Sitting of 9 June 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
    EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) Bill
    HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS)(NO. 2) BILL
    Bills read the Third time and passed.

    LONDON TRANSPORT (NO. 2) BILL
    OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (NO. 2) BILL
    Bills, as amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

    CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.

    BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Bill to be read a second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

    Postal Charges
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he can now make a further statement on the forthcoming proposals for increases in postal charges, having regard to diminished revenue and strike losses.
    The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Mr. Christopher Chataway): No, Sir. No such proposals have yet reached me.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday, without any kind of parliamentary statement, overseas parcel rates were dramatically increased, thereby knocking the whole of our exports? In view of informed opinion now circulating that first-class postal rates are to go up from 3p to 4p in the autumn, and up to 5p on 1st January next, will my right hon. Friend undertake to see that the first to be informed whenever postal or parcel rates are changed is the House of Commons, and that it will not be done by administrative action in company with the B.B.C. or other agencies for the dissemination of news?
    Mr. Chataway: I should not wish to lend any support to my hon. Friend's forecast about the first-class letter rate. The increases in overseas parcel rates were entirely consequential upon decisions taken about increases at the Tokyo Conference of the U.P.U. in 1969, and these international increases are similar for all countries.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that if there is to be a further increase—and the right hon. Gentleman has said on several occasions that he did not think this would be necessary—the announcement of it will be made in the House in the first place?

    1015
    Second—and this backs up the point made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—we have all read in the newspapers that overseas parcel rates are to be increased, and we have now been told that the reason why no explanation has been given to the many firms affected by the increase—and many are—is that there have been printing difficulties in the Post Office, and therefore the Post Office has not been able to advise its customers of the change. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will direct the attention of the Post Office Board to these important questions.
    Mr. Chataway: The impending increases in overseas parcel rates were announced last year. The exact scale of the increases to each individual country depends upon the charges from other overseas administrations. The individual charges were coming in during April and May. The Post Office then has to notify its customers and to print a long list of overseas postal charges involved. I think that it probably could not have done it more quickly.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he should con gratulate his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)——
    Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis:—because yesterday he said that the Government had increased food prices by 8½ per cent., and they are now to increase postal charges. The Government won the election on the promise of cutting prices at a stroke. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that under this Government no prices will go up?
    Mr. Chataway: The increases in the overseas parcel charges are, as I have explained, entirely consequential upon increased charges abroad.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

    Union of Post Office Workers
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications
    1016
    whether he will seek a meeting with the Union of Post Office Workers.
    Mr. Chataway: I see no current reason to do so.
    Mr. Price: In view of what the hon. Member for South Worcestershire (Sir G. Nabarro) said—[Interruption.]—I thought that that might bring him back into the Chamber—is the Minister not aware that the Post Office has even more leakages than the Department of Trade and Industry? Has he discussed with the Union of Post Office Workers some of these leaked proposals by the Post Office to cripple its postal services?
    Mr. Chataway: I have not had discussions with the U.P.W. about changes in postal services, but so far as I am aware, there has been no leak from the Post Office—although the Chairman of the Post Office Board has discussed, and in public, some of the possibilities which are open to the Post Office.
    Mr. Charles Morris: Irrespective of his reply, the Minister will undoubtedly be having meetings with the Union of Post Office Workers in future. In such meetings, will he place high on the agenda the perceptive editorial in yesterday's Daily Mail about the need for improved management-staff relationships and morale of Post Office staff within the Post Office generally?
    Mr. Chataway: I should certainly be willing to discuss with the U.P.W. any matters which fall within my responsibility. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the particular matter to which he refers is primarily for the management of the Post Office.

    Departmental Costs
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give the total costs of the running of his former Department which ended on 1st October, 1969, on the setting up of the Post Office Board, and his present Department; and to what extent there has been a saving in administrative costs since 1st October, 1969, due to the ending of his being responsible for all matters pertaining to the day-to-day running of the Post Office.
    Mr. Chataway: No meaningful comparison is possible between the cost of

    1017
    running the Post Office prior to 1st October, 1969, and the cost of running my Ministry subsequently. The functions of the two Departments are quite different.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware—he should be, from looking at the Order Paper today—that he has lost two-thirds of the work which former Postmasters-General did, because all day-to-day administration has been taken away from him? Therefore, he must have saved a lot of money. Is it not about time that his Department was wound up and put into the Department of the Environment, thus cutting out all this waste of money—on which, again, we had promises from the Government which have never been implemented?
    Mr. Chataway: I have an enormous regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, naturally, but although, as I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, there is no possibility of making meaningful comparisons, for what it is worth, the administration expenses of the "old" Post Office in the last six months of its life were £194 million, and the administration expenses for my own Ministry in a comparable six months were about £500,000.
    Mr. Lewis: Well, do away with it—it is a waste of money.

    Radio Leeds
    Mr. Cohenasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress is being made in relation to the provision of a new transmitter for Radio Leeds; and what is the approximate date when this will be in operation.
    Mr. Chataway: The B.B.C. have put proposals to me but they would need to be considered in relation to a comprehensive frequency plan which would accommodate not only the B.B.C.'s local stations but also the new service envisaged in my recent White Paper.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a question of V.H.F. rather than the medium frequencies? Would he not agree that it seems to be a tremendous waste of money to produce excellent programmes which the listening public are then unable to hear? Is he not aware of the growing concern in the
    1018
    Leeds conurbation area, which includes about a million people, at the fact that their programmes have been blotted out by Radio Manchester and Radio Humberside, because of their more powerful transmitters? In view of this, would he undertake to reconsider the situation?
    Mr. Chataway: There has to be a comprehensive frequency plan for V.H.F. as for medium frequency, and any changes in the allocation of frequencies for B.B.C. local stations would have to await the preparation of that comprehensive frequency plan.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) for any disturbance or interference caused by Radio Manchester to what I know to be an excellent radio station in Leeds. Would the Minister agree that Radio Manchester and other local stations could go over to medium wave fairly quickly if only he would give his consent? Why the delay?
    Mr. Chataway: I have explained the position—as I did in the debate before the Recess. It is that we have to apply for the use of international medium wave frequencies which are principally allocated to other countries, and thereafter a comprehensive frequency plan has to be worked out to accommodate both the commercial stations and the B.B.C. There is no short-cut here.

    Commercial Radio White Paper
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to introduce a Bill to give effect to his White Paper on Commercial Radio.
    Mr. Chataway: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 19th April.—[Vol. 815, c. 327.]
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not have in my mind precisely what that reply was. When the Minister introduces his Bill, will he ensure that the alternative services which he proposes in his White Paper will add to the quality of radio and not merely to the quantity, and that arrangements will be included in the Bill to ensure that the service which will be provided will cover the whole range of radio and not merely one very small portion of the spectrum?
    Mr. Chataway: Yes, indeed.
    Mr. Farr: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the ownership of the new commercial stations will be as widely spread as possible and that, for instance, local newspapers will not be given a monopoly interest?
    Mr. Chataway: Yes, I entirely agree that that is extremely important.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Before the Minister publishes any legislation, will he, as was suggested in the debate, discuss the matter with the new regional authorities, particularly the new town corporations, some of whom have shown great interest in this in the last few weeks?
    Mr. Chataway: I have had views put to me and I shall certainly be willing to accept any representations which may be made from those quarters.

    Post Office Corporation (Equipment)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of manufactured equipment delivered to the Post Office Corporation by outside contractors during the past 12 months was late.
    Mr. Chataway: This is a matter for the Post Office, who tell me that no single statistic covering the many items of equipment purchased is available.
    Mr. Price: Is that not strange, in view of the fact that previous Postmasters-General have given that figure and that it is widely recognised in the industry to be between 75 and 80 per cent.? Is it not clear that the Post Office is getting a good deal of the blame for the incompetence of private industry? Is it not time that the Postmaster-General invited his friends to get their well-covered figures out?
    Mr. Chataway: There is not a Postmaster-General. The Post Office tell me that, at any one time, there are about 11,000 contracts current for tens of thousands of different items of equipment. They do not think that it will make any sense to produce a statistic covering all of them. If the hon. Gentleman is talking only about exchange equipment, there are some very deep-seated problems here.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister not use his powers of office to try to get the Post Office Corporation to speed up the supplies of this equipment, which is so vital to give telephones to people who are waiting? Would he not suggest to the Chairman of the Corporation that this equipment should be manufactured by the Corporation itself, particularly in the development areas and in my own area, Lanarkshire, in particular? In that way, we could solve two problems: we could solve the unemployment problem and at the same time give people the telephones which are so urgently required.
    Mr. Chataway: I have no reason to think that manufacture by the Post Office is the answer to this problem. I have had no proposals for this put to me by the Board. But, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of this equipment is already manufactured in the development areas.
    Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: But the Minister knows that the Post Office Board in its Annual Report referred to the persistent inability of the manufacturing industry to meet these orders on time, and that some 1,400 contracts were in delay by that time. Would he at least have meetings with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the whole question of this industry and supplies to the Post Office? It affects not only exchange equipment and telephones here at home but the standing of our export trade, which is something which should worry all of us.
    Mr. Chataway: I and the Post Office Board are certainly concerned about the delivery of exchange equipment. The difficulty is mainly with the problems of changing over the proprietary brands of crossbar exchange equipment to equipment suitable for the Post Office. There have been development problems which have been much greater than both the Post Office and the manufacturers originally envisaged.

  ENVIRONMENT

    Road Accidents (Transport of Gases)
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute inquiries into the number of road accidents in which it is suspected that butane and other gases may have

    1021
    been carried in the vehicles involved; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I have no evidence that the carriage of gases such as butane contributes seriously to road accidents, but I shall be glad to look into any specific incident of the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars.
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's offer to look into any instance that may be drawn to his attention. Is he aware that there have been one or two accidents—I do not wish to make a great deal of this, though these accidents have resulted in death—in which it has been suspected that butane gas had been carried, not in the containers which I think the right hon. Gentleman has in mind but in the stoves which people use for picnics, and that the carriage of this gas had been a contributory factor to the accidents? Will the Minister ascertain from the police authorities what evidence there is that the carriage of gas in stoves, after they have been used for picnics, presents a danger in road accidents?
    Mr. Peyton: I will certainly make any inquiries that seem to be useful. As for the major question of the transportation of gases and dangerous substances, which is what I thought the hon. Gentleman had in mind, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, in view of his supplementary question, I will look into the matter to see whether there is anything I can do.

    Planning Regulations (Contravention)
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will institute an inquiry into the increasing number of developers who flout planning regulations and contravene conditions of planning consent; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): No, Sir. I have no evidence of an increase in breaches of planning control. The 1968 Act gave local planning authorities increased powers for enforcement of planning requirements.
    Mr. Loughlin: Does not the hon. Gentleman read the newspapers? Is he aware that a considerable number of
    1022
    cases have been reported in the Press recently of a complete flouting of planning regulations? Does he have knowledge of the case which I brought to the attention of his right hon. Friend in which the conditions laid down were completely contravened by developers? Is it not a fact that some of the larger developers are getting away with murder?
    Mr. Page: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not think that that, in itself, is sufficient evidence for the sort of inquiry for which he is asking. It is for the local authorities themselves to consider whether it is expedient for them to use their powers of enforcement; and these powers were considerably increased by the 1968 Act.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the answer to this problem is for planning permission to be given before demolition and not upon construction? If that were to happen, people could not demolish anything until they had obtained planning permission. This would prevent buildings from being pulled down on a technicality. Does the Minister agree that it is about time that the Ministry did something about this problem?
    Mr. Page: The point about having to obtain planning permission before demolition raises another question, though it is one which we have under consideration.

    Office Rents in the City of London
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the Report, Office Rents in the City of London and their Effect on Invisible Earnings, produced by the Committee on Invisible Exports, a copy of which is in his possession; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee, Sir Cyril Kleinwort, for a copy of the study of office rents in the City of London done for his Committee by the Economists' Advisory Group. It will be of great value in considering what further modifications to the office control might be desirable in the future.
    Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee takes the view that on present trends business is likely to be driven from London to other countries because of high rents in the City of London and the shortage of office accommodation, thus imperilling the growth of our invisible earnings? Is he giving consideration to the suggestion that the system of office development permits should be abolished.
    Mr. Walker: The O.D.P. system is important for the development of the whole of the South-East. Although there is some evidence that rents have increased substantially in the City due to the shortage of office space, a substantial increase in the granting of O.D.Ps. has been allowed in recent years, in addition to which many firms have moved out of the City into other areas.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Having regard to the social problems which any additional employment in Central London inevitably brings and the lack of office employment elsewhere, particularly in the northern development area, will the right hon. Gentleman be very lukewarm towards any suggestion to extend office development in London until a much more formidable attack has been made on the unemployment problem in the development areas?
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the O.D.P. system has not, alas, had the favourable effect that was hoped for it in moving offices to the North. However, as I said, there has been a substantial movement in recent years. The O.D.P. system is, however, an important instrument of planning in the South-East. Equally, the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw the attention of the House to some of the social problems which result from the concentration of too much office development in London.

    Council House Rents
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have now intimated to him that they will not increase house rents.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Local authorities are not required to inform
    1024
    me if they do not propose to increase rents.
    Mr. Eadie: May I take it from that answer that if a local authority were to inform the right hon. Gentleman that it did not intend to increase its rents, the Government—especially in view of the mandate which local authorities recently acquired from the electorate—would not seek to interfere, either directly or indirectly, with that decision of the local authority?
    Mr. Amery: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the report which I hope to make to the House in due course about my discussions with the local authority associations on our proposals for the reform of housing finance.
    Mr. Marks: Will local councils have any control whatever over the rents of their houses when the right hon. Gentleman's scheme comes into operation, or will their rents have to be based on rateable values?
    Mr. Amery: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will await the report which I shall be making to the House.
    Mr. Crosland: We require a definite statement from the Minister on this point. If a local authority does not wish to increase its rents, will the Government compel it to raise them to what they consider to be a fair rent level? If so, what becomes of all the Tory talk about greater freedom for local authorities?
    Mr. Amery: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the report which I shall be making to the House. It will be available very soon.
    Mrs. Doris Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the cost rent of a new Parker Morris Standard house will be more or less than the fair rent; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amery: In most though not in all cases the fair rent of newly built dwellings is likely to be less than their cost as reflected in the housing revenue account.
    Mrs. Fisher: If the rearrangement of Government subsidies is that they are to be given only to those who cannot afford fair rents, will not other council tenants be called upon to pay fair rents, and if the figure now being worked out of the

    1025
    cost of the Parker Morris house is to be higher than that rent, who is to pay it?
    Mr. Amery: I must ask the hon. Lady to await the report which I will make to the House when our discussions with the local authority associations are complete.
    Mr. Leonard: Would the right hon. Gentleman desist from using the term "fair rent" in this context, as it is becoming increasingly clear that the Government's proposals do not provide for the essential feature of fair rents, as compared with the private sector where they can be freely negotiated between individual landlords and tenants?
    Mr. Amery: I must ask the hon. Member to resist the temptation to pronounce upon this till I have made my report to the House.

    Television Licences (Old-age Pensioners)
    Mr. Fernyhoughasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation which would permit local authorities, if they so desired, to contribute towards the cost of television licences for old-age pensioners.
    Mr. Graham Page: Although television licences are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, I will reply.
    There are no plans to introduce such legislation.
    Mr. Fernyhough: That is a most disappointing answer. Is the hon. Gentleman unaware of the burden that the price of a television licence can represent to a person living on a State pension or supplementary benefits? If a local authority is prepared to meet this cost, why not give it power to make a contribution towards easing the burdens on its aged citizens and so make life a little more enjoyable for them?
    Mr. Page: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is always difficulty when considering concessionary licences and other matters of this sort. One may be helping a person who happens to have a television set but not another person who does not have one. I suggest that if it were decided that such a concession should be made, it should be done by the central Government rather than by local government.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my hon. Friend aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to those who believe in justice? A concessionary licence of this kind would be unfair to pensioners who are blind or who do not wish to watch television. In any event, the granting of concessions of this kind is wrong. What we want is proper pensions.
    Mr. Ashton: Is the Minister aware of a discrepancy which already exists? A number of pensioners live in bungalows which are under the control of a warden. That warden will obtain one licence for all the television sets in those bungalows. This results in each pensioner having to pay only a few shillings a year for the individual part of the licence. This naturally infuriates pensioners who live in houses and other accommodation which are not controlled by wardens. Will the hon. Gentleman please allow local authorities which wish to do so to get rid of this discrepancy?
    Mr. Page: I still do not believe that this is a job for local authorities. If it is decided that it is right, then it is a job for the central Government.

    North-East Kent (Cross-Estuary Link)
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider commissioning a feasibility study into a cross-estuary link in order to improve the economic viability of a Foulness Airport and to bring some economic benefit to North-East Kent.
    Mr. Peter Walker: It is doubtful whether the additional traffic flows generated by the third London airport would, by themselves, justify a new cross-estuary link. The Government will, however, consider proposals for such a link in the context of the South-East Joint Planning Study.
    Mr. Moate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is he aware that many people consider that a cross-estuary link, a tunnel or bridge, at this point would be economically and technically feasible and should be part of the planning of the airport at the outset and not left as a long-term possibility?
    Mr. Walker: I must inform the House that the Government have recently

    1027
    announced their agreement to the construction of a second road tunnel between Kent and Essex at Dartford and that we are considering the possibility of a link lower down the river as part of our study of the South-East Region. The third London airport is not a major factor in this decision.

    Local Authority Mortgages (Wife's Earnings)
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has advised local authorities not to take into account the earnings of a wife in established employment when calculating the amount of a mortgage offer under the government scheme for local authority loans.
    Mr. Amery: No, Sir. Local authorities have complete discretion in this matter.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many local authorities refuse to take into account wives' earnings when calculating mortgage advances, even when those wives are in established employment? As this could have the effect of reducing the benefit of his recent policy statement, would he consider issuing reasonable guidelines to local authorities about mortgage advances?
    Mr. Amery: It would be wrong for me to try to direct local authorities; indeed, I have no powers to do so. A number of local authorities take a progressive view about this and take into account a wife's earnings in appropriate instances. I hope that more will do so.

    Fleet Line
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his proposals for capital grant for the Fleet line.
    Mr. Graham Page: As soon as possible.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that his Government have made great claims that they are following the policy of the previous Government in respect of certain aspects of transport policy in London? Will he not follow those precedents and give a 75 per cent. grant to this line, as the previous Government did to the Victoria Line extension to Brixton? Will he say why the Gov-
    1028
    ernment have given a 75 per cent. grant to Liverpool for an underground railway but are not yet prepared to give such a grant to London?
    Mr. Page: I am not saying at present whether a 75 per cent. grant will or will not be given in this case. We are asked to commit £70 million of taxpayers' money and it is important that we should examine this matter very carefully before a decision is made.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the Minister aware that this continued uncertainty may well cause difficulty in retaining tunnelling staff and expert technical staff? If these teams are broken up, it will considerably increase the cost of constructing this line.
    Mr. Page: I will certainly give consideration to that point, but this project needs very thorough examination.

    Dumping and Waste Disposal (Estuarial and Tidal Waters)
    Mrs. Kellettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the studies of dumping and waste disposal in estuaries and tidal waters; and if he will give the figures for waste disposed in estuarial and tidal waters for 1969–70 and 1970–71.
    Mr. Peter Walker: A Working Party set up by my Department is investigating the sludge tipping in Liverpool Bay and will be reporting later on this year. The Water Pollution Research Laboratory has made and is making studies of estuaries which include the effects of waste disposal. I have no overall figures for waste disposal in estuarial and tidal waters but the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution is including this subject in its current study of the problems of pollution in tidal waters.
    Mrs. Kellett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a very small number of unscrupulous firms are moving from one area of tidal water to another, discrediting reputable firms and causing considerable havoc before the law catches up with them, and that a tightening up of the law to deal with such operators is an urgent necessity?
    Mr. Walker: I hope that my hon. Friend will give me details of any such cases, which I will certainly look into.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: My right hon. Friend will be aware that estuarial waters and tidal waters are one of the best sources of water for human consumption. Will he take the utmost precautions to see that these waters are kept clean and used in the near future for that purpose?
    Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. This is why I am pleased that the Royal Commission is giving priority to this topic.

    Road Traffic Acts (Compulsory Insurance)
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider proposing that the Road Traffic Acts be extended to require that compulsory insurance be for full third party liability.
    Mr. Peyton: I have no such intention at present.
    Mr. Fry: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that I am rather disappointed by his reply? Many innocent persons, often unable to obtain comprehensive cover themselves, have suffered considerable material loss because the people causing the loss are men of straw, and that something should be done to protect the innocent?
    Mr. Peyton: There is a great deal of good sense in what my hon. Friend says, but at present I am not satisfied that we should be justified in taking the very considerable additional compulsory powers.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Would not the Minister agree that, since the State demands that motor vehicles should be insured, the State should take a direct hand in the insurance by taking control of motor vehicle insurance once and for all?
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. To me, that is a very bad idea indeed.

    Local Government Re-organisation
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will be commencing consultations with members of local authorities and councillors on the timing of elections, following the reorganisation of local government.
    Mr. Peter Walker: This is one of the matters on which I have already sought the views of the local authority associations and other interested bodies.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is generally felt that these discussions should take place as quickly as possible to allay the considerable uncertainties and apprehensions which exist? Can he say whether these discussions are likely to result in an early decision with regard to aldermanic elections?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that anybody could accuse me of going too slowly in my consultations on local government reform, but I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a need to try to come to decisions on this topic and to announce them as quickly as possible.
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has now received from local authorities on the distribution of functions in the reorganisation of local government in response to his Circular 8/71.
    Mr. Graham Page: Circular 8/71 sought views only on proposed new areas, though a number of authorities have taken the opportunity to comment also on the allocation of functions. My right hon. Friend is in consultation with the local authority associations on the allocation of functions.
    Miss Fookes: Will the Government take action if certain local authorities, or a number of them, are worried about the distribution of functions, or is it completely, signed, sealed and settled already?
    Mr. Page: No, indeed it is not. My hon. Friend will know the difference between a White Paper and a Green Paper. On several occasions I have remarked that the back page of the White Paper, which sets out the functions, is tinged with green.
    Mr. Crosland: The whole House will be relieved to hear that the matter is not signed, sealed and settled already. What reply has the hon. Gentleman given to the overwhelmingly powerful representations from Grimsby as to both functions and powers?
    Mr. Page: None.

