and it is for the benefit of all that what we say goes on the Record. The noble and learned Lord dealt with that part of my comments which referred to debt, but I referred to debt and to injunctions. I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble and learned Lord would
48
tell me whether I am right in understanding that what the Solicitor General said in another place applies up to and subsequent to August 2; namely, that if arising out of an industrial matter there is an order of the court which is, for example, an injunction not to do something or other, and if, as a matter of principle, maybe misguided principle, the person so ordered refuses to comply with the order, then, as the Solicitor-General said, in effect (I do not have his words in front of me) nothing can stop such a man from being sent to prison if he is determined to continue disobeying. In short, where an injunction is concerned, as opposed to a money debt, where what is required is action on the part of an individual, he can after August 2 be sent to prison for not complying with an order of the court arising out of an industrial matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I really was dealing with the noble Lord's Amendment to Schedule 6. If he will look at Schedule 6 he will see—at least I hope he will see, because otherwise I am wrong and not he—the heading Provisions relating to industrial tribunals. Industrial tribunals have no power to award an injunction, or an order in place of an injunction. It therefore follows that nothing in the Amendment can relate to imprisonment for contempt of court for breach of an injunction. That cannot happen in proceedings relating to industrial tribunals. It is only the N.I.R.C., the Industrial Court, which has power to award an injunction, and it was to that that the Solicitor General must have been referring. I think I must be right about that.
LORD DIAMOND: All that remains for me to do is to thank the noble and learned Lord for clearing up that matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.54 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 276EE:
Page 154, line 14, at end insert—
("Any person may appear before an industrial tribunal in person or be represented by counsel or by a solicitor or by a representative of a trade union or an employers' association or by any other person whom he desires to represent him.")
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly simple Amendment to include the right of representation by counsel or by a

49
solicitor, or indeed by a representative of a trade union or a friend, for a person appearing before an industrial tribunal. This right is already included in the rules of the Industrial Court in paragraph 21 of Part II of Schedule 3. Although we are aware of the desire of the Government, which we share, that industrial tribunals should be far less formal places than the Industrial Court, we think it is right that a person appearing before a tribunal should also have this right, because the tribunals will be dealing with some important matters and it may well be that such a person would need this kind of representation. We have accepted, albeit somewhat reluctantly, the Government's feeling that although legal aid would be justified before the Industrial Court it could not necessarily be justified before the tribunals. But we think that if someone wants to have a representative before a tribunal he should at least have the right to do so, and this should be written into the Bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELVELVIE: I hope it will be convenient if I say to the noble Lord at this stage that we are very glad indeed to accept his Amendment. It has always been the intention of the Secretary of State, in drafting new rules for industrial tribunals, to provide for an unrestricted right of representation in their proceedings. Therefore, to that extent the Amendment is unnecessary. But in order to avoid any possibility of doubt we are very glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 6, as amended, shall be the sixth Schedule to the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: May I raise two short points? The first one goes back to the awarding of costs. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember that, when we discussed Part II of Schedule 3, we had a discussion on the wisdom or otherwise of not allowing the Industrial Relations Court to award costs, except in certain very limited circumstances. In answer to the questions which I put on that occasion, the noble and learned Lord justified the provisions of that Part of the Schedule in relation to costs before the Industrial
50
Court by saying that those provisions were modelled upon the Restrictive Practices Court. In the course of his speech, he said—and I thought he was very justified in saying it—that an award for costs may be crippling in the case of a person of modest means, engaged in litigation with a substantial concern, losing the case and therefore being ordered to pay on a party and party basis the costs of a substantial concern arising out of that litigation. The case may go on for some days and the person who loses may find himself almost beggared.
That being the position with regard to the Industrial Court, is it not, with respect, inconsistent to state in Schedule 6, which deals with cases which go to industrial tribunals and which in the vast majority of instances will consist of claims by employees for unfair dismissal and for similar complaints, that in cases of that sort it should be possible for a tribunal to make a complete award as to costs? After all, there you are surely getting precisely the sort of case that the noble and learned Lord had in mind when he used the language to which I have referred in dealing with the Industrial Court. When you are dealing with the Industrial Court, you are generally dealing with two parties both of which are parties of material substance, but an industrial tribunal will probably be dealing with an employee and the employer with regard to whom the employee complains that he was unjustly dismissed. Therefore, it seems to me to be inconsistent to say that you shall not be awarded your costs if you win, or have to pay the costs of the other party if you lose before the Industrial Court, but you shall be awarded your costs if you win or be ordered to pay the other side's costs if you lose when you appear before the industrial tribunal, it being borne in mind that in the latter case, as I have already said, you will probably be an employee complaining that you have been unfairly dismissed. I submit that that point needs to be looked at again. If one applies the test whether a person of modest means might find himself deprived of all his substance as the result of an unsuccessful proceeding, then surely one should, in the case of proceedings before the industrial tribunals, adopt some kind of mechanism similar to that which is at present in Part II of Schedule

51
3 in relation to costs of proceedings before the Industrial Court. That is the point that I should like to put.
The second point I should like to put is on paragraph 4. I wholly agree with the proposal that wherever possible conciliation officers should be brought into proceedings of the sort one is dealing with in Schedule 6. These matters should be the result of an accommodation instead of hostile litigation, where accommodation is possible. The only question on which I should like to ask the intention of the noble and learned Lord is this. In paragraph 4 he is given the power to make regulations, and subparagraph (c), if I may paraphrase it, empowers him to make regulations for postponing the hearing of a complaint in order to give time for the conciliation officer to function. Is it his intention to give the Court power to postpone proceedings in spite of the wishes of both the parties? If that is his intention—and I would submit the point does require further consideration—it is going a bit far, if both parties want a matter disposed of, for the Court to say,"No; we refuse to dispose of the issue, to arrive at a decision; we propose to postpone the proceedings in order that the conciliation officer may try to exercise his influence". That may take some time, and it may mean that either an employee or anybody else who appears before that Court is unfairly kept from achieving a remedy to which he is quite clearly entitled. All I should like to ask is what the noble and learned Lord's intentions are with regard to providing for a power of postponement. and I hope that he will be able to say that only in the most limited circumstances will that be done in spite of the wishes of the parties.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The first point is about costs. I think the noble Lord was perhaps speaking without the recollection that industrial tribunal costs are already the subject of rules. Even the present Schedule really only continues the power of the Secretary of State to make rules for industrial tribunals in relation to costs. There are occasions in relation to S.E.T., although they are not material to the kind of discussion under this Bill, in which the full costs follow the event before industrial tribunals in the ordinary way, and the
52
Secretary of State retains power to make regulations which allow for this. But the rules in the kind of dispute we are discussing to-day will be more on the lines of Regulation 10 of the Regulations of 1965, which is as follows:
"The tribunal shall not normally award costs, but where in its opinion a party to the proceedings (and, if he is a respondent, whether or not he has entered an appearance) has acted frivolously or vexatiously, the tribunal may in its decision include an order that the party shall pay to another party either a specified sum in respect of the costs incurred by that other party or the amount of those costs, to be taxed in default of agreement",
and then there are further provisions which are perhaps not material to my present point. It is the intention of the Secretary of State, as regards the kind of dispute that we are really concerned with in this Bill, to make rules on those lines. which are substantially the same as those which we were discussing in relation to the N.I.R.C. rules. In other words, costs will not be awarded ordinarily before an industrial tribunal except where the proceedings have been vexatious or frivolous or the like.
As regards the power to make rules providing for the postponement of a hearing under Schedule 6, paragraph 4, I think I would agree with what the noble Lord said. It certainly had not crossed my mind that in the ordinary case where both parties wanted to expedite a hearing it would not be expedited, but I had not, I am bound to say, got down to such detail as to consider the point closely. The purpose of the enabling power in paragraph 4 is really to allow for a postponement of a hearing in order to give full weight to the work of the conciliation officer. It had not occurred to me that the tribunal should be given power to postpone a hearing if both parties asked not to, but I had not really considered the point with any definite intention in mind. I hope the noble Lord will accept that that is the best answer I can give this afternoon.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is a perfectly adequate answer from my point of view, and I should have thought it wholly deals with the points I have raised.
LORD DONOVAN: May I raise a short point of quite a different character? The Lord Chancellor reminded us a moment

53
or two ago that the industrial tribunals would have no power to issue an injunction, and therefore no power to enforce its orders that way—I am dealing now with orders determining rights, not awards of compensation, which can be enforced in the county court. If an industrial tribunal makes an order determining an employee's right and the employer flouts it, what powers will the industrial tribunal have to enforce that order? I can find only one instance in the Bill where the orders of an industrial tribunal can be enforced, and that is under Clause 55. Under that clause, the various employers have to give certain information to certain employees, and if it is not done a complaint may be made (I think it is under Clause 106) that the employer has not done so, and the tribunal can then make an order that the employee should have the information. If the employer flouts that order, then under Clause 106(4) the employee can make an application direct to. the Industrial Court, which, if it thinks fit, can issue an order, the penalty for disobedience of which will ultimately be committal. That is the one case that I can find where the orders of an industrial tribunal can be enforced.
But if, for example, a trade unionist asks for one of his rights under Clause 5 to be determined and the industrial tribunal makes an order in his favour, as the Bill stands it seems as though the employer can flout the order and nothing will happen, because an award of compensation will not be appropriate for this particular right. All I ask is: is it intended to leave the position in that way? I can quite see the objections to giving a tribunal which is predominantly lay a power of committal, but apart from that I cannot see what force there is in any order of an industrial tribunal, apart from an order under Clause 55, enforced ultimately by the Industrial Court under Clause 106(4). I merely ask whether it is intended to leave the matter in that way.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that the noble Lord has caught me a little unawares on this point. We were dealing with Schedule 6 and it had not become immediately apparent to me that this question occurred under that Schedule. It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask and if I may postpone answering it until I am in a position to
54
do so adequately, I shall then try to give the Committee the answer. I cannot do so with certainty now.
LORD DONOVAN: I asked the question because the noble and learned Lord said that the industrial tribunal had no power of committal. I thought it appropriate to ask it then.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not complaining. I am only apologising.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 124 [No compulsion to work or to take part in industrial action]:
5.11 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 276E:
Page 93, line 10, at end insert ("nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached or his property distrained or seized nor be imprisoned for failure to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work")
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment may I first say to the noble and learned Lord, arising out of the perfectly acceptable statement that he has just made, that I assume that he will be making a reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, during the course of the Committee stage. It is obviously important to those concerned with the interests of the Opposition that the reply should not be withheld until the Report Stage. May I also suggest that it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment Amendment No. 276G where the same point is made in a starker form.
This is a most important clause dealing with the right not to work and, by association, the right to strike. Freedom to work and not to work is a very important freedom, and it is in order to clarify the views of the Government in relation to it that these two Amendments have been put down. Amendment No. 276E reads:
"nor shall an employee be fined, have his earnings attached or his property distrained or seized nor be imprisoned for failure to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work."
I have assumed that a fine is not what the noble and learned Lord had in mind when in a previous discussion he referred to a money debt. I am assuming that a fine is something in respect of which contempt of court, followed by imprisonment,

55
does not lie. The noble and learned Lord would know immediately if I am wrong, I am anxious not to overstate the position, and therefore I shall rely largely on what was said by the Solicitor General in another place on February 23 when a similar point was discussed. The Bill makes clear the limitations of activities for which remedies can be sought; and the Solicitor General then said, first:
"We have confined ourselves to remedies against organisations or individuals calling, procuring or organising."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 23/2/71; col. 364.]
That means procuring, calling or organising a strike; and I understand the meaning of"confined"in relation to the law as it previously was or might otherwise have been. It is important to get clear in our minds the remedies lying against organisations or individuals not in relation merely to taking part in a strike, but in relation to calling, procuring or organising a strike.
Later in the same column the Solicitor General said:
"In the very narrow categories which I have identified—namely, someone who is not merely participating in a strike but is organising or procuring a strike outside the scope of any authority from any registered union—remedies can be sought against such a person or organisation or group of people if the strike is unfair."
That is the second leg of the argument, the second statement adding to the definition. We now see that remedies can only be sought against persons or organisations if the strike is unfair and if it is outside the scope of authority from any registered union.
Then, in column 365 the Solicitor General clarified the matter still further by saying:
"The unofficial, unregistered organisation is in difficulty only in the circumstances which I have described,…If it has wrongly called and organised an unfair strike, it can have an order for compensation made against it. If it has wrongly procured or induced an unfair strike, it can have an order to restrain it from continuing to do so made against it."
So if we are dealing with what the Government now describe as an unfair strike (a view not previously enshrined in our legislation) the position is that an unregistered organisation and all its shop stewards and all its officials who take part in organising the unfair strike can be proceeded against; and it matters not if that union, being an unregistered union,
56
officially approves of the strike and, indeed, instructs the shop stewards to act in the way in which they are acting, because it is an unregistered body of workers acting in connection with an unfair strike.
Again, where you have a registered union, any unauthorised organisers of such a strike—for example, shop stewards acting in anticipation of the fact that the strike would be subsequently authorised or made official by the union itself—are also liable to be dealt with in this way. The unregistered organisation as such is also vulnerable. So there is a pretty wide field and the two remedies are: first, an order for compensation (which, from what the noble and learned Lord recently said, I understand cannot after August 2 result in imprisonment for contempt of court); and, secondly, an order to restrain it from continuing to do so; and that order can result after August 2 in imprisonment for contempt of court. An offence is therefore created by this legislation, and if it is not a criminal offence it is of a quasi-criminal character.
There are two circumstances which, to my mind, would be very likely to lead to this situation. I divide them into the circumstances of error and the circumstances of deliberate act. Error could arise in the circumstances I have just touched on, where shop stewards of a registered union could act in an unauthorised way in connection with organising an unfair strike in anticipation of—as they saw it, and thought—subsequent confirmation by the union which would make their action official. I think I am right in my recollection when I say that when we raised this point of subsequent confirmation by a union of an unauthorised action we were told that that would not of itself validate action taken prior to the authorisation by the union; confirmation was not retrospective. In short, where shop stewards honestly acted in error, in anticipation of their action being made official by a registered union, even if that action was subsequently made official by such a union they would be liable to this penalty.
The other set of circumstances I called deliberate. I refer to the Payne Report on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts, which I think showed that something like one-third of civil debts were in respect of maintenance orders. One knows why there are so many: it is because, as a

57
matter of principle, many men with maintenance orders made against them say,"I will see you dead before I pay up."What I am leading up to is that if on such a matter they can refuse to pay in such large numbers (we have all come across many such cases: certainly those of us who have been Members in another place have had many experiences of this kind), how much more would a trade unionist be likely to refuse if he felt that what he was doing was right and honourable and consistent with what he had been free to do over the last century! How much more would he feel justified in refusing to comply with an order of the Court which arose from the fact that a new principle related to an unfair strike, one which was unknown to him and which he had never been brought up to regard; and nor had his father or his grandfather!
In these two sets of circumstances one could have a number of individuals made liable for the ultimate weight of the law. Indeed, the Solicitor General made this perfectly clear when he said in the same debate (col. 369):
"•if, in the last resort—and this point has been made time without number—someone is determined to continue defying an order made in the situations defined in the Bill, he cannot be kept out of prison."
Those circumstances, if I am right, are the kind which arise particularly from individuals feeling deeply about their liberties; their rights; their comradeship with fellow workers. They arise out of a habit of mind and philosophy bred over the last hundred years. I am saying that that is a most unfortunate thing —and I am using the mildest possible language—to have to contemplate. It is a most unfortunate thing for industrial relations, not only because it will bedevil and embitter them, but also because it will be of no practical benefit; in fact it is the reverse. We all know the Betteshanger case and the difficulties which arose there; and the Irish case, where men refused to pay and were sent to prison and the employer had to pay the fine to get them out of prison, either to complete negotiations for resuming work or to get them back to work. I think that in the Irish case the employer even had to supply taxis to take them out of gaol. It is totally ridiculous, and not only non-productive but also counterproductive to a substantial degree. For
58
these reasons we want to make absolutely clear that this fate does not lie at the end of the road for any workers in any circumstances; and that is why I am moving this Amendment.
5.26 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There has been some extraordinary failure of Communication here. Amendment No. 276E and Amendment No. 276G, which I think is the other one under discussion, stand in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. My Office (I have just checked again to make sure and I have it in black and white on the front of my folder) gave me the information yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, had said in the most unequivocal terms that neither of these two Amendments would be moved.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to interrupt him, but will the noble and learned Lord allow me to say that it would be very unfortunate if there were any misunderstanding about what I said. If I may say so, I emphasised, as I have done previously to the noble and learned Lord in relation to other Amendments, that I did not propose to move them; but, of course, I did not know whether anybody else would wish to move them. If I may say so, I made it very clear, and asked that it should be made very clear to the noble and learned Lord, that what I was saying was simply that I did not myself propose to move the Amendments. I am very sorry if there has been any misunderstanding.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course I accept every word that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has uttered. But he is a very distinguished member of the Labour Party, and, whether or not he made it clear to my Office, it did not penetrate to me that he was not speaking for the other noble Lord who is an equally distinguished member of the Labour Party and an equally distinguished ex-Labour Minister who did in fact move the Amendment. I was not expecting him to move it.
But far more serious than the failure of communication between noble Lords opposite and myself is my failure of communication to the noble Lords opposite. I thought that at last I had really

59
established once and for all (having said it three times; and I beg the Committee to believe that what I have said three times at least is true), the point that imprisonment for debt will be abolished on August 2. That goes for any money order at all for a civil liability. I may say that so worried was I by the persistance of the noble Lord in referring to the Betteshanger case that on the third occasion when I made it clear—this is the fourth—I actually sent a message to the Box to find out whether I had been talking nonsense or not. I did not think it possible that I could have got it wrong, and they said,"No, you are perfectly right. There was a point that you made about the Debtors Act 1869 which was not exactly correct, but the point about imprisonment for debt was correct."Whether it is a deliberate refusal to pay a maintenance order, or a refusal to pay the price of goods sold and delivered, or whether it is the price of compensation payable under this Bill, there is no imprisonment for debt. Can I say it more plainly than that, or do I need to say it ten times, instead of four times, over?
LORD DIAMOND: If the noble and learned Lord wishes to convince himself he can go on saying it as many times as he likes, but he convinced me on the last occasion. That is why I have never repeated the argument based on that theory, although I have been advised to the contrary by others.
5.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very glad the noble Lord has not repeated it, because there again communications have broken down between us. I was under the impression that that is exactly what he was doing when he referred to the Betteshanger case, because that is what happened in the Betteshanger case. On any order of the court other than payment of money, in the case of any injunction by the N.I.R.C. (I call it an injunction, though it is not called that in the Bill: but it is an order which is in the nature of an injunction), once that order has been made not to do a particular act, other than the payment of money or a declaration of right pure and simple, then of course the words of the Solicitor General do apply and that can be done; but not until an order has been made by the court. That order cannot relate to
60
money payment, because that is dealt with under methods of enforcement from August 2 onwards. I have made it clear, I hope, that that is the commencement date.
Referring to the actual language of the Amendment, the order can never be made
"to do any work or attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work",
because if the noble Lord will refer to Clause 124 he will see that it says:
"No court shall, whether by way of—
(a) an order for specific performance or specific implement—
that, I think, is the Scottish term—
"of a contract of employment, or
(b) an injunction or interdict—
again the Scottish term—
"restraining a breach or threatened breach of such a contract,
compel an employee to do any work or to attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work."
I do not think that anything could be plainer than that. So there is no possibility that I can conceive of that any employee can be sent to prison either for not doing any work or for failure to attend any place for the doing of any work. Let me make that absolutely plain.
If I may now revert to the law as it is, it may help me to deal with the other points made by the noble Lord. Of course, an employee is under a contract now. This Bill does not alter that. It does not put him under a higher obligation than he has now to keep a contract, nor does it put him under a lesser obligation to keep a contract. Both employer and employee are bound by the terms of contract. If they break them now they can be sued for damages, though they cannot be sued for specific performance or have an injunction of a nature imposing specific performance upon them. That liability of the employee remains, not because we have imposed it by this Bill but because it was always there. I am bound to say that I have not known many cases in which employers have sued their employees in the county court for damages for breach of contract, for failure to do any work, but I have always understood, broadly speaking, that they were entitled to do it, just as in the old days of breach of promise of marriage the man could bring an action