    Historic Buildings
    Mrs. Fennerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the safeguards for historic buildings in danger of arbitrary demolition.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I shall certainly do so if it could be shown that there are loopholes in existing legislation.
    Mrs. Fenner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I do not find reassuring. In view of a much-publicised recent demolition, I had hoped that he would be prepared to look again at the safeguards and to include in a review of them another look at the safeguards for buildings which are not themselves of great historical value but which form a vital part of a street scene.
    Mr. Walker: I have already announced that in certain areas we shall seek to introduce legislation so that local authorities can demand an application for planning permission for a building to be demolished. This we shall do at the earliest opportunity. On the other point mentioned by my hon. Friend, if loopholes are indicated when final examinations have taken place, we shall take action to stop them.
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many retirement pensioners were admitted to the historic buildings and ancient monuments in his care at reduced rates during the last 12 months.
    Mr. Amery: There is no separate record of attendances by retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Boyden: Surely the right hon. Gentleman's Department admits that retirement pensioners get reduced rates? Will he tell the House which Department is making Government policy—the D.E.S., which is charging retirement pensioners for admission to museums and so on, or his Department, which lets them in at a cheaper rate? Which is the right policy?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is well remembered for having brought to the House the concession to old-age pensioners and children. I am glad to say that in 1970 2,744,000 old-age pensioners
    1032
    and children were admitted to ancient monuments at half price. This is a policy with which the hon. Gentleman is closely concerned and which continues.

    Refuse Disposal
    Mrs. Kellettasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department has set up a study of the vacuum pressure method of refuse disposal.
    Mr. Peter Walker: This is one of many aspects of refuse collection and disposal which is under consideration in my Department. Work relating to pipe transportation of refuse is being undertaken by the Department's Building Research Station.
    Mrs. Kellett: I thank my right hon. Friend.

    Thames Barrier
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the engineering assessment of alternative designs for the Thames Barrier.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am informed that the Greater London Council's second report of studies will include a section on the various types of structure examined by engineers and the conclusions drawn. As I said in the statement which I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th April last, when I receive the council's report I shall, with agreement, place copies in the Library.
    Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for that reply. Would not he recall that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced last December that he had accepted a particular design and that the G.L.C. announced similarly so in March? Does not the Minister consider that a six-month gap between the announcement of a Government policy and the publication of these facts is not good government?
    Mr. Page: Because of the grave risk of tidal flooding, it has been necessary to take certain decisions, especially on the location of the barrier, the type of barrier, the amount of grant to be made and so on, so that the trial borings and the design work can go ahead as swiftly

    1033
    as possible. It has been necessary to make those decisions because today we are faced with odds against a tidal flood in London as short as 34 to 1, and shortening all the time.
    Mr. Trew: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the main requirement of the Thames flood barrier is now to get it built together with the associated downstream flood defences? Would he consider appointing one man with overall executive responsibility for the entire project? At present there is uncertainty in the public mind as to who is responsible.
    Mr. Page: I do not think so, but I will take suggestions as to who that "one man" should be.
    Mr. Braine: Would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that careful thought is being given not merely to the effect of tidal and surge behaviour on the defences of downstream authorities but, because of the combination of the installation of a Thames barrier with large-scale dredging of sands, to the alteration of the configuration of the estuary which will flow from the establishment of a Foulness airport?
    Mr. Page: Yes, indeed. These are important matters which are receiving deep consideration.

    Organised Walks
    Mr. Fryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will have consultations with the appropriate authorities with a view to seeking powers to regulate organised walks, in view of the danger to human life and the traffic hazards that they can entail.
    Mr. Peyton: Though I deplore the holding of organised walks in a manner contrary to the advice of my Department and the police, I should be reluctant to seek legal powers to control them.
    Mr. Fry: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the real public concern on the subject. Will he not agree that, at the very least, such walks should be registered with the police for their approval, in the interests of road safety?
    Mr. Peyton: I think that most organisers do seek police advice. What I deplore is their not following that advice when they have sought it How-
    1034
    ever, I feel that we should be going a very long way and be taking a serious step if we sought to control access by pedestrians to the highway.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that many people will be delighted with his reply, and will he agree that, despite accidents, we ought to keep a sense of proportion in these matters, remembering that on these walks many young people take part for the first time in something which will assist the community, and quite often this leads to their taking an active part in community work?
    Mr. Peyton: I am immensely obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his question, if only because it gives me an opportunity to remind the House and others outside that every year 28,000 pedestrians are killed or seriously injured on our roads, only a very small proportion of whom are involved in these walks.

    Birmingham-Nottingham Motorway
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Midland Road Construction Unit engaged in surveying a proposed route for the M42 Birmingham to Nottingham motorway has taken, is taking, or will take boreholes along alternative projected routes in addition to the boreholes now being prepared just north of Risley.
    Mr. Graham Page: No other soil survey has been or is at present being made. Further boreholes will be taken, if necessary, for selection of a proposed route for the motorway.
    Mr. Rost: I agree that the M42 motorway is urgently needed, but is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents are extremely concerned at the evidence which they have that the boreholes have so far been taken in only one area; namely, through the beautiful villages of Risley and Stanton, and right across the Erewash golf course? Will he please note that my constituents will not stand by and watch the environment being polluted and ransacked for a motorway route which we all believe could be resited far more favourably in another area?
    Mr. Page: I am extremely sorry that it should be thought that there is a risk

    1035
    of the Erewash Valley golf course being destroyed by a motorway. In fact, there is no decision on this matter yet. The stage of taking trial boreholes is only an investigation stage, and there is yet no chosen route.

    Protection of the Environment (Airport Noise)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many letters he has recveived regarding the protection of the environment.
    Mr. Peter Walker: A large number, but, due to their diversity, I cannot give a precise figure.
    Mr. Allason: Can my right hon. Friend say how many of those letters relate to noise disturbance from Luton Airport-As the situation is rapidly getting out of hand there because the airport traffic is constantly expanding, and as my constituents are looking to the Government for protection, could my right hon. Friend define to what extent he is concerned for the environment in this matter?
    Mr. Walker: I have received a large number of letters on this topic relating to Luton airport, and my hon. Friend will know that the Government have decided to take powers so that they have greater control over local authority airports in future.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable concern also about the increased noise from aircraft from Leavesden airport in my constituency, and has he any comment to make about that?
    Mr. Walker: I have had fewer letters from there than I have had from Luton, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my right hon. Friend fish out from among the many letters which he has received the one dated 25th May from the Mayor of Winchester, Councillor Stanley Steel, and will he reply to him on the subject of preserving the ancient office of mayor in the cities and boroughs of this country?
    Mr. Walker: I am not quite sure of the environmental effects of the mayor's office.
    Mr. Crosland: When the right hon. Gentleman replies to the numerous letters which he receives, will he kindly not enclose with his replies copies of the various fulsome articles written about him by naive journalists in the Evening Standard and other newspapers, in which all that the right hon. Gentleman can find to do is to claim credit for policies wholly initiated by the previous Government?
    Mr. Walker: If the previous Government had fulfilled a few policies instead of just initiating discussions, they might have got somewhere.

    A670 (Upper Mill Village)
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the reduction of traffic on the A670 through Upper Mill village when the M62 is completed.
    Mr. Graham Page: The A670 is a principal road for which the West Riding County Council is the responsible authority. I understand that the council is collecting traffic data but is not yet in a position to forecast future traffic. There may, however, be some reduction when the Lancashire section of the M62 is opened later this year.
    Mr. Clark: I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that the failure by himself and the West Riding County Council to provide an estimate is being used as an excuse for failure to provide a bypass for Upper Mill, which was first mooted over 34 years ago? Will he do what he can to give priority for a bypass for that small area?
    Mr. Page: It is true that as long ago as 1967 there was included in the preparation list a scheme to bypass Upper Mill, but the county council cannot submit a programme report until it is clear what the effects of the opening of the various stages of the M62 will be on the A670 traffic. It hopes to submit a report in the summer of 1972.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to seek powers to negotiate reciprocal agreements with Common Market countries, should the United

    1037
    Kingdom enter the European Economic Community, for assisted road and rail fare schemes for retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Spriggs: That is a most disappointing reply. In view of the negotiations now going on with the E.E.C., is it not a pity that Britatin will be left behind the other countries of the Community? As there are literally hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country who are prisoners in their own homes, would it not be a good idea if the right hon. Gentleman were to give this question more careful thought and return to the House with a far more progressive reply?
    Mr. Peyton: I am extremely sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so disappointed with what was a predictable answer. The question of concessionary fares within this country is for the local authorities and the carriers concerned. In the rest of his supplementary question the hon. Gentleman allowed his thought to become tinged by the hypothetical.

    Twilight Areas
    Mr. Trewasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to local authorities on collaboration with private enterprise and the voluntary housing movement in the redevelopment of twilight areas.
    Mr. Amery: Authorities have been advised of the considerable scope for working with housing associations in general improvement areas, including twilight areas. They have been asked to encourage these associations to buy houses coming on the market and improve or convert and manage them. A number of councils have also initiated joint redevelopment projects of various kinds. I hope that more will follow suit.
    Mr. Trew: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Has he made a study of the American techniques for urban renewal, and has he come to a conclusion on their suitability for use in this country?
    Mr. Amery: I must apologise for not having made such a study, but on my hon. Friend's advice I shall do so.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Will my right hon. Friend encourage other local authorities to follow the example of the Conservative-controlled Leicester City Council in its Clarenden Park scheme, which he has visited?
    Mr. Amery: I salute what Leicester has done in this matter.
    Mr. Freeson: I trust that the Minister is aware that there was a working party in the Department looking into the major question of land costs in this connection. Has that working party yet completed its report and made any recommendations which the House might be interested to hear?
    Mr. Amery: I cannot say off-hand, but, if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I shall look into it.

    Derelict Land
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the official total of derelict land adequately reflects the extent of land which is actually derelict; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir. The present form of survey was designed with local authority reclamation of past industrial dereliction primarily in mind. Proposals for a survey on a wider basis have been discussed with the local authority associations and are now being tested by selected local authorities.
    Miss Fookes: When will we get a final result on this—in months or years?
    Mr. Walker: There are two discrepancies in the present figure. First, under the present definition there is scope for local authorities to re-examine whether they have found all the derelict land concerned. We have asked them to do so. These test surveys are taking place at the present time.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is tied in with the much wider question of a survey of land in this country, which is sadly lacking and which ought to be carried out as soon as possible?
    Mr. Walker: We are proceeding at a pretty fast rate on regional planning use and dealing with derelict land. We will double expenditure on this in the coming year.
    Mr. David Clark: Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that coal spoil heaps which are in current use are not classed as derelict land? Could he give us an indication whether the amount of derelict land being cleared exceeds the amount of derelict land being created?
    Mr. Walker: It depends on the definition we give to "derelict land". The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first point is "Yes". As far as the second is concerned, defined derelict land is being cleared at a fast and accelerating rate.

    Building Materials (Price Increase)
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment by what amount the increase in the price of building materials during the last 12 months has increased the cost of building an average size three-bedroom house.
    Mr. Amery: The rise in the price of house building materials between March, 1970 and March, 1971 is estimated to have increased the cost of building an average size three-bedroom house by 4 per cent.
    Mr. Boyden: Since this shocking price increase has run right across building contracts does it not make the Minister's policy of fixed two-year price contracts quite unrealistic and unfair? Has he seen the report of the Buckinghamshire Works Committee which shows that, since January, of the 30 lowest tenders only two were within the approved cost limits?
    Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his wide understanding of these matters, will have appreciated that the increase in costs will be almost exactly offset by the abolition of S.E.T.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Lord President of the Council if he will recommend to the Services Committee that an experimental period of closed-circuit television should be available in St. Stephen's Hall for the benefit of visitors waiting to get into the Public Gallery.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): I think con-
    1040
    sideration of the hon. Member's suggestion must await the House's decision on the general issue of televising our proceedings.
    Mr. Dalyell: Since many of us are already receiving requests for tickets to view the Common Market debate and since, in its unwisdom or otherwise, the House has decided that this great debate will not be televised, should not those who have taken the trouble to come here, rather than simply having to wait for hours outside, queuing in St. Stephen's, at least have the chance of seeing what is going on?
    Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that the Services Committee will be prepared to consider any such proposal if that is the general feeling of the House. I can only point out that steps in this direction have to be taken very tentatively because even the annunciators to show people in the Strangers Gallery and those in the Press Gallery who is speaking in the House received on the whole a somewhat critical reception after their introduction yesterday.
    Mr. Montgomery: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a risk that people waiting in St. Stephen's Hall watching the proceedings of this House on closed-circuit television, seeing some of the performances we have to witness from the other side of the House, might change their mind about coming and we might have a very empty Public Gallery?
    Mr. Whitelaw: All of these are matters which can be considered. If the House thinks it is worth while considering them, I am prepared that they should be considered.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that since the reduction of the voting age to 18, secondary school children are becoming more and more interested in how Parliament works? Would he take note of this and, if it is at all possible, instead of using only St. Stephen's Hall, let Great Hall, Westminster, be available to the public?
    Mr. Whitelaw: These matters are always controversial in the House. However I have noted the hon. Gentleman's views and I will certainly see that the Services Committee considers these possibilities.

    Top Salaries Review Body
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will now state how many persons he has appointed to the Boyle Committee of Investigation into the pay of Members of Parliament; when he expects to complete the filling of vacancies; when Members can commence to submit their evidence; where this has to be sent; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Whitelaw: The membership of the Top Salaries Review Body was announced by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on 27th May. The Review Body has already begun its work and is giving priority to the review of Ministers' and Members' pay. I understand that a questionnaire which will enable Members to give written evidence to the Review Body will be issued very shortly and that the arrangements for Members to give oral evidence are currently being worked out.
    May I take this opportunity to inform the House that the terms of reference of the Review Body's inquiry are
    "to review, and to recommend what changes are desirable in, the emoluments, allowances and expenses of Ministers of the Crown and Members of the House of Commons, including Mr. Speaker and other holders of remunerated offices in both Houses of Parliament, and the relevant pension arrangements."
    Mr. Lewis: May I thank the Leader of the House for that full reply and ask him whether, to help the Committee, he will get his Department to collate the various Questions and answers that have been asked over the past six or seven years as the information would be useful to the Committee? Will he ask whether the Committee could extend its terms of reference to include pensions for former Members of Parliament, some of whom have done 30 or more years without one halfpenny in pension? Is he aware that everyone is agreed that if a man or woman has given long service to this House it is about time that he or she should receive some form of pension?
    Mr. Whitelaw: On the hon. Gentleman's first request, I must point out that what he describes as my Department consists of a private office of four people. I do not think that it would be able to
    1042
    collate all this evidence but I will certainly help the Committee in every way I can. As to the point about the terms of reference, they were drawn as widely as possible to make sure that every matter could be considered. I think that they have been drawn as widely as the hon. Gentleman hopes, but I will check on that.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government intend to present to the House a package deal in the autumn containing increases in the Civil List, in Members' pay, in the Speaker's emoluments and in the emoluments paid to Members of the House of Lords?
    Mr. Whitelaw: What may happen in the autumn will depend on a large number of people. One of the points that the hon. Gentleman raises is a matter for the Select Committee on the Civil List, of which he is a member. On the second point of increases in the pay of Members of the Commons, that depends on the Review Body under Lord Boyle. As for the last point, I do not think it depends on anyone because it is not under discussion at present.

    Butter Pats
    Mr. Englishasked the Lord President of the Council what is the country of origin of the new intake of butter pats.
    Dr. Bennett: I have been asked to reply.
    It is English.
    Mr. English: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the fact that he has not mentioned that it is also a quarter less in weight and that he is selling it at the same price proves that European butter is often more expensive than Australian and New Zealand butter? Would he tell us, now that he is advised by a company which is 50 per cent. foreign-owned, whether he proposes to alter the normal practice of this House that our food supply should come from Commonwealth or from E.F.T.A. countries?
    Dr. Bennett: I suppose that we do pay extra for the extra quality as a result of its being English. I suppose that is good enough.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the meeting with the European Community which I attended in Luxembourg on 7th June.
This meeting recorded agreement on three important matters and made useful progress in discussion of a number of other outstanding questions.
First, exports of sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries. The House will recall that when I reported on the previous Ministerial meeting with the European Community on 17th May I said that the Community had made a proposal regarding the developing Commonwealth countries whose interests are at present covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I made it clear then to the Community that Her Majesty's Government would need to consult the other Commonwealth Governments concerned before replying to the Community's proposal. A meeting of the Commonwealth Governments concerned was held accordingly in London on 2nd and 3rd June. I was able to explain to them that the firm assurance which the Community had proposed met their anxieties and interests, and the meeting agreed on a communique, which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. On the basis of the statement included in the communique, the Commonwealth representatives agreed to accept the Community's proposal.
I informed the Community accordingly in Luxembourg on 7th June. At the same time, the Community made clear its position regarding imports of sugar from India, which is a party to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and whose interests will be covered under the arrangements agreed earlier for Commonwealth developing countries in Asia.
These exchanges mean that the essential question of sugar from developing Commonwealth countries has been satisfactorily resolved. This represents a very substantial and satisfactory achievement.
Secondly, the House will recall that I reported on 17th May that agreement
1044
had been reached on satisfactory arrangements for the continued import of certain important raw materials for British industry. The problem of alumina was the only one left outstanding. This has now been settled. With permission, I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The third question on which agreement was reached was monetary matters. The future of sterling is not strictly speaking an issue in the negotiations The Six have, however, expressed interest in the problems which would arise from the inclusion of a major reserve currency in an enlarged Community progressing towards closer economic and monetary union. We on our side have made clear our readiness to envisage an orderly and gradual reduction of official sterling balances after our accession, but we have also made clear that three conditions would need to be satisfied. First, any proposal would have to be acceptable to official holders of sterling, who would need an alternative reserve asset. Secondly, it should not impose an unacceptable burden on our own resources and balance of payments. Third, it should promote the stability of the international monetary system.
In my statement in Luxembourg I reiterated that we were prepared to envisage an orderly and gradual run-down of official sterling balances after our accession. I undertook that after our accession we should be ready to discuss what measures might be appropriate to achieve a progressive alignment of the external characteristics of, and practices in relation to, sterling with those of other currencies in the Community in the context of progress towards economic and monetary union in the enlarged Community. I said that we were confident that official sterling could be handled in a way which would enable us to take our full part in that progress. I also said that in the meantime we should manage our policies with a view to stabalising the official balances in a way which would be consistent with these longer-term objectives.
The Community took note of my statement with satisfaction and expressed their acceptance of our suggestions about the way in which this matter should be handled. It is, therefore, no longer an issue between us.

1045
In addition to these matters on which agreement was reached on 7th June, I took the opportunity to explain to the Community the very great importance which we attached to a satisfactory agreement regarding fisheries. What we have asked for is a categoric statement that the present common fisheries policy would be modified after enlargement to meet the circumstances and needs of a Community of Ten. In addition we want a clear understanding from the start that there would be adequate protection for our inshore fishing grounds in particular. We have proposed that this could be secured by reserving exclusive fishing rights within six-mile limits—drawn from the base lines that were agreed at the 1964 European Fisheries Convention—together with an establishment clause which would be worked out to ensure that only vessels genuinely based on our ports and fishing from them could operate within these limits.
We consider this to be a safe and reasonable approach given our existing position and that of the Six, who already possess historic fishing rights of one sort or another round our coast line within the six to 12 mile zone. The really important thing to remember is the base lines agreed in 1964 from which the six-mile limit would be drawn, as this means protection of such important areas as the Minches, Moray Firth, Clyde, Cardigan Bay, Morecambe Bay, Solway Firth and the Wash.
The Conference agreed on procedures for considering this question.
Finally, I drew attention to the need to agree on machinery for the new member countries, if they were to join the Communities, to be closely associated with all aspects of Community development and activity in the period, which could cover a number of months, between the signature of an accession treaty and its entry into force. It is clear that all concerned have an interest in making satisfactory provision for this period, since both existing and prospective members of the Community will wish to ensure that the development of the Community's policies during this period will proceed in a manner acceptable to all.
We confirmed that the next meeting with the Community at Ministerial level would take place on 21st to 22nd June.
Mr. Harold Lever: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that while we welcome his reserving the fisheries problem we will treat this as a fairly interim statement and will expect a full report to the House on the further details. In the meantime, will he keep in mind the exchanges yesterday on the question of the six and 12 miles limits as relevant to this problem?
So far as the sterling area is concerned, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has eventually got round to conceding that this will have to be discussed and cleared up before the negotiations can be put out of the way. Though he has done this belatedly, there is very little in his statement which appears to give information to the House about what he really has in mind. May I now ask him what are the suggestions referred to in his statement which he had made about the way in which the matter should be handled and in relation to which the Community took note of his statement with satisfaction? Could the House know what the suggestions were so that it can express its satisfaction or dissatisfaction?
In particular, too, could he tell us what relevance his statement has about his willingness to undertake "an orderly and gradual run-down of sterling balances"? Does this mean that there will be an annual run-down or a rundown at regular intervals in the sterling balances? If so, how does he reconcile that with the condition which he makes that these matters should be dealt with in a way which would "not impose an unacceptable burden on our own resources and balance of payments"? Could we have those points cleared up?
Mr. Rippon: As far as the fisheries policy is concerned, I will, of course, report further in the light of the progress we make in the negotiations.
I think that what I have said about sterling is clear and in line with what we have said before. We have no preconceived ideas. All these matters are for discussion after our accession in the light of developments.
Mr. Albu: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the members of the Six recognise that a reserve currency can be a considerable burden and should be more widely shared? Can

1047
he say whether any time limit was discussed for the running down of sterling balances?
Mr. Rippon: No—none of these matters.
Mr. William Clark: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a growing feeling in the country that the negotiations are becoming rather meaningless? Is he aware that public opinion is that the Government, at the end of the day, intend to recommend entry? Would it not be better for the Government to reaffirm clearly to the country that in no circumstances will they recommend entry unless it is to the advantage of this country?
Mr. Rippon: We certainly would not recommend entry unless it was to the advantage of this country. That has been the purpose of both this Government and the last in the negotiations. My hon. Friend is being less than fair on this. There would have been great criticism in the House if I had not been able to make the firm and clear statement I have made today.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I have three questions. The first concerns sugar. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the Community accepted the statement which he made to the Commonwealth countries concerned, which accepted it in turn? If not, does he agree that at the conference with the Commonwealth countries there was a bilateral British Government assurance? Will he tell us whether he interprets this as meaning that if the Six do not deliver on the lines expected and hoped for the British Government will then insist on maintaining the safeguards under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?
Secondly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has no doubt read the article in the Guardian this morning about steel. Can he repudiate that article and give an assurance that the Community has not demanded that there should be no further expansion or modernisation of the assets and scale of the British Steel Corporation? If there have been statements of this kind, will he tell us when he last informed the House about them?
Thirdly, there is the question of sterling. The right hon. and learned
1048
Gentleman has said very little about this, although the Press has had a great deal of comment—I do not know whether it arose from briefing in Brussels by the Six or whether through introspection. The suggestion has been made that what is in the minds of the Six, if not in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind, is that there should be a funding of our formidable sterling balances which should then be paid off over a period of years out of our surpluses. If that is so, would not this place a heavy burden on our balance of payments, even forcing deflationary policies over the years? Will he confirm that this has not been discussed or put forward as a means of reaching agreement? If he has not got an idea in his head—to use his phrase—will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a statement to the House next week?
Mr. Rippon: As I promised the Commonwealth Sugar Conference, I communicated the text of the communiqué to the Community and they received it. That was all that was necessary. The Six have given a very firm assurance.
I have not read the article about steel in The Guardian today. It is news to me.
That aspect of the quesion of sterling did not arise, and if the right hon. Gentleman has any questions about what may happen in future or in the light of developments, these are really for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my last two questions? Obviously he has not had time to read the article in The Guardian. Will he do so and make a statement as to whether these matters have been discussed with him and with the Coal and Steel Community and whether any commitments have been asked for or given, and, if so, why the House has not been told in earlier reports? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is able to give a total repudiation of the story, which seems to have some degree of authenticity on the face of it, we will naturally accept his assurance. These are statements referring to alleged discussions between him and the Community.

1049
On the question of sterling, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must have been consulted in this matter, will make a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity?
Mr. Rippon: I have said that there are matters for my right hon. Friend which he will deal with. My statement today has dealt simply with how we have handled the matter in the negotiations and I have said that we have not been tied down in this way in the negotiations. I have not read the article, which is news to me. I have given no commitment of that kind. When dealing with the question of arrangements with the Coal and Steel Community, I will, of course, report to the House.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is in a difficult position. So many right hon. and hon. Members wish to ask supplementary questions. I intend to give preference to those I did not call on the occasions of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's last statement and of the Prime Minister's statement a week later. I may make mistakes but I will do my best.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us what circumstances have altered since 1964, when the then Conservative Government put on a 12-mile fishing limit? Secondly, can he say why it is that he will not say categorically, either here or in Brussels, that the whole of the E.E.C. fishing policy is unacceptable to our inshore fishing industry? Will not he say now that we must get the terms negotiated before and not after entry?
Mr. Rippon: I ask my hon. Friend to await the outcome of our discussions at the next meeting. I do not think that anyone has said necessarily that the whole fisheries policy is unacceptable. In so far as it relates to marketing or conservation, there may be parts that we welcome and that are more in line with our own practice in any event. There has been some misunderstanding about conditions within the Six in relation to the 12-mile limit. I do not think that we can ask for an actual improvement in our present position. When we introduced the 12-mile limit,
1050
it had to do with historical rights. We would not envisage this being extended.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am lost in wonderment and admiration at the way he is embarking on this act of faith? Does not his vague statement, about satisfactory arrangements, decisions on safeguards, reserving Britain's position on one important issue after the other, really mean that he is saying to the British people, "Let us jump into the water blindfold, boys, and hope that it is not too cold or too deep"?
Mr. Rippon: It is not like that at all. What is important to the House and the country is that we should not be committed to policies on which we may wish to express a view until we are a member. When we are a member, all these problems can be dealt with by us as a member. Therefore, there will be no commitment of any kind as far as we are concerned in respect of matters which are for discussion and decision after entry.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Too late.
Mr. Hordern: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say more about the sterling balances? Will he say precisely what he means by a gradual, orderly rundown of the sterling balances within the context of economic and monetary integration, which, as he knows, the E.E.C. is at present planning to do by 1980? Is it supposed that the sterling balances should be reduced by a strict timetable by that date? Will he also undertake to include in the White Paper, which we understand to be forthcoming, reference to the procedure by which the sterling balances will be dealt with?
Mr. Rippon: No particular procedure has been laid down or commitment of that kind made. Whatever is done will be done in relation to the three criteria to which I referred in my statement. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement of 20th May, all these questions really arise within the context of co-ordination of policies after our entry.
Mr. Prentice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he communicated to the Six the text of the agreement reached with the Commonwealth leaders on sugar. Will he explain

1051
the significance of the fact that he did not even attempt to get the Six to accept that interpretation?
Mr. Rippon: What I did was to tell the Community what had happened, as I explained at my last meeting I would do after consultation with the Commonwealth sugar producing countries. I communicated the results to the Six and circulated the text. Part of the statement made by the conference which I had with Commonwealth Governments said:
"The British Government and other Commonwealth Governments participating regard this offer as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fair terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in respect of all its existing developing member countries. The developing Commonwealth countries will continue to plan their future production on this basis."
That is what I told the Community.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: As some doubt has been cast by some hon. Members opposite on the authenticity and validity of the Community's endorsement of what my right hon. and learned Friend has achieved, would he not agree that it is most important that the House and the country should know that at its special meeting yesterday the European Parliament, jointly with the Assembly of the Council of Europe, agreed that he had made outstanding and very welcome progress? This fact appears to have been completely ignored by the British Press, but it should be known and it is a matter of the greatest encouragement to us all.
Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. Whatever view people may take of these negotiations as a whole, I would have thought that no hon. Member would not welcome the firm safeguards for the developing countries of the Commonwealth for what they have already, and also the safeguards, which those countries warmly welcome, of association or trade agreements which will give them further opportunities to raise their standards of living by access to a market of 300 million people.
Mr. John Mendelson: With reference to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reading into the record the agreement that he reached with the developing countries' representatives, will he now report to the House that shortly afterwards, after
1052
it had been said by the representatives of the Six that they noted what he said, a spokesman for the Commission said that this, of course, was binding on the British Government only? He has not yet reported that to the House today.
Secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now accept that the French Government, as authoritatively reported from Paris, have already informed the other Five that in the discussion on New Zealand's position on 22nd June they intend to insist that they will allow an extension of the transitional period by one or at the most two years only on condition that the United Kingdom Government bind themselves to no further expansion of the market for New Zealand in this country after the seven years are over? Will he now give a categorical assurance that in no circumstances will he accept these views when they are put to him on 22nd June?
Mr. Rippon: As usual, the hon. Gentleman's sources of information are carefully and inaccurately selected.
Mr. Biffen: In relation to what my right hon. and learned Friend said about progress towards monetary union, could he say whether he made it clear to our prospective partners in the discussions at Brussels that we retain for ourselves the option of floating sterling should that be thought desirable?
Mr. Rippon: That did not arise at all.
Mr. Milne: Is Britain's chief negotiator aware that from his travels to Luxembourg and Brussels he has probably brought back less than he would have done by staying at home? Two points need to be clarified. They are the question of Commonwealth sugar and the question of the agreement with the Community negotiators on this matter. Did negotiations take place, or did he report that he had got the Commonwealth countries to accept his interpretation of the agreement? Is it not the case that he promised us at the outset of the negotiations that there would be safeguards and guarantees but that on each occasion he has reported from Brussels there has been evidence of neither?
Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman's opening sentence indicates that he does

1053
not approach this matter in a wholly unbiassed way. I cannot help it if he persistently refuses to accept the firm assurances of the Community reached in negotiations and endorsed by the developing countries which are most concerned when he is not.
Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for the improved atmosphere of confidence and trust which is evident in the negotiations which owes a great deal to the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the French President and to my right hon. and learned Friend's efforts in Brussels? Is he satisfied that the Six countries understand how important it is from the point of view of public opinion in Britain that there should be a satisfactory and fair solution of the remaining problems?
Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said nothing about regional policy, and I cannot recall him saying anything significant about it on an earlier occasion. May we take it that this is yet another of his throw-away lines?
Mr. Rippon: No. Obviously the hon. and learned Gentleman has not read what has been said on earlier occasions.
Mr. Warren: While I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on the progress concerning fishing, may I ask him to take the negotiation discussions a stage further by trying to get the Common Market countries to recognise that we have about a six-year lead in conservation in fishing in this country and that this is something to which they should accede rather than that we should try to trade with them?
Mr. Rippon: We shall in no circumstances change our conservation policy.
Mr. Kelley: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that there has been no agreement to accept the ratio production quotas on steel and coal? Will he tell the House exactly what is implied for steel and coal in the agreement that has been reached?
Mr. Rippon: Agreement on our accession to the European Coal and Steel
1054
Community has not been reached. I will report to the House when it has.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not only a couple of months since the Government said that the position of sterling formed no part of the negotiations? Why, then, since the Elysée meeting have we suddenly come to this abject and humiliating surrender? Have the Government reached the point of commitment when no price is too high to pay and every broken-winded collapse is represented as a major break-through.
Mr. Rippon: I think that on reflection, much as he may regret it, my hon. and learned Friend will find that that is not true. Our position has been fully safeguarded in the matters with which I have been dealing. We have always made it clear that there were certain matters which arose in the context of the negotiations, and there were other matters concerning sterling which were for discussion, and we have had some discussion.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I pursue the matter of sterling? Clearly an important change in the rôle of sterling was envisaged. I believe that this can well be very beneficial to this country and, on the whole, may even be more welcome to many of my hon. Friends, whatever their view about the E.E.C., than perhaps to some hon. Members opposite. But what he does, I regret to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] If the House will allow me to continue for a moment. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman does. I regret to say, is to cloak the matter in a combination of carelessness and mysteriousness, I am sure by accident. I therefore hope that he and his right hon. Friends will consider very carefully—and this should be kept separate from the negotiations as such—whether a fuller statement should be made to the House by him, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister, on how they foresee the future of sterling in the new circumstances?
Mr. Rippon: I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not being difficult. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties in this matter. I hope that he will accept that if I have not made the matter clear it was by accident. It is a

1055
difficult and complex subject which we discussed on 20th and 21st January and on which successive Chancellors of the Exchequer have expressed opinions. All I can say today—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand this—is what happened in Brussels and that we have no preconceived ideas on this matter. If further details about the handling of these matters in future in the light of what developments may take place can be given, that is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House do not share the atavistic views of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) on the subject of sterling and congratulate him on the admirable settlements he has reached on sterling and sugar? However, is he aware that it is not altogether easy to understand why the Foreign Office chose to abandon the 12-mile fisheries limit before the negotiations were even joined? Does he agree that the fisheries position announced by the Foreign Office spokesman last week is the extreme limit of negotiation on this point?
Mr. Rippon: I think that we have made our position clear. As I explained, there never was an absolute right to a 12-mile limit because of the historic rights. But it will be understood when the matter is finally dealt with that we have had that point very much in mind and that we intend to seek arrangements which will safeguard the inshore fishing interests.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the suspicion is beginning to form in many minds that when he is unable to obtain what he asks for in the negotiations the tactic is that a form of words is agreed and it is said that the matter will be settled after the event, which means that we have conceded the point before the event? Is not this bound to cause considerable dissatisfaction on both sides of the House? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House will want something very different before he comes before us with his White Paper?
Mr. Rippon: It means the exact opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Acknowledging what my right hon. and learned Friend has endeavoured to do for what he described as the 3 million Europeans in New Zealand, may I ask him whether the position of Australia and Canada has been considered? Is it simply proposed immediately to substitute Community preference for Commonwealth preference, or would an enlarged Community make special trade arrangements with these other European countries?
Mr. Rippon: There has been a lot of discussion on matters which affect Canada and Australia, particularly in the context of the import of raw materials from Canada and Australia. Australia is very much affected by the agreement announced today on the subject of alumina. On other matters, we have, in the context of the transitional arrangements for agriculture, agreed with the Community that if difficulties should arise there is machinery for dealing with them. Concerning third country suppliers, we have been concerned to safeguard the interests of traditional suppliers, notably those to which my hon. Friend has referred—Canada and Australia.
Mr. David Clark: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate what guarantee he can offer the Australian sugar producers, 20 per cent. of whose production is exported to this country, after 1974?
Mr. Rippon: There was special reference to Australia in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, with different arrangements for dealing with the quota of sugar from Australia. We have fully preserved the contractual rights of Australia until 1974, and thereafter consideration will have to be given to the position in the light of the transitional arrangements. The Commonwealth Sugar Conference recorded what would be our view—that regard will have to be paid to the renegotiation of the International Sugar Agreement, which runs out in 1973.
Sir F. Bennett: Reverting, without apology, to the question of fisheries, I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can confirm one thing. I think that most of us accept that we cannot possibly do better than get agreement on the six to twelve mile limit. Can my right hon. and learned Friend say

1057
categorically that we shall not go below the six-mile limit? If he can, I think that he would put a lot of minds at rest. Secondly, on another topic about which I asked him on a previous occasion when he promised to say something the next time he spoke in the House, can he say something about the Channel Islands, which are not represented in the House but which deserve to have their interests aired here?
Mr. Rippon: We have always accepted that the question of the Channel Islands will have to be raised. I will report to the House in due course. I have been in consultation with the interests concerned from time to time. I think that I have made it clear that we put forward our position on fisheries on the basis of the position today.
Dr. Gilbert: In the light of the Prime Minister's assurance that the conclusion of the negotiations would not result in the reintroduction of trade barriers anywhere in Europe, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for the benefit of the House, make a comparison concerning the position of the E.F.T.A. countries which are not parties to the present negotiations and which would, if no trade barriers are raised, presumably have free access to the industrial markets of the Community and vice versa? What advantages might accrue to this country over and above those which would accrue to the E.F.T.A. countries which are not parties to the negotiations? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman compare that with the costs which we are incurring when they are getting these benefits for nothing?
Mr. Rippon: That is not a correct statement of the position. I reported to the House on 17th May, not only about my meeting with the Council of Ministers in Brussels but about my subsequent meeting with the E.F.T.A. Ministers in Reykjavik, where they all expressed satisfaction with the progress we were making in the negotiations. We reached agreement about how we should proceed together. Some of us are working for full membership, some for various forms of association in the context of neutrality. All these things are going forward, and we are in very close consultation.
Mr. John E. B. Hill: Looking forward to the next Ministerial meeting, can my
1058
right hon. and learned Friend say to what extent the French Government, together with the other members of the Six, have come to accept that New Zealand is a European country in the Southern Hemisphere and that therefore a European and lasting solution is required for what is a European problem?
Mr. Rippon: We have lost no opportunity of explaining the position of New Zealand and the importance of the problems which we have to consider. The Community has accepted that New Zealand is a special case for which special solutions must be found.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the deeply anguished statement by the Prime Minister of Queensland about the progress of the negotiations? Does he agree that it is disquieting that there should be a deep sense of impending betrayal among so many representative Australians? Does he agree that we must safeguard our trade with Australia, as with other countries, which he has not mentioned in the negotiations?
Mr. Rippon: When I visited Australia I found no deep sense of impending betrayal. We indicated then the way in which we would seek to safeguard Australian interests, and that is the policy which I have consistently pursued.
Mr. Clark Hutchison: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any conversations with the Australian and other Commonwealth Governments on the question of sterling? Secondly, the Conservative position was that we would look after Commonwealth interests, and it is not good enough to say that Queensland sugar can look after itself after 1974.
Mr. Rippon: It has always been made clear that, whenever the interests of sterling area countries are affected, they will be consulted.
Mr. Jay: If the Minister really believes that the Six accept his interpretation of the sugar agreement, why did he not ask them to confirm this?
Mr. Rippon: It would have been rather an insult—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—to ask them to put a gloss on a firm assurance that we have all understood and which is part of the negotiation proper. Otherwise, one would never end putting

1059
up various propositions which people would ask one to interpret.
Mr. Sandys: Following upon a point raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), is it not a fact that the large sterling balances which have exposed the £ to abnormal international speculation have over the years proved quite as much a liability as an asset? Is it not, therefore, quite apart from the Common Market negotiations, to our advantage to consider the gradual phasing out of the reserve rôle of sterling?
Mr. Rippon: That is certainly a view which has been advanced on both sides of the House from time to time.
Mr. W. T. Price: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's latest report is a fair indication of what the House might expect to emerge as the final package deal, would it not be better if he stayed at home in future? Has he become so punch drunk by his many visits to Europe in recent months as to become insensitive to the deep and growing concern on both sides of this honourable House that this policy is mainly one of creep, crawl and surrender? Not only are there sufficient of us in this House to make this policy unacceptable, but outside the House there are millions of our fellow citizens who will never be ridden by this package deal which the Government have in mind.
Mr. Rippon: I have the impression that the hon. Gentleman would say that whatever statement I made to the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to read the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on 2nd May, 1967, on which these negotiations are based.
Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that he owes a duty to the House to give the details of what he offered on sterling? In particular, has he agreed to surrender the privileged position of Australia and New Zealand in raising money on the London market, and if so, from what date?
Mr. Rippon: No, Sir, we did not discuss details of this kind. I have not misled the House in any way. In my statement on the future of sterling I made it clear in the context of what I said
1060
that these will all be matters for discussion after our entry and in the context of progress towards co-ordination of our policies in the longer term.
Mr. Shore: Among all the mysteries of the afternoon, is it not at least clear that the orderly and progressive rundown of the sterling balances to which the Minister referred must entail an additional burden on the balance of payments on top of all the other burdens which we already know will be heaped? Secondly, is it not clear that the Minister has again accepted the French view that the continuation of the sterling system and the sterling obligations is not compatible with the French view of a European Europe? Finally, will he give an assurance that no secret agreements have been entered into between the Prime Minister and the President, or whoever it may be, concerning the rate at which we might be asked to run down the sterling balances?
Mr. Rippon: There has been no agreement of a secret nature of any kind. I have made it clear that no method has been suggested for the run-down of the sterling balances and that this is a matter for discussion after accession. I remind the House that we have also made it clear that three conditions would need to be satisfied even then. The first is that any proposal would have to be acceptable to official holders of sterling who would need an alternative reserve asset; secondly, it should not impose an unacceptable burden on our resources and balance of payments; and thirdly, it should promote stability of the international monetary system. Our view is still the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke at Guildhall on 29th July last year.
"Two years ago I made it clear that we were prepared to discuss—it was indeed in Luxembourg—to discuss and of course in a meaningful sense, progress in currency matters, not excluding as an ultimate aim a common European currency."
That may be very far in the future, but all these matters will be discussed after accession in the context of what progress we are able to make towards economic and monetary union.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has twice quoted me. I do not recall saying either at

1061
Guildhall or anywhere else that we would discuss all these matters after entry. While the right hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly given the impression to the House that nothing whatsoever has been agreed about sterling, is he quite sure that the French have the same idea?
Mr. Rippon: Yes, Sir. I do not suppose that there is any difference of opinion about this. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to the House, a clear understanding was reached between himself and President Pompidou. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must understand that the position I have reserved for us in dealing with these matters after entry must be much stronger than anything we could do before entry.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, no doubt through my own fault, misunderstood me. I was not referring to the statement made by the French after the talks at the Elysée; I was talking about the categorical statement by the French Minister of Finance after the Luxembourg talks. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that what he has told the House today is 100 per cent. four square with what the French Minister of Finance gave as his understanding about sterling?
Mr. Rippon: We were clear in our understanding in Luxembourg, that is certain; I do not know what the French Minister may have said thereafter.
The following are the Communiqué and the details of the treatment of alumina:
Communiqué issued after consultations with the developing member countries of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, 2nd-3rd June.
Representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Antigua, Barbados, Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, British Honduras, and of the East African Community and the Caribbean Free Trade Association met at Lancaster House from 2nd to 3rd June, 1971. In the light of consultations that took place, Commonwealth Ministers agreed on the following statement:
"The Governments represented expressed their satisfaction at the Community's readiness to offer the Governments concerned a choice of forms of association or a trading agreement; and also at the readiness to recognise the United Kingdom's contractual commitments to
1062
all the C.S.A. member countries up to the end of 1974.
"They noted that, in negotiations with the enlarged Community on association or trading agreements, it would be open to the Governments concerned to act individually or collectively. They further noted that the negotiations were due to be concluded by 1975, and that pending conclusion their existing patterns of trade with the United Kingdom would be maintained.
"There was a full discussion of the Community's offer made on sugar after 1974. The British Delegation assured other delegations that the Community's proposals constituted a specific and moral commitment by the enlarged Community, of which the United Kingdom would be a part. The British Government and other Commonwealth Governments participating regard this offer as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fair terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in respect of all its existing developing member countries. The developing Commonwealth countries will continue to plan their future on this basis."
On this basis, Commonwealth Ministers agreed to accept the Community's proposal and stated that they would proceed accordingly, it being further agreed that Mr. Rippon would so inform the Council of Ministers of the European Community at their forthcoming Ministerial meeting with the United Kingdom, and would communicate to the Community the text of the agreed statement.
In the course of the meeting, Mr. Rippon gave the assurance that it would be the firm policy of the British Government to ensure that the proposall of the Community would be implemented in accordance with the statement recorded above in the event of the United Kingdom joining the European Community.
While recognising that the present meeting was concerned with the arrangements to apply to the developing Commonwealth sugar producers after Britain's entry into an enlarged Community, the Government Representatives stressed the importance of a continuing and viable international sugar agreement to all sugar producing countries. They expressed the hope that the enlarged Community would participate actively to this end.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  THE TARIFF TREATMENT OF ALUMIN
  At the Ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on 7th June the Community agreed to the following arrangement on alumina. The Common External Tariff on alumina would be suspended from its current level of 8·8 per cent. to 5·5 per cent. Imports of alumina into the United Kingdom would be free of duty until 1st January 1976, would as from that date pay half the suspended rate, and would from 1st July 1977 pay the full 5·5 per cent. rate. But it has been recognised that in the particular circumstances of the aluminium industry we should be able at any time after entry to apply in advance for a duty free Community tariff quota for the period after 1st January 1976.