61
against the girl just as well as the girl could bring an action against the man, but in fact never did. That is left unaltered by the Bill.
The noble Lord asked me about fines. Again the Bill does not impose any fines for doing any work or failure to do any work. It is not concerned with the criminal law. Under the present law I can think offhand of only two cases, though there may be others because I have not researched it, where employees have been fined for not doing work. They both arose under the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, Sections 4 and 5, which theoretically can give rise to a fine in a magistrates' court of £25, the maximum amount fixed in 1875. Again I do not recollect many proceedings taken for the contravention of that Act but there have been some over the last 100 years. Under the repeal clauses of the Bill we are repealing Section 4 but not Section 5. It may be that we will have an opportunity of discussing whether that is a wise or a wrong policy. The Commission of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, unanimously came to the conclusion that we should retain both, but we have abolished one and kept the other. I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. There is no fine imposed by this Bill. The only fine which can exist would come under the 1875 Act.
I think that I have dealt with almost all the points which the noble Lord made. I come back to his two sets of circumstances and what he called an error which might give rise to a claim for compensation. Incidentally, I do not accept the words"unfair strike", except as a shorthand expression for unfair industrial practice consisting of organising a strike, but I do not want to be pedantic. It is not a term used in this Bill, and perhaps we had better be pedantic up to that point. It is true, as has been said on several occasions, that an unfair industrial practice will give rise to a claim for compensation against unregistered associations and their officials for doing prohibited actions—for example, organising a strike—but not to the officials of a union acting within their authority, or to a registered trade union.
In the case of the error which the noble Lord supposes, although it is conceivable
62
that a shop steward, for reasons which I gave in an earlier debate to which the noble Lord referred, could render himself liable to a claim for compensation in the set of circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord, he could not conceivably render himself liable to imprisonment, for the reasons I have tried to outline. In the case of deliberate misfeasance against the Bill, the same is true about an award of compensation. It is also true about any other action unless there has been an order of court in the nature of an injunction deliberately flouted, but in the case of a money payment or a declaration of right no imprisonment could possibly arise. As regards any other act, no possible imprisonment could conceivably arise except in the face of continued action, other than refusal to pay a sum of money, done in deliberate defiance of an order of the court not to do it. I hope that I have made that as clear as it is possible. I was a little disappointed at the beginning that I had not made it sufficiently clear already. I think that I have covered all the points the noble Lord made and I hope that, although he will not agree with what I have said, he knows exactly what it is I have tried to say.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could help someone who is not so conversant with the law. We have been told that an order made by the court for debt can no longer be dealt with by contempt of court from August 2. We accept that. How will the Industrial Court enforce its judgments'? Perhaps we might save a lot of time in discussion if we knew more about this. If you have a contract with an opera singer, you cannot make him sing. You can restrain him by an injunction from singing for somebody else, and you could get damages for breach of contract. Supposing you have one hundred singers in the chorus of, say, Drury Lane, who are members of a union and they are all refusing to sing. If the Industrial Court imposes a judgment, how will it enforce it—how will it apply the injunction? Will there be a grant of compensation, or will the Court say,"You will have to go to prison until you sing"? If we knew how these judgments of the Industrial Court were going to be enforced, it would speed up our discussions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought I had made this abundantly clear. If the noble Lord will look once more at Clause 97 he will see that the Industrial Court can make orders of three different classes. The first class is a declaration of right—that is in subsection (3)(a). An order like that is not enforceable as such; it simply declares the rights of the respective parties. The second is a money award, an award of compensation; that is in subsection (3)(b). That is enforceable in the same way as any other debt from August 2, excluding imprisonment, because from August 2 onwards, imprisonment is abolished as a method of enforcement—in other words by fieri facias, the ordinary order of distraint. I think it has been in this Amendment rather inelegantly expressed as"distraint of goods", but what is really meant is sale of goods in satisfaction of a judgment or the attachment of earnings under provisions to be brought into effect from August 2. The third class of order is an order in the nature of an injunction. I have called it that, but it is more properly referred to in paragraph (c) of the same subsection as an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant. That is an order of the nature of an injunction and the breach of it can be dealt with, in the last resort, in the same way as contempt. Normally a minor infringement is not dealt with at all: that is to say, it is brought before the court, and an unintentional infringement is dealt with by an apology or, at worst, by an order for the payment of costs. A more serious infringement is dealt with by payment of a fine. The most serious or persistent type of infringement can be dealt with by imprisonment. I had thought this had been said so often to the Committee that I was in danger of repeating myself unnecessarily.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I say then that the noble and learned Lord's answer to me is that if the hundred singers to whom I referred refused to sing, the Industrial Court would eventually have to send them to prison?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, that is just the opposite of what I have said.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I thought I had misconstrued it.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am seeking information as a layman. Supposing an order for compensation has been made upon some individuals—officials of unions or whoever they may be—and they refuse to pay, the next step, as I understand it, would be for them to be taken to court for contempt of court. Am I wrong?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No: again and again I have said that an order for the payment of money is not enforceable in that way. I have said it now five times, three times this afternoon. How many times do I have to say it before the noble Lord will believe me?
LORD POPPLEWELL: I think the noble Lord will have to say it many more times, and also many times to the trade union movement. The noble and learned Lord jumped up before I had finished my question. An order for compensation has been made. It has not been paid. What is the next step, so far as obeying the court order is concerned?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The next step is either an application for attachment of earnings, in the case of an individual wage-earner, or, alternatively, a sheriff's writ of fieri facias, namely, a writ under which the goods of the debtor are sold. There are various other types of execution which are more suitable to people with bank accounts, but that is one of the methods of execution laid down in the Administration of Justice Act 1970.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My hundred singers have no money. They have been living on a very modest salary. What happens to them? If the noble and learned Lord could tell us that, it would help enormously. What would be the final decision of the Government, through this Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The decision of the Government would not exist at all. This is a matter for the Court. The noble Lord spoke of debtors who have no money. You cannot take money out of a stone—and this has been discovered by judgment creditors for a very

65
long time. Originally they sent Mr. Pickwick to prison for not paying Mrs. Bardell, but over the years imprisonment in such cases has gradually been abolished, and after August 2 it will disappear altogether. Of course there are various methods of execution, including bankruptcy, where a debtor does not pay. Where he does not pay, and cannot, he may go bankrupt—that is to say, if it is thought worth while to start bankruptcy proceedings by the creditor. But if the debtor does not pay and can, then execution will be levied on his goods.
LORD GARDINER: If I may say so, I appreciate everything the noble and learned Lord has said, but he would help many of us if he would respond to the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and give us some example of the kinds of orders in the nature of an injunction which the court would be likely to make, and also what kind of things people would be ordered to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is rather a question of what they would be ordered not to do, and that depends on the thing they have been doing which constituted an unfair industrial practice. One of the things they might be ordered not to do is not to interfere with the right of an employee under Clause 5 either to belong or not to belong to a trade union.
LORD GARDINER: This would not raise great difficulty: if half a dozen people do something which they ought not to do, there is no difficulty about the court's making an order. There is no doubt that the court might enforce the order by ordering goods to be sold. The whole difficulty in the field of industrial relations is what do you do when 10,000 people do the same thing?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As we have been saying patiently throughout to the noble and learned Lord, and as he will be able to verify by examining the draft of the Bill, it has been carefully drafted so that the unfair industrial practices of which people are accused cannot be performed by 10,000 people but only by very small numbers.
5.49 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I think I have followed the noble and learned Lord Chancellor's argument pretty well. If men refuse to work with a non-unionist, they are going to attract these particular penalties. if they are not allowed to refuse to work with a non-unionist, they may be driven to grosser expedients which they have adopted in the past. We in the trade union movement have decried these and have tried to prevent people adopting the attitudes that they have. I can imagine that if we are not allowed to strike, or to compel a man to join a trade union, the other men may send him to Coventry. Will there be a penalty imposed on the men simply because they refuse to speak to one of their colleagues who refuses to join a union? Is not this clause going to drive men to much worse expedients for the purpose of getting 100 per cent. trade unionism? The question, I think, is simply this: are you going to impose this penalty on men who send one of their workmen to Coventry; that is to say, they just refuse to speak to him?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Clearly not. This certainly could not happen, because there is no obligation imposed by the Bill to speak to anybody, so far as I know, and therefore the court has no power to ask a person to refrain from the absence of conversation. It all depends on what the noble Lord means when he says"grosser expedients". Under the Bill, there may be no remedy, but"grosser expedients"can cover anything from sending a person to Coventry to punching him on the nose. I think that punching him on the nose is against the common law—or perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will differ from me.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I used the words"grosser expedients"because there are a number of things, and there are graduations up to the one about which the noble and learned Lord has spoken. But will he please answer this question? I am trying to find out how you are going to prevent by legislation the imposition of a closed shop in any factory when such expedients as sending a man to Coventry, which the Lord Chancellor agrees now would not

67
be punishable by law, would be used against him. In my opinion, such an action is terrible, and is one of the things that we have always decried in decent trade union circles. But if that is the only outlet available to these people to achieve what they consider to be the right result, what penalty under the Bill will prevent the achievement of a closed shop?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill speaks for itself in that respect. All I was able to answer was the question that the noble Lord asked: whether refraining from speaking to somebody by concerted action, contemptible as I gather he agrees it is, is an unfair industrial practice under the Bill. That, in my understanding, is not so. But I should be very sorry to believe that public opinion, and a sense of public morality, which the noble Lord shares with me, would either excite that probability or condone it if it happened. I would agree with the noble Lord, however, that you cannot by means of an order compel conversation between two parties or among more than two parties. I sometimes wish that one could do it the other way. But one cannot compel conversation.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: If your Lordships will forgive me, I do not want this to be a matter of question and answer, and I promise not to speak again on this Amendment. I have been silent during the debate on the Bill, if a little dismayed at times by the arguments that have come from noble Lords on the other side, because there has been a supposition all the way through that by legislation of this character you can chain the trade unions. This is what concerns me. I feel that trade unions have almost become the hare in coursing. If you drive a hare in coursing to a fence, it will go through the only holes that you leave available to it. If that hole is one which the noble and learned Lord and I agree to be contemptible in normal circumstances, will not the blame lie on noble Lords opposite for driving the hare through this particularly contemptible hole because there is no other avenue left?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is basically a Second Reading point. I have been endeavouring to deal with the
68
questions before the Committee, and this is not one of them. I would say respectfully to the noble Lord that it is always open to Englishmen to do the decent thing, which is to allow other people to enjoy the rights which they would ask for themselves; and to allow them to enjoy the facility either to belong or not to belong to a voluntary association is, I should have thought, one of the rights which most Englishmen would demand for themselves. I may say that I think it is a little unreasonable, even in the noble Lord, who is usually the most reasonable of men, to say in one breath, as noble Lords opposite have been saying, that trade unions ought to enjoy all the rights of a voluntary association, and then to suggest that in order to compel people to join them so that they cease to be voluntary they are justified in extraordinary measures which would normally be considered immoral both by the noble Lord and by me.
LORD PARGITER: As an ordinary person I read Clause 124 as saying that no order of any kind virtually can compel a man to work or to attend his place of work. His failure to work or attend his place of work will in certain circumstances be a breach of contract. But this clause says specifically that, although it may be a breach of contract, no court can compel the man to attend his place of work or to do anything. How does this square up?—because if the injunction is obtained, ultimately it would seem that he can go to prison for failure to obey the injunction.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had hoped that I had made this point plain. Under the law as it exists at the moment, nobody can be compelled to work. He may be liable—and I said this to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—in an action for damages for not doing it. If I have agreed to write a book, and do not write it, I can be sued by my publisher in an action for damages for breach of contract. What he cannot make me do is to write the book. Similarly with a coal-miner: he can, I suppose, if he chooses to stay away from work without giving notice, be sued for the value of his services during the period in which he ought to be working. I am now talking about the law as it is at the moment. He cannot be made to go to work and

69
he cannot be made to hew an ounce of coal. What Clause 124 does is to keep the situation under the law as it will be when this Bill becomes an Act. Nobody can be compelled to work, and that is what Clause 124 is saying in legal language: language appropriate to Scottish law in one arm, and to English law in another. But the man remains liable, as he is now, for damages for breach of contract. That is not imposed by the Bill. It is a liability under which he suffers now, and, as I ventured to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, it has been the law for more than 200 years. But it is not very often made use of by employers.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I do not want to trade unduly on the noble and learned Lord's patience, but this question of penalties is important. I understood him to say on more than one occasion—and I believe him—that there would be no imprisonment after August 2 for fines of this kind. But he said something about a man who had been fined and if there was nobody to pay his goods could be distrained upon. Would that mean putting in the bailiff and taking his bed and his sideboard? If that is so, it will not help industrial relations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: To begin with, as I tried to explain, there are for these purposes no fines under this Bill. I am prepared, given a little notice, to give a full disquisition on the law of execution, but there are articles which are exempt from execution. That will apply whether he buys goods at a shop and does not pay for them, whether he borrows money from a friend and does not pay him back, or whether an award for compensation is made against him. The law of execution is, I believe, relatively humane; and if it is not, it is the fault of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, because he introduced the last law dealing with it. It is not different from one kind of debt to another. It does not include imprisonment.
LORD DIAMOND: I feel that we should now bring this debate to a conclusion, but the conclusion can only be in the Division Lobby. The noble and learned Lord has been courteous enough to rise and respond to each individual intervention separately, and therefore he has made a number of speeches,
70
each one of which, though I am sure absolutely accurate, showed a total disregard for the human relations embodied in industrial relations that we are talking about. Each was based on a total ignoring of the withdrawal of liberties which have existed for 100 years, as proposed by his Cabinet and his Government, and may involve people being sent to prison—without doubt there is that possibility—as a result of what he is now saying is the proper philosophy of a true Englishman.
I want to say to the noble and learned Lord that there are millions of workers who do not share that philosophy, who believe that what they have been doing, and their fathers and grandfathers have been doing, is the right and honourable thing to do. They will—if your Lordships will excuse me—be damned before they will do anything differently in relation to their industrial activities. The noble and learned Lord said that there had been a failure of communications. Indeed there has, because he has answered all the arguments that I did not raise, and not one of the ones I did. I made it clear that I was talking about maintenance not as an example of a money debt for which you can have a committal order made against you, but as an example of the way men feel about certain things, and when they feel about principles in a certain way threats of imprisonment, threats of injunctions, mean nought. They mean nought to a man of principle and courage. Such men man our pits and steelworks, and produce the wealth from which many of us in this Committee derive considerable benefit. We need them to work for the economy of the country, and we need them to have good industrial relations.
This clause is a completely deceitful clause; it pretends to allege that it is giving a worker a right not to be compelled to work. It was because I wanted to test the value of that right, and the reality of it, that these Amendments have been put down and have been debated. The reality of that is: what happens when a man does not work? What happens when he strikes? Can he in certain circumstances, in exercising his freedom not to work, be sent to gaol? The answer is,"Yes, he can". The Solicitor General has said so, and the noble and learned Lord has said so

71
Let me explain the circumstances. I outlined them precisely in my first speech, and I have to do this again only because the noble and learned Lord paid no attention, or I did not make my case clear. I did not use my own words once, I quoted what the Solicitor General said. I used the shorthand phrase,"unfair strike". Admittedly this is a shorthand phrase, but I used it because the Solicitor General used and I was quoting him out of Hansard. I wanted to make clear that in the limited circumstances laid down by the Solicitor General, accurately describing this Bill, there were circumstances in which a man could have an order of the Court in the nature of an injunction (I think we are agreed about that wording) made against him and if, to use the Solicitor General's words, he did not comply with it, and refused to comply with it, he would go to gaol. Let me read this out again from column 369 of Hansard:
"…if, in the last resort…someone is determined to continue defying an order made in the situations defined in the Bill, he cannot be kept out of prison."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 23/2/711
I do not know what is clearer than that:"he cannot be kept out of prison"—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has said, and it is the direct contrary of what I have been saying and what is the truth, that what he can be sent to prison for is for not working, for striking. If he will only read out the words of Clause 124, to which his own Amendment is an Amendment, he will see that that is a direct contrary of the truth.
LORD DIAMOND: No, it is not so. I do not withdraw one single syllable. I have made it absolutely clear that the reality of the right not to work is the right to strike, and the conditions in which you strike can send you to gaol.
I outlined the conditions. I am afraid it is necessary to go over this all over again, although I apologise for detaining the Committee.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD DIAMOND: Some noble Lords opposite have no doubt understood what I said the first time, but this does not apply, apparently, to everybody. Again, I have been challenged by the noble and learned Lord as to what I have said. What I have referred to—again in the words of the Solicitor General—are the circumstances in which the two remedies, one of which is an order for contempt of court, can arise. Those circumstances are organisations or individuals calling, procuring or organising a strike in the circumstances that the organising or procuring is outside the scope of any authority from any registered union. So you can get an unregistered union, or a person acting with authority from an unregistered union, or a person acting without authority from a registered union, such as a shop steward acting in anticipation of the strike being made official, but not yet official, in all those circumstances doing things which, in the final event, the Court will say they should not do because it is an unfair strike as laid down by this new philosophy, in contradistinction to the philosophy which has held good over the past century, and they can be sent to gaol. That is the clear position. That is the position which I said in my first speech is utterly foolish it terms of human relations and industrial relations, and is something which ought not to be in any Bill, and we shall vote against it.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 276E) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 136.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hoy, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Hughes, L.

Bernstein, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Birk, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Kennet, L.

Brockway, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brown, L.

Faringdon, L.

Lindgren, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Champion, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

George-Brown, L

McLeavy, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Moyle, L.

Shinwell, L.

Walston, L.

Pargiter, L.

Slater, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

White, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Sorensen, L.

Williamson, L.

Raglan, L.

Stonham, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Royle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Morrison, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Mountevans, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Foot, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Auckland, L.

Gage, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Garner, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balerno, L.

Gisborough, L.

Oakshott, L.

Balfour, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Barnby, L.

Grenfell, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gridley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Radnor, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Belstead, L.

Hacking, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Bessborough, E.

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

Rea, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Rhyl, L.

Boston, L.

Hankey, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bourne, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rothermere, V.

Bradford, E.

Headfort, M.

Rothes, E.

Brecon, L.

Henley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Hives, L.

St. Helens, L.

Byers, L.

Hood, V.

St. Just, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Salisbury, M.

Clwyd, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Colyton, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Killearn, L.

Strang, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kindersley, L.

Strange, L.

Courtown, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Latymer, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathclyde, L

Crawshaw, L.

Lloyd, L.

Swaythling, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Swinton, E.

De Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Teviot, L.

Digby, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mersey, V.

Wolverton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Wrottesley, L.

Exeter, M.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wynford, L.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

6.16 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL rose to move Amendment No. 276J:
Clause 125, page 93, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment which I think raises an issue of some importance as to the effect of the Bill, and may I put it to the noble and learned Lord in this way? If
74
one looks at Clause 32 of the Bill one sees that it is the clause which makes collective agreements enforceable unless the contrary is stated in a collective agreement.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On a point of Order, I understand that the Question of Clause 124 standing part was not put. So perhaps we had better go back.
On Question, Whether Clause 124 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CONESFORD: There is one point I should like to put to my noble and learned friend because I am not quite clear about the effect of the clause as drafted. It may be that he can answer my point straight away; otherwise it is a point he may like to consider. The first subsection says, leaving out the words that are not necessary for my purpose:
"No court shall, whether by way of—
(a) an order for specific performance…
or
(b) an injunction…compel an employee to do any work…".
What I am not quite clear about is this. Is this subsection a restriction on the court, enjoining that it is not to make an order or an injunction which appears to have that effect, or is it a statement that, should the court inadvertently do so, what the court orders or prohibits shall have no effect, or be null and void, so far as compelling a person to work is concerned? The point seems to me to be of a little importance because, if the first is true and it is meant as a restriction on the court, then, should the court blunder and make an order which did apparently have that effect, it might be necessary to deal with the matter by way of appeal. If, on the other hand, the effect of the court's so doing were merely that it would be null and void so far as compelling any man to work was concerned, that would be more satisfactory. That is the doubt that I have about Clause 124 subsection (1). I have a similar question, of course, on subsection (2), but I have said enough about it to show my noble and learned friend what the point is that puzzles me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the answer is that it means both. I think it means both that the court may not do it and that, if it does it, it is of null effect.
LORD DIAMOND: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his help in ensuring that we had an opportunity of saying a word on the Question that this clause shall stand part, but I do not propose to delay your Lordships at all because I made my views and my Party's views absolutely clear on this clause when I spoke to the Amendment.
Clause 124 agreed to.
Clause 125 [Collective agreements]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 276J:
Page 93, line 21, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: The point I should like to raise with the Government on paragraph (b) of Clause 125—and I do so, as I said before, for the purpose of probing—is this. I want to know what the view and intention of the Government is with regard to the effect of prohibiting any court other than the Industrial Court from entertaining a claim for damages for breach of a collective agreement. If I may just go back a short distance, Clause 32 of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord knows so well, makes a collective agreement enforceable unless there is contained in that agreement some indication that it is not to be enforceable.Prima facie, if no more were said that would mean that any party to a collective agreement would have the ordinary rights to approach any common law court and ask for damages for breach of that collective agreement if he could show that it had been broken. Perhaps one ought to qualify that general statement by saying that that will not be applicable to a collective agreement which comes within the scope of Section 4 of the Trade Unions Act, 1871; but many collective agreements will not come within the scope of that section and, notwithstanding the provisions of that section, will be enforceable by an ordinary action for damages in a court. That would be the prima facie effect of Clause 32.
One then looks at Clause 34 and finds that it is to be an unfair industrial practice for any party to an enforceable collective agreement to break that agreement. As a result of committing that unfair industrial practice the party at fault renders himself liable to proceedings under Clause 97 of the Bill, the clause which deals with access to the Industrial Court in order to enforce a claim in respect of an unfair industrial practice. As has been said many times, the only relief which the Industrial Court is empowered to award under Clause 97 is the three types of relief specified in subsection (3)(b), which empowers the Court to make an award for compensation.
I should like to know whether I am right in supposing that the effect of

77
Clause 125(b), in relation to which I am moving my Amendment, is to annul the right which would otherwise have existed to go to the ordinary common law courts and ask for damages for breach of a collective agreement. As I read it, the answer must be"Yes".
"No court other than the Industrial Court shall entertain any proceedings…to enforce the collective agreement or claim damages for a breach of it."
I should have thought it is clear—unless there is something that I have missed—that under the Bill the Industrial Court cannot entertain a claim for damages; the Industrial Court can only award compensation on the discretionary basis. It is no good asking the Industrial Court to enforce the ordinary common law claim for damages for breach; therefore the case cannot be brought before the Industrial Court.
The clause provides that no court other than the Industrial Court can award damages for such a breach. It seems to me that the combined effect of the two groups of wording to which I have called attention is that neither the Industrial Court nor any other court can award damages for breach of a collective agreement. I would put it to the Government that that is the effect. I raise it because Clause 32 is an extremely important clause, and it is right that the public should know precisely what the clause does. We in this Committee, particularly as a revising Chamber, should bring to the light of day that that is the consequence. And if, in fact, that is the consequence which it carries, I dare say that that is precisely what the Government intend. They wish to substitute the discretionary remedy to obtain an award in compensation from the Industrial Court from the precise common law remedy to obtain damages for breach of such a collective agreement which otherwise could be obtained before a common law court.
If I have correctly interpreted the clause and spelt out the consequences, I would make only one additional comment. I would respectfully submit to the Government, not by way of criticism of Ministers but criticism of their advisers—I always criticise them very sparingly—that it would have been possible to make that meaning clearer. It could clearly be said, I should have thought, that no right will lie in damages for breach of a
78
collective agreement which otherwise would have lain. What I am intending to do in ventilating this particular project is to ascertain from the Government whether or not I have correctly interpreted the effect of the clause.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So far as I have been able to follow from listening to the noble Lord, I think he has got it exactly right. The intention is to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Industrial Court in respect of proceedings concerning the enforcement of collective agreements, and when they choose to award a money remedy, the remedy that will be awarded is compensation awarded in accordance with this Act and not damages, in so far as damages would be awarded otherwise on common law principles. In order not to mislead the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I think that I ought to make one point clear, although it is simply a pedantic one. There are collective agreements —at any rate in theory though there may not be many—which can be enforceable now, but the presumption is that they are not intended to be and therefore most of them are not. The enforcement of such collective agreements will by virtue of this clause be transferred to the Industrial Court. The enforcement of these agreements, if there are any, would under this Clause 125 be transferred to the Industrial Court, as well as those which are rendered enforceable for the first time under Clause 32, and it may be that this is what animated the draftsmen in drafting the clause as they have done. The last thing I would do is to claim expertise as a Parliamentary draftsman. I have had enough humiliating experiences in attempting Parliamentary draft-manship to know that this claim would be very shortly exposed. The broad answer to the noble and learned Lord, I think, is that he has got it exactly right.
LORD STOW HILL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Unfair industrial practice in breach of contract of employment]:
On Question, Whether Clause 126 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: On Clause 125—
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Clause 125 has been dealt with.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I beg pardon. That was rather quick.
Clause 126 agreed to.?
Clause 127 [Avoidance of encroachment on jurisdiction of Industrial Court or of industrial tribunals]:
6.30 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 276L:
Page 94, line 28, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: Normally when I am trying to catch up on myself I have a longish Amendment to read out which enables me to find out what I am going to talk about, but this is one of those curiously short ones which does not give one much opportunity. I must try to arrange that we do not move so fast in future. The purpose of this Amendment is to satisfy ourselves that the provision made in the Bill is necessary, because it does not seem to be so. What the Bill is dealing with at this point is an action starting in one court which may, as the action develops, be found to be more suitable to be taken in another court. That is as I understand it, and I think it was again the Solicitor General who said that the normal thing would be to start an action of this kind in the High Court where it was a possible borderline case, and if it was found later to be appropriate for the Industrial Court, then it Should be transferred to the Industrial Court. Subsection (3) of Clause 127 gives power to the Court before which the action is brought to stay the proceedings
"if it is satisfied that the act so alleged is one in respect of which, if it were done, proceedings under this Act could be brought before the Industrial Court or an industrial tribunal".
The Bill says that the Court"may"stay the proceedings, and the Amendment proposes that the Court"shall"stay the proceedings. What I have failed to understand, although I have read the previous debate on the point in another place, is why there is any need to have
80
a double option the first option being"may"instead of"shall", and the second option being
"if it is satisfied that the act so alleged"
is one in respect of which, if proceedings were brought, they ought to be brought before the Industrial Court. If the court is satisfied it will transfer; if it is not satisfied then it will not transfer. So why should the word be"may"when the condition of being satisfied gives the count, I should have thought, any flexibility that it needed? That is the sole point, and it is not a political point at all. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope to persuade the noble Lord that this is not a good Amendment. I agree with him that there are no politics in it at all. It is a pure question of the convenience of the parties and the administration of justice. I think that if he will bear with me he will find that the reason is sufficiently obvious if one reflects upon the nature of events. It is of course the same language as is used in the Arbitration Act, for rather similar reasons. Although the normal practice is for a court to stay where Section 4 of the Arbitration Act applies, it is not invariable because there are exceptional cases; and this is in order to prevent duplications of proceedings and to prevent a situation arising when proceedings may abort at a relatively late stage.
Let me give two examples. In a single skein of events which surround strike action there may be three or four sources of complaint. Of those three or four sources of complaint, all three or all four may prove to be wholly unfounded or wholly justified—that is one option; or two may be unfounded and one may be justified. Or one can ring the changes. It may well be that at a fairly late stage of the proceedings, after the facts have been ventilated, a new course of action may seem to be the true one. The intention of this clause is that the priority, if I may put it in that way, shall be given to the Industrial Court in matters which are within its jurisdiction. But let us assume a set of circumstances in which four or five different matters of complaint arose out of the same set of proceedings. It would be highly inconvenient if the matter alleged to be an unfair industrial practice were relatively peripheral to the