  NEW MEMBERS
  The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made the Affirmation required by Law:
  Richard Charles Mitchell, Esquire Member for Southampton, Itchen.
  Edmund Ian Marshall, Esquire, Member for Goole.
  Terence Anthony Gordon Davis, Member for Bromsgrove.

COMPANIES
4.20 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require certain companies to appoint non-executive directors; to require such directors jointly to present independent annual reports to the shareholders; and for purposes connected therewith.
When I introduced a Companies Bill in 1969 the House was good enough to give it a Second Reading and it completed the Committee stage. The object of the Bill was to bring into company law for the first time the expression "management audit". Since 1969 the need for the regular conduct of managements audits has become more apparent and more urgent.
The object of the Bill I am seeking the leave of the House to introduce is to give legal expression to the phrase "nonexecutive director" and to confer upon the non-executive director a specific function. The intention of my last Bill and of this Bill is the same; namely, to give shareholders a practical means of securing competent independent supervision of the management and the way in which their assets are being employed.
My suggestion is that large companies should have not fewer than three non-executive directors. The Bill is devised to apply to the thousand or so largest public companies. It will not define precisely the nature of the report which the non-executive directors must make. My hope is that we may safely leave it to the shareholders themselves, particularly the institutional shareholders, to make known what they expect their non-executive directors to do. The Bill therefore does not seek to increase the area of Government interference in the operation of public companies.
It is topical, and indeed relevant, to point out that the concept of the European company has been receiving study by the Commission in Brussels and that after some years of study the E.E.C. Commission has decided in favour of the adoption of the German system of supervision in which there are two boards, a supervisory board and an executive board. The Commission's report in June, 1970 to

1065
the Council of Ministers specifically recommended that this two-tier system should be adopted. I do not think it is essential for us in Britain to copy the continental system exactly in this respect, but it is possible for us to learn from the way in which German companies are run.
The Bill is not a long one, but it could have useful consequences if it led to a separation of the functions of the non-executive and the executive directors, and to the non-executive directors asserting their influence slightly more positively than they do in many companies at present. If the House is so good as to give me leave to introduce the Bill, I recognise that at this time in the Session it has little chance of completing its stages. Nevertheless, I hope that shareholders, particularly institutional shareholders, and directors, particularly non-executive directors, will take note of the fact that this Bill has been introduced, and that they may follow the course I recommend whether or not there is a legal obligation upon them to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir B. Rhys Williams, Mr. Crouch, Mr. Dodds-Parker, Mr. Emery, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Sir J. Rodgers, Mr. Scott-Hopkins and Dame Joan Vickers.

COMPANIES
Bill to provide for leave to require certain companies to appoint non-executive directors; to require such directors jointly to present independent annual reports to the shareholders; and for purposes connected therewith; presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday, 18th June; and to be printed. [Bill 182.]

INDIA AND EAST PAKISTAN
4.26 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Over the past weeks the feeling of this House and of people in this country has been deeply moved by the shocking events in Pakistan. Partial recovery from the cyclone was being achieved when this new tragedy struck. Now a difficulty faces those who give relief, whether public or private. This time the plight of the innocent is due not to a natural but to a political disaster. Basically peace will not return to East Pakistan until civil government can be restored, and I will return to that matter later. But immediately and urgently the task is to save as many people as possible from the fate which has struck them and from the diseases which threaten them and to get relief where it is needed and quickly.
Therefore, I feel that the priorities are in the following order, and I would not think there is any dispute about this. First, the relief of immediate suffering in East Pakistan and among the millions of refugees in India. Secondly, to be followed very soon—though this is not in the hands of others—by the creation of a political framework within which civil government can be restored and which will give confidence to the majority of the refugees to return home.
On the immediate relief of suffering, while we have assisted the British charities and are ready with help for the Indian Government, our view has been that it is right for the bulk of the aid to go through the United Nations, whether it is to those suffering in East Pakistan or to the refugees who have fled to India. We believe that is the way to mobilise the greatest flow of international resources with the least risk of ulterior political complications. That is also the way to see that aid from many different sources is brought together and is channelled swiftly in the right directions and distributed according to the most pressing needs. That is literally vital in areas where the facilities for distribution are so limited. The United Nations is then our considered choice for the co-ordination of all the relief work.

1067
That machinery is now at work in the present emergency. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is in West Pakistan and his staff is in India working on the refugee problem while the special representative of the Secretary General is now in Dacca assessing the relief that is needed for East Pakistan itself and the problem of getting it to the districts where help is most required.
We all tend to feel in these situations—this has certainly been our experience over the years—that vital days are lost at the beginning of emergencies. Nobody can anticipate the nature of disasters, natural or man-made, but one can foresee and plan for certain needs which are common to all disasters—for example, the provision of medical personnel and medical supplies. I agree that a permanent organisation to cope with disaster relief would be an improvement on our present arrangements. That is why I proposed to the Secretary General of the United Nations last February that something on these lines should be established, and indeed it has been established in embryo form. I hope that the structure can be retained on a permanent basis.
We should guard against our natural impatience which sometimes in our anxiety to improve our machinery leads us to criticise the many devoted people who are now working in this field. These people are inspired by exactly the same feelings as ourselves. We should not overlook the sheer magnitude of the task and problems of setting up an administration to handle relief on this scale in another country.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I express our unstinted admiration for those in India at present who are carrying on in the most appalling and difficult circumstances. Our aim is to help those people to succeed in their task. I will not repeat the statement on Britain's contribution to date which I made yesterday, since it is fresh in the mind of the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and other hon. Members, but I wish to repeat that the aid which we have subscribed was and is all designed to make sure that there should be no shortage of money for the United Nations. They should be enabled to get quickly on to the job and to go right ahead in mobilising the relief
1068
that is required. I hope that by our action and by the action of many others this has been ensured.
The £1 million which we made available right at the start has not yet been drawn down very far. The Government of India, whose efforts to cope with this disaster have been valiant, have spent a large sum of money on relief. They will in a few days be able to tell the India aid consortium how they feel this affects their own needs. I should like to know, before deciding on the figure of our further contribution to the United Nations relief operation, the nature and extent of the aid which the Indian Government feel they will require from the consortium. Meanwhile the United Nations is not immediately short of money, but I would like the House to know that we are ready to do substantially more as soon as we can assess the need and the opportunities unfold.
The same is true of the suffering in East Pakistan. I know it is the clear wish of the House and of the country that there, too, we should do as much as we possibly can. We have been pressing the Pakistan Government to open up the East to an international relief effort, and I have no doubt that U Thant's special representative will be doing the same. As soon as the way is open, we shall make a contribution to this also.
It was the policy of the Pakistan aid consortium, of which we are a member, that the greater part of all our aid to Pakistan should in future be spent in the East. This policy had the support of the Government of Pakistan. We were working together on an ambitious action programme for water and agricultural development which the World Bank prepared last year and which was meant to provide the basis for a sound economy for East Pakistan. That work, of course, has had to be unhappily halted.
We and the other donors are eager to resume work on this programme and to resume it quickly. There are other projects needed by both East and West Pakistan. For such plans, however, there must be one pre-condition: there must be a return to normal civil life, and there must be a restoration of confidence and security for the individual before the work of long term reconstruction and development can continue. I am afraid

1069
that must be one of the penalties of what has happened up to date. That is why we have said we cannot authorise any new aid projects except in the context of a political framework into which to inject them. Projects under way must go on if they can; it would add to the waste and destruction to interrupt them. But until there is an improvement in the political situation we cannot in prudence do more.
I can understand the impatience of those who feel that a new political structure for East Pakistan should already be on the way. We have constantly impressed upon the President and his advisers that this is the only hope for the future of his country. We believe that President Yahya Khan personally desires a return to civil government and is actively working for it. In the last few days he has declared an amnesty for all those except those guilty of murder and has said that he will do everything possible to assist the return of refugees and has set up reception committees to accept any refugees who may return.
While the wounds of civil war are still open the task is one of immense difficulty. Nevertheless a plan must be launched for a new political structure which will attract East Pakistani cooperation and the plan ought to be launched with as little delay as possible.
To compound the problem, which faces everybody in the sub-continent, there has started a new chapter in the long history of tension between Pakistan and India. There are deep emotions and fears and mistrust. We all recognise in this House how necessary is restraint. The Government of India have exercised great restraint and we are certain that this will continue, otherwise the dangers of war between Pakistan and India would be very real and this would convert what is already a tragedy into a catastrophe.
In the eagerness to see a political settlement, it has been suggested that this could be imposed either by a combination of external powers or perhaps through the Security Council. Help can be given if it is requested and I have just told the House how constantly we have been giving advice to the President, which I hope is useful. Influence can certainly be exerted by judicious advice but the plain truth is that the only action to end the tragedy and to reverse the river of refugees is a settlement contributed by,
1070
agreed by, and worked by the Pakistanis themselves. That is why we are so anxious that the President should announce, as soon as he possibly can, a return to a civil administration. That alone will offer hope to the people of East Pakistan.
I think the House will realise, from what I have said, that we mean to give all the help that we can, that our main channel must be the United Nations, that we must wait to see what the Indian Government will require at the meeting of the consortium next week, and that we shall be faced with another request for help to East Pakistan to resettle the people there. At best this will be a continuing process for some time. The flight of the refugees will not be easily arrested. There are the aid consortia meetings for both India and Pakistan, and there is the possible aid, for which we should be preparing now, which may be needed later in the year if accounts of the shortfall in the rice crop in East Pakistan are true. These will all be calls on our resources, apart altogether from the funds that we make available to the United Nations. To all those ends we shall offer help, with all the generosity in our power, as soon as opportunities arise.
4.41 p.m.
Mrs. Judith Hart: I think we are grateful for all that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has said. This is not the first time that we have debated this subject in the House. We debated it about four weeks ago, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have consistently expressed their deep concern about the issue. It is right that we should have a little longer today to debate the subject, because we have reached a point in the depth and scale of this disaster and the suffering involved when there are some things that we would like to probe and question at greater length than is possible by question and answer across the Floor of the House.
We start from the understanding that we are all equally committed in the urgency of our anxiety, and our anxiety is largely that we should be able to feel that we in Britain are doing every possible thing that we can to help effectively. More than that, obviously, we cannot do. Both sides of the House, the public, the voluntary organisations—and I sustain every word that the right hon. Gentleman

1071
said about the effort, work and devotion that they are putting into the present situation—the Press and the television—both of which have been at their most responsible and most effective in informing us all so fully and sharply about the changing situation in East Pakistan and India—are united in their approach to the problem.
I should like, first, to consider the questions of money and of timing. I wonder whether I might briefly go over the events of the last two or three months. We heard, first, in the middle of April about the stream of refugees pouring into East Bengal, and it was in April that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann) visited refugee camps and brought back their reports, and since then others have been there. It was in April that the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were ready to play a part in any international relief effort that was mounted. It was also in April that we began to be told of the enormous cost to India of caring for the refugees. It is a cost which the United Nations now estimates at more than £60 million in the next six months alone.
By the middle of May we heard from the Government of their first token amount of help—it was expressed as a token amount—of £18,000 to the charities to help them fly out supplies. By the end of May we heard about the sum of £1 million being contributed to the United Nations Relief Fund. It is now almost mid-June, and we know that up to £1 million more help has been provided by the Government by way of food supplies, transport, and covering the cost of medical supplies from charitable organisations, but we read yesterday and today that there is a grave danger that Britain is not going to be able to supply much more of the vaccine that is urgently needed to check the cholera because the manufacturers have used up most of their stocks.
There have been massive appeals for public contributions, but we see a certain lack not of effort but of the co-ordination of effort. For example, one reads today that the World Health Organisation in Geneva is not aware in any sort of detail of what the British charities are
1072
sending to help in the relief effort, which makes it difficult for the W.H.O. to coordinate world activities. Two months after the events I think we are entitled to say that, as is so often the case, and as the right hon. Gentleman is fully aware, and has said, there has been this unendurable delay before things have really begun to swing into action.
The right hon. Gentleman says that more money will be made available, that of course the effort is not going to be limited by lack of money. I know that the right hon. Gentleman intends that the Government shall make whatever contribution is necessary to make the British effort—private and official—effective but at the same time Oxfam is reported to have said that it has spent about £140,000 since early May of which more than half has not been covered by Government help with the cost of medical supplies, and the same is probably true of the other voluntary organisations.
It is the voluntary bodies which have the expertise, the skill, the knowledge and the experience of dealing with this kind of international disaster, and they can do a superb job, but they must not for one moment feel limited in any effort that they can make by having even a fraction of anxiety about who will pay the bill at the end of the day. Moreover, it would be wise if Ministers were to meet these voluntary bodies to compare notes, to find answers to the problems that they raise, and to co-ordinate information about what is being done.
The right hon. Gentleman says that more money can be provided; but I put it to him, with respect, that it would be better if he were now to declare—as it were, pledge—a much more generous sum which can be drawn upon as needs arise, in order, first, to remove all anxiety in the public mind that money is in any way a limiting factor and, secondly, to make sure that none of the voluntary organisations feels itself handicapped by any consideration of money.
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that just over a year ago, in all the agony of the Nigerian-Biafran relief operation, that is what was done. A sum of £5 million was made available, with more to come if it was needed. This meant that the money was available at the moment that relief was possible, at the beginning of the exercise.
Mr. Harold Wilson: On the Tuesday.
Mrs. Hart: Yes. It meant that the voluntary organisations never for a moment needed to worry about money, and the public, too, knew that there need be no anxiety on that score. If at the end of the day money is to be forthcoming from the Government, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that that would be a better way of proceeding, as it would give a great deal of reassurance to many people.
I suggest, too, that the pledge which the right hon. Gentleman makes should cover an increased contribution now to the United Nations Fund. We hear that the United States is providing £7 million, but I think it was said this morning that the figure has reached about £13 million. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is nowhere near measuring up to the economic impact upon India of the £60 million, at the minimum, that we know it will cost over the next six months. As a demonstration of the depth of our common concern, and as an example to encourage much more massive contributions from other countries, I think it would be wiser to make a further pledge now of additional aid to the United Nations, rather than to wait and let it dribble out bit by bit over a period of time, when it will be less effective in the impact that it can have on other people and in the reassurance that it can give.
As we look to the future, again, on the question of relief, I was much disturbed to hear that Dr. Boerha, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, had said on Monday that he saw no prospect of the F.A.O. being able to find enough to meet a prospective famine. This is an immensely serious thing to say, and I hope very much that when he answers the debate the Minister for Overseas Development will be able to tell us what steps the F.A.O. is taking in the matter, what steps member countries are being asked to take, and what initiative Britain will take to ensure that having overcome cholera and the immediate problems of finding somewhere for the four or five million refugees, we do not then find that we have another disaster—one of famine—which, despite the forewarning, we are not ready to meet. I hope that we may
1074
have some reassurance about energetic steps being taken on this front.
I now turn to the question of aid and the need for a political solution. The right hon. Gentleman has emphasised yesterday and today that the cause of the whole problem is man-made. He repeated it again this afternoon. He said yesterday that the Pakistan Army was using measures to suppress the population which were intolerable to them, that this had caused the fear and the refugee problem and the disaster. All of it—cholera, death, hunger, political tension, danger to peace—is the product of man's inhumanity to man in Pakistan.
What we are asking to be reassured about—the right hon. Gentleman has given us some reassurance on it this afternoon—is that we are using our own maximum influence to get a democratic political settlement. As the right hon. Gentleman said—I was glad to hear him say it—there must be a return to normal civil life, confidence and security of the individual.
I am sure that in every possible diplomatic way the right hon. Gentleman is using all his influence in this direction. I am equally certain that he is right in what he said this afternoon about any further aid to Pakistan. He will recognise, as the House will recognise, that whatever is done about further aid to Pakistan is done or is not done against a background of a serious and even further deteriorating economic crisis in Pakistan.
I do not want to go into detail on this—I said it, as did others of my hon. Friends, in the House three weeks ago—but there is a desperate shortage of foreign exchange, a need for the rescheduling of debts. There is the appeal made by Pakistan for emergency credit to the World Bank, as a result of which the World Bank apparently said, "No, not at the moment; we have to report, look and see what is happening." The Bank has had its team in Pakistan, and this team will be reporting to the aid consortium meeting on the 21st of this month.
The essential point we have to grasp is that in a situation of this kind aid cannot be neutral, if it is continued normally. If further pledges on project aid

1075
were to be made at the consortium meeting in the absence of a return to normal civil life, this would be providing assistance—this is perhaps particularly true of any emergency credit which is given—to pay for the war, a war whose consequences we are now seeing.
So we must recognise that development, in its true sense, cannot occur unless in these conditions. It demands a secure base of confidence; it cannot be administered in a situation which is, in effect, one of guerrilla warfare coming from villages in Pakistan. I support the right hon. Gentleman in his belief that there must be no question of further aid, other than money for relief operations, until there obtain conditions of peace, normal civil life, confidence and security.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a potential danger to peace, and I was glad to hear him say this. Clearly, none of us can see this any longer as an internal conflict in Pakistan. It has spilled over the borders of Pakistan. There is now, we read to our distress this morning, some evidence of clashes within India. Some time ago it was reported that there had been a confrontation of Indian and Pakistani troops along the border. Mrs. Gandhi is under heavy pressure from some in India on the question.
I should like to quote something which one of the most superb of the correspondents reporting from India has told us. Peter Hazelhurst said in The Times as long ago as 27th May:
"For the present the world can be thankful for the forbearance and wisdom of the Nehru family."
The right hon. Gentleman talked of the Indian restraint.
"So far India has, at a tremendous cost to her economy, exercised great restraint and has not been tempted to march into East Pakistan to restore order.
The temptation is certainly great, but Mrs. Gandhi, the Prime Minister, knows that if she is forced to take the ultimate step she could engulf the whole of South Asia and perhaps the great powers in war.
China would certainly come to Pakistan's aid if India marched into East Bengal and this would immediately bring in Russia as India's main ally."
I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that there now exists a very real threat to international peace. The right hon.
1076
Gentleman said yesterday, in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury, that he would be prepared to discuss this with the Indian Foreign Minister when he comes next week and to discuss the question of raising the issue in the Security Council. Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman said that any question of raising the matter in the Security Council would be for India or Pakistan, but I am sure he recognises that, against the historical background here, it is impossible that India herself could raise this issue. I hope he will give further consideration to this. The international community would be unwise to ignore the tension that is constituting a very real danger to peace in terms of the consequences which could flow if the worst should happen.
Finally, one word about the longer-term issue of international machinery to deal with disasters. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has told us about his memorandum to U Thant on this question, which will be discussed, no doubt with other views from other countries, by the Economic and Social Council in July. I must tell him with respect, that I do not think that his proposals go far enough.
First of all, the right hon. Gentleman proposes, in his paper, that only natural disasters should be covered. He says that, perhaps later, the proposal can be extended to cover man-made disasters. In the light of this situation, and in the light of the Nigeria-Biafra situation, we are bound to recognise that some of the worst human tragedies are man-made, as distinct from being due to natural disasters. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this point, and to consider whether, before the E.C.O.S.O.C. meeting in July, he would not amend his proposal so that it does cover man-made as well as natural disasters.
Second, he thinks a special fund of the U.N. is not needed for this kind of purpose; but, given the time gap from the mid-April influx of refugees to the mid-June offers of money which are now being received at the U.N., I hope he will reconsider this. The existing working capital of the U.N. which can be drawn off for emergency aid is about £60,000. That is not enough to operate the running concern of relief, and it is not good enough

1077
to have to wait until the contributions come in, which inevitably takes a good deal of time when member countries have to respond to an appeal. So, again, he should be suggesting that a special fund be set up, or, otherwise, that the capital fund which can be drawn on should be considerably enlarged for this purpose. Either would do.
Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman proposes a disaster relief co-ordinator, with a small staff and a committee, but he does not propose that there should be stockpiles other than those which individual nations might individually choose to accumulate. He does not ask that the disaster relief agency should itself have stockpiles, or should itself internationally earmark supplies or transport or personnel, all of which are essential to avoid delay. To sum up, the right hon. Gentleman's proposals are the beginning, but they go nowhere near far enough to meet the kind of frustrations that we have seen in our experiences of disasters.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will, of course, consider any points and suggestions that the right hon. Lady makes. If an organisation of this kind is set up, it will, I take it, study these matters and recommend what it wants, so that I do not in the least wash out the possibility of stockpiles and so on.
Mrs. Hart: I am glad to hear that, but the difficulty is that in his Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman seems rather specific on these matters. Perhaps he should look at the Memorandum again to see whether he should give greater latitude in the consideration of these issues.
Clearly, whatever we do about long-term plans cannot reduce the enormity of this tragedy. The least we can do, and all we can do now, is to be sure that we are doing enough and are organising what we are doing as effectively as possible, including the bringing to bear of the maximum pressure to restore decent conditions in Pakistan.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I hope that in the course of the debate my hon. Friends will take the opportunity to raise additional points that they may have and press some of those that we have already made.
5.1 p.m.
Mr. David Lane: I am glad of this opportunity to voice briefly the horror and concern that many of my constituents feel. I believe the great majority of the public welcome and approve the leading part which the Government have played in mobilising international effort through the United Nations.
In my constituency there has been an immediate response, both by voluntary organisations and by the public, to the appeals for funds and other help. I am certain that there will be wide support in the country for whatever further initiatives and measures the Government may be able to take, even if the eventual cost to Britain is many millions of £s.
Many hon. Members will have received anguished letters from their constituents. I applaud everything my right hon. Friend has said, both inside and outside the House, in the last few days, but we are all conscious that no words of ours here can match the enormity of the crisis in Bengal. I quote briefly from a letter from a woman constituent last week:
"For God's sake please try and get the Government to do something more positive about East Pakistan",
and she enclosed one of the latest horrific newspaper reports.
Reflecting on the reactions from members of the public, we may sometimes feel that our imperial instincts die hard. Many people still seem inclined to think that over large areas of the world Britain is in some way responsible for everything that happens and can put everything right. This may be laudable, but it leads to a great deal of frustration.
There is a strong belief, understandably and rightly held, that we have a special responsibility to do more than our share in helping crises of this kind which affect Commonwealth countries, and this, too, is a relic of the imperial feeling of 50 or 100 years ago. But, in addition, there is today more than ever before a sense of world community in such situations.
Now, with instant communications and the immediacy of our involvement, we are seeing the emergence of a world public opinion, and I regard this as one of the most hopeful signs of our time. It is sad that there is no corresponding

1079
diminution of what the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) called man's inhumanity to man. Nevertheless, we can feel some optimism in view of this new emergence of world public opinion.
Perhaps this has already exercised some deterrent on the outbreak of wars, large and small. I hope that it will increasingly prove to be also a deterrent to Governments who may be minded to act in their internal affairs in a way grossly offensive to world opinion at large.
Our primary concern today, as the Order Paper shows, is relief. In other words, humanity is overshadowing politics. Yet we cannot forget the events which have led up to this situation, for which the Pakistan Government will always carry a heavy responsibility.
Frankly, we in Britain should hesitate before lecturing other countries about democracy or communal harmony as long as we have the problem of Northern Irleand unsolved in our midst. However, so far as Pakistan is concerned, we are surely entitled to speak bluntly as an ally, as a fellow-member of the Commonwealth and as a major provider of international aid.
We should leave the Pakistan Government in no doubt about the revulsion of feeling in Britain, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend both yesterday and today stressed the many representations which he has already made to the Pakistan Government and the emphasis which he is putting on the need for a political settlement and for a democratic framework before further long-term aid plans can be worked out.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend implicitly saying in his condemnation of the Pakistan Government that he is prepared to see a friendly country, with which we are doubly allied, fall apart, thanks to the efforts of certain secessionist elements in that country? Does he accept that as we brought that nation to birth, we should not stand idly by and allow that sort of eventuality to occur?
Mr. Lane: I am not saying anything of the kind. It is not for me or anyone here to lay down what sort of political solution there should be. We are, however, entitled to express a view on actions
1080
which may or may not have been taken by any Government, friendly or otherwise, particularly when so many of our constituents feel strongly about them. As my right hon. Friend said, the solution must finally be worked out in Pakistan by the Pakistanis, and I am not prejudging that in any way.
In the immediate crisis, I express three hopes. First, having made such an excellent start in a difficult, sticky situation, with considerable time elapsing before relief gained momentum, I hope that the British Government will not hesitate to take a further lead and, if necessary, commit us to doing still more.
I believe that the nation as a whole will expect and be willing to shoulder a disproportionate share of the international effort required in this particular Pakistan situation, a situation which so much concerns us because it is a Commonwealth one.
Secondly, on the question of achieving a political solution, Pakistan is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) pointed out, an independent friendly country. There are limits to what we can properly say, publicly and privately. I hope, however, the Government will interpret these limits quite widely and will continue to exert all the persuasion they can on the Pakistan Government to open up East Pakistan, so that the facts of the situation may be better known, and to act in a spirit of reconciliation. We must remember that the sooner civilian government can be restored, the smaller will be the risk of the area becoming the scene of serious international conflict.
Thirdly, I hope that all this will give a new impetus to the efforts that are being made to set up an international disaster organisation. We are conscious of the delays on this occasion, and although they have certainly not been the fault of the British Government—quite the contrary; as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, we have supplied about 40 per cent. of the total finance guaranteed, apart from help in other ways—more must be done to reduce these delays in future.
It is time to intensify pressure within the United Nations for the establishment of an international disaster organisation and, if necessary, to strengthen and elaborate the proposal which we have put

1081
forward. Clearly, the U.N. is the right agency to operate such an organisation. This is a perfect example of the rôle for which the U.N., and only the U.N. is suited, and to which the U.N. would do well to divert some of the effort and attention that is too often wasted on issues over which it cannot hope to act effectively.
It should not be difficult now, in the light of all that has happened in this and similar disasters in recent memory, to get an effective organisation set up reasonably quickly. It must be in Asia, Africa and Latin America that the main dangers of disasters, whether natural or man-made, will continue to arise. Here we already have a United Nations presence established in the Economic Commissions for Asia, Africa and Latin America. This is a ready-made organisation on which we can build the kind of stockpiling and framework of general staff, not necessarily involving great expense, which on any future similar occasion would enable the international community to go into action with much less delay than it has so far. In other words, the time is ripe for Britain to lead a united Commonwealth campaign—this is surely a matter on which the Commonwealth could be most effective—to get decision and action by the United Nations this year. If we can do that, some good for the future may yet have come out of the ghastly suffering in Bengal today.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I find it difficult to fault the Foreign Secretary on his handling of this problem from the beginning, but I have two slight reservations. If I concentrate on those, I hope that it will not be thought that I am unmindful of the overwhelming aspect of the personal suffering of those who are at present dying or ill in East Pakistan and in West Bengal. I concentrate on the two issues in the interests of brevity.
Yesterday the Foreign Secretary said that he had been putting as much diplomatic pressure as he could on the Pakistan Government, through the High Commissioner, and that he had received assurances that the President of Pakistan was prepared to try to effect a political settlement as quickly as he could. All I ask is that in these avenues of pressure, which I recognise are the only avenues
1082
open to the Foreign Secretary, the pressure should be directed to the only method that I can see of ever achieving any effective political settlement, that is, to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from imprisonment and to allow the democratic vote to have its say in East Pakistan. After all, 167 of the 169 seats were won at the last general election by the Awami League, and it ill becomes the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) to suggest that we in this House are seeking to help secessionists, when all that is being said here is that the voice of democracy should be heard in Pakistan.
Mr. Wilkinson: I was upset particularly by statements from the other side of the House which were quite clearly criticising the internal affairs of a friendly Commonwealth country. The hon. Gentleman must make the distinction here between autonomy, which is what the election was fought over, and the issue of secession, which is what extremist elements within Pakistan moved the Awami League towards in latter days. This is a clear distinction and a fundamental one which certain hon. Gentlemen opposite have been unable clearly to understand.
Mr. Lyon: I clearly understand the distinction. All I am asking is that Sheikh Mujibur Rahman should be allowed to take his proper place in the Government of Pakistan. He should not have been displaced by the action of an army which was largely controlled from West Pakistan and largely composed of West Pakistani elements. It seems that that is a negation of the democracy which has been growing fitfully in Pakistan and which we thought had come to fruition at the last general election there. I know that it is difficult for the President of Pakistan, in the light of his actions, to go back on what he has done. But it is clear from the mass exodus of refugees, now said to be about 5 million in West Bengal, that the policy he was pursuing has failed and that he has to go back upon it. He went back on a previous policy, apparently at the dictate of Mr. Bhutto. It is now clear that he has to listen to the plea coming from all those refugees who, denied the vote at the ballot box, are voting with their feet by getting out of East Pakistan. It is that kind of settlement and that alone which can effectively reach the root of this problem.

1083
It will be possible for us, if we pour in sufficient money and resources, to stem the tide of suffering connected with the refugees. But if we are to stop the refugee problem growing, it will be only when there is a political settlement in East Pakistan which is acceptable to the people of that country, and that is bound up with the recognition of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Therefore, in these avenues of pressure open to the Foreign Secretary, I ask that he makes that clear and also makes clear that this is a widely held view in Britain and that he is not speaking in any way in a mere interventionist rôle but is expressing the deeply held fears and views of a wide area of the British public.
The other matter I wish to air is the question of producing the kind of international organisation which can deal more effectively with disasters, whether man made or not. The speed with which we have moved in this area over the last two or three years has been pathetically slow. After all, this issue has been ventilated over that period. I recognise what the Foreign Secretary has now done, but I hope that pressure will be exerted at the United Nations to see that this aspect of the problem is dealt with much more effectively. It requires all the resources that the West in particular can bring to the problem in order that the same kind of provision can be made for disasters as is made in the Western world for the containment of Communism. If we were to consider the matter as urgently as that, we could do the planning in depth which is necessary to provide both the stockpile and the resources in transport, and so on, which would be necessary to get the supplies and the personnel to disaster areas as quickly as possible.
The speed with which we have moved in this matter is a point of criticism not only of the Government but of all of us in the West over the last few years. Particularly is this so in relation to Pakistan. After all, this has not come upon us only in the last fortnight. The threat has existed for some weeks now, and even months. During the debate in May, it was plain from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that he was then forecasting that the exodus of refugees, which at that stage was 2 million, would grow
1084
to 5 million within weeks—that it has done—and that the possibility of starvation was very real for about 75 million people.
We have not yet reached that stage but it is clear that the problem is growing, and in our planning for this kind of disaster we have been woefully slow and inadequate in our approach. I do not say that in any way as party criticism; it is a criticism of the Western world generally.
I hope, therefore, that in his efforts to speed up that provision the Foreign Secretary will indicate to the other parties concerned how deep is the anxiety felt in the House and how far it transcends any party-political divisions.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. David Crouch: There are in the Chamber tonight many familiar faces, for there are many right hon. and hon. Members who are no strangers to the problem of overseas aid, a problem which, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyons) has just said, transcends party differences. An hour and a half ago tensions were raised, perhaps, on the question whether we should enter the Common Market, but now when we look to an even bigger problem, the problem of the suffering of millions of people in another part of the world thousands of miles away, we can become united in our determination to do something. The whole House welcomes the spirit and mood of the statement this afternoon from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who spoke so seriously and responsibly on this subject.
It should be remembered also that, although the House is not exactly crowded at this moment, there are many in the country outside who are extremely concerned and wonder whether this nation, no longer so great or so dominant in the world, can exert an influence and even a leadership in the task of helping to defeat the consequences of a disaster of almost unmentionable proportions.
As I say that, I am conscious that I may be guilty of an emotional approach—I think that emotionalism can cloud our judgment and the judgment of the public and the Press—but there is a deep concern and a serious impatience over the immense tragedy which is developing

1085
in Pakistan. I do not think that the Government have been slow to act or ungenerous in the present crisis, but I am more concerned about our whole attitude to the question of aid and the targets at which we should aim.
The Pakistan disaster is, I believe, the result of political action in that country coming so close on the heels of the natural tragedy of the typhoon last year and the floods which followed. Those hon. Members who have recently been there will know exactly how the people felt. The floods created an uncertainty and an unrest, and the actions of the Pakistan Government to curtail or contain that unrest have produced a disturbance in some ways more tragic than revolution or civil war itself, for they have by this very disturbance caused a mass migration of, perhaps, 4 million to 5 million homeless, friendless, starving and diseased people across the frontier into another country.
These people are sliding towards greater disaster. It is no good our lamenting that the problem is too big for us or that it is of their own creation. This is the very sort of problem which we have thought about before and have predicted. It is the sort of problem which the Pearson Commission envisaged when it wrote its great report. We see it happening now in Asia. Next, perhaps, it will happen in South America, and one day, perhaps, in Africa.
Our object as a rich industrial developed nation should be to work to prevent such uncertainties and such tragedies happening again. The whole purpose of overseas aid is not to be a palliative for a disaster when it occurs but, rather, to be preventive. We should think of it as an investment against disasters of this kind. Perhaps this is where we go wrong, both in the House and in the country, in seeing the present tragedy as an occasion for calling out the fire brigade, the fire brigade of people's hearts and pockets, the fire brigade of Government action and the fire brigade of the House of Commons.
Political events have, of course, aggravated the problems of overcrowding, lack of housing, poverty and hunger which obtain already in Pakistan and in India. But it is not enough for the donor countries, as we are called, to be unconcerned
1086
about political actions in the undeveloped countries which receive overseas aid. When a country like Pakistan has suffered an enormous natural disaster such as the typhoon and the floods which followed it last year, it is not surprising that the social breakdown which occurred produced a detonator for the political reaction and the civil war which we have witnessed since then. Having said that, however, I am still unhappy that there should be a question of political sanctions in terms of overseas aid when people are starving and suffering so grievously as a result of both natural disaster and political mistake in Pakistan.
I wish to say a word now about the work of the voluntary agencies, and here I must declare an interest inasmuch as I have an association with Christian Aid. The voluntary agencies have already been working and spending money on a great scale in Pakistan both as a consequence of the typhoon and as a consequence of the civil war. The five agencies to which I refer—the British Red Cross. Christian Aid, Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund and War on Want—under an arrangement reached some years ago have once again come together and formed the United Kingdom Disasters Emergency Committee.
An advertisement from the Committee—albeit a very small advertisement—appeared in The Times this morning asking for funds to help the voluntary efforts being made in this country to meet the problems encountered in the present disaster. The voluntary agencies have come together to make a joint appeal. They are working not against one another but in full co-ordination and cooperation. I agree with the observations of the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) on the subject of co-ordination and co-operation between the voluntary bodies themselves and between the voluntary bodies, the United Nations agencies, the individual Governments concerned on the spot and the donor countries. This is of enormous importance if aid is to be effective and really helpful to the people who are suffering.
The voluntary agencies have already spent between £250,000 and £500,000 of their own resources in tackling the problems arising from the civil war. It is expected that, as a result of their appeal,

1087
they will raise at least another £1 million. It is vital, however, that each of these bodies, as well as the United Nations agencies, should satisfy themselves that they can spend these funds to the maximum effect before asking the public to replenish and supplement their resources.
The International Red Cross, the Save the Children Fund and Christian Aid are already operational in the sense that they do not rely on sending teams abroad but already have operational organisations in the countries concerned. Their work is all the time far more operational than purely fund raising. All these organisations were already hard at work long before the situation became headline news. Christian Aid, for example, has already passed £40,000 to its sister agency in India, the Christian Agency for Social Action, into whose direct care the Indian Government have placed 100,000 of the Pakistani refugees who have come into that country.
There should be no diverting of the money originally allocated by the British public and the Government for the relief and rehabilitation of the East Pakistan typhoon victims. A total of £800,000 from that appeal remains unspent because of this civil war, but the suffering in East Pakistan as a result of those floods is no less since the war than before it. In fact, it is immeasurably greater, and every penny of that money will be needed.
I want to say something now which may shock hon. Members. I hope there will be no question of the Pakistan Government keeping out the voluntary agencies. I add this as a warning in this place where we can voice warnings because there is a feeling at the back of my mind that there could be a move to keep the voluntary agencies out as there was, according to my understanding, in Nigeria during the civil war there. There may be a feeling by some, I am sure not by all, in Pakistan that these voluntary agencies, by their very success and effectiveness in the alleviation of distress, might reduce the effectiveness of political action in that country. I hope that I have not shocked too many of my listeners by saying this.
I would also warn the House about the danger of sweeping moral judgments or any actions which suggest political preferences to Governments sensitive
1088
towards this suffering. It may well be that a proportion of the money coming forward to aid Pakistan, either from voluntary contributions or from Governments, will be needed for as yet undetermined aid programmes among the Pakistani refugees, rather than for the instant and dramatic assistance in the fight against disease.
I have tried to air some of the concern I feel in this matter, which I know is shared by the whole House. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for having spoken so feelingly and extensively on this problem. I hope he will bear in mind some of the warnings I have given.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: When we on this side of the House pressed yesterday afternoon for a special debate today I believe that we undertook an obligation to make suggestions to the Government about what we want them to do on behalf of the country in addition to what they are already doing. I want to elaborate only one point which I put forward to the right hon. Gentleman for action.
Along with a parliamentary delegation from the two Houses of Parliament, I was in Calcutta for a little time at the end of last year. We saw the way in which the administration was coping with the difficult situation. It was already difficult because of overcrowding. Along with the difficulties there were some successes. It was important to realise that with the many economic and social problems facing India, not only the central administration but also some local administrations were making good progress. We saw an over-crowded city, and it is not difficult to imagine now what it must be like with hundreds of thousands of people coming over the frontier as refugees.
The Foreign Secretary made a fairly outspoken speech yesterday, which the House welcomed and which I note has been welcomed this morning by public opinion, in which he mentioned the link between the political situation and the relief situation. The right hon. Gentleman quite rightly pointed to a further potential danger, that of mass starvation. That terrible danger is directly linked to numbers. It is, therefore, of the first order of importance to see that the number of refugees does not grow in

1089
the immediate future, and, if possible, is reduced. The same considerations apply to public health. As we know from the many detailed reports sent back by our correspondents, there is a direct relationship between the ability of doctors, nurses and the health authorities to do effective work in preventing the spread of the disease and the number of refugees assembled in a given area.
There is no way of discussing the relief and the health situations other than by linking them directly to the political situation. While it may be difficult at this stage for the Government to introduce proposals which might be interpreted as sanctions, and while I can understand the Government being reluctant to entertain anything which might be so interpreted—I would understand it if we were in offce and Ministers of my party felt the same reluctance—it is nevertheless our duty to make such suggestions to the Government as will allow refugees to return to East Pakistan and also allow those who are there to feel confident about staying but as will not at the same time be interpreted as being sanctions.
The idea I want to put forward is that which I mentioned briefly at Question Time yesterday. The Government should now have consultations with the other powers in the United Nations and propose the setting up of a United Nations Commission which should without delay proceed to East Pakistan, with the agreement of the Government of Pakistan. The Foreign Secretary did not reject the suggestion yesterday but did point out that Pakistan was a sovereign country and that we could not say what should happen there.
My suggestion is not for an individual initiative by Her Majesty's Government but that the Government should get together with other United Nations Powers. It might be possible to come to such an agreement before a formal meeting of the Security Council is called, and to do this through the administrative function of the Secretary-General. The situation may soon arise when it will be absolutely essential to call for a Security Council meeting.
I support the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) on two occasions now, that
1090
there should be such a meeting, but I can understand the reluctance of the Government, because a formal meeting of the Security Council might lead to a confrontation of arguments which would not be helpful to any purpose that I have in mind. It may be that the Government will tell me that it is not possible under United Nations rules to agree to send a commission without the formal approval of the Security Council. I am not sure. Studying the rules, I believe it might be possible to do it administratively through the Secretary-General if there is broad agreement among members which have been consulted. I am reinforced my my right hon. Friend in believing that that is possible. If that is so, I would suggest that the Government should have immediate consultations with other Powers and should also diplomatically get into contact, as they already are, with the Government of Pakistan. Such a United Nations commission would, of course, be composed of eminent international personalities to be sent forthwith to East Pakistan.
I have two reasons for making this suggestion. However much one wants to be careful in choosing one's words in the face of this great tragedy, it is quite clear now, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday afternoon, that people continue to come over the frontier from East Pakistan because they are frightened for their lives. There can be no doubt about that. That is common ground in the House among those who have had a close look at the problem. That being so, what we need are international political means to reassure those people. There have been parallel situations in the past, as I recall after the First World War. I think that the Government of Pakistan would be well advised to accept such a United Nations Commission once it has been proposed.
Without such reassurance in East Pakistan itself. I do not think it will be possible to persuade many of the refugees to return. That, of course, is a reason for my suggestion. If there were to be such reassurance in East Pakistan, and if we were to succeed in persuading people to stay there, and if we were to build up a relief organisation to supply food, and so on, so that life there might become bearable again, physically and politically secure in East Pakistan, then the strain

1091
would not continue, and that would be a most powerful argument to put to persuade people to stay and the refugees to return. Indeed, the argument would not have to be put—it would speak for itself—to the refugees to return home if they received assurances, perhaps from members of their families, that under such a United Nations Commission the situation was being stabilised and that they were no more in danger of their lives.
That is the one and only point I wish to put to the Government today, and I hope they will consider it and implement it.
5.42 p.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: Yesterday afternoon at this time I was putting forward a written declaration to a joint meeting of the European Parliamentarians and the members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, and as it is very important perhaps the House would let me read what was suggested. I am glad to say that it was signed by 18 people from different countries of Europe. They agreed that
"In view of the fact that requests for emergency food aid for Pakistan and India cannot be met by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the members of the Council of Europe Consultative Assembly request the Committee of Ministers to convene a meeting, immediately, to review the situation, to examine what aid can be given by member countries and to arrange for full co-operation in order that aid can be provided forthwith."
Like the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), I went to India just before Christmas and had an opportunity of seeing Calcutta—fortunately not under such distressing conditions. My family has been connected with India for about a hundred years and I have had some relatives who have died from cholera—in fact they are buried in Madras State—so I feel deeply about this matter and the very unhappy position there at the present time.
It is all important that we should see that food is given, because when people are suffering from malnutrition, the disease takes worse effect. I have myself given cholera injections and I know that injections will not be so successful unless the patients have food. With the monsoon coming there is also the risk of
1092
pneumonia, which is another disease to fight against.
Europe has a surplus of food and and could contribute food, and I would think that in this case food is rather more essential than cash.
I myself have worked in similar emergency situations although on a smaller scale, in Malaysia and Indonesia, and one thing we have to think seriously about is what kind of shelter can be given to these people, especially during the monsoon.
I should like to see as many tents sent as possible. The hon. Member for Penis-tone will remember that in Hayana we saw how effective army tents can be in providing temporary accommodation. They were well constructed and the Indian Army has full knowledge of how to plan this type of accommodation. There can also be bamboo shelters. I remember how we built a temporary hospital of bamboo—without a single nail—and it was built very quickly. If necessary, one can use cow dung for the floor; it is quite sanitary. This construction makes an excellent shelter. I myself received in this type of accommodation in Indonesia, several hundred refugees a day who came in for treatment and food.
A great many doctors in India come to this country. When we were in India we found that one of the reasons they come here was that their payment in India is not adequate. They were rather reluctant to work in the villages because of this problem. I should like to see these doctors paid adequate salaries and serving in refugee areas. Moreover, I should like to see that they are well insured, because if they fall ill, and they have families, their families will suffer. One reason why they may be reluctant to go to an area where they would be vulnerable to disease is that they have to think of their families. I would also suggest that we make a special appeal to the many Pakistanis and Indians in this country, who are very generous, as we have found in the past, who would probably be very happy to contribute to a fund. It would be very nice, too, if the people in their respective countries could feel that their brethren overseas were taking an interest in their welfare.
I was distressed to see that incident about the cricket bat. Surely there was a marvellous way of promoting good