81 ss
real cause, or, alternatively, if at a relatively late stage in the proceedings it were suddenly discovered that what had been pleaded as an ordinary breach of contract or tort could have been pleaded as an unfair industrial practice. It would obviously be highly expensive for both sets of parties, and inconvenient to the administration of justice, if those proceedings had to abort and a new set of proceedings had to be started in the other court. It is on account of the possible duplication of proceedings, therefore, that this discretion is left with the court but it is intended that the Court should exercise its discretion in the ordinary course in favour of the stay.
LORD DIAMOND: I can only say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord for two things. First, for making it clear what they purpose of the word"may"is and the appropriate way in which it might be used, and secondly for introducing me to a new concept of abortion, for which I am truly grateful. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 276M:
Page 94, line 44, at end insert—
("(5) Any applicant on an ex-parte motion in the High Court or Court of Session shall give an undertaking that he knows of no circumstances by reason of which the National Industrial Relations Court or an Industrial Tribunal could have jurisdiction over the act for which an injunction or interdict is sought. Furthermore, any ex-parte injunction or interdict may be given in the High Court or Court of Session in any action involving or touching upon any workers' organisation.")
The noble Lord said: I am in a little difficulty with this Amendment because I should like to move only half of it, but as I well understand that is not a convenient method. I move the Amendment to make it clear that, having read the proceedings in another place, I am now satisfied that the first five lines of the Amendment should not be pressed. But the last three lines read:
"Furthermore, any ex-parte injunction or interdict may be given in the High Court or Court of Session in any action involving or touching upon any workers' organisation."
I should have thought there was a reasonable case for inserting those words at line 44, which is at the very end of this clause.
The purpose of this Amendment is to deal with the problems arising out of an ex-parte injunction. I should have thought that the Court would be extremely jealous about this kind of action, and that therefore an Amendment along these lines would be helpful in avoiding unnecessary expense and in simplifying procedure. I do not want to press the Amendment further than that, but I should be grateful if the Minister in charge would let the Committee know what he feels about it. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord told me that he was really only moving half this Amendment, and I am afraid it was the subject of a certain misunderstanding with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, of which I have already complained. The Amendment is clearly rather strangely drafted, and I think that in the form in which it is drafted there must be a misprint of some kind, and for that reason I assumed that it was not going to be moved at all.
LORD DIAMOND: There is a misprint in fact. I am sorry; it is entirely my fault. The word"any"should read"an"—"an ex-parte injunction".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what was said in the House of Commons, and yet the misprint reappeared. Even so, despite the assurance that it should read"an", I think it really should read"no". Because of this extraordinary complexity in the actual words of the Amendment I thought that perhaps the noble Lord was not going to move it. However, if he will look at Schedule 3, paragraph 22, I think he will see that ex-parte injunctions cannot be granted in the Industrial Court. Equally, in cases where what is alleged is an unfair industrial practice that would immediately be dissolved in the High Court, because if the High Court were asked to give an ex-parte injunction they could only be"diddled"into doing it by concealing the fact that what was alleged was an unfair industrial practice; clearly it would be quite contrary to the terms of the Act we have been discussing for them to grant one. It therefore follows that the Amendment is aiming at preventing something which, unless there is deliberate deception or fundamental blunder of some kind, cannot happen, and I do not think either will be prevented or avoided by

83
putting in the Act another clause which would not itself guard against either deliberate deception or fundamental blunder.
It is quite clear that an ex-parte injunction in respect of an unfair industrial practice would not lie in the High Court, or an order of that nature in the Industrial Court. In cases where an ex-parte injunction would lie against a union in respect of something quite different from what is discussed in this Bill, something which is not covered by the conception of an unfair industrial practice, I should have thought there was no particular reason why a union should be given any greater privilege than it has got now. But the noble Lord has not suggested that it is his intention to create that effect, and in view of the fact that I was completely in the dark as to what the true phraseology of the Amendment should be or which part of it, if either, was effective, I really think perhaps the sensible course would be to ask leave to withdraw it.
LORD DIAMOND: I appreciate the difficulties which the noble and learned Lord has touched upon and under which I am suffering somewhat myself. May I, before withdrawing the Amendment, which I shall certainly seek to do in a moment, put a further point which I understand is possibly in the minds of those who originally conceived this Amendment? The Amendment deals with"any workers' organisation"; that is to say, it does not deal with a registered union. I think: the point here might well be that an organisation of workers, which because it is not registered is not regarded as a trade union, ought nevertheless to continue to have recourse to the ordinary courts because they are unregistered and they are barred from recourse to a remedy in the Industrial Court. If those facts are right, it seems to me that this is, at all events, a possible method of giving some relief. On the assumption that one is dealing with a workers' organisation; namely, an unregistered body, which does not have recourse for a remedy to the Industrial Court because it is barred by this Bill from having such recourse, ought it not to continue to have recourse to the ordinary courts in the ordinary way? This is not obvious from a superficial reading of the Amendment. I leave the point
84
with the noble and learned Lord, unless he wants to say anything further now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am still a little puzzled about it, because I had genuinely thought that the purpose basically behind the Amendment was to stop ex-parte injunctions being brought against unions. The reason I thought that was that unions notoriously dislike having ex-parte injunctions ordered against them. In his last question the noble Lord is postulating an unregistered workers' organisation as the plaintiffs. So far as I can see, the unregistered organisation is not having anything taken away from it which it has at this moment. In the ordinary course I should have thought it was doubtful if they could act as plaint-tiffs; it would be the officials or trustees who would bring an action for ex-parte injunction, and I do not know of anything in the Bill which would stop them doing so. They cannot complain of unfair industrial practice because they would have to go to the Industrial Court. But it is not taking away something they have at the moment. I am not clear what the noble Lord wants to preserve which they have got. If the noble Lord will write to me about it I will try to clear it up, but at the moment I am rather floundering as to what is in his mind.
LORD DIAMOND: As that makes two of us, I think the proper course is for me to seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Amendment, and to write to the noble and learned Lord, as he suggests.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 127 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: On the Question, Whether the Clause shall stand part, I should like to put a question to the noble and learned Lord. I cannot for the moment discover what is the function of subsection (4) of that clause. Your Lordships will see that the effect of that subsection is in relation to a case in which proceedings in tort are brought

"(a) against the trustees of a trade union…sued in their capacity as such trustees, or

(b) against any members or officials of a trade union…sued on behalf of themselves and all other members…".

It is to be noticed that that subsection relates only to trade unions; that is to

85
say, the organisation of workers which have already been registered. They are on the register and the effect of registration therefore applies to them.
If one goes back to Clause 72 to try to ascertain what is the effect of registration, one finds that it is for this purpose twofold: when the organisation of workers registers it becomes a body corporate; it ceases to be an aggregate of individuals, it becomes a body corporate, which is a separate legal entity. That is the first consequence. The second consequence relevant to my question is in subsection (3):
"On the incorporation…all property and funds, of whatsoever nature, for the time being held by any person in trust for the organisation shall vest in the organization…without further assurance."
That being a consequence of registration, I cannot for the moment understand what purpose is left for subsection (4). If one looks at paragraph (a), there will not be any proceedings in tort brought against the trustees of a trade union sued in their capacity as trustees, for the simple reason that any property they held on behalf of the union has automatically vested in the union as a corporate entity. Under Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 1871 property was held by trustees for a union registered under that Act. I should have thought that up to the time when this Bill becomes law that property would continue vested in those trustees for a union registered under the 1871 Act. As soon as that union became registered under this Act that property would automatically without more ado pass from the trustees to the union; it would become the property of the union and in no sense remain vested in the trustees. If that is so, I cannot understand in what circumstances, after this Bill becomes law and after an organisation of workers becomes within the meaning of this Bill a trade union by becoming registered, an action in tort would be brought against the trustees.
If one looks at paragraph (b), precisely the same question arises. The form of action against individuals on behalf of a larger body, a larger aggregate of individuals, is a statutory form of action created by the rules of the Supreme Court. It is well recognised, and it is always used for the convenience of litigants where you get a large aggregate of individuals. You select some of them
86
as defendants in an action in order to found an action against the aggregate of individuals as a whole.
Again I repeat what I said before: that once the workers' organisation which was, up to the time of its registration, an aggregate of separate individuals, becomes converted into a corporate entity as a result of registration, I cannot think in what circumstances an action could be brought against some individuals on behalf of an aggregate of individuals which no longer exists because it has become converted into a corporation. It may be not very easy to answer that point. It may be that I have it wrong and have failed to observe something. On the other hand, it may be that there is something in the points that I am taking, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord, if he cannot answer straight away, to consider whether perhaps at Report stage he might move an Amendment to leave out that subsection which, as I say, seems to have no purpose whatever.
6.52 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this point. Subject to anything he may wish to say in criticism, I think I am able to deal with it straight away. At present if you sue a union you sue its trustees, or sue it by means of a representative action. It is quite true that when the union becomes a corporate body that will be a mistake, but this subsection provides that instead of the action being struck out as being against the wrong party, it shall have effect as though it was brought against the right party, which is the new corporation. Of course it is true that existing property, under the provisions to which the noble Lord has drawn attention in Clause 72, vests from the trustees into the new corporation, but there is nothing to prevent a union that wanted to do so from setting up fresh trustees. In that case a representative action might still be possible in theory in the case of newly acquired property, or property re-transferred to them. Therefore, this clause is not purely inert; it serves a useful function, although it is mainly a drafting one.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not want to prolong the discussion. I would simply say in response to the noble and learned Lord's observation that I should have

87
thought that what the clause exactly does not do is to provide that an existing action is to be treated as if it were a different action.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did not say an existing action. I said that if somebody mistakenly brought an action in future against trustees when they ought to have brought the action against the corporation, to quote the terms of the clause, it
"shall have effect as if the proceedings were brought against the trade union"—
and that is what it says.
LORD STOW HILL: I really do not want to prolong the discussion, but with great respect it does not say that. It says that:
"…subsection (1) or (as the case may be) subsection (3) of this section shall have effect as if the proceedings were brought against the trade union…"
which is a very different thing. The other point that the noble and learned Lord made—and I accept that he may conceivably have a case—is that in which a union which has become incorporated has nevertheless vested its property in trustees entrusted with it, and in those circumstances., in accordance with the ordinary procedure in the Court of Chancery, you could join both the trustees and the union. But I cannot understand how you would, in those circumstances, bring a separate action against the trustees. You just would not establish your right. The action, I should have thought, would be adjourned by the Chancery judge to give the union an opportunity to appear and be represented. I should have thought that that was the position. I do not want to prolong a technical discussion. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but I do not think he has quite given me the answer. I should be grateful if he would say that he will look at it again.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly I will look at it again. If somebody wanted to get round subsection (1), which provides for the possibility of a stay, by suing the trustees instead of the corporation, he cannot do so because of the subsection to which the noble Lord has drawn attention.
LORD STOW HILL: He also fails to do so for the obvious reason that he would lose the action.
LORD BERNSTEIN: During the debate in Committee to-day mention has been made of other laws which affect terms of employment, contracts of employment, et cetera. Does Clause 127 ensure that nothing within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is dealt with by the ordinary courts? If that is so, all right, but could it possibly mean that people could decide which court they wished to use for the purpose of whatever they have in mind? Could they go to the ordinary courts instead of the Industrial Court? Which court has most powers, the Industrial Court or the present courts?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought we had discussed this on an earlier Amendment. The situation is that a trade union may employ a driver to drive a van on its behalf, and in the course of driving its van he may knock somebody down. In that event, the trade union will, in future, be liable in tort, and so, at the moment, is the van driver. You go to the ordinary courts for damages in the ordinary way, and the Industrial Court has got nothing to do with it. Equally, a union may be guilty of inducing a breach of contract under Clause 92, we will say, or breaking a collective agreement. In that event, an unfair industrial practice is set up, and if resort is attempted to the ordinary courts the court will stay the action under subsection (1) of this clause, and the complainant will then be left to his remedy in the Industrial Court. They have two separate jurisdictions. As I tried to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, there is an intermediate position when the same set of facts may give rise to quite a number of different complaints, and it does not appear until a relatively late stage which are the effective ones, or whether they are not all effective, and there may be an overlapping of jurisdiction. In that case it is for the convenience of the parties that there should be an optional discretion in the courts to order a stay, or not to order a stay, as the substantial justice of the case demands.
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Acts in contemplation or furtherance of industrial dispute]:
LORD DIAMONDhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 276N, 276Q, 276R, 276S, 276T, 276U, 276V, 276W. The noble Lord said: All the Amendments on this clause refer to one point only, which can more conveniently be taken on the Question, That the Clause stand part. In those circumstances, I am not moving any of these Amendments.
On Question, Whether Clause 128 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I ask one question? The first line of Clause 128 refers to an act done by a"person". Would that word"person"cover a representative of a trade union or, if I may use the expression of noble Lords opposite, a representative of an independent organisation of workers? Would it cover anybody? I feel that it should not be quite such a wide field.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to that question—before the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asks his question, which is presumably a different one—is that I think it refers to any legal person, and not to any unincorporated association, which is not a person.
LORD DIAMOND: As we are moving again into a field which to me is as tortuous as it is tortious (if that is the correct adjective) perhaps I should stick rather closely to my brief. I want to ask one question here. Why have the Government limited the umbrella of this clause to actions for tort? The purpose of the clause, as I understand it and as the first words make clear, is to give some kind of umbrella or protection, but it refers only to actions for tort. What is not understood is what kind of opportunity to bring actions, what kind of actionability other than in tort, would remain outside the compass of the Industrial Court's jurisdiction? The reason I ask that question is because if there is none why limit the clause? But if I have misunderstood the clause and there are some, then what justification is there for leaving them out? That is the sole purpose of the Amendments which I did not move, but which I hope will have served to give notice of the point I had in mind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord for making himself clear, as I hope he has done. I am feeling rather like a batsman at the nets, with a very large number of rapid balls of different types being sent down at me. I think the answer must be this. Clause 128 excludes jurisdiction in tort of any kind in respect of the limited class of action referred to. In other words, for tort in respect of those classes of action you cannot proceed at all against a person: that is to say, you cannot bring an action in the existing courts because this clause states that you cannot, and you cannot bring it in the Industrial Court because the Industrial Court does not have jurisdiction in tort as such. Therefore, you cannot do it at all.
On the other hand, there are acts which would otherwise have been a tort, in respect of which the Bill provides that they are an unfair industrial practice. Therefore this clause limits liability only to actions in tort, because other clauses of the Bill give a remedy in the Industrial Court or in the industrial tribunal to bring proceedings under the special provisions of this Bill. I think that is probably the answer to the question which the noble Lord put, but if I have not got it right I shall try again.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to continue the argument, but may I—and I hope I am not being unduly daring—venture to ask whether the noble and learned Lord really was right in what he said about the word"person"in answer to a question put to him? He said that it was a legal person, and I would entirely agree with him on that. But I thought the question was about whether the word"person"could include an unregistered union, an organisation of workers. An organisation of workers which is not registered, and which is therefore not a trade union under this Bill, remains an organisation which was not registered under any Act at all prior to this Bill, in which case it would be an aggregate of persons.
The interpretation Act states that person"includes"persons", and I should have thought the necessary consequence was that an aggregate of persons, an unregistered trade union, was undoubtedly protected by Clause 128. Or the unregistered union could be what

91
would have been a union registered under the 1871 Act, in which case the decision in Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union stated, I thought perfectly clearly —although there was some disagreement between the noble Lords who took part in the decision on the case—that although for some purposes the unregistered union could be treated as if it were incorporated, and could be sued, for example, as an incorporated body, nevertheless it still remained in substance an aggregate of individuals. If I may respectfully submit it to the noble and learned Lord, I should have thought that the word"person"there confers the protection of Clause 128, and not only on a union which is registered under this Bill, but also on any unions which are not registered under this Bill, whether or not they were previously registered under the 1871 Act.
If I may say so, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, if he is right the consequence is rather serious. I should have thought the clause would have a very different result from that which it is supposed to have. It would mean that actions in tort could be brought ad lib against unregistered unions, and that none of them would have the protection against actions in tort which I am sure everybody thought that Clause 128 was giving them. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me on reflection that I may be right about that, and that he will say that his mind is not made up as to the meaning of the word"person"in that context. Now may I—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say, before we come to the substance, that I was not aware that I had said anything that was inconsistent. The only further comment or gloss on what I have said which I should feel disposed to make at the moment, is that I should have drawn attention to Section 19 of the interpretation Act of 1889, which provides that the expression"person",
"shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include any body of persons corporate or unincorporate for both that Act and any other Act passed thereafter."
I thought I had said that"person"had its ordinary legal meaning, and I did not think I said anything different from that. I thought I was expressing a platitude and not giving rise to controversy.
LORD STOW HILL: I shall have to look at the printed Report to-morrow. I can only say that I thought I understood what the noble and learned Lord said, but if I attributed to him something which he did not say then I am very glad to withdraw what I said. I am also very glad now to learn that he agrees entirely that an unregistered union, a union not registered under this Bill, is undoubtedly given protection under Clause 128 against actions in tort. That is the particular point that I wanted to raise. But before we part from this very important clause, I should have thought that, again as a revising body, we should consider what is its import and what changes it makes. It is obviously intended to safeguard and keep in being the protection in respect of actions in tort which is now given by the Trade Disputes Act 1906 and, in particular, by Section 3 of that Act. It preserves those protections, I suppose, as a counterpoise to the new liabilities which are created in particular by Clauses 92 to 94 in the case of non-registered unions. However, it makes some substantial changes.
In the first place, I should have thought we ought to be conscious of the fact that the expression"industrial dispute", which in this Bill is substituted for the expression"trade dispute"which occurs in the previous Trade Union Acts, and notably in the Act of 1906, is narrower in scope; in other words,"industrial dispute"as used in this Bill is narrower in scope than"trade dispute"as used in previous Acts. It may be that when we get to the definition clause your Lordships will want to consider the expression"industrial dispute"rather more closely. But I hope the noble and learned Lord will agree with me that I am right in saying that the expression"industrial dispute"is substantially narrower, in that it does not include a dispute between workman and workman; notably, a demarcation dispute.
In respect of such a dispute, unless the employers are involved the protection which was previously afforded by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 does not continue. In another sense, I should have thought it was right to take note of the fact that the protection is wider than that which has heretofore been granted by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 in this sense: that Section 3 of the

93
1906 Act gave protection only in relation to inducing a breach of a contract of employment, whereas this provision, Clause 128(1)(a), extends the protection to procuring a breach of any contract, whether a contract of employment or not. That is an important change. Both these two changes are extremely important and it is right to take notice of them before we part with the clause.
LORD SLATER: Listening to the legal luminaries in regard to this particular clause, I am at a loss. Apart from the speech which has been made by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill and the replies which have been given by the Lord Chancellor, and apart from the Amendments that my noble friend Lord Diamond had down but which he withdrew so that there should be a debate on the clause itself, there is one particular phrase which appears time and time again in this clause and which I am not at all clear about. Therefore I should like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor (I did not want to interrupt my noble friend Lord Stow Hill when he was speaking) to try to help me in my understanding of this one particular phrase,"in tort". What does it mean? I know some people talk about"shall","may"and so on, but what does this mean—"in tort"? If the Amendments set down by my noble friend Lord Diamond had been pressed, then we should have had some form of clarification, no doubt, from him as to why he was moving those Amendments to delete the phrase"in tort"from the clause. I should be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he would clear up this point for me, because, after all, there are certain words which appear in the dictionary but as to which, even when one looks them up, one cannot get a clear definition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In answer, first of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, the expression"tort"is, I am afraid, a term of English legal art. It does not apply to Scotland, where the word for a rather similar thing is"delict", but in the presence of Scots I would not say that they are the same. I should in their absence; but I should be immediately called up and told that I was wrong. But"tort"means a civil wrong for which the principal remedy is
94
usually damages; a wrong which gives rise to an action for damages in the ordinary courts of law in England.
I am not sure that I disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said in any particular. It is always difficult to follow an intricate statement of law and say that one agrees with it in toto, but I did not catch him out, as he spoke, on any particular. It is true that this Bill gives a wider protection in one important respect, in tort, than is given by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, because the Trade Disputes Act 1906 is limited in the case of contracts of employment, whereas this is not limited in such a way. The noble Lord is also aware, and has drawn attention to the fact, that the definition of"industrial dispute"as it appears in Clause 158 of this Bill is not identical with the definiton of"trade dispute"as it occurs in the last surviving section of the 1906 Act. He has drawn attention to one difference, at any rate: that it does not include a dispute between workmen and workmen.
It may be that, as he says, we shall have to examine those differences more closely when we come to the definition clause, but two things should be borne in mind before we do. The first is that although this clause limits actions in tort, one must read it in conjunction with the clauses which provide a remedy for unfair industrial practices. In other words, it is not really the same, although it continues and extends the tortious exemption provided by the Act of 1906. In a number of cases where the tortious exemption of the Act of 1906—the exemption from liability in tort under the Act of 1906—would have left a person injured with no remedy, this Bill may provide him a remedy in respect of the new conception of unfair industrial practice.
The second point which has to be borne in mind in dealing with the definition clause—the noble Lord's second point—is that although it is true that"who does what"remains outside unfair industrial practices, the conception of who is to be recognised as sole bargaining agent does come within the earlier special provisions of the Bill, and therefore it is slightly misleading if one simply says that the conception of industrial dispute does not include a dispute between workmen and workmen or that one extends the exemption from tortious liability to all