1093
community relations, and I hope that the High Commissioner of Pakistan may have second thoughts about this matter.
The hon. Member for Penistone mentioned the refugees not wanting to go back home. It may be, perhaps, that Hindus will be very reluctant, indeed frightened, to go back in the future, and may wish to become citizens of India. In this connection I would point out that one country which has been dealing successfully with settling and rehabilitating refugees is Hong Kong, and I would suggest requesting advice from Hong Kong on how Hong Kong would tackle this problem. I believe that Hong Kong has 4 million refugees altogether. I am not, of course, suggesting that the conditions there are the same as they are in East Pakistan and the Indian border, or that the people are of the same type, but in Hong Kong they know how to put up buildings quickly to accommodate people, and how to rehabilitate them—by finding them work, which is what is needed by many of the Pakistani refugees, and in giving the refugees work without taking away work from people already living there. One of the things causing difficulties in West Bengal is the fear which people have of work being taken away from them. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will consider the question of asking advice from Hong Kong, the most experienced country in dealing with a refugee problem, with which it has coped very successfully indeed.
We have not heard anything today about the International Red Cross. I should like India and Pakistan to be asked whether they will allow the International Red Cross in to make an objective report, as this is an absolutely neutral body which is always extremely helpful. I found them very helpful when I was working in Indonesia when we had a big refugee problem. I believe that the International Red Cross has the respect of both countries and could be relied upon to give an objective report.
We are in a slight difficulty because, under the Statute of Westminster, we cannot interfere with the domestic concerns of other Commonwealth countries, but I hop that, if India and Pakistan find that it is not just Britain which wants to help them, but other countries as well, including some of the 18 who signed my declara-
1094
tion yesterday in Strasbourg, they will realise that they need not be alone in tackling their problem. I hope that the Strasbourg declaration may open the way for many more relief organisations, which can help Pakistan and India to put these urgent problems right in the quickest time possible.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. John Storehouse: Like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I am connected with the voluntary organisations which have been doing their best to assist in this disaster in the last two months. I declare an association with War on Want. I endorse much of what he said about the work of these charities and the way in which they have co-operated, not just in the last few days but from the beginning when there was the first sign that the situation would deteriorate into disaster.
Those commentators in the Press who have complained about the lack of response have only themselves to blame because the media themselves failed until recent days to highlight the situation, which was being predicted by all the experts a long time ago. In particular, the consortium to which the hon. Gentleman referred has employed Mr. Ian Mac-Donald as the organiser of a team to assist in averting a major famine disaster in East Pakistan following the cyclone of last year. In his reports, some of which have been made public, Mr. MacDonald has given due warning of the danger of mass famine in East Bengal. It is only recently that the media have caught up with this situation. I am glad they have now done so. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly known, not only in this country but in others, that there is awful danger of mass famine following the recent disturbances and the cyclone of last year.
I want to take the issue back, from what we are now reading in the Press about the four million to five million refugees who have escaped, to the causes of this awful state of affairs. The causes are clear to anyone who has been reading the detailed reports that have appeared in the Press and that have been available from the experienced observers who have gone out to that part of the world in recent weeks.
After the Awami League won its overwhelming victory to which my hon.

1095
Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) referred, there was no inclination on the part of the military leaders in West Pakistan and their political supporters to accept this democratic will. There was prolonged discussion and prevarication and the delay in the calling of the Assembly. During this period, the military leaders were building up their army forces in Dacca, Chittagong and the other main centres so that it would be possible for them at an appointed time to act militarily to flout the democratic will that had been so openly expressed last November.
Mr. Wilkinson: I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, in the period after the prorogation of the Assembly, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was singularly unwilling to go to West Pakistan to consult the political leaders in that part of the country to find a joint framework, within the unity of the Pakistan State, for establishing democratic institutions. That was part of the tragedy.
Mr. Stonehouse: As I understand it, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was not a secessionist at that stage but was anxious to work out a solution consistent with the unity of Pakistan but allowing greater autonomy for East Pakistan on the lines of the six points on which the Awami League fought the election. It does not become us here to complain when democratically-elected leaders do their best to honour the election pledges that they made and on which they achieved an overwhelming mandate, as Sheikh Mujibur Rahman did.
The Pakistan army struck on 25th March. It struck in various centres and at the university. Its deliberate intention was to wipe out all known leaders of the Awami League, all intellectuals, anyone who could possibly produce an opposition to military rule from West Pakistan. What is so disturbing is that that repression did not last just a day or so as one sharp blow; it has continued ever since.
Hon. Members may have read in The Guardian of 27th May the remarkable communications from the Rev. John Hastings and the Rev. John Clapham, two missionaries associated with Church relief work in Calcutta. They wrote:
"We are not reporters with little time to spare looking for the best stories. We have each lived in West Bengal for most of 20 years
1096
and we have talked at random with hundreds of refugees in the course of our relief work among them. The total picture of what has been happening in East Bengal is clear to us without any shadow of doubt.
There are scores of survivors of firing-squad line-ups. Hundreds of witnesses to the machine-gunning of political leaders, professors, doctors, teachers and students.
Villages have been surrounded, at any time of day or night, and the frightened villagers have fled where they could, or been slaughtered where they have been found, or enticed out to the fields and mown down in heaps. Women have been raped, girls carried off to barracks, unarmed peasants battered or bayoneted by the thousands.
The pattern, after seven weeks, is still the same. Even the least credible stories, of babies thrown up to be caught on bayonets, of women stripped and bayoneted vertically, or of children sliced up like meat, are credible not only because they are told by so many people, but because they are told by people without sufficient sophistication to make up such stories for political motives."
I could go on to quote more. These are the accounts of honest, disinterested observers.
I have here also affidavits which came into my possession only a day or so ago, sworn in the courts of Tripura, in India. I want to quote from one or two of them. The first is an affidavit made on 27th May in the court room at Abroom, in Tripura, South. It is numbered 028808. This properly witnessed legal document says:
"I, Mahfuzul Bari, a contractor by occupation and inhabitant of Hatia Island in the District of Noakhali, by faith Muslim, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:—
1. That on 6th May, 1971, about 500 army men came to our island and started indiscriminate killing. They burnt our houses and shops. They used heavy machine guns, flame throwers and mortar shells. They raped our young women and took away thirteen young girls, raped them and then by inserting the rifle end inside the private parts pulled the triggers and thereby killed all thirteen girls.
That I along with other villagers of the surrounding area escaped numbering about 5,000 in one day. We walked one by one 76 miles and then crossed over to the border and took refuge in the State of Tripura in India",
and so on.
Another affidavit that I quote from is numbered 031251 and was sworn in the same court on 27th May. It says:
"I, Mong Raja Momphrusain, the Mong Chief, Head of the Mong tribe, the original and permanent inhabitants of Ramgarh Sub-Division in the District of Hill Chittagong, in Bangla Desh, by faith Buddhist, do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows."

1097
He then refers to the cyclone of November, and goes on to say this:
"3. That since 26th March, 1971 while the memories of the cyclone was still fresh a man-made devastation started by the brutal of Yahya Khan by wanton and indiscriminate killings of unarmed civilian population, burning houses, looting all belongings of the civilian population, shelling and destroying the temples as well as the mosques and raping and kidnapping our women and disgracing them and civilisation in the manner the world never witnessed or experienced.
4. That in order to escape from such atrocious and uncivilised state of affairs and in order to save ray people from death and disgrace I along with my tribesmen who could survive crossed the border in order to find shelter in India. There are about 400,000 refugees from the Sub-Division of Ramgarh alone who have already crossed over the border to the Indian State."
These declarations and the many other hundreds of thousands of witnesses who have been able to articulate their experiences are witness and evidence to the most awful genocide—that is not too strong a word to use—since Hitler started the extermination of the Jews of Europe.
There is surely a point at which the world community must say that this horror and barbarism has passed the stage of no concern to the world at large, has passed the stage of a mere internal affair about which we cannot concern ourselves directly, and becomes a matter which the world community must take note of and must attempt to do something about.
I am concerned not only about the threat to international peace, though I think that that in itself is sufficient reason for following the advice of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) in calling for the Security Council to meet to discuss this question. There is another reason why the Security Council should be called together—that is to consider the obligations of the United Nations to ensure that the Convention on Genocide is honoured by Pakistan and the rulers who are directly responsible for the barbarism that is now going on. Pakistan is itself a signatory to the Convention on Genocide, and there is, therefore, every reason why Pakistani leaders should be brought to accept that that Convention should apply.
The difficulties of the United Nations in enforcing the Convention on a State which is not willing to allow outside interference in its affairs are considerable.
1098
But the world has recognised certain standards of behaviour, and if the United Nations means anything at all, and if those affirmations of decency and justice to which we have paid lip service over the years since the war, since the evolution of the concept of the United Nations and all that it stands for, mean anything at all, the United Nations must act to bring real pressure to bear on the Pakistani authorities to allow it to take some direct hand in this situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) proposed that the Security Council should ask the Government of Pakistan to allow a commission to move into East Pakistan to do something to return that country to administration and order. If my hon. Friend's suggestion is not accepted by the Government of Pakistan within the next week or so, I believe that it is incumbent upon the United Nations to use pressures of every possible sort, including direct intervention, to stop this genocide from continuing.
I pay credit to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for behaving in a thoroughly humane and sympathetic way ever since this disaster started developing. I hope that after his discussions next week with the Indian Foreign Secretary he will not take the line that he took yesterday; namely, that this is merely a problem for Pakistan and India. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that as the country mainly responsible for the setting up of India and Pakistan over 20 years ago and as one of the signatories to the United Nations Charter, it is now for this country to take an initiative in the Security Council so that this matter can be dealt with effectively.
If we were to concentrate merely on the problem of the refugees, we could well be diverted from the horrors that are continuing in East Bengal. I accept that it is not for us to dictate what the eventual political solution will be, although I have no doubt that the decision of the overwhelming number of people in East Bengal as shown by the election last November is that they want to have an independent Bangla Desh and to run their affairs through their own elected leaders led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and that they will now have no truck at all with a united Pakistan led

1099
by the military clique in West Pakistan who have been guilty of so much barbarism.
All that I am suggesting is that the United Nations should give those people an opportunity of self-determination which is the undeniable right of people in all parts of the world. We have an opportunity of ensuring that they enjoy that right in East Bengal.
Further—I say this in all seriousness and with, I hope, as little emotionalism as possible—I hope that it will not go unnoticed that in the last week or so a remarkable debate has been proceeding in the United States about the alleged guilt for war crimes in Vietnam of the political leaders of the United States. Some hon. Members may have seen a programme on B.B.C. television last Sunday night which examined this problem and reminded us that at the end of the last war there were interesting precedents for establishing war guilt for political and military leaders who were not directly involved themselves in war crimes. There was the famous trial of a Japanese general for atrocities in the Philippines. There was the Nuremburg trial itself.
These are precedents which lead us to believe that in time, if jurisdiction can be established, there will be an opportunity for a commission of jurists to examine whether there is guilt in the hands and minds of the leaders of West Pakistan who have been responsible, either directly or indirectly, for, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said from the Front Bench yesterday, the greatest man-made disaster since the last Great War.
6.10 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: The speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) were in marked contrast to that of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). My hon. Friends spoke with great humanity and deep understanding of the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport has great wisdom in these matters and long professional experience of the Far East which the House would do well to heed.
1100
The right hon. Member for Wednesbury merely exacerbated the tensions and difficulties of restoring order and good community relations in East Pakistan. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary rightly emphasised, this is a precondition for effective rehabilitation and relief in that country. I hope that not just the House but the nation will note the extremely serious statement of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury, which cannot be lightly shrugged aside, about pressures of every conceivable sort, including direct intervention, being used against a country with which we are friendly.
I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and Devon-port emphasised the great importance of building up the economy of East Pakistan in the longer term. If the refugees from East Pakistan, who are now in the appallingly and heartrendingly overcrowded camps in West Bengal, are to return eastwards to Pakistan, which is the best solution and which the President of Pakistan has encouraged by his amnesty and his repeated statements in recent weeks that they would be welcomed back, then the sort of blood-curdling allegations of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury are not best suited to bring about the reconciliation which we so much desire. I condemn brutality, violence and extremism of any kind. I share the sentiments so well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, but it does not help to reiterate the over-emotional and deeply disturbing tales which have emanated from the torn and stricken regions of East Pakistan.
We are well aware of what has gone on in that part of the world, but when the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) said that we were fully appraised of the situation and that the Press and television authorities had done a good job, I do not believe she did the House justice. It has been manifestly clear that in this confused situation most of the reports have inevitably come from the other side of the frontier. Strict censorship has been imposed. There has not been free movement of people within East Pakistan. To my knowledge only six accredited journalists were allowed

1101
in to East Pakistan. In these circumstances, it is not reasonable for the right hon. Lady to claim that we know exactly what has been going on.
When we hear reports of extremely violent action by the Army, we must remember that brutalities of other kinds have occurred. There has been communal violence of a deep-seated and fundamentally dangerous kind for the long-term future of stability in that part of the sub-continent, let alone within the context of a united Pakistan. There has been a lot of butchery of Muslim Biharis who could not even easily return to the State of their origin because, being Muslim, they feared for their future within India. Elements within East Pakistan have supported the Government. I have met them, because my constituency probably has more Pakistanis in it than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. I therefore hope that hon. Members opposite, and particularly right hon. Members and right hon. Ladies opposite, will get their facts absolutely right before they adduce uncorroborated evidence before the House.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Would the hon. Gentleman explain why refugees are still pouring into India from East Bengal at the rate of about 130,000 a day?
Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has clearly explained that. He said that the people were fearful of their future. Many of them were Hindus. This exemplifies the dangers of communal disturbance, which is at the heart of the trouble in that part of the sub-continent. This is a very good reason why we should emphasise the long-term task of reconciliation.
The right hon. Member for Wednesbury said that we should not interfere in the political framework of Pakistan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that a proper stable political framework was essential to create confidence and good community relations and, above all, stability for the good and effective movement of supplies and the organisation of relief work. I think that that is accepted by both sides. The right hon. Member for Wednesbury was not being helpful by merely emphasising what
1102
he regarded as unnecessary and, as is probably true, fairly brutal methods used by the Army in the political context in which we are discussing this matter. The political context is not nearly as clear as the right hon. Gentleman would lead us to suppose.
The free elections took place within the concept of a united Pakistan. This was understood by both parties in the long election campaign. The Assembly was prorogued at the beginning of March in preparation for a constitutional assembly in which the freely elected representatives would work out a long-term democratic constitution for Pakistan which the Pakistan Government welcomed and which the President overtly said he welcomed. We should note this.
Instead, in the three weeks or so up to the crucial events of 25th and 26th March, there was a move towards extremism in the Awami League. The responsible elements in the Awami League lost control and a number of events occurred which make the long-term rehabilitation of East Pakistan difficult. State revenues were impounded in private banks. There was fairly widespread lawlessness and communal rioting. More and more extreme programmes were put forward which went far beyond the original six points and the original concept of autonomy to something much akin to secession.
Pakistan, as a united country, could not condone this. We must recognise that the leadership of the Awami League moved for a presidential proclamation which would instal Sheikh Mujibur Rahman as Prime Minister without going through the long-term processes for establishing a democratic parliamentary system, and in that situation the right hon. Gentleman was being simplistic. He was misleading the House and the country and doing that part of the sub-continent a great disservice.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport that we in this country, including those in the Indian and Pakistani community, should show directly by financial contribution the degree of our compassion. The City of Bradford, under a Conservative mayor, after the East Pakistan cyclone disaster instituted a public fund for relief which collected more than £18,000 and was

1103
subscribed to by all sections of the community. I suggest this example should be followed now.
I ask the Minister to say how far the process of rehabilitation in the coastal littoral, the cyclone area, has gone. Fears were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury on this issue. The two charity representatives now in East Pakistan are worried about this, particularly in the aftermath of the civil disturbances. About £800,000 of the £1·3 million available is yet to be allocated and distributed. How far have the charities been able to resume their work, and how far has order been restored to enable rehabilitation to continue?
On the distribution of aid and the ministrations of the United Nations, we should have learnt from the recent cyclone disaster how vital it is to establish the correct infrastructure, to restore communications and to enable supplies to be distributed. At the end of last year there was a most unfortunate piling up of supplies and relief materials, foodstuffs and so on, in the ports and airfields in East Pakistan. According to reports a similar piling up is beginning to occur in Calcutta of relief supplies for the refugees from Pakistan. I urge my hon. Friend to make sure that our Government provide the maximum transportation and engineering facilities in this crucial phase. When this question was first mooted the President of Pakistan said that there was an adequate supply of foodstuffs in the short term in East Pakistan, but he was far from complacent about the long-term prospect, and this is what the United Nations must face.
It is good to know that Prince Sadrud-din, the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, talked this Sunday and Monday with the Economic Adviser and with the President in Islamabad about the restoration of stability in East Pakistan so that the refugees may be encouraged to return. This is the long-term solution. When people outside Pakistan talk of political solutions they do the House a disservice. Almost any imposed political solution has its drawbacks. If East Pakistan were incorporated in India there would be fearful communal disturbance—in 1905 Curzon divided Bengal. An independent Bangla Desh people's republic would not suit
1104
the stability either of India or any other part of South-East Asia. No developing country—not even Algeria—has recognised the concept of an independent East Pakistan of Bangla Desh. For long-term future stability we must work within the concept of a united Pakistan, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has so rightly emphasised, and we must not impose preconditions upon aid. To impose political preconditions would subject millions of people in East Pakistan, which has a density of 1,400 persons per square mile, to further long-term suffering and privation and accentuate the flow of refugees which we want to stop.
6.26 p.m.
Mr. Michael Barnes: It is impossible to see the plight of the refugees in India first hand, as I had the opportunity to do last week and the week before, without feeling cynical about the way in which international bureaucracy goes into action when faced with such a tragedy.
In New Delhi on 21st May the Indian Government had a clear picture of the situation. There were then 3·3 million refugees from East Pakistan in India, and they were coming over at the rate of 100,000 a day. The vast majority were in West Bengal, about 600,000 were in Tripura about 300,000 in Assam and Meghalaya and a few hundred thousand in Bihar. The priorities were clear: first, shelter; second, medicines; third, transport; and, fourth, food. Many of those things were available already in India.
The main requirement, therefore, was money, and the Indian Government estimated that, over a six-month period, to cope with the refugee problem on the basis of between 3 million and 4 million refugees would cost about £70 million. There are now over 5 million refugees, so the cost is much higher. Even though the main need was money, it was clear then that there was a limited requirement for shipments from the outside world, especially of baby foods for the large number of children in the refugee camps who were suffering from protein deficiency. Medicines were needed from outside, especially cholera vaccine. Transport was also needed, especially for the more isolated States like Tripura, the capital of the State, Agartala, being 140 miles from the railhead. That was

1105
the position three weeks ago when U Thant made his appeal. Only now are specific supplies arriving in any quantity, and there still appears to be a considerable lack of co-ordination.
The Foreign Secretary said yesterday:
"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—sheller, medical supplies, transport and food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1971; Vol. 153, c. 863.]
But those priorities have not just been identified during the last few days. They were spelt out to Mr. Donald Chesworth, the Chairman of War on Want, and to me in New Delhi by officials of the Department of Rehabilitation on 21st May. Part of the trouble in getting the international operation off the ground was that U Thant's appeal three weeks ago was far too vague and unspecific. It left much too much room for doubt among the countries which could have provided help as to exactly what was required of them.
Another difficulty is that the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees seemed unable to set up headquarters in India which could quickly transmit requests for specific shipments to those countries which were able to provide them quickly. When I arrived with Mr. Chesworth in Calcutta on 22nd May, people who were working in the refugee camps were saying, "There will be an outbreak of cholera, and when the monsoons come it will go through the camps just like that." There were then two weeks in which cholera vaccine and saline fluid could have been shipped in bulk. The United Nations should be able to do better than it has done in this instance in co-ordinating international relief. For that reason I welcome the steps which the British Government are taking to try to get a disaster coordinator set up, but I heartily endorse the improvements to those proposals which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) outlined in her speech as being necessary.
Even though the United Nations may have been slow in getting the operation off the ground, surely it was still open to other Governments to take the initiative and contact the Indian Government direct to try to stockpile vital supplies of food and medicines that were needed. I find it hard to understand why Ministers were
1106
not able to cut through the protocol on this.
The support that the Government have given to the voluntary organisations has been excellent. Although opinions may differ whether the British Government should have pledged more money to the United Nations appeal, certainly they responded speedily, and almost the very next day pledged £1 million. What seems to have been lacking was any direct contact between the British Government and the Indian Government. I should have thought that it would also have been possible to make direct offers of help to ship supplies from Britain as Government aid, as opposed to the help from voluntary organisations which is now going through. However, things are moving now.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with intense interest. As someone who, like myself, has a great regard for India and that part of the world, does he know whether any request was made to this country by the Indian Government for assistance?
Mr. Barnes: Part of the problem is that, extraordinary as it may seem in this age of mass communication, communication between nations is so difficult. It may well be that specific requests were not spelt out as quickly and clearly by India as they might have been, but that is no reason for us to sit on our backsides when faced with a tragedy of such (proportions. Because the bureaucrats seem to get so bogged down, it is up to politicians, who are supposed to be men of action, to try to cut through some of the delays that occur in such situations.
But things are moving on relief now, although the size of the problem is increasing greatly. According to the news today, Colonel Luthra, who is in charge of the relief operation for refugees in India, estimates that there are now 5·3 million refugees in India, and that they are coming in at the rate of 130,000 a day. So the costs will go far higher over the six-month period than the £70 million already estimated by the Indian Government. I hope, therefore, that U Thant will make another appeal and get a much better response from the rest of the world.
But the main question that we must have in our minds today goes beyond