95
actions inducing a breach of contract, because although that is literally true one must look at it in the light of the special provisions of the Bill which provide different remedies in different sets of circumstances, some of which would overlap with the kind of situation which is dealt with in Clause 128.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if we adjourned for three-quarters of an hour. If that is so, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
[The Sitting was suspended at eighteen minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at eight o'clock.]
8.0 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 129 agreed to.
LORD DONOVAN LORD DONOVAN moved Amendment No. 276DD:
After Clause 129, insert the following new clause:
Limitation of right to complain of unfair industrial practice
". No complaint of an unfair industrial practice shall be presented to the Industrial Court or an Industrial Tribunal after the expiration of six months from the date when the right to do so first accrued."
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the new clause as set out on the Marshalled List. Unless I have missed it there is no time limit imposed by the Bill for bringing a complaint of an unfair industrial practice before either the Industrial Court or an industrial tribunal. In these circumstances it would seem that the time limit for bringing such complaints would be the time limit imposed by the Limitation Act 1939 upon the bringing of actions, because an action is defined by Section 31 of that Act as including"any proceeding in a court of law". The time limit imposed by Section 2 of the 1939 Act is six years in respect of certain specified actions, none of which is applicable here except an action
"to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment, other than a penalty or forfeiture"
96
which would cover awards of compensation under this Bill. It may be that the Government will think that some special limitation should be provided in respect of complaints against unfair industrial practices. I have suggested six months after the right to bring the complaint first accrued.
LORD JANNER: I rise to support the noble and learned Lord. It is perfectly obvious that at some stage a person should be protected from any proceedings being taken against him in respect of any offence or alleged offence which may be committed under this Bill. It is not unusual for such a limitation to be placed upon proceedings being taken in other courts, even criminal courts in certain cases, and I think that there should not hang over the heads of individuals for any unlimited time, and certainly not for any particularly long time, the possibility of being brought before this particular Court. Perhaps the Government will see the necessity for a limitation of this kind and will accede to the request of the noble and learned Lord.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think we are all in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, that it is necessary to have time limits for bringing complaints of unfair industrial practices, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, supported him. We feel, however, that because of their widely varying nature different time limits will probably be needed for complaints under different headings. Therefore time limits for complaints to the N.I.R.C. will be provided in the Rules of the court, and these will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 imposes a time limit of only four weeks for complaints to an industrial tribunal of unfair dismissal. A Government Amendment. at a later stage under Clauses 102 and 103, will extend that time limit to all complaints to industrial tribunals. In these circumstances perhaps the noble and learned Lord may feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is wholly satisfied—I am sorry to intervene at this stage. If he is not going to withdraw his Amendment then I yield to him immediately.
LORD DONOVAN: I was going Ito withdraw it. I am quite sure that the Government have seen the sense in the spirit of this Amendment, that some time limit should be imposed. I gather that they accept that in principle and I leave the wording of the regulations to them.
LORD JANNER: I think that the idea of regulations is an advance; but it does not go so far as I and a number of other noble Lords would want it to go. Why should there not be, as in other Acts, a specific limitation, without our having to resort to regulations which can be changed and which may not provide the limitation we require? If an undertaking were given that the matter would be looked into with a view to limitations being placed upon the time for bringing actions in respect of certain separate alleged' offences, then the Committee could consider the various proposals. But I should not be happy in a position where that was not provided for within the Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sure the Committee would want me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, and those who supported his Amendment for bringing such an important issue before us, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she adopted and, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, improved on the principle by saying that there should be different periods for different cases. So far we all march happily together. But I think we should be happier if she were to tell us more about it. We are all aware of the Negative Resolution procedure. That means that a number of regulations would be brought before us covering everything under the sun, including the particular period. If we did not like the particular period we could vote against everything under the sun—even though, apart from the period, everything under the sun was acceptable. That is not a satisfactory way to deal with this matter. Nor would the Affirmative Resolution procedure be an adequate method, unless the noble Baroness could give an undertaking that there would be separate Resolutions for each particular point; and of course she is not able to give that kind of undertaking. As we are enjoying the invaluable presence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord
98
Chancellor (who is in a particularly happy and expansive mood after the short interval) I should have thought that it would be appropriate to entice the noble Baroness into going further and saying what is in the Government's mind as to the period which might be appropriate.
8.10 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I wonder whether one of the ways in which this matter should be tackled is by the provision of time limits within the regulations. Obviously that is a very sensible thing, if you wish to have different limitations for different kinds of industrial practices, which is entirely reasonable in itself. But perhaps what is needed in addition is an overall safeguard for the longest possible time the Government have in mind. Six months may be too short for this purpose, but for certain situations a longer period might be needed in order to bring a complaint. If the Government think that six months may be too short why do not we write into the Bill an overall time limit, longer than which no complaint of any kind can be brought; but at the same time allow under regulations, varying time limits for various industrial offences. It seems to me that that should meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and other noble Lords, and I wonder whether the Government would give it their consideration.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUJR OF BELHELVIE: I should be glad to try to explain a little of what was really the general outline of our attitude to the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord. I think that, as a Committee, we are agreed that it is necessary to have time limits; and I would have thought, from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, spoke, that perhaps we were not entirely agreed on the extent of the time limit, whether it should be a straight time limit on every occasion or a variable time limit.
I am asked what is our thinking on this matter. Perhaps I may say that in the case, for example, of an alleged unfair dismissal I think it reasonable to expect that an individual would bring his complaint to an industrial tribunal as

99
quickly as possible. That is why a time limit of four weeks is provided in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6. As the Committee know only too well, there are some other very important issues which come before the N.I.R.C. which could involve considerable sums in compensation and very delicate questions of industrial relations. That is why we think that the time limit in each case should be longer. But whether it should be six months is, I think, a matter which we could debate at Report stage when we hope to have put down relevant Amendments.
So far as the proceedings in the N.I.R.C. are concerned, we thought it a good idea to have a degree of flexibility in fixing the time limits. This, we thought could best be achieved through the court's rules. As I said earlier, we intend to lay specific Amendments concerning complaints to industrial tribunals under Clauses 102 and 103, and here we thought that a time limit of four weeks would be about right. It is the same limit as is concerned with complaints of unfair dismissal. I have tried to explain a little more what is in our minds. It is very difficult to get it exactly right. We take the principle lying behind the noble and learned Lord's Amendment, but we think that six months is probably too long, and we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is with us on that.
LORD HOY: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said, and for the fact that she hopes to have Amendments down on Report. I would only emphasise that this is of importance to the Committee, because if we let it go beyond that stage, and it is to be done by Negative Order, neither House would have the right to make any Amendments. We should then be confronted with Orders which we could either accept or reject. We hope your Lordships are to have a real opportunity to discuss proposals, and we are grateful to the noble Baroness for the offer which she has made to the Committee.
LORD DONOVAN: I put in"six months"merely in order to start a discussion. In view of what has been said, and in view of the large measure of agreement which I think there is in
100
principle, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 130 [Gas, water and electricity workers]:
Clause 130 agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD STRANG): Amendment No. 276Y, Lord Stow Hill.
LORD STOW HILL: I think that the Question, Whether Clause 129 shall stand part of the Bill? has not been put. I wanted to make an observation on Clause 130.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I did put it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Further to that point, surely the last Amendment we were discussing, that of the noble. and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, was a new clause after Clause 129, and therefore we must have agreed Clause 129. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Strang, say that we did, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is wrong.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I have said Clause 130 stand part. Clause 131, Amendment No. 276Y.
LORD HOY: I rise to move this Amendment—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let us be clear. I did rise on a point of order to suggest that we had done Clause 129 stand part. I am not absolutely sure that the Question, That Clause 130 shall stand part, has been agreed to. I want to be sure of that because we must keep in order.
LORD STOW HILL: I am not sure whether I am in order but I should very much like, if it can be done, to ask a purely probing question on Clause 130. If the Question has been put, then obviously I cannot.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I heard the Lord Chairman say that the Question had been put; but if it is the will of the Committee perhaps the Lord Chairman would turn a blind eye to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and let him put his question. The last thing we want to do is to"bulldoze"anything. The

101
Question, Whether Clause 129 shall stand part of the Bill? has been put, but I was not myself sure whether the Question, Whether Clause 130 shall stand part of the Bill? had been accepted. If the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, may proceed, with the leave of the Committee, perhaps that would be a convenient course to adopt.
LORD STOW HILL: I should be most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to the Committee if they would be so kind as to turn a blind eye to me. I think, in recompense to the Committee, that I can shorten my question very much by simply saying that the Donovan Commission recommended, as I read page 224 of their Report, that both Sections 4 and 5 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, should be left un-repealed. The scheme of the Bill obviously is to substitute the emergency provisions which begin with Clause 134 for the existing provisions in Sections 4 and 5 of the 1875 Act and similar provisions relating to electricity. The Government have not accepted the recommendations in toto; they have accepted them in part. I should like to ask what is the thinking behind that decision, and why it is that they have thought it right to repeal Section 4, not in conformity with the Donovan Commission Report, but not to repeal Section 5 which remains in effect when Section 4 has gone. The Donovan Commission recommended that both sections should stay. I should be very grateful if I could be told the thinking behind that departure from Donovan, and that distinction between Sections 4 and 5.
8.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has asked is a perfectly reasonable one; and indeed to some extent I referred to it in a previous speech when we were dealing with the question of the liability of the individual under the terms of this Bill and elsewhere. As the noble Lord has correctly stated, the Donovan Commission were concerned to retain both Sections 4 and 5 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. The Government have decided to retain, in accordance with the Donovan Commission, Section 5 but, out of accordance with the Donovan Commission, to repeal Section 4. This clearly requires explana-
102
tion. Whether it is right or wrong is evidently a question of judgment. For those who may not be absolutely au fait at this moment of time with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, let me, with apologies to those who are, say some words of explanation. Both deal with strikes which are in breach of a contract of employment. Section 4 deals with strikes with respect to two named public utilities—gas and water. That was amended by the Electricity Act 1919, by adding a third public utility—electricity. So that Section 4 of the 1875 Act as amended, protects by criminal sanctions strikes in breach of contract in respect of three named public utilities.
Section 5 does not relate to specific types of undertaking at all. It protects with criminal sanctions acts the effect of which would be to endanger human life, cause serious bodily injury or expose valuable property, whether real or personal, to destruction or serious damage.
The Government had to consider whether either or both of those sections had any live force. Obviously, there were strong arguments for accepting the view of the Donovan Commission that they both had live force, but the Government position was taken before the events of last winter. Public utilities, such as electricity, water and gas, can cause immense suffering to the community, and it was thought in 1875, and the Donovan Commission thought as recently as in the period of office of the last Government. that they really ought to stand in a category by themselves. We only differed from that after careful consideration and we differed precisely because we intended to keep Section 5 on the Statute Book.
There were two factors which led us to come to—I will not call it a compromise decision but a different decision from that of the Donovan Commission. In the first place, to confine the list of public utilities to three is to some extent arbitrary. We cannot get away from the fact that, in the complex and sophisticated conditions of modern life, it is not only three public utilities which can cause damage on the scale which was obviously contemplated by the framers of the legislation of 1875. Therefore, the retention of an arbitrary list of public utilities required justification. If in fact it was not to be justified, we would then

103
be faced with the extremely difficult problem of deciding what we were going to put in and what we were going to leave out—a problem which I dare say could be solved by Parliament and the Government but which on the whole we thought it was wiser not to attempt to answer. In examinations, to answer five questions secures an honours degree, but we thought this was one question we would not attempt to answer.
The second line of argument is this. Why keep Section 5? The answer is because it provides the real sense of what was done in Section 4. If the effect of what is done in breach of contract is to endanger human life—for example, by exposing a patient in an operating theatre to a sudden cessation in the middle of the operation—surely that ought to be dealt with, though the deterrent of a £25 fine, the maximum at present existing, is not something which one might think would instil fear into the heart of the more determined criminals. We think that the actual exposing of human life to danger by a deliberate breach of contract is something which ought to be subject to criminal penalties, as should also be the exposing of property to great damage. I have had such a case actually in my professional life, and I would slightly smudge it so as not to give away the actual case. Suppose, for instance, that some action at one of those new power stations had the effect of stopping certain operations, which, though it might not actually endanger human life, might cause the evacuation of and damage to a large area. Surely that ought not to be allowed to be done in breach of contract. At the moment, the law is that it should not be done, and why should we change the law so that it can be done? If we keep this provision under Section 5, there is no real value in Section 4. That, at any rate, is the argument.
I would supplement my argument with another consideration which I hope will weigh at any rate with the lawyers in the House. I think it is not the less important for being slightly technical. Although the only direct sanction in Sections 4 and 5 is a criminal one of a £25 fine, the consequences of a breach of Section 5 or, as the matter now stands, of Section 4, though that will be removed if this Bill becomes law, have large
104
repercussive effects on the legality of what is done for the purpose of civil liability. The provisions of the law as it stands—and I think as it stands modified under the Bill—mean that certain actions are all right if the only reason for their being otherwise all wrong is that they cause or induce a breach of contract. I hope that that is appreciated. But, of course, if a breach of Section 4 or Section 5 at the moment is also involved, it is not the only reason in those cases that they cause a breach of contract: they also involve an offence under Section 4 or Section 5. Therefore, there is value in retaining the section on sanctions of one or other or both, as the Donovan Commission recommended, if only for the purpose of attracting the liability which comes from illegal action. I myself would be very slow to abolish Section 5.
If I may summarise what I have been trying to explain—because I realise that it is a highly technical argument—we did not agree with Donovan on Section 4 because the list of public utilities was arbitrary. We did agree with Donovan on Section 5, because it achieved all that was legitimately sought to be achieved by Section 4 and because we thought it still had two useful purposes. If it be said, as it is by some, that after all there have been very few prosecutions under either section—and it can be, and is, said by some with absolute truth—our belief is that people like to obey the law rather than disobey it. We do not think that the size of the penalty is the only deterrent to disobeying the law in this country. We are not impressed by the arguments that people are so bloody minded that they will disobey the law for the sake of doing so. We think it is worthwhile having a law so that people will know the kind of conduct which is considered by the community to be tolerable or intolerable; and to risk human life, to risk widespread devastation, to risk severe bodily injury is not something for the sake of which it is legitimate to commit a breach of contract. At the end of the day strikes such as these are perfectly legitimate provided that notice is given and that the Government of the day have power to defend the community. But what we say is, not without notice, not without recking the consequences. Keep the one, even if we think it is reasonable to abolish the other. In that we have the incomparable authority

105
of the noble and learned Lord and his Commission.
LORD DONOVAN: I am not seeking in the least to quarrel with the decision to drop Section 4. The reason why the Royal Commission decided to recommend its retention was that it differs from Section 5 in that a copy of Section 4 has to be posted up in electricity works, in gasworks and in waterworks; and the evidence of the chiefs of those industries who came before us was that that constituted a constant reminder to those engaged in their industries of the responsibility which they owed to the community. They said that it had a very valuable effect in inculcating an increased sense of responsibility in their workers. Therefore we recommended its retention. The other difference between Section 4 and Section 5, which really is in aid of the Lord Chancellor's case, is that Section 5—unlike Section 4—applies not only to employees but to employers as well.
8.34 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I am one who very much regrets the repeal of Section 4. I thought the reasoning of the Donovan Commission was very strong indeed. If any of us were really to point to one of the worst features of so much that is wrong in industrial relations, it would be the absolutely reckless breaking of contracts. I pointed out in an earlier debate that the idea that a strike necessarily involves a breach of contract is wholly untrue. A strike is a concerted withdrawal of labour, and a concerted withdrawal of labour can take place in many cases without any breach of contract. I am not saying, of course, that every strike in breach of contract should involve penal consequences, but I am saying that, where the law provides a deterrent against a strike in breach of contract, we ought to be very slow to take it away. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor produced cogent arguments to the effect that if we had to abolish either Section 4 or Section 5 it would be less injurious to abolish Section 4. In that he is quite correct; but provided the retention of Section 4 does no injustice to anybody I should have thought a very strong argument would be required before it was repealed.
106
If a may remind the Committee of the history of the matter, the restriction originally was confined to water and gas. Historically, it is perhaps not unimportant that a gas explosion occurred very shortly before the enactment of the 1875 Act, but electricity was subsequently added and for a short time under the Act of 1921 so were certain contracts of service entered into with local authorities. Speaking from memory, I think it would have been equally an offence, while the 1921 Act was in force, for an ambulance driver to break his contract without notice, or for those engaged in the ambulance service to break their contracts. The noble Lord, Lord Donovan, was too modest, I think, in not quoting the admirable paragraph 838 of his Royal Commission's Report. I will not weary the Committee by reading the whole of it, but perhaps I might read a few sentences:
"The effect of the section is therefore to give to the employer and through him to the public previous warning of a stoppage which, in view of the nature of these industries, may expose the public to special danger. The difference between these public utility industries and other service industries (such as public transport) is that they affect every household, and that a stoppage of supplies without warning (and also, for example, in the case of gas, their resumption) may have serious consequences as regards the health and safety of the population. The fact that the employer is under a statutory obligation to exhibit the wording of the section at the place of work brings this home to the employees. This alone would justify its continued existence even if Section 5 of the Act (which deals with danger to life and health and which we discuss below) is also continued."
I think that noble Lords in all sections of the Committee will think there is strength in that argument.
My noble and learned friend says that in the case of these dangers Section 5 will suffice—but will it, in every case? Suppose, as a result of a risk of the interruption of supplies, every hospital in London provides itself with alternative means in an emergency of supplying electricity. Might that not constitute a complete defence to Section 5, whereas if Section 4 remained there would be a clear case for a prosecution? I agree, of course, with my noble and learned friend that the cases in which these sections have been used have been very rare: but some of the best provisions of our law are rarely used, because they are generally obeyed. My noble and learned friend

107
may say that there have been breaches of these provisions of Section 4 which have not been followed by prosecution. Nevertheless, I think we are doing a very foolish act in doing away with something that was not harming anybody, which was demonstrably in the public interest and which Lord Donovan's Royal Commission most cogently urged should remain the law of the land.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is going to say anything further. It seems to me that it ought to be possible to get the best of all worlds. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, made it clear that the reason for retaining Section 5 that the noble and learned Lord advanced seemed to him a powerful one, as, with respect, it seemed to me, but that the advantage of Section 4 was the exhibition within places of work, and the continual reminder, therefore, of the possible effects of withdrawing labour suddenly in those public utilities. Would it not be possible to consider some method of achieving the same result by drawing it to the attention of those concerned, without necessarily going to the full extent of renewing Section 4?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am naturally attracted by Lord Diamond's suggestion. The difficulty lies in the words"those concerned"which he used at the end. Who are those concerned? In the case of named public utilities, if you have a named list of utilities in the section it is easy to say who are"those concerned": it could be nurses, I suppose the police, those concerned with sewerage, fire, the docks or almost anything. Therefore, unless one put up in every industrial undertaking that if the effect was that defined in Section 5 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 an offence would be committed. I do not see how one could begin to draw the line. I think that is a powerful, practical argument. I appreciate what the noble Lord said and that it is intended to be helpful, and I think it is well worth considering. But my first reaction to it is that once you abandon the named list"those concerned"becomes an indefinable category.
I have great sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Conesford said. What
108
he did not do was to deal with the two main points which have moved the Government in their decision. It may be, on reflection, that they are not very good ones, or it may be that the Committee agree with us, but the two main points are these. You have a deterrent of £25 imposed by an Act of 1875, which is in itself not a very imposing threat to those who break the law. Secondly, you have an arbitrary list of three public utilities. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I have been able to list probably half-a-dozen, and maybe, on reflection, I think that as many as a dozen would turn out to be the case. Who can say that a miners' strike would not cause danger to human life in the middle of winter?
Having got to the position in which the list is arbitrary, one must, I think, face the question whether one is going to keep it as it is—gas, water and electricity—or whether one is going to make it up-to-date and realistic. The difficulties of making it up-to-date and realistic are considerable. And if you do that, what are you going to do to the penalties? Are you going to make the penalty prison; are you going to make it a fine of £1,000, or what? On balance, the Government thought that we should take out Section 4 and keep Section 5. It may be that we were wrong. I accept that this was an exercise of practical judgment and that there are arguments both ways. But my task here is to put the Government's case as impartially as I can, and the reasons for it, and I do not believe that that case has really been overturned.
LORD BROWN: May I make a comment on this subject? I recognise the validity of the noble and learned Lord's comments about taking out Section 4 because it does not encompass the whole field, but I am one who believes that the absence generally in the past of acts which have endangered life and limb is due more to the realisation by those involved intensely in strikes of the fact that they will endanger life and limb than to the existence of the penalties. I believe that people who want to go on strike, however emotional they may be, if they know that certain acts of theirs may endanger life and limb will almost inevitably take steps to mitigate the consequences in that respect. It will be

109
remembered that even in questions of limited damage, dockers in the past have so organised their strikes as to deal with perishable goods, whose loss would have been a far less serious matter than some of the results that used to occur under Section 4.
The suggestion that I would make is this—and I do not expect a response to it. Leaving aside the question of penalties, I wonder whether it is not possible to put upon every employer the responsibility and duty to think about the possible consequences of industrial action as they might affect life and limb and inflict serious damage (words could be found), and to draw the attention of those whom he employs, when they might be about to take an act which would so endanger life and limb, of the possibilities of their act. I believe that if this were done and employers were held responsible for thinking out those consequences the results that have hitherto been achieved by Section 4 might thereby be achieved.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sure it is worth while spending one more moment on this important topic, especially as the noble and learned Lord said that the Government would be prepared to give the matter further consideration. I should like to echo the first part of what has just been said by my noble friend Lord Brown, that the penalty of £25 is not really the relevant issue at the moment. I do not think the Government need to be concerned about extending the penalty. What we are concerned with is some method of bringing to the attention of good people the fact that they may unwittingly do a lot of harm which they are not intending to do, and therefore the putting up of a notice is very relevant indeed.
The noble and learned Lord said—at least, I thought that this was his main argument—that one of the reasons for departing from Section 4 was that the situation had moved. I thought that that was absolutely right. One of the reasons, therefore, for not replacing it by this provision to-day would be that that list would not be right for all time either. The situation would continue to move, and it is in fact a flexible situation. But I did not think that the Government were saying:"We are ducking this one because it is too difficult to reach a
110
decision". I did not expect them to say that. It is a difficult decision, but Governments are there to take difficult decisions. I should have thought that the Government would want to consider whether they could not devise some method, not necessarily a statutory one, perhaps a code of practice, of getting employers to draw to their employees' attention the risks that would be run by striking without due notice, whatever the due notice was in the appropriate cases. That is well worth considering.
I am not satisfied, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is not, that it is a valid argument that because it is difficult to do everything one should do nothing. I hope the noble and learned Lord takes the sense of the House—there have been many speeches all leading broadly to the same conclusion—that the Government have probably reached the right conclusion but that there is something remaining to be done which struck the Commission as being very valuable. and the Government ought to try to find means of doing it, notwithstanding that only Section 5 is going to remain on the Statute Book.
LORD CONESFORD: I wonder whether the noble Lords who think that the repeal of Section 4 is right have thought out this result: the impression on the minds of the public of saying that something hitherto criminal shall not be criminal at all. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says that the men do not intend to do anything dangerous. We must credit these men with some sense. Is it conceivable that people engaged in the supply of gas can indulge in a lightning strike without realising that their action is dangerous? If they can they are so lacking in sense that that alone is a reason for the prohibition. But of course they know it is dangerous. We have to consider the effect on the minds of men who know they are doing something dangerous, and in breach of contract, of Parliament saying that what has hitherto been criminal, and done nobody any harm by being criminal, shall in future not be criminal at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to prolong the discussion except to say that I am in the unusual position of defending the mildness of the Bill against criticism, not only from my noble

111
friend, but also from the Labour Party, that it is too mild. I will not fail to report this bizarre situation to my right honourable friend, who may take a more Draconian view than he has hitherto been prepared to do at least in relation, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, suggests, to the code of practice. Alternatively the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, may care to put down a Draconian Amendment in the sense of the Donovan Report at the Report stage. It might be that my right honourable friend would be persuaded to accept such an Amendment if it were put down by the Labour Party—we are always very open to suggestions coming from that quarter.
In the meantime I would say to my noble friend Lord Conesford that it is not every breach of contract in the gas industry which is necessarily dangerous. They can break their contract safely and they can break their contract dangerously. They can very often keep their contract dangerously, as well as safely. I should not assume therefore that every collective act in breach of contract in gas, electricity or water, is necessarily dangerous. It very often is, as we all know, otherwise it would not be in the law at the moment. I will assure both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who were so felicitously at one in considering the Government unduly soft in this matter—that their criticisms will be taken into consideration and we shall see what we shall do.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMUTERS (LORD STRANG): In view of the discussion which has taken place, I will put the Question once more: That Clause 130 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clause 131 [Peaceful Picketing]:
8.56 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 276Y:
Page 96, line 6, leave out ("not being a place where he resides").
The noble Lord said: I rise once more to move this Amendment—for the third time this evening. I am pleased to do so at this stage because I was delighted to hear so many references being made to the responsible way in which trade unionists behave. I am getting a little
112
tired of hearing tirades against the trade unionists of this country as if they were the worst in the world. I was delighted to read only a week or two ago the speech made by the Minister, Mr. Carr, in America, pointing out the great reputation and the great record of trade unions in Britain, a record that compared more than favourably with the trade unionists of America and other parts of the world. It is to these people that this law will apply. I preface my remarks on this clause by saying that these are the people that this clause proposes to make changes for.
This clause deals with peaceful picketing. The trade union movement of this country has always regarded the right to strike as an inalienable right, and indeed to picket in support of the strike that it was prosecuting. This has been a right for nearly the whole of this century—certainly since 1906. This clause, as drafted, introduces an important change in picketing. Trade unionists have had the right to picket either at the office, the factory, the workshop or home of the person concerned, and they are loth to let go of that. Not only have they had the right to do it, but they have carried it out with great restraint and with little trouble. Let any person compare the behaviour of the British trade unionists in this respect with the scenes that can be witnessed in other countries, and then we will have a real appreciation of the way in which this particular power has been handled by the trade unionists throughout these years.
In another place, when the Government were challenged to produce examples to justify the changes proposed in this clause, they simply failed to do so. We could not find a Government supporter who could give any instance of what they were seeking to do. One member on the Government Benches, not unknown to the legal profession, said there was no evidence available. He thought the change ought to be made, but he said he was afraid that he had no evidence to support the change that the Government were introducing. This matter has also been considered by the Donovan Commission. They came down against making any change by two to one (I hope I have the figures right); about eight people on the Commission thought no change was necessary while

113
four thought a change was necessary. The Commission, I have no doubt, took evidence from everyone concerned, and as a consequence of the evidence they decided that no change had to be made.
So I would suggest to the Government to-night that before they introduce changes of this kind, or at least expect your Lordships' House to approve them, we are entitled to know on what evidence, what cases, they base the claim for making the changes. Until they tell us that, I am certain, speaking not only for myself but for my noble friends, that we are not prepared to accept the change the Government propose. I beg to move.
9.1 p.m.
LORD BROWN: It is a great pity that this Amendment has been moved and I want to stand up and be counted as one of those who are against it. It is based on a misconception. In the first place, British trade unionists on strike have very seldom resorted to picketing the homes of those who have not joined them in their strike action. It is a very rare occurrence, thank God! The confusion around this matter arises from the fact that there is a complete failure in moving this Amendment, which would make it legal for a non-striker to be picketed in his home, to distinguish between two quite different roles of a person. One is the role of an employee or a worker in a factory or other employment; the other is the role of father or mother in a family. If we make it legal for picketing to take place in the home we are subjecting the other members of the worker's family to pressures which have nothing whatever to do with them. It is an invasion of the privacy of the person—
LORD DIAMOND: Will my noble friend allow me to intervene? I have listened carefully to what he has said. Now he is no doubt going to tell us the evidence on which he makes that statement.
LORD BROWN: I do not need any evidence to support the contention that, if we allow people to picket the home of a worker, that will affect the other members of his family. It does not require evidence; it is a statement of fact. How can you picket a home, which contains a father or mother who is a worker in a
114
factory, without affecting the other members of the family? I think that this is an invasion of privacy of a serious sort. I had hoped that this Amendment was drafted due to a misunderstanding of its true meaning. I had hoped that it would be withdrawn. It is highly objectionable and I hope that it will be withdrawn.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am astonished at the outburst of my noble friend Lord Brown. It is evident that he does not know much about strikes and what has taken place. The evidence, as produced by the Donovan Commission, and I think by all others, shows that it is difficult indeed to find cases where this procedure has taken place. I am not saying that it will not have taken place somewhere at some time, but those of us with knowledge of this kind of practice would have extreme difficulty in finding evidence of its having taken place. It might take place among strikers; it might take place among strikers' wives—
LORD BROWN: Will my noble friend allow me to interrupt? In the course of my comments I stated that it very seldom took place: it was part of my argument. The fact that it takes place very seldom has not the least bearing on the fact that it should not be allowed to take place in the future.
LORD POPPLEWELL: That brings me back to this argument: Why embrace these words in the Bill? Where is the necessity to do so? It is the Government who are now highlighting this type of action, which in all probability will take place in the future. Let the position remain as it is. The Government have not produced any evidence to show that such a provision as that in the Bill is necesary. So far as I am aware, no evidence has been brought forward by any trade union, or any chaps who have not been on strike, to show that they have suffered this particular indignity. So why in the world highlight this in this manner? I suggest to my noble friend that it is not a question of our highlighting this action; it is a question of the Government, by bringing these words into the Bill, highlighting something which normally decent trade unionists have never yet adopted. The Government are in effect using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Alternatively, it is a malicious thought by the sponsors of this Bill

115
in regard to militants who may possibly adopt a certain action which decent trade unionists would always deplore.
Therefore, I think it is advisable to have this Amendment and I hope that the Government will have another look at this matter. Those of us with industrial experience would have extreme difficulty in finding where this type of action takes place. There could be cases where the wives of strikers have talked with the wives of"blacklegs". Can we control that type of thing? The provision in the Bill highlights something which will give force to militant men who are extremely difficult to deal with and are a nuisance to everyone concerned, persuading them to think that they can adopt another tactic which will make things more difficult for other trade unionists concerned with industrial disputes. I commend my colleagues for putting down this Amendment and, if it is not accepted, I sincerely hope that we shall force a Division upon it, because it is so important.
LORD SLATER: I am giving support to this Amendment, which is only natural as I am a trade union member, as I have said on previous occasions. There is peaceful picketing and picketing can take place in many ways. I was surprised when I listened to my noble friend Lord Brown. He is not only connected with industry but, so far as I have gathered, a good employer of labour. I cannot help but support the comments that were directed to him by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. If Lord Brown understood how picketing operated in industry, he would not have made the comments which he has made.
I should like to put a direct question to the Government Benches. This provision amounts to nothing more and nothing less than the fact that people are going to be placed in certain positions where they will be looked upon simply as carriers of information to the employer.
LORD BROWN: I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene? He referred to me by name. May I ask him whether he is one who regards picketing in the home as indecent, or does he regard it as proper?
LORD SLATER: Many a time—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Answer!
LORD SLATER: I am going to answer. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ought not to allow his ire to overcome him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only said,"Answer!"
LORD SLATER: I imagine that the noble and learned Lord, and my noble friend Lord Brown, do not agree with everything said by their wives in the home, or even with everything said by the other members of their family.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Answer!
LORD BROWN: May I have an answer to my question?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Answer !
LORD SLATER: I am giving an answer. Whether or not the noble and learned Lord likes the answer is another matter. It is a matter of opinion, and my opinion carries as much weight in the industrial field—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am asking the noble Lord not to boast about the value of his opinion but to give an answer to the question, which is capable of an answer Yes"or"No".
LORD SLATER: I started by saying that I supported the observations made by my noble friend Lord Popplewell which were directed against the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, posed to the noble Lord and which he promised to answer—and we are all agog—was whether he approved of picketing men's homes or not. The answer is either"Yes"or"No".
LORD SLATER: That may be the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's attitude of mind in regard to his legal standing and the way he seeks to cross-examine witnesses when they are in the witness-box, but he is not cross-examining me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And the noble Lord is not answering the I question.
LORD SLATER: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is displaying the kind of attitude of mind and behaviour that one is not accustomed to in regard to Parliamentary Government, and he ought to be ashamed of himself for taking up this sort of stand he has and for his hilarity. He seems to he getting away from his speech.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have been a Member of Parliament for 40 years, which is longer than the noble Lord, and when I need lessons on how to behave in Parliament I will take them from a person who has had as much experience as I.
LORD SLATER: I am not finished yet. The noble and learned Lord may be a member of Her Majesty's Government, and I have charged Her Majesty's Government on their attitude of mind in regard to this Bill and on the attitude of people in the trade unions; and I have given the answer, so far as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is concerned, when I said 1 supported the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. Under tins Bill there will be snoopers travelling up and down the country to where there is any possibility of strikes occurring because of men being upset by the form of operation in their industry. This is what is going to happen and when you talk about peaceful picketing you are questioning the intelligence of our people in the trade unions, but not of the intellectuals. Trade unionists are beginning to question the intelligence of these people, who are unable to behave themselves in a peaceful way in their picketing. In many instances peaceful picketing does take place. It can take place at the factory gates and in all types of places.
It seems to me that a great many noble Lords do not understand what really happens when strikes are likely to take place or do take place. The opinion expressed by one individual to another is not accomplished by any form of force. Sometimes when we have been on strike the Government of the day have turned the police on to us; we have been subjected to baton charges by the police at the direction of the Government of the day. It is no good noble Lords trying to tell those of us in the trade union world that we do not understand what is
118
meant by peaceful picketing. We do know what it means. I am not one who believes in trying to get a man to agree to my form of belief in regard to the stand we have taken because an employer is not prepared to accede to the request that we have made, for instance, for increased wages. I approach an individual on a firm basis and express my opinion. If he disagrees with that opinion that is a matter for him; and he can direct himself back to work and carry on with his employment without undue pressure so far as the trade union leadership of this country is concerned.
If it is not peaceful picketing, then it is not at the request and at the direction, nor yet at the impulse, of the trade union leaders. Noble Lords ought to realise this. I am surprised that they should have brought this matter into the Bill. It will create among men and women who are members of trade unions in this country a great deal of disunity and disruption which the Government of the day, who are responsible for bringing forward this Bill, will regret. They will wonder why they were led into the position of introducing such a clause into the Bill.
9.14 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: Almost all the speeches which have been made on the other side of the Committee assume that none of us knows what picketing means in practice. Most of us have seen it in the last year on television. We know what it is. In a great number of matters over the years I have differed from the noble Lord, Lord Brown, but I think the speech that he made this evening does him great credit, both for his courage and for his humanity.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CONESFORD: It is no good pretending that he does not care about his beliefs. My criticism of the clause is not concerned with protecting men and women in their homes, although if we do not protect men and women in their homes we do not deserve to be called a civilised country.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
LORD CONESFORD: I object to the clause because in certain respects it does not go far enough. I wonder how many

119
members on the other side of the Committee at this moment 'could mention what is the legitimate—and the only legitimate—object of picketing? It is peacefully to communicate information. But as we know from the evidence of what we have seen in some of the great strikes, people, on the plea of picketing, turn out in great numbers, not to communicate information but physically to prevent people getting to the works. We have all seen it being done. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, in his Report called attention, quite rightly, to certain cases decided in the courts which showed the limitations which the police can put upon them.
LORD DONOVAN: Would not the noble Lord agree that Section 2 of the 1906 Act enlarged the purpose of picketing from not merely peacefully giving information to peacefully persuading people to work or not to work?
LORD CONESFORD: Yes, certainly—peaceful persuasion and communication of information, I did not quote it but I gladly accept that correction. And, of course, I gladly accept what the noble and learned Lord said in his Report about the limitations that can be placed on picketing under the law as it already stands, by the police through the control of the numbers of pickets, and so on.
My criticism of the Government in regard to this clause is that it is a great pity that, by omission, they do not mention any of those limitations defining what the police can legitimately do on the basis of the decided cases. They have made the one useful addition of protecting men and women in their own homes, and on that I do not wish to add anything to what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said. I think the issues of humanity are quite obvious to all concerned, but I regret that picketing can be so much abused, and is constantly abused when strikes take place, by the trade union pickets' thinking (I believe quite sincerely) that they are entitled to obstruct and to prevent people entering the works and to compel them to enter into conversation whether they wish it or not. I think that the powers that the police already have for controlling these activities, to which the Donovan Commission have called attention by citing the decided cases, should be incor-
120
porated to some extent in this clause, and my criticism of the Government is not for introducing this very necessary protection of the workers' homes but for not going a little further and spelling out what is already the law; namely, what are the legitimate objects of picketing and how the police can limit by numbers, and so forth.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I should like to support the Amendment. I am not going to enter into a mock modest controversy with my noble friend Lord Brown as to who has had the greatest experience in industry. I think I have. But I should like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. In the first place he is losing his sense of proportion. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was Lord Chancellor, he told us of a former Lord Chancellor who was in favour of hanging for the felling of a tree. The Lord Chancellor of those days said,"If we àllow them to fell one tree they will fell a forest". There are a great number of things which are now out of law books because, by common practice, they are"just not on". We do not mention them any more and nobody bothers about them. That goes for behaviour in the streets and so on. Here we have the Protection of Property Act 1875 to protect ourselves from any odd behaviour. The noble Lord talked about strikes and breaches of contract. The law courts of this country are full of industrialists and others fighting about breaches of contract in all sections of industrial life, including the trade unions.
Let us look at what the Donovan Commission say. I think the Donovan Commission have been much abused in this Committee. There were twelve men on the Commission and they did their best over two or three years. We take a note or bar of their music but refuse to take their total orchestration. If those who are to vote will read page 231, they will see at the end
"The majority of members consider that the Commission has had no evidence of abuse of the right to picket sufficient to justify such a restriction". [Paragraph 877.]
There it is in writing. These people spent two years on this matter. We are spending about two hours, rather tired, rather bored, and waiting for people to come out of that corridor and vote in a Division.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord mentioned my name when he started his speech and I want to ask him a question. Is he in favour of legalising the picketing of homes, or against it? I have been listening to his speech to determine the answer, and I cannot understand.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I started off by saying that I support the Amendment. I do not have to answer any more than that. I support the Amendment.
LORD BROWN: Why?
LORD BERNSTEIN: If you want my reason for supporting the Amendment it is because I think you can write certain things into law which are insulting to people who might be involved, like things about hanging and flogging. What are we really talking about? We are talking about picketing. There has always been picketing in this country, some peaceful and some emotional. Look at the emotion in this Committee to-night. What do you expect to happen when there are thousands of people out of work over some dispute, legal or otherwise? I do not understand this clause and I hope the noble and learned Lord will explain it. Are the Government objecting in this clause to consumer picketing? Can somebody stand outside a shop and say, Do not go in and buy there"? Is that legal or not legal? We know it is permissible for people to say,"Do not work here because we are on strike". Am I right or wrong in thinking there is a difference between those two possibilities? We arc really bringing in here the threat of criminal punishment under the Act of 1875. I cannot believe that this would help industrial relations and peace in industry. I object to anybody invading the privacy of another human being, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a Bill full of legal clauses, so confusing to the average layman that discussion will go on in the labour relations offices and it will never be understood on the shop floor.
LORD DONALDSON OF KING-BRIDGE: I cannot remain silent in this extremely distressing debate. My friends on this side have got themselves into the position of defending something they do not believe in. I do not think there is a single trade union leader who would support his men in going to the house of
122
somebody who is failing to strike. The truth is that the clause offends them because they say it is something that does not happen and therefore it is extremely offensive to put it in. It is rather as if every man who came into this House was handed a slip saying,"Do not spit on the floor."We do not do it, and it would be very offensive if that were done. It is important that people should realise that that is the basis on which this side of the Committee is arguing. I do not agree with them, but I think it is an absolutely reasonable line to feel insulted from time to time, and it may be that this clause is insulting. I suggest to my noble friends that they are wrong. It is rather as if you said. taking the Ten Commandments,"I don't mind being told not to covet my neighbour's wife, because from time to time I do. I don't mind being told not to steal, because that is a possibility. But being told not to murder is simply offensive."I think my noble friends have got it wrong, but I want the Committee to realise that theirs is an absolutely serious and sensible point of view and that they are standing on their tradition of proper behaviour. There have been breaches of it, as everybody knows and as there are in everything, and they feel that this clause in this Bill is drawing attention to something to which it has no right to draw attention. I have said nothing to improve my own side's position, but I think I have said something to explain our point of view to the other side.
9.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I sympathise very much with the noble Lord. Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, although even without his explanation I understood that this was the view which a decent Labour man must inevitably hold and the only view by which this Amendment could be excused, although it cannot be supported, and he did not attempt to support it. I also appreciated every word that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who posed a very reasonable question to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, which he promised to answer but did not, and another question to the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, which he did not promise to answer but refused. This is not a question of evidence; this is a question of principle—at any rate, it is to us. I think it is a question of principle which

123
the public of this country will understand. The purpose of this Amendment is to retain a specific privilege in favour of besetting or picketing a person's home. I happen to have had my home besetted and picketed, and it is no joke. I did not care; they cannot frighten me. But I have a little daughter of four who was frightened into fits, and I had a wife who was upset. It was not because of a trade dispute, which I happily have not been involved in, but it was as a result of the mere fact of people being present to upset and annoy, and they did upset and annoy. That is the kind of conduct which the Labour Party, by this Amendment, want to legalise.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Nothing of the kind.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, they do. That is the only effect of this Amendment, and that is its deliberate purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, says,"Nothing of the kind". The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, says he disapproves of this, and he gives us to understand that it does not happen. Then why does he want to support an Amendment which confers the special privilege of doing it?
LORD POPPLEWELL: Because of the stupidity of the Government in embracing these words in the Bill. As I stated in my observations, this highlights something that will probably give a lead to certain militants to be very offensive in the way they conduct themselves. This is not a good trade union principle, and we do not want it. The Government are entirely at fault for highlighting it in this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord does not want it but he would legalise it, and blames the Government for withdrawing the privilege in favour of it. This is an argument about which the Committee must judge between the noble Lord and myself. In the meantime, let us consider the issues. If it be true that it does not happen, why does the Labour Party object to prohibiting it? Who will be worse off? Do they think it is right in principle? Not a noble Lord opposite has ventured to suggest such a thing. Those who support the Amendment have put forward arguments of one sort or another, but they have not supported the practice. If the practice
124
is abominable, why not say that it is abominable in an Act of Parliament?
LORD POPPLEWELL: Well, it does not operate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It does not happen? Who is then worse off for prohibiting it? We hope that murder will one day be something which does not happen. Are we therefore going to prohibit the law in regard to murder? But, as a matter of fact, the ambit of this Amendment is really more modest than noble Lords opposite seek to pretend. My noble friend Lord Conesford reminded us of this fact. The clause to which it is an Amendment simply provides that the provisions of Clause 131
"…shall have effect where one or more persons (in this section referred to as pickets '), in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, attend at or near—

(a) a place where a person works or carries on business, or

(b) any other place where he happens to be, not being a place where he resides,

and do so only for the purpose of peacefully obtaining information from him or peacefully communicating information to him or peacefully persuading him to work or not to work."
The only sanction, the only prohibition, the only effective arm of the clause in this limited ambit, withdrawing protection from those who picket the home of a man, his wife and his children, is contained in subsection (2)
"In the circumstances specified in the preceding subsection, the attendance of the pickets at that place for that purpose—

(a) shall not of itself constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875—and

(b) shall not of itself constitute a tort."