1107
the question of immediate relief. It is concerned with a solution. It is no exaggeration to say that if there is no solution to the present situation, and if it goes on for month after month, there will be a threat to peace in that part of the world. The Indian Government are able to think of the problem only in the short term at present; they can afford only to think of the next six months. Although there is a great deal of sympathy for the refugees among the local Indian population and a strong feeling that they are all Bengalis—it is this that is producing the sympathy—the tensions are there, and problems are being created by the refugees' presence. Some have found work, but this tends to bring down the level of wages, and the demands to feed and house the refugees have pushed up prices. If the situation continues for months there could be a very serious position within that part of India.
On the Pakistan side, the Pakistan army is harassed around the frontiers of East Pakistan by the Bangla Desh freedom fighters, especially on the Western frontier with Assam and Tripura. The freedom fighters claim that they are inflicting many casualties on the Pakistan army. There is provocation for Pakistan there.
If the refugee problem remains unsolved after six months, and if the fighting between the freedom fighters and the Pakistan army continues, there could easily be touched off a conflict between India and Pakistan which could lead to some involvement by Russia and China as well. If that happens—God forbid!—there will doubtless be the usual sterile argument about who started it, but the truth would be that it became inevitable because no solution had been found to the present situation.
The best hope for peace is that conditions can be created in which the refugees, or at least a substantial number of them, will go home. But they will do that only if there is a genuinely democratic settlement. Having spoken to many of them, I find it very hard to see how this can be anything except one which guarantees a high degree of autonomy for East Bengal, if not a separate existence.
The Foreign Secretary spoke about the reception camps set up by Pakistan to receive back the refugees, and of an
1108
amnesty. It is naive to expect the refugees to go back at present. What is the amnesty for them? What have they done?
The Foreign Secretary also spoke about the wounds of civil war. But the civil war proper, such as it was, lasted only a matter of days. The wounds that the refugees bear are not wounds from civil war but wounds from a deliberately unleashed wave of atrocity such as was described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse).
Mr. Ernie Money: would the hon. Gentleman consider that anything that is said at this stage that might exacerbate the situation and make it more difficult for the people concerned to live in peace, as they must, could lead to nothing but the most unwarranted future for the sub-continent?
Mr. Barnes: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we must be careful what we say. Even so, that must not, and cannot, close our eyes to what has happened.
When we talk about solutions, the danger we must consider is that there will be a transfer of power to a civil administration which is probably not representative at all and which must be underpinned by the presence of the Pakistan army. That probably will happen before very long anyway. Then the rest of the world may well say, "All right. There has been a settlement. There has been a settlement. There is a civil administration there. It was a terrible thing while it happened, but now we can resume normal relations and resume aid." If the rest of the world says that, it will be extremely shortsighted. Such a settlement will not settle anything. If the civil administration is not representative and there is not genuine democracy, the refugees will not go back and the fight between the freedom fighters and the Pakistan army will go on and there will still exist the seeds of an international conflict. It is not just a question of its being morally right for the rest of the world to press upon President Yahya Khan that there should be a genuine democratic settlement, but only such a settlement can guarantee lasting peace.
I wish to put one or two questions to the Minister for Overseas Development who is to reply to this debate. How

1109
hard are Her Majesty's Government pressing the Government of Pakistan on a political settlement? There is some confusion in the British attitude about aid and economic assistance. There seem to be three separate things that we should distinguish. First of all, there are the existing development aid commitments and there is a wide measure of agreement that such aid should not be cut off, which is a view I share. Secondly, there is the question of new aid commitments and the attitude that will be taken by the consortium when it discusses this matter in a few weeks time. The third aspect, which is perhaps the most important of all, is what will be the attitude of countries like Britain and America when they are asked by the Government of Pakistan to come to the rescue of the Pakistan economy. This is something that is separate from the normal development aid.
The Minister when speaking in our last debate on this subject said—this was said again today by the Foreign Secretary—that there would be no new aid without a political settlement. However, the Minister also said in a broadcast over the weekend that there is no question of using aid as a lever. How does he reconcile these two things? Must not the statement that there should be a political settlement before giving aid provide a level if it is to amount to any kind of pledge? The Government would do well to clarify their position. There is a lot of confusion in India about this matter; Britain's position is being misrepresented in some parts of the Indian press. It is no argument to say that if aid is used as a lever it would amount to interference in a country's internal affairs. Pakistan has put itself out of court by the tragic and awful miscalculation made by the Pakistan Government in the military tactics they employed in East Pakistan. Therefore the donor countries have a right to be satisfied about the conditions in which aid is to be resumed.
I am seeking assurances from the Minister on those matters. Does the statement made by the Minister in the previous debate a few weeks ago extend to the question of coming to the rescue of the Pakistan economy, and would we refuse to do so if the right political settlement did not exist? When the Minister talks of a political settlement,
1110
presumably he does not mean a mere transfer of power to any civil administration which may be unrepresentative and underpinned by the army. I hope the Minister will give an assurance that he does not mean just a transfer of power to any old civil administration with the army holding it up in the background. I hope that he will be able to say that he means a genuine democratic settlement which will command the trust and support of the people in East Bengal and will persuade a substantial proportion of the refugees to return home.
6.45 p.m.
Sir Frederic Bennett: I apologise to the House that I was not present during the middle part of this debate. This was due to the fact that, precisely because of my interest in this subject, I shall a little later this evening be using another medium in which to air this matter and I have been engaged in preparing carefully my remarks on that front about the delicate Pakistan question, otherwise I would have been present throughout the whole of this debate.
I welcomed the short intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money). Although we in this country no longer have power decisively to influence the course of events overseas in a positive sense, we must realise that we have a great capacity, if we are not careful, to do a lot of damage overseas in a negative sense. Since we have ceased to be a great imperial power, we sometimes think that we are doing a service to humanity by making the most laudable statements condemning certain people, praising other people, demanding settlements, and doing so with a feeling of salving our own consciences, whereas in reality we are doing precisely the opposite. The only effect such remarks often have is to get the matter off our chests, but the damage lives on afterwards. I could instance a number of occasions when this has happened in the past.
I was not present during the speech of the right hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), and I apologise if I misquote him since I have only received a second-hand report of what he said. I understand that, because of his deep feelings on this matter, he went so far as to say that the United Nations should go to the extent of using—I hope

1111
that I am not misquoting him—all appropriate measures to enforce a political settlement in Pakistan. I do not know what he meant by "appropriate measures". He has had considerable experience in Commonwealth matters and I cannot believe that he meant that the United Nations should in some way use some form of forceful intervention. If such a thing were possible—and it would not be possible because the veto would undoubtedly be imposed against any such action—we should recognise that loss of life and difficulties in the area would be multiplied tenfold.
Mr. Stonehouse: The Pakistan authorities have deserted all civilised behaviour. They are now guilty of genocide, which has been condemned by the United Nations Genocide Convention—a convention which Pakistan signed over 20 years ago. If such declarations mean anything, there is a point at which the United Nations—the world community—must intervene. If we look back to the situation that existed over 30 years ago, surely there was a stage when the world would have intervened if Hitler's atrocities against the Jews had become more widely known even before the last great war broke out. There is a point at which the world must intervene, and I believe it is now being reached in the situation in East Bengal.
Sir F. Bennett: Then I do not think I have misinterpreted what the right hon. Gentleman said. He has confirmed that there should be intervention by the world community, and he must realise that Pakistan would not brook any form of outside interference in what she regards as her own internal affairs. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the use of force would improve the situation, then I believe that on reflection he will feel that he was unwise to suggest that this would bring about a settlement. Even though it represents much of the world community, we must remember that the power of the United Nations is limited.
Mr. Dan Jones: What is the alternative?
Sir F. Bennett: I am making a point in reply to the right hon. Member for Wednesbury.
1112
If it were to be suggested that the Security Council would be in a position to undertake any such mission, the very first thing to happen in present circumstances would be that the Soviet Union would veto the proposal anyway, even if no other country did so. Therefore, the proposal is impracticable as well as wrong. It does not help matters to make declarations which are both harmful and, incidentally, wholly ineffectual, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the United Nations as composed today would not intervene forcefully in the Indian sub-continent, however passionately he might feel about it.
We confuse ourselves to talk about using aid as a lever to bring about a political settlement—and I maintain that view even if it was said by someone on my side of the House—while saying at the same time that we should do all we can to help the people living in East Pakistan. I beg hon. Members to realise that, whether they like it or not, the only effective Government in Pakistan West and East at the moment is the Government of Pakistan. Whether they like it or not, Bangla Desh is not in command of the ports of Chittagong and Dacca or the airports of East Pakistan. Hon. Members make themselves almost absurd when they say that we should increase the aid which we give to East Pakistan but not use the Pakistan Government as a means of giving that aid and that we should cut aid to Pakistan generally. If aid to Pakistan is cut, the available cake for development throughout the entire country will be diminished by that amount, and East Pakistan in its turn will get less aid.
I have been waiting for some weeks since the last debate to hear anybody suggest in practical, not theoretical, terms how, on the one hand, aid can be cut to the Pakistan present de facto Government and. on the other hand, increased to East Pakistan. Whether we like it or not, at the moment the Pakistan Government and the Pakistani armed forces are the only institutions available for development aid, or any other kind of aid, which could flow to East Pakistan. Nobody does any good service by suggesting that there is any other institution at the moment by which any form of aid or support could be funnelled to East Pakistan on any scale, apart from a little

1113
running across the frontier. If we say that we will not deal with the existing Government of Pakistan, that we will not give aid, that we will use aid as a lever, or the lack of aid to punish, the people in West Pakistan will suffer, but so will the people in East Pakistan. That is a fact which cannot be denied.
Yesterday, I raised one other matter with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I said that, having only just got back from abroad, I had not had much chance to study the reports available to me about the composition of the refugees. I have since had 24 hours, and I repeat the proposition which I put to my right hon. Friend yesterday; namely, that the refugee problem today is not what it was a month ago.
The refugee problem a month ago, when the civil war was at its height, was that the Bengalis of all religions were trying to get away from the armed forces because of genuine fear and apprehension, and no one denies that. As I understand it—I have had fairly categorical assurances about this—that general flow of refugees has almost entirely ended, and today the refugees constitute a different sort of problem, no less tragic, but the all-too-familiar problem of Hindus from East Pakistan going to India. It is no less tragic, no less sad, no less horrible, but it is different from frightened people fleeing before armed forces, as was the case when the civil war broke out.
I happen to think that this situation is even more dangerous and difficult for the future economic state of these refugees, because one has to look not at the last few weeks but, unfortunately, as far back as 1947–48. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke yesterday, I thought rather unfairly, about the British Government's lack of initiative in dealing with what he called the worst tragedy in human terms since the last war, he forgot about 1947–48 when many more people were killed and died of disease and starvation than have even started to be killed in the present tragedy; there was a gap in his memory.
I do not blame anyone for what happened then, but everybody knows that between 1 million and 3 million Hindus and Muslims, displaced when the two countries were formed, died because of the tension between the two countries.
1114
That was a very sad event, in which, I am afraid, the British generally had a certain responsibility, in that perhaps we did not foresee exactly what the consequences of partition at that time would be. But to pretend that today there is anything like the scale of slaughter is to ignore far worse tragedies of 1947–48. It would be as unfair to criticise the then Government for not taking an initiative to stop that as it is unfair for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse us today of not taking an initiative to stop what is going on.
We are now seeing a bubbling to the surface of the same tensions as have bedevilled the Indian sub-continent since British rule ended in 1947. It has concentrated around Junagahr and Kashmir and half a dozen other parts of India and Pakistan where communal tensions have broken out. In recent years there have been communal riots in Pakistan against the Hindus and there have been communal riots in India against the Muslims. These tensions rarely hit the headlines, but they have been going on steadily for the last 20 years.
The situation now is that even if there is a settlement in East Pakistan, or Pakistan generally—and God knows that we ought to try to get a settlement—it will not solve the problem, in the sense that those refugees who have left East Pakistan for communal reasons will not go back again. The evidence is that such refugees never return. All the people who left the former Muslim areas to go to India did not return to those areas and those who left India to go to Pakistan did not return. By the time they might have returned their homes and farms had gone.
We ought not to fool ourselves into believing that those refugees who have left East Bengal because they are Hindus will have their problem solved merely by the setting up of a couple of provincial parliaments which will lead to everyone patting everyone else on the back. Far from all these refugees will go back, although many might be induced to go back if they were genuinely loyal to the concept of Pakistan and were Muslim and would rather return to their fatherland. But the emotions of the others are directed towards India, and if they can be absorbed into India, it is much

1115
more likely that they would wish that to happen.
To those who do not believe that I am making sense, I can only say that I know a little more about the tensions of this sub-continent than do some others. I know exactly how strong are the feelings in India and Pakistan on the religious grounds which I have mentioned. It would be idle to deny that these communal tensions are playing a supplementary, but no less damaging, rôle in the tragedy which we are witnessing.
I said that it did not help matters by making violent accusations in the House against one side or the other, or taking sides. The history of the events is not quite as it has been outlined by one or two Labour Members. Before the election, all the Pakistani political leaders signed a document, called the basic agreement, in which they agreed that, whoever won the election, the integrity of the State of Pakistan would be absolute. That is rarely mentioned in the House. But when the election was won, the popularly elected Awami League in East Pakistan put forward political and economic proposals which would have led to the separation of the State in defiance of the basic agreement.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the planks put forward by Sheikh Mujibur during the election were those which he put forward during his negotiations with General Yahya Khan?
Sir F. Bennett: I have been studiously careful not to make accusations of ill faith against either side. I have made a statement of fact. Whatever may or may not have been said during the election, or during the negotiations, the fact remains that one thing which led to the outbreak of the tragedy was that the proposition put forward by the victorious Awami League contravened the basic agreement which all the leaders had signed. It is not merely a matter of my saying that. Anybody who doubts that statement can look at the documents and see that the basic agreement was contravened.
By all means let us see what we can do to bring about a settlement, but I urge my hon. Friends to accept that threats from this country will not be of any use because they are ineffective for
1116
the simple reason that we cannot do anything about enforcing them. A Pakistani said to me the other day, "How would you feel if, when the Pakistan Parliament was first created, we had had a debate about the fact that we were going to break off relations with Great Britain until she found a political solution in Northern Ireland? We have as much right to talk to you about finding a political settlement as you have to talk to us about finding one."
The time when, as leader of the Commonwealth, we could enforce our will on others has come to an end. We are all equal sovereign countries, and we have no more right to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan, which we may not regard as internal than she has a right to interfere in our internal affairs, which she in her turn may not regard as internal.
7.2 p.m.
Mr. Peter Shore: I find myself with very little time, and, having listened to the intemperate intervention of the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), I am greatly tempted to give myself up wholly to the task of trying to correct the distortions that he has introduced into this debate, but I shall satisfy myself with one sentence. If the Pakistan army in East Bengal were using rubber bullets, then I would accept what the hon. Gentleman said about us not having the right, after considerable time and thought, to give a moral judgment on what they are doing for fear that they, in turn, might give a judgment on our policy in Northern Ireland.
Sir F. Bennett: I did not say that.
Mr. Shore: I am not interested in what the hon. Gentleman has further to say. The next time he intervenes in a debate, he ought to do us the courtesy of listening to what others say before he comes in and acts as a spokesman. I do not know, but perhaps he is simply rehashing and regurgitating the output of the Pakistan High Commission, which I too receive, but which I do not feel I necessarily have an obligation to repeat.
That has released a certain amount of my feelings, but nothing like enough. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one thing only. I do not think our main job in approaching these matters is to satisfy ourselves and our feelings. I agree with the hon. Gentleman when he

1117
says that anyone who is serious about these matters should attempt to speak with as much restraint as possible and with a view to helping the situation as much as he can.
Having said that, I will now deal with the situation itself. The first thing to remember—this is why we are having the debate—is that, in the words of the Foreign Secretary yesterday, the situation is getting worse. This is an emergency debate. It was meant to be a debate on overseas aid, but we are having this debate because 10 weeks after these events began 5 million refugees who have been affected by them have crossed the frontier into India, and there are still masses of people on the move in East Bengal. We are seeing the de-urbanisation about which one of the six privileged correspondents allowed into East Bengal wrote in the Financial Times. We hear of the movement of people from the cities back to their villages, and from the villages into the countryside.
That has been happening on a scale and in a way that defies comparison with anything that we know of, other than the one event to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the tragedy in the Punjab in 1947. Apart from that situation, can any hon. Member cite another instance of 5 million people being pushed out of, and running away from, their own country, their villages and their land?
Why have the people done that? This is not a sporadic and uncontrolled explosion of communal violence. It is not that which has produced the present situation. It has been brought about by the actions of a highly disciplined army. Anyone who knows anything about the Pakistan army knows that it is not an army which does not obey its officers. It is a highly-trained and disciplined army. It has inherited a tradition of training and high effectiveness, and it is behaving as it is, presumably, because its commanders have told it that this is the way in which it must behave.
I am not here to bandy accusations against the Pakistan Government. There is a great deal about which I do not know. I could suggest a number of ways in which people like myself and the hon. Member for Torquay could be helped to arrive at a fair decision. One way is to let people in, to push aside what I call the "iron curtain" that has sur-
1118
rounded East Bengal since all the correspondents were swept together and pushed out of the country in case they saw the events that followed. We are entitled to make certain connections between the events. I cannot say exactly what has happened but I know that 5 million people have left their homes. They have not merely left their homes but have fled from East Bengal into India. They have fled mainly from their co-religionists, not as a result of unco-ordinated communal violence, which we have known about in the Indian sub-continent ever since we have had anything to do with it, though there may be an element of that——
Mr. Money Mr. Money rose——
Mr. Shore: I shall not give way.
We would like to know the reason for what has happened, and I do not think that it is right for the hon. Gentleman to claim that hon. Members who have been to the area and tried to assess for themselves what the facts are should be abused for giving some witness to them when they come back. What are they expected to do? Are they to be silent? Having visited the hospitals and seen the wounds, are they supposed to come back and say that they would not want to upset the Pakistan authorities as that might exacerbate the situation, and instead of 5 million people being driven out, 10 million may suffer that fate? Is that what we are being told? If it is, I think that those who tell us that would do better to be quiet and let their silence speak for them. It would speak more effectively than their words.
What do we do about the political situation? How can we be most effective? One way in which we can be effective is for the Government to speak out. Of course, they cannot speak as frankly, as clearly and as strongly as hon. Members should speak. Hon. Members are not dealing directly with the Pakistan Government, but the latter should know that the people of this country do not lightly take reports of events of the kind that are going on there, that our friendship is not sustained and won when we hear of events of wanton violence being inflicted on a people who we know, because of our experience with the Indian sub-continent,

1119
are in themselves not a violent people. On the contrary, they have always, in the Indian tradition, been a rather peaceful people.
We know that, and we know that they have won an election. That is apparently what triggered off these events. What do we do? At least we protest, and have a right to protest, against the brutality of an army. Good heavens—a general who wanted to crush a democracy—it is not the first time it has happened—can do it without expelling 5 million people from his country. This is an overkill of brutality and violence of a kind of which we have not seen the like before.
So we can protest about that, but what can we do? We can do some of the things which I am glad to see the Government are doing diplomatically. They are saying to the Pakistan Government, "We will not give you the aid and the money you need, other than for immediate refugee and relief purposes. We are not going to help you out with your economy." They are saying it and putting it in a way which is quite right from their point of view. They are saying, "You could not even make use of it in the chaos you have created in your own land. Your administration has broken down. The whole bonds of confidence between people and Government have been so shattered; you are in such a state that you would not know what to do with it."
I think that they are right and that this is a strong point of pressure which the Pakistan Government have got to consider; they must consider their own future, because the problems of West Pakistan are going to mount—and most considerably in the next few weeks.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) in what he said about bringing in some outside body. I do not think this wretched man who is ruler of Pakistan today can unpick this problem. What can he do? What do we say to him—"Go back the long journey from the third week in March; go back all that way, through all that sea of blood and disaster, and now do what you deliberately did not do eight or ten weeks ago."? It is not very realistic.
We must help him create a political infrastructure, help him with a mixture
1120
of pressure and suggestion and, above all, in some way or other bring into the situation a new element—whether it be a Commonwealth element or a United Nations element—which will give some confidence to people that there can be a return to normality, that there can be safety for people who are still fleeing at the rate of 130,000 a day. It has got to be done, and done quickly.
The plain truth is this, more than in any other issue I know—the Foreign Secretary admitted it yesterday—that we cannot have even a relief or humanitarian solution until we start getting the political solution right. It is on both of these grounds that the Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Government and this House have to urge and press.
7.13 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: I support the view that aid for India or Pakistan cannot be divorced from the political situation. We have already heard that refugees are pouring into India at the rate of 130,000 every day. A population of 1 million, the size of Birmingham, is coming into India in little more than a week and, whatever the situation today, if this continues—by every sign it is not merely continuing but accelerating—a problem will be created which will mean a financial burden too much for India to bear, and considerable even for the international community.
We have heard the figures today. It is estimated that the cost to India over the six months will be £165 million. If the number increases to 10 million, which is within the bounds of possibility, just think what a burden that will be. It would be quite impossible for a poor country like India. Even for the international community it would mean an enormous burden. So far—let us face the fact—the response has not been very great. Even so far as this country is concerned, by ordinary standards our contribution has been generous, but it is nowhere near adequate to meet the terrific problem being created in India.
We must examine the political situation. How can this flood of refugees be stemmed? Only by a political solution in East Bengal. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that he had been told by