For that purpose, it is worthwhile considering what it is that noble Lords are complaining about. Section 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 provides this:
"Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing. wrongfully and without legal authority uses violence to or intimidates such other person or his wife or children or injures his property or persistently follows such other person about from place to place"
or does certain other acts
"shall on conviction pay a penalty not exceeding £20."
This is the only action under the first arm of subsection (2) which is referred to,

125
and the other subsection concerns a tort, meaning thereby that the person who complains of an action in breach of it shall have to prove damage in order to achieve any substantial remedy.
All that the noble Lords seek to do by their Amendment is to attach a privilege to besetting a home, of the same kind that attaches to besetting a place of work or to pursuing a man to the public house where he drinks, or to some place where he happens to be in the absence of his wife and children. What kind of human reason can there be for the Labour Party to put its name to an Amendment like that? The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has adopted a perfectly honourable attitude. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has adopted a perfectly intelligible attitude in what he put forward as the only explanation or excuse for those who support the Amendment, which he does not do himself. It is an evil day for the Labour Party that they have put this Amendment down. If they wish to vote upon it, let them do so.
LORD HOY: I shall not be nearly so highly emotive as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I can only say that if he appeared at my door and behaved in the way he has done on the Front Bench, he would be accused not of peaceful picketing, but of riotous behaviour.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is forgetting—
LORD HOY: With all due respect, the noble and learned Lord must let me speak one sentence before he interrupts once more. But I am delighted to give way to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is overlooking the fact that a single person cannot be guilty of riotous behaviour.
LORD HOY: I know that a single person cannot be charged with it. All I would say in reply is that the conduct that he quoted had nothing to do with picketing or with trade unions, and it is quite unworthy of him to use that example to try to fortify a case which he did not have. My noble friend Lord Brown wrongly said that we were proposing a change in the law. My noble
126
friend did not appreciate—I wish my noble friend would sit down for just one minute, and then I will give way to him. He has got this habit from the Lord Chancellor. Neither of them will keep his seat for half a minute. My noble friend said that by this Amendment we were seeking to amend the law. We are doing absolutely nothing of the kind.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord accuses me of interrupting him frequently, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. All I was trying to do was to save him the embarrassment of building an argument on the basis of a wrong assumption as to what I said. I did not say that we were trying to change the law: I said we were trying to change a Bill by an Amendment.
LORD HOY: My noble friend might have made it clear what he really meant to say. What he accused us of was trying to amend the law. All I am pointing out is that we are not asking for any privilege. The Lord Chancellor says that by our Amendment we are claiming a privilege. If there is a privilege it already exists: but it is no privilege at all. Peaceful picketing is exactly what it says it is. Indeed, if people wished to do so, I would not object to people coming to my home to argue with me either about trade unions or about politics. When I hear all this talk about the tremendous effect of people appearing at your door, I think of every election that takes place and of every canvasser who appears at your door to try to persuade you to vote in one particular direction.
This is exactly what is happening at the present time. Indeed, I would hazard a guess that when the Lord Chancellor represented Marylebone he had people out picketing for votes, canvassing for votes, knocking at doors and so on. With all due respect, it is no good the noble Lord sitting on the second Bench objecting, because we have asked what cases there were in which it has in fact been shown that this abuse has taken place, and no noble Lord, not even my noble friend, has produced a single case to show that it has happened. What I was arguing, and will argue with any noble Lord or anyone else, is that the sense of responsibility of the trade unionists in this country is the admiration of the

127
world, and I only wish that trade unionists in other countries behaved as well as they do in this country.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Will the noble Lord please address himself to the question which interests some Members on this side of the Committee? Is he arguing that picketing a man's home in the course of an industrial dispute is as lawful and legitimate as canvassing at a political election, or is he agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that it is something which never happens and ought never to take place?
LORD HOY: What I am arguing—and arguing, I thought, quite clearly; I am sorry the Lord Chancellor did not understand—is that a picket has the right to go and picket a man if he feels that this is the best way it can be done. He does not go to quarrel or to fight with the man, but to seek to persuade him that the road he is taking is the wrong one, whether he is regarded as a blackleg or otherwise. All I am saying is that a man has the right to do so. He has the right at the present time. No single Member of this Committee has quoted an example to show that this right has been abused —not a single one. The reason why we are debating this problem tonight is not the responsibility of the Labour Party, but the responsibility of the Tory Government. It is they who propose making the change, not the Labour Party. What we are arguing is that these rights which have belonged to the trade unions and which have never been abused—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh
LORD HOY: I really have asked for instances, and it is not good enough for the noble Lord to say,"I saw something on television". When we had our debate on television not so long ago in your Lordships' House there was hardly a single noble Lord who did not get up and say that television was so selective, it always picked out the single incident and ignored all the good things that were happening. To
128
use that type of evidence in this case is quite wrong; and far from being disconcerted even by the behaviour of the Lord Chancellor, which left very much to be desired if I might say so to him as one who has known him for a quarter of a century and in another place, I hope my noble friends will press this in the Division Lobby.
LORD PLATT: Before we finally cool down, and possibly go into the Division Lobbies, may I say something from the Cross Benches on behalf of the profession which occasionally I try to represent in this peculiar Bill which seems to me to have to do entirely with industry, with strikes, with shop floors, with picketing, and which yet includes the medical profession who will be privileged to be on the special register under Clause 84 which exempts them from certain provisions of the Bill but not from Clause 131? Before I vote, if this matter comes to a Division, I want to know exactly what this has to do with the medical profession. If I cannot convince the Government that they should not have put the profession in this Bill then let me try to ridicule them into taking a different view. Does this mean that the senior physician of St. Bartholomew's cannot picket the senior surgeon outside his house but can do so if he is entering St. Bartholomew's Hospital? I should like an answer to that question before I vote.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Answer. answer!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord can be reassured. He may not picket the senior physician's house if he feels inclined to do so—contrary to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, and contrary to my own—if he would be committing a tort or an offence under Section 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875. Otherwise he, like anybody else, is at perfect liberty to do so.
LORD PLATT: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for that reply—which makes the whole thing quite clear to me.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 276Y) shall be agreed to?
Clause 131 agreed to.
Clause 132 [Illegality on grounds of restraint of trade excluded]:
9.51 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 277A:
Page 96, line 22, after ("Act") insert ("or of any organisation to which subsection (2) of this section").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a paving Amendment to No.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 98.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Bernstein, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Stonham, L.

Blyton, L.

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Brock way, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

[Teller.]

Wright of Ashton under Lyne,

Champion, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Exeter, M.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Pender, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Platt, L.

Arran, E.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reay, L.

Balfour, E.

Gage, V.

Redmayne, L.

Barnby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Reigate, L.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Rhyl, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hailes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Sandford, L.

Boston, L.

L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandys, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hankey, L.

Seear, Bs.

Bradford, E.

Hives, L.

Selsdon, L.

Brecon, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Latymer, L.

Strange, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclycle, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lloyd, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Cranbrook, E.

McFadzean, L.

Terrington, L.

Crathorne, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Merthyr, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Digby, L.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade, L.

Dundee, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

277B, and perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if both were discussed together. The object of the Amendments is to make it possible for a particular trade union to register under the present Bill and by registering obtain the protection which Clause 132 would provide in respect of agreements which are entered into by that trade union and by its members. The trade union concerned is the Showmen's Guild, which is known I think to a number of your Lordships, a body which does the most meritorious work but in circumstances which are entirely peculiar to that body.
It has a membership of some 4,000 and altogether the livelihood of some 10,000 people depend on its activities. It is a trade union which consists of proprietors who run fairs in the country and what it does by its rules and by the activities on which it embarks is to introduce some order, some coherence and some common sense in a process by which the fairgrounds at which fairs take place during the year are let out to the individual proprietors who own the equipment necessary for the carrying on of those fairs.
At the moment that trade union is registered. It was registered in 1917, some fifty years ago, under the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1871. It would not qualify to register under the provisions of the present Bill, much as it would like to register, because the definition of a trade union in the 1871 Act is different from the definition under the terms of the present Bill. The difference in their case is a crucial one. Under the 1871 Act, a body could register as a trade union if one of the principal objects was to regulate the relations between master and master or between proprietor and proprietor. An association of proprietors which had that as one of its principal objects came within the definition of a trade union. That definition has been changed in a way which makes it impossible for the trade union to register under the Bill. A body can qualify to register under the present Bill only if one of its principal objects consists in regulating the relations between masters or proprietors, on the one side, and workers on the other. A body cannot call itself either a trade union or an association of employers unless one of its main objects is the regulation of relations across the table between workers and employers or proprietors.
Because of the special nature of the undertakings of the Showmen's Guild, it does not come within the necessary qualifications because, as I have said, it regulates the relations between those proprietors who carry on country fairs in the matter of the letting out to them of the pitches of the fairgrounds upon which they operate. They have various peculiarities. No proprietor has, as it were, anything like a fixed place from which he operates or from which he carries on his fairs year after year. He
132
occupies each fairground for only a short time—one month, two months or three months—during which he runs his fair.
If it were not for the activities of the Showmen's Guild which they have conducted over some fifty years now, there would have been great disorder, and perhaps worse than disorder, in the matter of parcelling out the various available fairgrounds to the various showmen or managers of such fairs who wish to rent grounds for that purpose. Experience showed that before the Guild got under way and introduced some order into the situation, fairgrounds were let to the highest bidders; people cornered the fairgrounds and the weakest went to the wall. There was altogether a great deal of strife and tension in that particular field of operations, which carried with it very undesirable characteristics. It was to bring an end to that kind of situation that the Guild embarked upon the operations which it has carried out with such great advantage to all concerned for so many years and in respect of which it has enjoyed all the advantages and privileges under the regulations of the 1871 Act.
One consequence of its not being able to register under the terms of the Bill because it does not qualify so to do is that the various agreements it makes for parcelling out on an equitable basis the various fairgrounds among the several proprietors who wish to rent pitches are liable to be held unlawful as being in unreasonable restraint of trade. The object of the Amendments which I have proposed is to try to enable the Showmen's Guild to qualify for registration under the present Bill and, by so doing, to gain the protection of Clause 132, which would prevent its agreements from being invalidated as being in unreasonable restraint of trade. It may well be said that if they really operate on such a useful and benevolent footing it would not be held that their agreements were in unreasonable restraint of trade. That may or may not be so, but even if it is so it will mean that this union, which disposes of funds but not in unlimited quantity, can be constantly subjected to the risk of litigation in the courts each time either a disgruntled proprietor or someone else wishes to challenge the rules, and must try to establish that the rules are not in unreasonable restraint of trade.
If they are put in that position it will really be extremely difficult for them to operate. I do not say they would not survive, but it would mean that the whole nature of their undertaking would have to change. They would have very greatly to alter the scale on which they bring this very beneficent service to those who are members. They are extremely clever in how they proceed. They rarely exclude people who wish to apply for membership, and it is extremely rare for them to expel a member; they have a disciplinary code and an inspection code. They require certain safety measures to be observed by persons who wish to gain advantage from membership of the Guild. I would put it to your Lordships that they are widely and generally recognised, not only in that particular field of conducting fairs but generally among the public, as a highly meritorious body. I can understand the noble and learned Lord saying:"Well, can we legislate just to cover a particular case?". I put the grounds of my argument rather wider than that. I do not know, but other cases may arise in future, and other cases may be covered now. I put forward these Amendments because this particular guild has made representations, of which I am sure the noble and learned Lord is aware, and it seems to me that it is right and in the public interest that their case should be argued and considered in this Committee.
I would answer in advance the argument that may be used by the noble and learned Lord, that one cannot provide for an individual case, by saying that the grounds of the argument are much wider than that. The grounds rest really upon the broadly equitable basis that if you have qualified under previous legislation, and over the decades you have so moulded your undertaking as to fit in with the then existing legislation, and you have throughout that period carried on useful work for the community, it is extremely hard that, because of a change in the legislation arrangements of 1971, you should suddenly find yourself, through no fault of your own, out in the cold and seriously hampered in the conduct of your most desirable undertaking. So, in my submission, I can put the case on that broad ground. It is not right in principle that suddenly some body should be disadvantaged, through no fault of
134
their own, not in order to serve any useful public purpose but simply because the Government have thought it is right to change, in this rather drastic and, as I submit, unnecessarily drastic form the definition of a trade union or an employer's association, whichever limb of the pattern one may be looking at, in such a way as to make it impossible for this body to register.
Those are the general considerations. It may be that the noble and learned Lord will feel hesitant about saying that he accepts the proposals that I make, but I submit to him that as a matter of broad justice it would be right that the Government should take seriously this case which is put forward for the consideration of the Committee, and should at least be able to indicate that between now and the Report stage they will carefully consider whether they cannot do something to help this guild and others in like case, and generally to obviate an injustice which, in my submission to the Committee, certainly is inherent in the form which the Bill at present takes. I beg to move.
10.3 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has done right to draw the attention of the Committee to the representations that have been made to the Government on behalf of the Showmen's Guild, a body for which I certainly do not desire to express any disrespect and for which I doubt whether any other member of the Committee would wish to express any disrespect, although in my case the absence of disrespect is not based on a very close acquaintance with their rules or with the practices which they fear will be interfered with if the Bill passes into law. I am not sure how many members of the Committee understand the extremely sophisticated nature of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is putting in his Amendment. It is a curious one, which, if I have it right myself, I should like to try to explain to the Committee. I begin by saying that although there may be a number of other bodies in like case—the noble Lord said that he was moving the Amendment in their interests as well as those of the particular organisation—I rather question how many there are, and

135
certainly no others that I know of have come up with any kind of complaint.
LORD STOW HILL: If I was understood to say that there were such other bodies, I did not mean to do so. I said that there may be, and I must confess that I do not know whether there are or not.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At any rate I accept what the noble Lord says. I do not know that there are not. I certainly question how many there are, for reasons I am about to give. Assuming that there are some, or on the assumption this is the only one, I question whether the Industrial Relations Bill is quite the right legislation to give them what they want, for the reasons which I think could have been inferred from what the noble Lord said, and which I will try to explain. As the title of the Bill implies, this is a Bill about industrial relations. Therefore registration under the Bill is of either workers' associations or federations of workers' associations, or employers' associations or federations of employers' associations. That is because this is about industrial relations and those are the associations which have to do with industrial relations.
The Showmen's Guild is not, so I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and this information coincides with my own, either an employers' association or a workers' association. It is not a federation of employers' associations and it is not a federation of workers' associations. So far as I understand, the protection which he wants to retain, if it has it, is nothing to do with industrial relations, unfair industrial practices, conditions of work, strikes, lock-outs or anything of that kind at all. It has nothing to do with industrial relations that I can understand; I may be wrong. But the case, as I understand it, is this: whether intentionally or unintentionally—and as it is over a hundred years ago I do not suppose anybody in the Committee will be prepared to say which it was—this unusual type of body was capable of registration and was registered as a trade union under the Act of 1871. It was not an organisation of workers, or an association of employers, and its practices, so far as they require protection, relate solely to the letting of parti-
136
cular pitches on fairgrounds. I cannot say whether this anomaly, if it is an anomaly, was intentional or unintentional.
It is certainly unusual even under the Act of 1871. It would not benefit anybody unless it was also not a trade protection society which was captured by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Most trade protection societies are captured by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act because they exist for the protection of trade, and because the Act was designed to provide limits upon the extent to which they could restrain trade. So if there are trade protection associations which are capable of registration, and are registered as trade unions under the Act of 1871, they could only be benefited by that registration if they were not caught by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act.
There is this additional quirk to the extraordinarily sophisticated point that the noble Lord has made: that if by any chance, as is constantly being urged upon us—although whether we shall do it I cannot say—the Restrictive Trade Practices Act were to extend to services as well as the manufacture and sale of goods, which is what it is at the moment confined to, any protection that they received under this anomaly, if it be an anomaly, would prove illusory because they would immediately come under the extended provisions of such a potential alteration of the law. So this is an extremely sophisticated point.
The reason why they claim protection under this Bill, or that they claim that they have protection under the old law and want to retain it under this Bill, is that the Act of 1871 says that if you can register as a trade union, which in the ordinary sense this body is not, you can claim certain immunities based on the fact that if your rules are in restraint of trade they are not ipso facto contrary to to public policy or do not ipso facto constitute a conspiracy. Now, quite clearly, if they are—and I understood the noble Lord to say, and I do not dispute it for a moment because I have absolutely no right to dispute it from any knowledge I possess—if all these rules and all these practices are in the public interest, they are protected under the general law; that is to say, this is a trade protection society of an unusual kind. It is not a trade union in any ordinary sense; it is not an association of employers in any ordinary

137
sense. It is just the same as any other trade protection society which has certain rules in restraint of trade. And I accept for the purposes of argument, although I cannot assert it, that they are not caught by the Restrictive Trade Practices Act as at the moment, because they do not manufacture or sell goods, although they would be caught by it if it were extended to services.
If the practices which the noble Lord is seeking to protect are in tact in the public interest they can be justified before any court of law under the general law. If they are not in the public interest, one wonders what claim they have to justification for protection. One sees, of course, that in the peculiar context of industrial relations trade unions in the ordinary sense ought to claim a privilege; and they have been given it under this Bill—however much we may have argued about its provisions—if they register. Employers' associations claim a like privilege, and they ought to be given it under this Bill if they register. But why a trade protection society which is neither a trade union in the ordinary sense or an employers' association in the ordinary sense, and has nothing to do with industrial relations, should claim registration under a Bill which is only to do with industrial relations, solely for the purpose of securing total immunity for such restrictive practices which the courts might otherwise decide to be contrary to the public interest, and without appeal to any lawful authority, it is not immediately apparent to see.
The reason why the Government have so far resisted these representations is simply that they do not see that the proposed Amendment has any place in this Bill at all, or is of any relevance to any interest which is protected or defined in this Bill; and they do not see why the mere fact that the peculiar provisions —the combination of the provisions—of the law of 1871, as unaffected by the Restrictive Practices Act 1956, which do not apply to this particular association, should give them a right to automatic immunity for practices which they could defend anyway in front of a court if they were really in the public interest. This is the case which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has not made. I do not want to pretend that I think the Walls of Ilium would fall if we gave way to him; but
138
at the moment he has not persuaded me that he has a case which I could rationally submit to my colleagues. Certainly when it was submitted, very forcibly and very reasonably, by the Showmen's Guild they were not persuaded of it.
At the moment, I am not shutting my mind to it, and I will of course report the results of this debate and the very reasonable speech the noble Lord has made to my colleagues. Although I do not claim any particular expertise in this field (this Amendment happens to be sandwiched between a number of legal Amendments which I was supposed to answer and therefore I have been given it) I will report what has happened. I cannot accept the Amendment to-night and I am not myself persuaded that there is an intellectual case for it.
10.15 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. May I just comment on two of the limbs of his argument which I think, when one analyses it, are the two major points that he makes? The first one—and I think I state the noble and learned Lord's proposition correctly—is this: this is not a trade union in the ordinary sense. Not being a trade union in the ordinary sense, there is no reason in justice why it should have this special protection. If it is entitled to the special protection let it establish that in the courts by showing that its agreements are not in restraint of trade.
May I shortly address myself to those two propositions and ask the nable Lord if he will be so kind as to represent the arguments which I venture to put forward in reply to him to his advisers when he considers the matter. With regard to the first part of what he says, what is a trade union in the ordinary sense? The Showmen's Guild qualified by coming within the definition of a trade union as that definition was formulated 100 years ago in the 1871 Act. If that is so, is that not a trade union in the ordinary sense? If anybody had asked in 1918, a year after this union was registered, whether it was a trade union in the ordinary sense, on what criteria would they have formulated the answer? They would have asked for the definition of a trade union and would have looked at the 1871 Act and asked themselves,"Does this organisation come within the scope of

139
that definition?"The answer would have been"Yes"and in my submission the logical result of this consideration is that this was at all times a trade union in the ordinary sense, a trade union which, as one of its characteristics, shared probably by a number of others, had as its object —which object qualified it—the regulation of relations between masters and masters. That is my answer to the first part of the reply which the noble and learned Lord gave to me.
May I address myself shortly to the second part of his contention, which is that if they function in the public interest there is no reason why they should have the protection which is retained by Clause 132 in respect of restrictive trade agreements because they can justify their claim in the courts. did deal with that. What they are apprehensive about is that they will constantly be harassed in the courts by people who want to challenge them. Organisations, quite apart from trade unions, as to whose arrangements the question arises whether they are restrictive or not, are always under that hazard. Sometimes it is a hazard which they disregard. They are sufficiently powerful or sufficiently well established to be able to fight against that contention. The Showmen's Guild is not. It is a guild which has resources, is well established and highly respected and recognised throughout the particular branch of industry or whatever one calls it, but it is not in a position to fight actions before the courts. They will never necessarily produce the same result. Different aspects of their agreements may be challenged first by one plaintiff and then another, and they may be submitted to a series of harassments in the courts during which various aspects of their undertakings are examined by judges at the instance of individual disgruntled proprietors who perhaps disagree with a decision made in relation to the Guild.
The noble and learned Lord very kindly said that his mind is not closed and that he will give further consideration to the matter in conjunction with his advisers. All that I am asking him to do when he does so is to take into consideration the two arguments which I have ventured to put forward in reply to the arguments he used when he addressed the Committee. I am most grateful to him, and in view of what he
140
said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say that under the Trade Union Acts a registered trade union may under this Bill get certain relief from income tax, and things like that. If this particular Guild can no longer register will they lose this possible privilege? They may not have enough money to be in the income tax bracket, but if they are not registered under this Bill is there any other way in which they could receive the sort of privileges that they might be getting at the moment?
10.20 p.m.
TIIE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I just reply first to my noble friend? I should not like to give a comprehensive answer about the Income Tax Acts without a certain amount of notice. Obviously if these people have a benevolent fund, a matter we went into when we were dealing with the not dissimilar question before the Recess, they could find ways of making that benevolent fund either a friendly society or a charity so as to claim immunity; but I doubt whether even now the general funds of the organisation would qualify for immunity simply because of registration. I see the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, who is a much bigger expert on this subject than I am, looking at me, but I doubt whether they would qualify for any general exemption. They are basically a trade protection society. I do not want to go back on what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said, because I certainly will report to my right honourable friend the arguments which the noble Lord presented to me. It is quite right that I should do so because I do not claim any particular expertise about it.
As to the reason why these people were able to register in the first place, I cannot give the original section of the Act of 1871 because available to me in this little recess below the Table is only the Statutes Revised, which is a most peculiar document. The Statutes Revised gives the repealing section of the original definition under section 71, which must be the section under which they are operating now, unless it has been further altered, and the definition in the repealing section (which is now part of the Act of 1871)

141
of"trade union"is, first, any combination, whether temporary or permanent, for regulating the relations between workmen and masters, or between workmen and workmen, or between masters and masters —none of which applies to this body—or (and these are the relevant words)
"for imposing restrictive practices on the conduct of any trade or business"—
and there are the words which have enabled them to register—
"whether such combination would, or would not, if the principal Act had been passed, have been deemed to be an unlawful combination by reason of some one or more of its purposes being in restraint of trade."
In other words, although the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. has provided reasons, which he always does with great force, to say that this is a trade union in the ordinary sense of the word (whatever that may mean), the only reason which enables this body to register as such is the fact, apparently, that it contains rules which are in restraint of trade. For that reason, says he, these admirable rules, as they no doubt are, should be immune from inquiry in the public interest, whereas the rules of other bodies who indulge in restrictive trade practices should not. I do not think that that is self-evident, and certainly it is not self-evident that it covers any present immunity from income tax, which is the point raised by my noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND: I can deal with this Amendment No. 277E quite shortly. The question is merely whether the word"only"is necessary and whether it would not be of some advantage to remove it. I cannot see that it serves any useful purpose at all. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 22, leave out ("only").—(Lord Diamond.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of this Amendment would seem to be that for whatever reason a trade union's purposes might be held to be unlawful, if the purposes were also in
142
restraint of trade there would be no liability on any member for conspiracy, nor the possibility that any agreement or trust would be void or voidable. The proposed Amendment would therefore tend to widen the protection given at present by Clause 132. In answer to the direct question put by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the reason why we do not at the moment feel inclined to accept the Amendment is that it would widen the clause. It is not a question of what use it would be. We do not at the moment see the purpose of widening the clause. The Amendment might also mean that members of organisations whose purposes are in restraint of trade, and agreements made by such organisations, could enjoy a greater protection than persons whose organisations are not in restraint of trade. That would be an anomaly, and it would be one of the results we apprehend would follow from the omission of the word"only", which is the only purpose of the Amendment. After all, the purpose of Clause 132 is to re-enact the protection available under the 1871 Act (which of course is going to be repealed) against criminal conspiracy. The Amendment proposes to widen the protection, and not simply to re-enact it, and would create a situation where organisations whose purposes are in restraint of trade might enjoy a wider protection than similar organisations whose purposes are not in restraint of trade. At the moment these arguments seem to me overwhelming, and unless I were persuaded that some great advantage would result from the omission of the word I should think its retention important.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's answer. I will study what he has said, in case it is necessary to come back to it. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 132 agreed to.
10.27 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 277G:
After Clause 132, insert the following new clause:
Protection of journalists from proceedings under this Act in respect of certain oral or Written reports in exercise of their profession.

"(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that no action or other proceedings shall be brought in any court including the Industrial Court and any industrial tribunal by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act against any person, being a person engaged whole time or part time in the profession of journalism, in respect of any matter to which the next subsection applies published orally or in writing by that person solely in the exercise of his said profession and not otherwise in any newspaper magazine or other periodical publication or in the course of any broadcast or television performance.

(2) This subsection applies to any such matter as is referred to in the preceding subsection which in so far as it consists of an allegation or allegations of fact constitutes a fair and substantially accurate account or report of the whole or some part of some happening or happenings (including a speech or other declaration delivered or made publicly whether orally or in writing) which are of public interest, and in so far as it consists of comment on such happening or happenings or such part thereof as the case may be, is a fair comment thereon, or is a fair comment on some subject of public interest, or is a fair comment both on such happening or happenings or such part thereof and on such subject.

(3) For the purposes of this section the proprietors of any such newspaper, magazine or other periodical as is referred to in subsection (1) of this section and any person who in the ordinary course of his employment took any part in the publication of any such matter in such newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, and any person, including any public authority, who or which in the ordinary course of his employment or in the ordinary course of the discharge of its public duty, as the case may be, took part in the organisation or production of such broadcast or television performance, shall be deemed to be a person engaged in the profession of journalism."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this new clause, of which I think the Committee has some knowledge, because at an earlier stage of our consideration of the Bill we touched upon the question of the position of the Press under the terms of this Bill. The reason for the new clause is that there is apprehension in various Press quarters lest, by a legislative accident as it were, we may by the terms of this Bill have put journalists at risk of having proceedings brought
144
against them for compensation for unfair industrial practices. The first question that arises on the consideration of this new clause is: is it the case, or is it not, that this Bill is so wide as to involve some risk of that sort, some risk which cannot be wholly disregarded, which is not a merely negligible risk?
I approach the question of this new clause, and I would submit that it is right to approach it, in the following spirit. It is of the utmost importance in our democracy that we should have a free Press. One always accepts that the word"free"is subject to some qualifications; the law of defamation of course must be observed, the law of seditious libel must be observed; but unless the Press transgresses those well-known boundaries it is and should be absolutely free to comment, to report, and to express opinions on all matters which concern the public weal. Our democracy is founded upon that, and if we ever encroached upon that basic freedom it would be a very great misfortune. I am absolutely certain I carry the whole Committee with me so far.
My second proposition is that, that being the case, we surely ought, if I may use a colloquialism, to bend over backwards to avoid creating any such risk. If we err, we ought to err in the direction of eliminating any chance of the Press being subjected to a danger which we would not wish them to have to undergo. We should be in far greater danger if the Press became in any sense inhibited, or became hesitant about what they could write and what they could not write. At the moment I should have thought that we, as a country, and as a great democracy in the world, are entitled to say that we have a completely free, thoroughly vigorous, highly critical Press, which does us all a lot of good, although we do not always enjoy it.
The first question is, have the Government framed the provisions in this Bill in such a way as to involve any such risk? In order to answer that question may I first remind the Committee of what the existing law is. Under the existing law, Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, a journalist, or indeed anybody else, whether a trade union or a private individual, whoever he is, is absolutely free, so long as there is in

145
contemplation a trade dispute, to use language which might produce the result that a contract of employment would be broken. That is an untrammelled right, and there is no limitation to the scope of Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906, which is now nearly 70 years old. That protection is still retained in the Bill in so far as actions in tort are concerned. You will not be sued in tort, even if you induce other people to break their contracts, if you do it in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute. That position is preserved by Clause 128 of this Bill.
But the position is radically altered, in so far as the question of inducing people to break contracts is concerned, by certain provisions in the Bill which set up the new jurisdiction relating to unfair industrial practices. In particular in this context it is relevant to look at Clause 92. It has always been a tort, ever since the famous case of Lumley v. Gye decided in 1853, that if"A"induced"B"to break the contract that he had with"C", and by so doing caused"C"damage,"C"could sue"A". But you were perfectly safe in doing that very same thing if you did it in contemplation of a trade dispute, or in furtherance of a trade dispute, when Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906 was passed. That is the existing law. That is changed, as I say, by Clause 92.
Clause 92 of this Bill provides, if I may just summarise it, that if anybody other than a trade union registered under this Bill induces anybody to break a contract, including a contract of employment, they find themselves liable to be proceeded against for compensation for carrying on an unfair industrial practice. even though they do it in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute, unless they are a registered union. What is the position of a journalist? A journalist who writes in the Press is not a registered union, nor is he acting on behalf of a registered union. He is purely a private individual expressing his views in the columns of the Press. For the reasons I have already given, he is certainly at no risk of being sued for tort under Clause 128.
But is he not at risk, as he is not a registered trade union, of finding himself proceeded against with a claim for com-
146
pensation for an unfair industrial practice under Clause 92? To render himself liable to the risk of such a proceeding he must, first, not be a registered trade union, which he is not; and, secondly, even although there is an unfair industrial practice, he must not induce or threaten to induce another person to break a contract to which that other person is a party. Can it be said in those circumstances that a journalist ever induces a person to break a contract of employment by commenting on a strike situation, and that not being a registered trade union he has the defence of saying,"Oh!, but I did it in furtherance or contemplation of a trade dispute"?
Both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, speaking with the authority that goes with the great positions which they occupy, have expressed the view that the risk is negligible; and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made an important speech when we last considered this which I have carefully re-read. The question which I would pose to the Committee. and to both of those noble and learned Lords in particular, is: is it not the case that they may have gone a bit too far in saying that there is no risk, or, at any rate, that there is no risk which ought to be taken into account? I agree with them straight away that it could really only happen that a journalist might be at risk, but I gave an example to which I should like to refer back.
I gave a purely imaginary example of a journalist in a provincial town, where there is a large plant in which several thousand workers are employed. The paper by which he is employed is read in the households of, say, nine out of ten of those workers, so that 4,000 out of 5,000 workers may read the paper for which he writes. A militant union leader makes a very militant speech outside the factory gates. The journalist happens, perfectly honestly and honourably, to sympathise very strongly with the workers and to feel that they have been very badly treated by the employers. He does so, in the assumed circumstances, in the knowledge that there is already a tense situation in that plant and that the workers are very much of a mind to prefer a claim for better conditions and

147
to support that claim by strike action. In that knowledge, having the strongest possible sympathy with them, feeling that they have been very badly treated by the employers, the journalist, let it be assumed, reports in toto a strongly miitant speech by a trade union leader urging them to strike.
Let us also assume that the journalist then comments and states,"I think that what this leader said was amply justified. I should have every possible sympathy for these people if they came out on strike for the reasons that he gave."The journalist might go much further and state"I could have given much stronger reasons, and I will reinforce what he said by further reasons which I hereby advance in his support."The union leader may have had 100 workers listening to him, but the journalist, when he reports on and comments on that speech, may know that what he writes will be read by 4,000 of those workers, and not 100.
The question in those circumstances is: does he do that in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute? If the answer to that is: yes, he knows that a strike is not unlikely and he would not be at all distressed to see one because he thinks that justice requires it. does he, within the meaning of Clause 92, induce the workers in that plant to break their contracts of employment? In that assumed situation ought the question to be answered by a court, Yes or No? I respectfully submit to the noble and learned Lord that he went a little too far when he said that there is no risk of its being so held. I submit that in that sort of situation there is a risk. After all, what is the position? He must say to himself,"There will be a lot of waverers among those workers. They may well be persuaded by what I write; indeed, I think they ought to be. I hope they are."That is very well the sort of way in which his mind may work about it.
When they read at the breakfast table what he has said, a number of them, let us assume, are persuaded and decide that, although they have been wavering up to that point, they will go out in support of the strike and break their contracts of employment. In those
148
circumstances, has he not induced them? I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will recognise that it is a universal principle of our law that you must be taken to intend the natural consequences of your own act. You cannot do something which will almost certainly have a particular consequence and then say that you did not mean it to happen. If the journalist uses persuasive language which he thinks is likely to convince waverers, if no more, he cannot be heard to say,"I did not intend them to be convinced"; and if that is the situation, surely it can be said against him that he has induced them.
The Donovan Commission Report, in paragraph 892, in a slightly different context, points out the uncertainty as to when you induce, and quotes language used in a judgment as follows:
"` advice which is intended to have persuasive effect is not distinguishable from inducement"".
Surely the journalist is advising, and surely he couches his advice in terms which are likely to have persuasive effect, and he must be taken to intend that they should have that persuasive effect, and to intend, if they are in fact persuaded. that that is what should happen. In those circumstances, I submit that there is a serious risk of it being said against him that he induced.
If I am right so far, and have established the case for some change, the changes which I would propose in my very bad drafting, for which I apologise —as the noble and learned Lord said, it is a very perilous art, and I dare say I have got it wrong—are these. I have tried to formulate in the terms of the draft a reasonable protection for the journalist. I have not tried to protect some trouble-maker who goes about and spreads a broadsheet among the workers and then says,"I am a journalist and I should be protected". I have in this Amendment sought to limit it very carefully. Your Lordships have it before you, and you will see that in the first place protection is afforded only to a genuine journalist—to somebody who is engaged in journalism and who publishes the matter in question in the exercise of his profession as a journalist. That excludes the trouble-maker, the casual disseminator of a news sheet.
Secondly, I seek to qualify the publication in respect to which protection is to be afforded. It must be publication which, to borrow a well-recognised concept from the law of libel, constitutes a fair comment on a matter of public interest. In so far as it is a report of happenings of fact it must be reasonably accurate. In so far as it is his comment, his own feeling as to what the workers should do, it must come within the general ambit of what can be described as fair comment. Thirdly, I seek to include in the protection the proprietors of the paper and, for example, the B.B.C. if the publication takes the form of a radio or television broadcast. So the protection is in my submission carefully hedged around.
I should like to round off my argument, therefore, by saying, first, that we should be very careful not by accident to inhibit the Press; second, I submit that I have made out the case that there is a risk sufficiently extensive not to be disregarded, that it is something that matters; and, third, I have proposed in the terms of this Amendment a protection for the journalist which is reasonably limited in scope and which applies only to the bona fide journalist and to that which he publishes in the course of his profession, and which comes within the broad concept of something which is a fair comment on a matter of public interest. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I agree that the risk of action under Clause 92 is probably very slight but I share the feelings of a great many journalists and reputable industrial correspondents that they would be at risk in exercising their ordinary journalistic functions. Let us take as an example the Pilkington strike which took place in the spring of last year. It was an unofficial strike and lasted seven weeks. In addition, there was a fierce internal battle between the union and the rank-and-file committee. Had this Bill been in force as an Act at that time, the strikers themselves would probably have been liable to penalties under it; and as this company was part of a company network it could be argued that journalists by reporting and commenting—and the stress
150
would be on the commenting—on the strike were inducing the workers at some of the factories which formed part of the combine to break their contracts. Of course it would depend on the way the words were used, but it seems that this would be possible. An industrial correspondent told me that if this Bill were enacted and in force now he would feel it necessary to write rather differently from the way in which he wrote about the dispute then.
One of the important factors to recognise is that this is not a case merely of the industrialists bringing the journalists to the Industrial Court; the Press is often attacked from all sides. The unions do not always approve of what the Press or other media has to say. During the Pilkington strike my noble friend Lord Cooper, who led the Municipal and General Workers, went on record with the comment that the organs of publicity do not contribute to better relations in industry and that the Press had damaged the unions and made things worse for them. Really it seems to be a case of"having a bash"at the Press from time to time. This is not just a question of attacking either unions or employers.
At an earlier stage, the Lord Chancellor explained to the Committee the elements, the ingredients of"inducement"under the Bill; and my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has detailed them. With respect, I do not think the matter is quite as simple as it appeared when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spelled it out. I think it may be simple for him and for others who understand it; but I can imagine all sorts of different constructions being put on it by lay people, by editors and even by other lawyers. It would be helpful if some of the uncertainties were removed by getting a very firm and agreed definition of"inducement"in this sense.
How would things work out if Clause 92 were left unamended? Let us take for example the Daily Mirror with a readership of around 14 million. The Daily Mirror is being sold outside a factory where an unofficial strike is taking place or is about to take place. If an article appeared in that issue of the Daily Mirror saying that the conditions there were so bad that it would be small wonder if the workers came out on strike; and if a breach of contract took place

151
and the workers did come out on strike, it seems to me that a decision would have to be taken whether there was an intention and a causal relationship. How does one decide? A court would have to decide whether t was the words used in the article in the Daily Mirror which caused the workers to come out on strike, or whether it was a coincidence that at that time the workers had decided to strike. In such cases who would bring the journalist or the newspaper to court? Would it be the industrialist, or could the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecute in such a case?
If the answer is,"Yes, they may bring the newspapers to court, but, of course, they probably could not show a sufficiently proved intention or a causal relationship", I would ask,"Ought we not to try to find a situation where, so far as possible, in such a case the journalist or the newspaper should not be brought to court?"I know, and to a great extent I go along with it, though I am a journalist myself, that it is difficult to ask for special privileges for any group. But where a journalist or broadcaster is working at his profession I feel he is in a different position from a person who is speaking to a group of friends or someone who is, perhaps, writing a letter. I do not think that it would be giving journalists a special privilege, because, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, all the other Acts which restrain the Press would still be in operation.
Another point, that worries me is that one does not impute any lack of faith, honesty or integrity to a Government when one says that very often Acts of Parliament do not, in either the short or the long run, always work out in the way they were intended to. There is an example of this in the Official Secrets Acts. In 1937 a journalist was charged under Section 6 of the 1920 Act with failing to give on demand information relating to a suspected offence under Section 2 of the 1911 Act, and he was fined £5. What he had refused to disclose was information obtained from a police officer who had divulged to him the contents of a police circular. Following this there was considerable agitation, and
152
ultimately the Home Secretary agreed to an amendment to Section 6 which was introduced in the House of Lords. Its effect was to limit the provisions of the section to espionage. Very likely that was the original intention when the legislation was passed and yet it was used for other reasons.
In more recent times I took part in the debate in your Lordships' House on the Bill which became the Race Relations Act. During the Committee stage we debated the wording of the first clause in the form in which it came to your Lordships' House from another place. There was a great deal of discussion and I was among those who moved Amendments to the clause because there was doubt about its meaning. Lawyers on both sides of the House, and other noble Lords, expressed varying opinions. Finally it was agreed that there was a doubt and the whole thing was spelt out more clearly.
While the Gaming Act of 1960 was passing through the House of Commons a Minister from the Home Office said that under the provisions of this legislation there could not possibly be casinos of the Continental type in this country. Yet what happened? We had such casinos, and seven or eight years later further legislation was introduced to deal with this situation and to reverse it. It is to prevent something like that from happening that those concerned with this new clause feel so strongly that the position should be made absolutely clear in some way so that journalists should not feel inhibited by an unnecessary degree of caution. I think that the noble and learned Lord believes that editors are more robust than lawyers over this and would be inclined to publish and be damned. I do not think that this is always true. It is not my experience. There are a few people who will take the noble and learned Lord's view and others will take a more cautious view. I think that this would have an unfortunate and inhibiting effect on freedom of speech, of the Press and of broadcasting. I feel that this is not a Party issue. We are all of one mind about this. I hope that what will emerge from this debate is something by which we will be able to put the question beyond any reasonable doubt.
LORD BROCKWAY: I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider the acceptance of this Amendment. I am encouraged in this view by the speech which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor delivered when we were discussing Clause 92. He placed the emphasis of his argument on the fact that Clause 92 includes the phrase,"to induce or to threaten to induce", and therefore the clause would apply only to those who deliberately sought to contravene the contract between a trade union and an employers' association.
The speech of the noble and learned Lord made me turn to the Oxford Dictionary and look up the word"induce". I give it to the noble and learned Lord at once that the first definition endorses the view which he put to the House. It was that the word"induce"meant"to prevail"or"to persuade". But it gave a second definition, which was that the word"induce"meant"to bring about"or"give rise to". I am suggesting, therefore, that the word"induce"is not so absolutely final as was suggested by the noble and learned Lord. The second definition which is given in the Oxford Dictionary applies to the consequences of what is urged rather than to the intention. I think it very doubtful whether legislation should be left in this subjective way, where magistrates and judges have to depend upon their interpretation of a motive.
My noble friend Lady Birk referred to the Race Relations Act. I admit that I have some responsibility for that. In that Act the word is not"induce"but"intention", and the result of that interpretation of the word"intention", which again must be subjective, has led to great difficulty in the courts which have been dealing with this problem. I wish to say at once that I have had second thoughts as to whether I should have included that clause, because I believe so deeply in freedom of speech that I feel that in the cases which have been before the courts the interpretation of"intention"(which would also apply to"induce") has been unfortunate.
Clause 92 exempts trade unions and employers' associations from the effect of this prohibition. I should like to look at this matter in a practical way as a working journalist. I am probably the
154
oldest member of the National Union of Journalists. I joined in the year 1910. I began as a junion in 1906; and I became a reporter, a sub-editor and then an editor. I know the practices of journalists in all their spheres, and perhaps I might try to illustrate how Clause 92 endangers the position of a working journalist. A reporter may be asked to write a piece upon an unofficial strike—a strike which is in contravention of a contract between a trade union and an employers' association—and he goes to the workshop concerned. He reports what the shop steward is saying in favour of the strike. If he is a good journalist, he not only reports what the shop steward is saying but also the attitude of the men —which of course may be in favour of the strike. If he is a good journalist he goes further and inquires into the men's grievances which have led to the dispute. He takes his story back to his newspaper and the editor comments upon it, saying that he thinks the grievances in the workshop are such that there may be some justification for the men's action, and certainly some justification for an inquiry into it. A journalist who discharges his professional duties in such a way may easily, under Clause 92, be charged with"inducing"a strike which is taking place in contravention of this Bill.
This Amendment also refers to television and broadcasting staffs. We have seen the manner in which they have represented these disputes. They have taken the"mike"to the shop steward who is speaking and urging the men in the factory to take unofficial action in contravention of an agreement. We have seen on television and we have heard on the radio how then the representative has gone to the strikers themselves and obtained their views. I submit to the noble and learned Lord—and from this speech I expect some sympathy—that there is great danger in those circumstances that the representatives of television or of the radio could be regarded as inducing the men to continue on strike. One might go a little further and say that there are features on television, such as"Any Questions"and so on, in which a question is put to the panel, and someone on the panel may be sympathetic with the strikers and express that view. Is he inducing the men to continue their illegal strike?

155
I am speaking from experience as a working journalist. I just say this to the noble and learned Lord in conclusion. He indicated in the discussion on Clause 92 that he was prepared to consider this matter. I hope very much that as a result of the speeches which have been delivered he will give that consideration. I like to be frank with your Lordships, and I may say that I disagree a little with my noble friend Lady Birk. I would not seek a special privilege for journalists or broadcasters. I should like this provision to apply to anyone who might make a comment upon a strike which is held to be illegal.
Unlike some of my noble friends—and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for saying this—I believe that he is absolutely sincere in his desire for freedom in these respects. He will remember how more than twenty years ago we were associated in a great struggle for personal liberty. I am ready to believe that that is his deep conviction now. If it is, I am asking that he will not just reject this proposed Amendment but that, because of his belief in the freedom of the Press, he will seek to find ways and means of including it in the final form of this Bill. I hope that after the impressive speeches which have been delivered in this debate, when he comes to conclude that debate he will be able to. give us such an assurance.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: Speaking, like my noble friend Lord Brockway, as a working journalist, a man of some experience of walking the tight rope in this kind of situation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept this new clause. I assure your Lordships that this is not something that has been concocted on these Benches as a means of interfering with the Bill. This is of deep concern among all the journalists, and indeed among all publicists, if you like to call them that, with whom I am concerned. I know I speak with not quite the long experience of my noble friend Lord Brockway, but I was a member of the National Union of Journalists in 1924, and in the whole of my experience as a working journalist I know exactly what is involved in the implications of Clause 92. It is not sufficient to assume what we believe to be a genuine intention and the spirit or motivations of the matter.
156
It must be spelt out. I have been long enough in the law courts to know that if you have any sense you do not leave any ambiguity in the definition of what you are trying to do. I say that, in the presence of Law Lords, and others, with all deference.
I will illustrate this in a very straightforward way. I could give many illustrations. The illustration I will give is strictly within the definition of Clause 92 and relevant to Clause 92. In 1936 my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield was out in the wilderness as one of the leaders of the Nottingham miners in the fight against Spencer unionism, which has strict relevance to some of the definitions of this Bill. The approved union of the coalfield was the Spencer union and the Nottingham unions were fighting them. I went there as a journalist and reported that straightforwardly. I saw what was happening in what was ambiguously called a lock-out or a strike, depending on who was defining it.
I saw men being tried by the coal owners, who were operating against the miners. There was a straightforward situation in which the magistrates were the people themselves involved. I called that the Tolpuddle Martyrs of 1936". Under Clause 92, what would have happened to me? This is something that has to be accepted as a fair comment, a justifiable comment, the objective treatment by a journalist plus the inevitable speculative approach which must reflect itself in any editorialising on the subject. Therefore I appeal to the noble and learned Lord who no doubt means what he says when he thinks that this is not a risky definition of"induce". I know what I can do to induce people. I know that this word will become, by definition."to subvert", and in the subjective handling of Clause 92 you will justify every fear which every journalist wants to see removed. If the noble and learned Lord means what he said, and I do not question his intentions, let him please make it explicit by accepting this clause.
11.14 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I, too, hope very much that the Government will take this Amendment very seriously. My only doubt about the Amendment is that it does not go far enough. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lord Brockway that it is undesirable that the Press

157
should have privileges which we do not have ourselves. I dare say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has before now had to explain to a jury in a libel action when the defence of fair comment was raised that they must not think that the defence of fair comment is some special privilege of the Press. It is not. It is the right which every citizen has to express his honest opinion on matters of public interest. Therefore anybody who attacks or seeks to diminish the Press's right to express their opinions on matters of public interest is attacking the rights of all of us. Consequently I have considerable sympathy with the observation made by my noble friend Lord Brockway that he does not think it right that the protection sought to be given by this Amendment should be given to the Press alone. The protection is, of course, extremely limited: merely to report accurately speeches and so forth which have been made, and to express a fair comment.
I thought, if I may respectfully say so, that in some respects my noble friend Lord Stow Hill did not perhaps put his case quite so high as he might have done, because he began by saying outside the trade dispute it is actionable at present to induce"A"to break his contract with"B"if"B"thereby suffers damage. But I think he had overlooked that that is not a complete definition in two respects: first of all, it is not actionable to induce a breach of contract; it is actionable only knowingly to induce a breach of contract. In cases such as Thomson v. Deakin, in which the Court of Appeal were at pains, looking at all the existing authorities, to express in precise language an actual definition of the tort, they emphasised that it was not enough"to induce"; it must be"knowingly to induce". As I have had occasion to point out before, it is one of the striking features of this Bill that throughout the Bill the protection of the word"knowingly"is taken away and we simply have the word"induce". Secondly, of course, so far as our present law is concerned, there is always open to a defendant in such a case a defence of justification, which again is taken away by this Bill.
I find Clause 92 a somewhat puzzling clause. It almost looks as if it were aimed at the Press. It is a puzzling clause because it opens by saying:
158
"It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, to induce or threaten to induce another person to break a contract to which that other person is a party, unless the person so inducing or threatening to induce the breach of contract"
is—

(a) a trade union or an employers' association, or

(b) does so within the scope of his authority on behalf of a trade union…".

So in this Bill, dealing with trade unions and employers, here is a clause in which the one thing not dealt with is what the employers or the trade unions are doing, or what people acting on behalf of trade unions are doing, but what some other person, some third party, is doing. The most obvious party one would have thought at first sight was the Press.
In these circumstances, some protection is necessary. If one has the word"induce"without the word"knowingly", then the matter depends simply on what is the result, whether intended or not. of the publication. We all know that journalists in particular often have to write articles in a hurry, no doubt doing their best. For that matter. I suppose non-journalists on a programme such as"Any Questions", not knowing what the questions are going to be, do not have much opportunity of thinking beforehand exactly what they are going to say; and some protection of this kind is very badly needed. This one may or may not be the right one. For the reasons which I have ventured to give I do not think that the clause as it stands goes far enough, and I hope the Government will very seriously consider what has been said on this Amendment.
11.19 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: May I say a word from an entirely different point of view from that which has been expressed so far? I am neither a professional nor a working journalist, and although I am deeply concerned about the freedom of the Press I am concerned about it mainly from the point of view of the freedom of the reader. I entirely support the view that journalists and editors should be free to express their opinions, but it is most important that the reader—the layman, like myself—should have in the Press a complete, unrestricted report of what is happening in the world, and if there is an industrial dispute like the one

159
which has been referred to, the Pilkington dispute, I feel that I, as a reader of the Press, am entitled to have a completely untrammelled, fair and adequate report of that.
To my mind, therefore, the danger of the provisions in the Bill are not simply that they will restrict the activities of the journalist, the editor, the commentator, but that they restrict my freedom, and the freedom of every layman in the country, to read in the Press a complete and honest account of what is happening in an industrial dispute. I completely disagree with the idea that freedom of the Press is confined to journalists, editors and commentators. I think the basic thing, freedom of the Press, is the freedom of the reader to have a complete, unvarnished, untrammelled account of what is happening in the country. For that reason, which is quite different from the reasons from the reasons by my noble friends from the journalist profession, I think there is a strong case to be made for the Amendment which they have put down.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: When we were debating Clause 92 I hinted at this in a semi-jocular way when I said that if we were being bounced into the Common Market I could see miners, say, from Normandy or Brittany coming to South Wales and working and there might be a strike on there. A French miner could write a letter to his mother and she could put an article into the French Press. I went further. Knowing these conditions when there is industrial strife like this, I know that the traditional core of British democracy has been the village inn, the village pub, not just for drinking but for the social congress of people and for discussion. Here sometimes—and do not believe it cannot happen in this country if we get repressive legal iron frameworks around trade union conditions—could we or could we no: have the kind of person known in America or on the Continent as an agent provocateur, who could report that my brother, or some noble Lord's brother was talking loosely in a public house and saying that this was a good strike? Noble Lords should not laugh at that. When the 1945 Labour Government came into power I protested vehemently against the possibility of a person being typed as a Communist
160
because Joe Stalin—or, as he was affectionately known then,"Uncle Joe"—was on our side and many a person in country districts and in towns said, he was not a member of the Labour Party, he was a Communist, though he had no idea who Karl Marx was. Because a man happened to say that, and it was said in the munition works that he had been heard to say he was a Communist, he lost his job. We had this type of legislation.
Therefore I am calling on the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor. We know that he has been a defender of freedom right from his Oxford days, when there was a fight in Oswald Moseley's time. I appeal to him that if he thinks the verbiage is loose, and does not think the Amendments fit in, to try to find, from his own learned knowledge, an answer to this problem which has been put from points of view not only of the journalist but also of the individual who wants to express himself, I hope with dignity but strongly, when there are strikes in various parts of the country.
11.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for having missed, I think, about two minutes of his speech. Apart from that I have, I think, listened to all the speeches in support of this Amendment. I must also apologise if at this hour I am a little less lucid than I like to be. I hope the Committee will recognise that I have been in this Chamber answering every contentious Amendment since the Committee began, had two Consolidation Bills and a Starred Question. In such a situation, one is not apt to be absolutely on top of one's form.
I think we are agreed upon a number of preliminary matters. We passed Clause 92 after some consideration of this particular question. I dealt with it then, hoping to establish certain general propositions. I wish to examine not merely the text of this Amendment, as a piece of drafting, but also the enterprise behind it, as a piece of legislative intention, in the light of what I have tried to establish in the debate on Clause 92. In the first place I think we were all agreed that genuine apprehensions had been expressed, and I certainly was eager —and I am grateful to noble Lords

161
opposite who have accepted that I did so in good faith—to allay what apprehensions there might be. The one thing I am not prepared to do is to allay a subjective feeling of anxiety by a piece of legislation which will weaken the actual protection. I will come back to that point, if I may, at a later stage of what I propose to say on this particular Amendment.
The second thing I thought I had established was that the strength of the freedom of the Press lay in the fact proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner: that Press freedom ultimately rests upon the freedom of everybody, not simply for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, has just given, although that is a good reason, but because every attempt to establish a privilege which is limited to the Press has in practice proved ineffective. The freedom of the Press to report events is the freedom of the man in the pub to talk about them. It is not different in character, and it does not depend upon a man's acting as a professional journalist, as I have during perhaps more of my life than a professional lawyer ought to have done in his best interests: it depends upon his using the liberty which English law gives to English men and women in any circumstances whatever. And one of the things that I wish to impress upon my journalist friends is that their strength lies in asserting the freedom of the citizen rather than the freedom of the journalist, and using the freedom of the citizen as one of the freedoms of the journalist. I believe that this is the only way in which to approach this particular problem.
I pointed out at a different stage of the argument on Clause 92 what is the present state of the law. It is at present a tort, actionable in damages, to induce a breach of contract. The only relevant exception is that which is provided by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act, but that is limited to a very particular class of contract, the contract of employment. Clause 92 extends the protection to all breaches of contract, but as the law stands before the Bill becomes law it is a tort, and actionable, to induce a breach of contract, if it is a contract of employment outside the range of a trade dispute. If it is a contract of employment and in furtherance of a trade
162
dispute it is protected, but inducements to all other breaches of contract are unlawful, in the sense of being tortious.
The limitation provided by Section 3 of the Trade Disputes Act was introduced for the first time in 1906, so that for virtually the whole of the 19th century, during which time the courts were very much less favourable to trade unions (and, if I may say so, journalists were much less responsbile: one only has to read Mr. Disraeli's earlier works to know that is so) than they are now, there was no limitation at all on the tort, so far as one knows. And the point which I sought to establish was that not once was 1 able to find a single case where a journalist was successfully attacked for inducement to breach of contract, either before 1906 or after it. That might have been just good luck, but I tried to establish that it was not good luck; I tried to establish that it was because of the meaning which not merely the dictionary but the courts also assigned to the word"induce"and I pointed out that there were five separate elements which had to exist.
First of all, there must be contractual relations between the bodies, and the person attacked for inducing a breach of contract must know of the existence, or at least the probability of the existence, of those contractual relations. Secondly, there must be the intention to induce a breach of contract. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, says that the protection of the word"knowingly"has been withdrawn. I do not agree; it is there in the word"induce". If we had been discussing an Amendment designed simply to insert the word"knowingly", I certainly would have considered it; but we are not. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that the protection is there: the person attacked for inducing must intend to persuade people to break their contracts. Thirdly, there must be the actual breach of the contract by one of the parties to it. Fourthly, there must have been a causal connection, an actual causation by the action or words of the party attacked for inducement of the actual breach which supervenes. And, lastly, there must be damage. Those five elements must exist before inducement becomes actionable at present, or could become an unfair industrial practice within the provisions of Clause 92. That is the reason, I think, why no successful action has ever been

163
brought; it is far too difficult to bring such an action against a journalist. It could not be done, and it certainly, in my judgment, could not be done in any of the cases postulated by the Amendment or the cases postulated in various speeches during the course of this debate.
But the case does not rest there, because the Committee will not have failed to notice that in every one of those five elements, as the law stands at the moment, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff or complainant. It is for the plaintiff to prove his case, not for the journalist to establish his defence. This seems to me to be crucial to the whole argument. That is the law as it is. That is the law as it will be under the Bill, and that is the protection of the journalist and newspaperman. That seems to me to justify plainly every word which I said by way of reassurance under Clause 92. Had I been asked to consider again, as for a moment the noble Baroness Lady Birk suggested I might, whether it would be worth while including in the Clause a definition of"inducement", corresponding to what I have said or to the more concise textbook definitions which say the same thing, I certainly would have referred it back to my colleagues without doubt to see whether it could reasonably be done; and even now I am contemplating doing that. But this is not what is proposed by this Amendment. The Amendment proposes the opposite of almost everything I have been saying, and to my mind. so far from giving added protection, any Amendment on these lines is bound to take away somebody's assurance.
In the first place, as several noble Lords have pointed out, not merely is there the question of drafting, but it is inherently part of this Amendment that it is confined to professional journalists. I find this inherently objectionable. But if you go on to look at the terms of the Amendment, you find that the Amendment hangs on it; it is not something that can be cut out of the Amendment or extended very easily—and I will come later to my reasons for saying that. It is inherent in the Amendment that this is a specialised protection to be given to journalists.
The second point is that you will notice, when you come to look at the terms of the Amendment, that whereas the assurance I have given depends in every one
164
of its five protections upon the circumstances that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, in order to attract the advantages of the Amendment every single fact has to be proved by the defendant. In other words, while under the law as it is, and as it will be if the Bill is unamended, it is for the man who levels the accusation to prove the guilt of the accused, in every one of the subsections of the Amendment it is for the accused to establish his innocence. So the new clause can give him nothing, if already the plaintiff has to prove more than the defendant is asked to prove under the defence. The only effect of an Amendment of this character would be to cast doubt on the burden of proof, and undermine the real protection which already exists.
Look, for instance, at the terms of what is now proposed. Having noticed that the person has to be a professional journalist, whole or part time, you discover in the latter part of subsection (1) that the whole of the protection depends upon the person's doing that which is in question"solely in the exercise of his…profession and not otherwise". I emphasise the word"solely". He has to prove his innocence; that he was acting"solely in the exercise of his…profession and not otherwise". If the law is left unamended, as I have begged the Committee to believe, the plaintiff, or the complainant, has to prove that the man is not acting in good faith as a journalist, but is in fact acting in order to induce a breach of contract. But under the Amendment it is for the journalist to establish—unnecessarily, if I am right —that it is he who is only acting in good faith, and only in the exercise of his profession. The Amendment is again weaker than the clause unamended.
The proposed new clause goes on, in subsection (2), to establish a number of additional things which a journalist has to achieve in order to achieve the specialised and privileged position of being able to exercise this defence. I will not go into them all, but let us go into one or two. Subsection (2),
"applies to any such matter as is referred to in the preceding subsection which in so far as it consists of an allegation or allegations of fact constitutes a fair and substantially accurate account or report of the whole or some part of some happening or happenings (including a speech…"
and so on. If I am right, the plaintiff has to prove, as the burden of proof is

165
on him to establish guilt, that it is not just an accurate report but that the intention is something oblique in order to undermine a contract. If the Amendment were passed, the burden of proof would be put on the defendant to establish that it was a report. In other words, he has to prove his innocence. Indeed, he has to prove in addition, as you see if you read on, because I had omitted an important phrase, that it is, in addition to being a fair and accurate report, a report on a matter of public interest. May I say that if we are talking about obscurity and about the difficulty judges find in interpreting words inserted by Parliament, I should have thought that public interest"was as difficult a horse to ride as, notoriously, is"public policy"; and if we pass this Amendment the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish it.
The subsection goes on, referring to the report:
"…in so far as it consists of comment on such happening or happening or such part thereof as the case may be, is a fair comment thereon…."
That is to say, in so far as it is a matter of opinion the defendant has to prove that it is a fair comment. If I am right, as I believe myself to be and as all the textbooks say that I am, and as the whole history of this tort leads me to believe that I am, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove guilt and not on the defendant to prove innocence. But we are now being asked, in the interests or the proposed defendants, to put on to them the burden of proof that a report complained of is:
"fair comment on some subject of public interest, or is a fair comment both on such happening or happenings or such part thereof and on such subject."
The only other subsection is one which adds to the rather diminutive class which is entitled to achieve the privilege of journalists. I am all in favour of the proprietors of newspapers having the protection, but I want the protection extended to everybody and I want the burden of proof to be on the plaintiff, on the accuser, rather than on the defendant. I cannot for the life of me understand why, in the interests of supposed clarity or in the interests of supposed reassurance, I should be asked to
166
accept an Amendment which limits the protection to a limited class of journalists and proprietors, and by which the news-vendor, the printer, the bookseller, the author, the man in the street, the speaker on the street corner has his protection taken away, for the sake of making the position of journalists weaker and not stronger. I have tried to take this matter seriously as I have been asked to do, and have applied my mind to it as well as I can. And it seems to me that, although the motives behind this Amendment are praiseworthy, the effect, if it were accepted, would be deplorable.
11.42 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I must confess that I was disappointed by the speech to which we have just listened. I respectfully submit to the Committee that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has completely misunderstood the position. He has based a whole lot of his argument on the proposition that the effect of the Amendment is to transfer the burden of proof, which at present is upon the plaintiff, and to put it upon the defendant. That is really a complete misunderstanding of the position. If this Amendment is accepted, the very first thing that has to happen is that it must be shown affirmatively that there was an inducement by the journalist. That is the first limb of the procedure. I should have thought it was as obvious as it could conceivably be that the onus of proving. in the first place, that the journalist did something which comes within the definition of"inducement"clearly rests upon the person who is the plaintiff in the action and who makes the complaint against the journalist. I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord say what he did. I am sure he cannot really mean to controvert that proposition. At the very outset the action does not get on its feet unless somebody can point to the journalist as the defendant, and then prove affirmatively against him by calling evidence that the journalist induced.
Secondly, the plaintiff has to show that what the journalist induced was a breach of contract, and he can show that only by affirmatively discharging the burden of proof which is upon him, and upon nobody else; that there were persons who read what he wrote and were influenced and persuaded by it. That is the second

167
thing that the plaintiff—not the defendant—has to produce. I find it astonishing that the noble and learned Lord should have intimated that in his view the position was in an opposite sense. In the third place, the plaintiff has to show that the contract was broken as a result. As the Bill stands, the onus is on the plaintiff to do that, and so will it be if this Amendment is accepted. The onus of all that part of the case will still be on the plaintiff affirmatively to establish by evidence against the journalist that that part of his case is proved.
Then the noble and learned Lord said"Yes but you actually weaken the position of the journalist."I submit that that is a most specious argument. His position is not in the least hit weakened. What the Amendment does is to provide as follows. Assume that the plaintiff has succeeded in discharging the burden upon him of proving all those affirmative propositions which I have listed. Assume that, and assume that the journalist finds himself in court with all that established against him by the plaintiff. He is then given a defence. He is enabled to say,"All right; let it be assumed that all that is established against me. Nevertheless, I am a professional journalist, and I have a special defence". If you ask, What is the ground for that?", the ground is that a journalist, because of his profession, is put in a special position of danger; and that, I should have thought, was perfectly reasonable and perfectly in consonance with the public interest.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and my noble friend Lord Brockway said they objected to the Amendment on the basis that it did not go far enough; that it should include other people, perhaps include everybody. I entirely see the force of that argument, and have every possible sympathy with it. I cudgelled my brains to try to formulate some legal proposition which could give that protection to everybody, but I found it impossible. And that is the answer I would give to both my noble and learned friend and my noble friend. If I could have found such a legislative device, I certainly would have put it upon the Marshalled List; but it was because I could not find that, and because I accepted the view which I put before the Committee, that the journalist, by reason
168
of his profession, is in a specially dangerous position, that it seemed to me that it was arguable, in accordance with the public interest, that the journalist. the exercise of whose profession freely is so important for our welfare, was entitled to some special means of protection. Therefore what the Amendment seeks to do—it may be imperfectly, but at any rate it goes some way towards it—is to provide that, in the case of a journalist, if everything is proved against him affirmatively by the plaintiff who makes the complaint, even then he will have a special protection which other people will not have because of the risk he has to undergo.
If one accepts that as a broad proposition, one must accept as equally obvious the proposition which follows from it: that the onus of establishing that defence, of showing that what was published was published by the journalist in the exercise of his profession, that he is a bona fide journalist and that it comes within the scope of fair comment, must fall, as a matter of fairness, upon him. That is what the Amendment does; and having listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord I feel completely unconvinced that the Amendment is anything like as defective as I, as its author, had assumed it probably would be. Having listened to the noble and learned Lord, it seems to me that there is much more to be said for this Amendment than I had supposed. It is quite obvious that at the end of this debate we are at arms' length. I can only say again that I am very disappointed at the speech to which we have listened; and I hope that the Committee will express their views in the Division Lobby on whether this Amendment should or should not be accepted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very reluctant to bore the Committee with a second speech, but the noble Lord really has misunderstood the nature of the dilemma which he is in and the dilemma I was trying to put to him. Of course, if you accept beyond question that everything I said about inducement is true, it is true that on the wording of the noble Lord's Amendment the plaintiff must prove all that. But if that is all true, every word of the Amendment is totally unnecessary; because if it is true that you have to prove those five elements, then what is fair comment, what

169
is a completely accurate report and what is done solely in the exercise of his profession is not an inducement. But the Amendment is designed to undermine confidence in the accuracy of my diagnosis; and the fact is that if the Amendment were passed it might effectively do so, because if the Amendment is on the Statute Book a cunning plaintiff will say,"Ah! Because this Amendment is on the Statute Book, the old view about inducement is no longer true. They would not have put down otiose words in an Act of Parliament. They would not have said that a defendant has got to prove fair comment before he can establish his defence when, under the old definition of ' inducement ', fair comment was not an offence unless the plaintiff had excluded it. It must be that Parliament intended to alter the meaning of inducement '."It is for that reason the Amendment is positively mischievous.
LORD STOW HILL: I can only say that I am still more surprised and disappointed by the supplement than by the original contribution: that Parliament should enact that the word"inducement"has a meaning other than that it has if this Amendment is accepted, is unsustainable. I cannot conceive how the noble and learned Lord can find it in his heart to say that it is. It is obviously wrong. It is hardly arguable. Inducement is still inducement. First, it must be shown that there was an inducement, in the sense in which it is used in Clause 92. If it is shown there is an inducement then a special defence, the establishment of which is on the defendant, is made available to journalists. That is the simple position. It is obvious that we shall never come to any approach towards agreement if this discussion is prolonged. I hope that it may be brought to a close and that we can test the matter in the Division Lobbies.
LORD ARCHIBALD: Before we go into the Division Lobbies may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who on Clause 92 said that there were four conditions—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Five conditions.
LORD ARCHIBALD: On Clause 92 the noble and learned Lord said that there were four conditions. This evening he says,"Five". I asked him on Clause 92
170
to tell us how these four conditions—now five—could be brought to cover"threaten to induce". He did not give me any satisfactory explanation then. Now that there are five conditions for inducement, can he tell me how"threaten to induce"can come within the four or five conditions that he has laid down?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Let us not argue about the number, but number them one by one. First, there must be a contract, a breach of which must be induced; second, there must be knowledge of the contractual conditions by the person who is accused of inducing, or at least knowledge of such facts as ought reasonably to lead him to suppose a contractual relationship exists; third, there must be a breach of the contract by the party who was a party to the contract; fourth, there must be a causal relationship between the breach which exists and the words or actions alleged to be the subject of the inducement; fifth, there must be damage. Those are the five conditions. That is what I said on both occasions. If I counted wrongly on either, I can only apologise to the noble Lord. They are the conditions.
The noble Lord then asked me how about"threaten to induce". The brief answer on this Amendment is that no-one has suggested, and I do not believe, that the case of a journalist threatening to induce a breach of a contract is affected either under the clause or the Amendment. I told the noble Lord before (and I do so again for the sake of completeness) that threatening to do anything is not doing it; but saying you are going to with the intention of affecting some other party's action. Theatening to induce means in the ordinary sense that you threaten that that is what you are going to do. Both the Amendment and the clause, so far as the journalist is concerned, are concerned with the actual inducement and not with the threat. All the particular examples which have been given have done so. I believe that this is the only context in which either the Amendment or the clause can be held to impinge on the journalistic profession.
BARONESS BIRK: The noble and learned Lord did not answer one point, raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, on the importance of the word"knowingly". He referred to it

171
before and said that he would look at it again. I think this is important.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I referred to that in a paragraph, as the noble Baroness will see when she reads Hansard. My view is that the word"knowingly is already implicit in the third or second of the conditions to which I referred; namely the intention which is necessary to create the breach of contract.
11.55 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: We are all agreed that"knowingly"is an essential feature of the present tort. What we strongly disagree about is whether one can quite deliberately omit the word"knowingly"and then say"Oh, well, the word induce ' ought to be read as if it said knowingly."I have always contended, as the noble and learned Lord knows, that this Bill quite deliberately omits the word"knowingly", which is an essential part of the definition of the tort, as well as the word induce."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Lord had proposed an Amendment either to Clause 92 or to this Amendment, which inserted the word"knowingly", as I have already told him, I would have considered it. Although it would have been my opinion that it was unnecessary, I should have referred it to other people to see whether they shared that view. So, far prom being deliberately omitted, my understanding, rightly or wrongly, of the tort is that what is always asserted is that the word"inducement"carries with it the word intention"and therefore the word"knowingly". But if the noble and learned Lord thinks that I am wrong about that, all he has to do is to put down an Amendment to that or to Clause 92 on Report.
LORD CONESFORD: So far as I understand it, I am wholly with the main argument of my noble and learned friend. But I am a little troubled on the question whether the word induce"does bring with it the adverbs that the noble and learned Lord supposes. I am inclined to think that it does. I took the trouble to look up Lumley v. Gye in its original report in Ellis and Blackburn. and I found that that there were some adverbs in the first judgment of Mr. Justice Crompton. What he then said was:
"wrongfully and maliciously ', or, which is the same thing, with notice ' interrupts the relation subsisting between master and servant."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is suggesting that some adverb is required; and he is to some extent, I should have thought, supported by passages in the leading case itself, Lumley v. Gye. I also think that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is probably right in saying that the word"induce"does imply all that. But I wonder whether the matter could be put beyond doubt.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly consider that point, which is quite a different one from the Amendment under discussion, and I would seriously suggest—it was not simply a gibe across the Floor—that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, keeps me to my word by putting down an Amendment, in which case I will give him a considered answer.
11.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 277G) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L

Barrington, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Platt, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Reay, L.

Beswick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Brown, L.

Kennet, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds. L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gage, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Glendevon, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Redmayne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Green way, L.

Reigate, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gridley, L.

Rhyl, L.

Bradford, E.

Hailes, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brecon, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Conesford, L.

L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Inqlewood, L.

Sandys, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Selkirk, E.

Crathorne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Davidson, V.

Latymer, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd, L.

Somers, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Strange, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs

Ecclcs, V.

Merthyr, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 133 agreed to.
House resumed.

BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
  Reported with Amendments.
  GIBRALTAR HARBOUR: USE BY MERCHANT SHIPPING
  GIBRALTAR HARBOUR: USE BY MERCHANT SHIPPING
  CHROMIUM IMPORTS
  CHROMIUM IMPORTS