1121
the High Commissioner for Pakistan that attempts are being made to create some sort of civilian government. If this government is going to consist of a few stooges which by all appearances is the sort of government Yahya Khan is trying to introduce, this should not meet the Foreign Secretary's proposals that there should be a correct and proper political situation for aid to go in.
Aid is tied to this. It is said in India—and I think it is largely true—that without the aid given by the Pakistan consortium, and other countries of the West, Pakistan would be bankrupt and could not survive. It is also said that Pakistan could not continue to conduct this war against East Pakistan without this assistance. If that is correct, we have some obligation in this matter. We should use this as a lever. I do not like using levers or political sanctions against under-developed countries in order to tell them how to run their own affairs, but I do not think that this is an internal matter of Pakistan's. It is not a question of how Pakistan is governing herself. How she governs herself in West Pakistan is her own business, whether it is democratic or not, but this is not an internal matter. There should be no squeamishness in exercising pressure.
Moreover, if this war is being carried on with our money—as it is being carried on with arms supplied largely from the West—we have some responsibility here. I want to ask the Minister to answer one or two questions on this matter of aid. Firstly, until a political situation is created in East Bengal which will allow the resumption of aid, would he consider proposing to the Pakistan aid consortium that some of the money available should be diverted to assist the Pakistan refugees in India? That should be, primarily, the responsibility of the Pakistan Government and is therefore a proper method for which this money should be used in the meantime.
Mr. Crouch: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget that former tragedy when people were washed out of the ground by the typhoon and the floods, for which aid is still required. It is not their fault that they are suffering in a civil war. To use aid as a sanction could be dangerous.
Mr. Silverman: I do not propose that this should be used as a sanction at all. The point is that at present, unfortunately, this money cannot be used in East Pakistan because the organisation is not there; neither is it certain that it would get to the places for which it is destined.
I am not proposing to use this money as a sanction. It would be wrong to victimise innocent people for the crimes of their Government. However, when the time arrives, which I hope will be soon, for finance to be sent to the area for which it is intended—in East Pakistan or Bengal, whatever Government are in control—what assurances will be exacted from the Pakistan Government to ensure that the money is used both for the victims of the disaster in Bengal and for the victims of the even greater disaster which has been imposed by the military in Pakistan? It is essential for us to be certain that the money will be used for the purpose for which it is sent, and that purpose alone.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: I am glad that we are having this debate about what is undoubtedly the most appalling, the most predictable and the most unnecessary disaster since the war, though it is a matter of shame to this House that so few hon. Members are in their place to take part in and listen to it.
I welcomed what the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said about the willingness of the British Government to provide additional aid for the refugees. Unfortunately, however, helping the refugees is only tackling the symptom and not the cause.
I am glad that we have reached the stage in the debate, as it draws to a close, when we are discussing whether it is legitimate for us to take political steps to intervene to prevent the slaughter in East Bengal and, if so, whether there is anything effective that we can do.
If I understand the case that was presented by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), they said, in effect, that because there was such strict censorship and relatively little information, we should stand back and do nothing. Does the hon. Member

1123
for Bradford, West really believe that we cannot accept the information which is coming from the refugees, from reputable sources in East Bengal and from the right hon. Member for Wednes-bury (Mr. Stonehouse), the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and myself?
Mr. Wilkinson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to clarify the point. I said clearly that in this appalling tragedy we should not stand idly by but should use our good influences for reconciliation and so encourage as much as possible the movement of refugees back to their homelands.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell me how a dead person can be reconciled.
Whole peoples are being deliberately reduced in numbers. I have received a number of letters from highly reputable people in the area. I cannot name them or identify them too closely, because they are still in East Bengal. I refer to English people who have spent their lives there. They have reported objectively and sincerely. One writes:
"Until March I reckoned that Pakistan had a better record than India in the treatment of minorities, but now it is genocide, with the killing of Hindus only because they are Hindus and with Muslims killing not only Hindus but their co-religionists as well. The people everywhere are terrorised."
The stories which these letters tell are harrowing. The House has already heard enough of them for me not to need to quote further. It is undoubtedly true that a whole people are being deliberately destroyed. They are being driven out of their country and the terrorising tactics being adopted can have only one possible outcome, and that is the ultimate independence of Bangla Desh.
That was not necessary until the night of 25th March but, as a result of what has happened, it is now pointless even to discuss the question of reconciliation and the possible reunification of Pakistan. Pakistan is dead. It has been buried under millions of bodies and I fear that we have not yet seen the worst.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Just for the record, my hon. Friend is, of course, referring to East Pakistan?
Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am saying that Pakistan as a unit and as a unity is dead.
1124
The only solution which will provide any possibility of relief for the people of East Bengal is for the West Pakistan Army to be forced to withdraw by economic pressures and sanctions.
The hon. Member for Torquay wondered whether there was anything really effective that we could do. I believe that we have a great deal of power in this situation. This war is costing West Pakistan 2 million dollars a day. Its reserves are virtually exhausted and it has a chronic deficit. I have recent reports which suggest that its economy is on the point of collapse.
I accept the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen opposite who say that even greater hardship would be created if aid were cut off. I agree that development aid for specific projects—if they are not producing foreign exchange—should continue, but I fear that the aid that is now going to Pakistan is helping only to finance the war and that if we continue to provide it we will not be feeding the victims but the army from which the refugees are fleeing. East and West Pakistan are 1,000 miles apart. Food shipments going to East Bengal now will help only to strengthen the army and thereby provide more material for the mills of war. It is not only a question of aid. There is the more important issue of credit for this failing, near-bankrupt economy. It will not be able to carry on the war unless it receives help from the international community.
I urge the Government to use the weapons at our disposal in this situation. We have clear evidence of the danger of war breaking out between India and Pakistan. As the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said, India has so far exercised great restraint, but for how long can it continue to do so? Faced with guerrillas operating from what are undoubtedly bases in India, for how long will West Pakistan accept this? How long will it be before border incidents escalate into war?
A short time remains for economic sanctions to be applied and so to bring the war to an end. That will happen only if those sanctions are applied stringently, effectively and rapidly. If they do not work and if West Pakistan is not compelled to withdraw its forces, not only will millions die of disease, but

1125
even more millions will die from starvation, because crops cannot be sown and food cannot be imported. Even more dangerous is the overwhelming possibility of war developing between India and Pakistan.
It has been suggested that the West Pakistan army should be used to distribute aid and relief in East Bengal. Anyone who has discussed this suggestion with those who have been in the area recently appreciate how ludicrous it is. It would make the situation worse. The relief would be used as a weapon of oppression. In any event, the West Pakistan army does not have an administrative network through which to distribute aid in the areas where it is most needed.
We in Britain and the international community have a responsibility to compel West Pakistan to come to its senses before it is too late and before a world war results from this act of brutal repression by the military government of West Pakistan.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. George Thomson: This has been a sombre and harrowing debate. In all quarters of the House there has been a sense of the human tragedy which really numbs the imagination. On 19th November last year, during a debate in the House on the East Pakistan floods, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) described those floods as one of the most tragic of natural catastrophies in recorded history. I do not think that any of us, in our darkest imaginings, could have believed at that time that within a few months there would be a man-made disaster in East Pakistan, however grave, which would overshadow the natural disaster of the floods.
I heard this morning from United Nations sources that the number of refugees from East Pakistan now in West Bengal has reached the figure of 5 million—a figure approaching the total population of my country, Scotland.
In a passionate and eloquent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to a recent article in the Financial Times by one of the few journalists allowed by the Pakistan authorities to visit East Pakistan. That journalist used these words:
1126
"The casualties of the wave of violence which overwhelmed East Pakistan on the night of March 25 run into hundreds of thousands, and possibly into millions. … More violence seems certain. Famine may be unavoidable. There are no simple answers—just palliatives, not cures".
I suspect that this is the appalling reality of the situation which we in the House are grappling with today. It is against that dark and threatening background that I say straight away that I agree with the priorities that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary put before the House al the beginning of the debate: first, the top priority of dealing as adequately as we can with the provision of relief for the immediate suffering, both in India and Pakistan; second, to do anything that we can to encourage a political solution which would enable the refugees to return to their homelands.
With regard to the relief aspect, I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that the Government are ready to do substantially more in both India and Pakistan. I thought that Her Majesty's Government gave a good lead to the international relief effort at the beginning. I think that we were the first to contribute. For too long the British contribution represented too big a proportion of the international effort and, therefore, I join in the appeal from this House to other nations to contribute to this effort. The United States have now announced that they are giving the equivalent of £7 million, and that indicates the scale on which we should now be thinking about our contribution. The international contribution to the United Nations effort now amounts to about £13 million but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) indicated, the Indian Government's calculation is that to deal with 2½ million refugees for a period of six months would require £70 million. As I have mentioned, the refugee figure has now probably reached the 5 million mark, so one has some indication of the scale of relief required in India alone.
On behalf of this side of the House, perhaps I ought to make it clear that we do not doubt the Government's generosity or willingness to respond adequately to this challenge, but we were anxious at the weekend about their sense of urgency. We should have preferred it if the first of the R.A.F. relief aircraft had

1127
taken off on Saturday or Sunday, rather than having to wait that extra day or two. I thought that the Secretary of State was a little over sensitive about this in the exchanges at Question Time yesterday. I well remember him prodding me at the time of the Nigeria debates—quite rightly, because it is the duty of an Opposition to prod—about whether we were doing all that we could regarding dropping aid by helicopters. The view that we as a Government then took of these disasters, whether natural or man-made, was that it was better to over-react than to under-react.
When the Nigerian civil war came to an end, we immediately, that very weekend, made urgent provision for transport and relief funds, and we sent out Lord Hunt to make an on-the-spot assessment. In the event, we did more than was needed. But the fact that we were willing to make a very substantial sum of money available, and to state that at the beginning, gave the voluntary agencies the necessary confidence to go ahead with their plans.
I was glad that the Foreign Secretary indicated that the Government are using all their influence to persuade the Pakistan Government to make themselves open to United Nations relief efforts, and we must all hope that the visit of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees to West Pakistan and the visit of the Secretary General's personal representative to East Pakistan will bear fruit.
I certainly hear harrowing reports of the human suffering in East Pakistan, but I am afraid that the blood does not flow all one way. Certainly there has been appalling violence by the Pakistan army, but equally I hear of a rather forgotten refugee camp near Dacca containing pitiful victims from the West Pakistani and Bihari Muslim communities who suffered at the hands of their East Bengali fellow citizens.
One of the difficulties of restoring normal economic life is that the Bengalis will not travel up country in East Pakistan for fear of the army, and Bihari Muslims will not travel up country for fear of the Bengalis. There is this terrible task of trying to restore mutual confidence among the various communities in East Pakistan. It is this situation of paralysis and fear which causes the danger of
1128
famine in East Bengal to grow and to match the refugee problem in West Bengal.
I was, therefore, glad to hear what seemed to be the wise words of the Foreign Secretary about the need for a political solution, a political framework, as a precondition for the return of refugees. As the Foreign Secretary said, that must be decided by the people of Pakistan themselves. But I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that one crucial act of reconciliation that the Pakistan Government could make would be to announce the abandonment of any trial of Sheikh Mujibur and, indeed, to attempt to involve him again in the search for a political settlement.
I share the fears expressed by a number of my hon. Friends about the meaning which may be attached to a "political settlement". A political settlement in this situation can mean only exactly what the words state. It will not be a settlement unless it is acceptable to the mass of the people of East Pakistan. The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right. The relief cannot work and we cannot deal with the human suffering in East Pakistan unless there is that kind of political settlement. I am told, for instance, that the northern sector of the province, which traditionally is an area producing a major grain surplus, is not adequately under the control of the army, so even if the army were to be a satisfactory means of distributing relief—and grave doubts were expressed about that by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann)—it is unable to do this in certain areas of the country.
The mood of the House today has been that, against the scale of human suffering, the international community now has a duty to provide itself with machinery and resources on an adequate scale to deal with this problem and to back them up with the necessary will to use them. I share the hope expressed by, I think, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) that one useful byproduct of the present agony may be the creation of a permanent United Nations machinery to deal with disasters of this kind, whether natural or man-made.
We welcome what the Foreign Secretary has already done in helping forward the moves to create a machinery for

1129
United Nations co-ordination. I entirely share the view which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), an expert in these matters, expressed in the opening speech from this side about the need for such co-ordinating machinery to be more than that and to have physical resources at its disposal. She mentioned the need for it to have stock-piles available for immediate use. Speaking in my shadowy defence capacity, I add that I should like to see the national members of the United Nations asked to earmark appropriate parts of their defence forces—I am thinking here particularly of logistic forces—to be specially trained and to be at the ready to co-operate immediately they are asked to do so by the United Nations machine concerned with dealing with disasters of this kind.
This is much more than a question of dealing with the forbidding problem of relief in India or Pakistan. If there is not here an urgent matter threatening peace and endangering the security of others, I do not know what a threat to peace is. That is why we on this side have called on Her Majesty's Government to raise the question of the Pakistani refugees politically at the United Nations as well as dealing with it as a United Nations relief problem.
I do not know whether a formal inscription on the Security Council agenda is the best way to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), who has pretty shrewd judgment on these matters, expressed some doubt about whether that was likely to be the most constructive way to go about it. But, whatever way it be done, the reconciling and mediatory side of the United Nations should be brought to bear on this problem before it deteriorates further.
We all recognise in the House the reasons which prevent either Pakistan or India from taking an initiative at the United Nations in that sense, but those reasons do not necessarily apply to Her Majesty's Government. Both India and Pakistan are Commonwealth countries. As the Foreign Secretary has said—echoed by many hon. Members—India has shown remarkable restraint in the face of an invading army of refugees. But guerrilla war and shooting are taking place all the time along this tortured
1130
frontier. This cannot go on endlessly without matters growing gravely worse.
Mutual relations between India and Pakistan have been dangerously damaged. We already have a situation in which the Soviet Union, on one side, and the Chinese Government, on the other, are backing either side in the internal quarrel within Pakistan. By any standards, this must be a situation which seriously threatens the peace of that region, and it is for that reason that we on this side urge that Britain should give a lead, perhaps first consulting other members of the Commonwealth, in taking an initiative and invoking the political good offices of the United Nations, working not simply on the relief side but directing its efforts to deal urgently and actively with the implications of this tragedy for the peace and security of Asia.
7.44 p.m.
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): My right hon. Friend the Lord President suggested yesterday, and I think the House accepted, that the debate on the problems in the Indian sub-continent should come to an end at about 8 o'clock and that we should for three hours thereafter discuss more general aspects of aid. I hope that the House will agree to my trying, first, to answer the points which have been raised since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's speech at the beginning of the debate and then, if I may, going straight on to open the debate on aid. Later, if the House can face a second speech from me and will give me leave, I shall be glad to have an opportunity to answer the points which are raised in the second debate.
My right hon. Friend listened to a considerable part of this debate, and I have heard very nearly all of it. My impression is that the spirit of the debate has been almost entirely constructive. Most hon. Members have looked to the future rather than to the past. I am ashamed to say that I have spoken twice on this subject—on 14th May—and, rather than try to add much to my right hon. Friend's speech, perhaps I may take it that my most helpful contribution would be to promise on his behalf that we shall together consider the constructive suggestions which have been made today by hon. Members on both sides. There are,

1131
however, one or two particular matters to which I wish now to refer.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) spoke of the possibility of making further financial contributions. Having listened to the debate for the past few hours, and in particular, after hearing what was just said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), I am beginning to wonder whether there is any great division between us on this matter.
There are the needs of the refugees in West Bengal. As several hon. Members have said, there will be considerable financial burdens on India herself. There are the needs, which I hope, will soon begin to be met, of relief and reconstruction in East Pakistan, and—I say this in response to the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson)—I am hopeful that an operation there can soon be mounted under the auspices and help of the United Nations itself.
There are all these needs, and I have little doubt that Great Britain will have seriously to consider a contribution in all three directions. It is important, therefore, that the needs should all be examined. The House knows that my right hon. Friend has shown no reluctance whatever in being willing to make a further contribution either in the direction of relief for refugees in West Bengal or in the other directions, but what he is not convinced of at the moment, I think, is that there is solid evidence that it is lack of money which is in any way holding back relief operations. If such evidence were produced, he would consider it most seriously, and, especially in the light of what the right hon. Lady said and the experience which we all remember in Nigeria, I am sure that the House of Commons would find him sympathetic.
The right hon. Lady spoke of the need to co-ordinate the British charities with the World Health Organisation. The position there, I am told, is that the British charities have set up a co-ordinating office which is in direct touch with the W.H.O. and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva.
There has been no doubt in the debate about the value which hon. Members on both sides place on the work of the
1132
voluntary societies, and I am glad to repeat the tribute to their work which my right hon. Friend has already paid. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned the possibility of the charities operating actively in East Pakistan. I share his hope that the Pakistan Government will be ready to allow the voluntary agencies to work there, although I think it likely that, when the operation of relief and reconstruction begins, the greatest need will be for supplies rather than personnel.
Several hon. Members have mentioned, as did the right hon. Lady herself, the need for some international co-ordination of relief. My right hon. Friend's memorandum has been mentioned. There has been some interest in this subject. The memorandum, which will be incorporated in the Secretary-General's report to the Economic and Social Council, was published on 7th June, and, if the House agrees, I would like to place a copy in the library so that hon. Gentlemen can study it carefully. This report will be discussed in the Economic and Social Council in July, and our hope is that the General Assembly in the autumn will approve an effective system for the international co-ordination of relief. This is certainly the timetable to which we shall be working.
As regards permanent action in the United Nations, we obviously have to await further action but Mr. Hill, the Secretary-General's special adviser on disaster relief, has recently been in London and we have emphasised to him our views and the need for urgency in setting up an efficient, central United Nations organisation for the continuous review and co-ordination of resources and available aid for disaster relief. The right hon. Lady mentioned the possibility of using this disaster organisation for both man-made and natural disasters. This will obviously be a matter to be decided but we see no reason why it should not be employed in all kinds of disasters, whether natural or, as in this case, the result of action by human beings.
The right hon. Lady and other hon. Members have mentioned the question of stockpiling. If I may quote from the memorandum of my right hon. Friend, the suggestion is that the co-ordinator, who has been mentioned several times

1133
during the debate, would also make recommendations:
"… to the Governments of potential victim States about which stocks were likely to be particularly helpful, so that either from their own resources or with international assistance, they could consider suitable stockpiling policies and identify their requirements in the event of a disaster."
Paragraph 10 of the memorandum suggests that:
"Some countries might wish to maintain special stockpiles of supplies or earmark personnel for disaster relief".
It is this kind of idea which will not only be fruitful but will provide a large part of the answer to the plea which has been rightly put forward by many.
In concluding my remarks on this part of the debate, I must say that I was glad to hear the right hon. Member for Wed-nesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) suggesting—I hope that I got his words reasonably right—that it was not for us to dictate a settlement in Pakistan. That is entirely my view. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), to whom I listened with interest because of his recent experience in that part of the world, asked us how hard Her Majesty's Government were pressing the President of Pakistan in these matters.
These exchanges are obviously confidential, and it is always very difficult to explain how hard one presses. My right hon. Friend is completely convinced that a peaceful political settlement, which is the objective of a large number of hon. Members, is also the sincere objective of President Yahya Khan. Anyone who takes account of the whole situation now existing on the Indian sub-continent knows how much depends on a settlement of this kind. The hon. Members for Brentford and Chiswick was particularly interested in this, and said I had not made entirely clear exactly where we stood, particularly in relation to aid.
I am always shy of quoting earlier speeches of mine, but on 14th May I said:
"We are ready … to resume aid for development, but we can clearly do so only if conditions are restored in which that aid could be effectively deployed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 767.]
This means, if I may further interpret it, that there must be evident to us all real steps towards a political settlement. The hon. Members and others have asked
1134
what kind of settlement we have in mind. I doubt whether it is for us to dictate the kind of settlement that must take place except to say that it must obviously, in the words of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East, be acceptable to the population in the sense that it will lead to the necessary stability which must exist before we can resume any constructive aid operation.
In answer to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick, it is difficult to say exactly in what circumstances and how we shall resume aid and particularly in relation to the financial situation that may exist in Pakistan. There is a mission in West Pakistan at the moment considering the whole question of the future and we must await its report before we can decide what our view should be.
Mr. Dan Jones: May I ask the Minister if it is the Government's view that the present régime in West Pakistan wants a peaceful settlement on a democratic basis?
Mr. Wood: This is exactly the view I have expressed. I am convinced that the President is determined, if possible, to achieve a political settlement of the kind the hon. Member has in mind. I would add that no one thinks that in any circumstances at present this will be easy to achieve, but we shall all be making an appalling mistake if we think that there is any other possible satisfactory solution to the present suffering going on there.
Mr. Jones: We shall be making an even greater mistake if we tolerate this situation.
Mr. Wood: Much as I dislike losing any hon. Members who are listening to my speech, I must say that I have now ceased talking about Pakistan and am beginning to talk about aid. Therefore, any hon. Members who are interested only in Pakistan will have to go.
Mr. W. T. Williams: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the issue of Pakistan and the question of a reasonable political settlement, which we all agree is the only way with which this situation can be dealt, would he be kind enough to express any concern he may feel about the situation as it applies particularly to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman? The right hon. Gentleman will know that

1135
there have been several references to this man in the debate and that he is the overwhelmingly elected leader of East Pakistan. At the moment he is rotting in gaol. Have any representations been made? Will the right hon. Gentleman express any concern about this situation continuing? Will the Government express their anxieties that this man should be brought back into a position from which he can make a contribution to a political settlement, as the real embodiment of the point of view of millions of people in Pakistan?
Mr. Wood: Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Dundee, East, who has explained to me why he has had to leave the debate, and also by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). The position is that I would be giving away no secrets if I said that there had been communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Pakistan about Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. To answer the hon. and learned Gentleman, I must say that I could not give any further information beyond that. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman has been the subject of exchanges between the two Governments.

OVERSEAS AID
8.0 p.m.
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): We come now to the debate on aid. This is not a debate specifically on the report of the Select Committee, but it obviously has a close connection with it and I would like to thank the Committee very sincerely for its work. I am sorry, as I believe a number of us will be, that its first chairman, Miss Herbison, is no longer a Member of Parliament and, therefore, unable to take part in our debates. I and my Department and, I think, the whole House are indebted to her, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), the present Chairman, and those who worked with them, for the penetrating and thorough examination they made. Like other important examinations, this one had for us its painful moments, but my advisers take an admirably philosophic view, and they all assure me that they feel the better for it.
1136
It is the purpose of Select Committees, and now indeed for the Expenditure Committee, to make Departments sit up and take notice, and this examination has done just that.
As the House knows, my immediate response to the recommendations has been contained in the White Paper, Cmnd. 4687, which was published last week. The thoughtful and valuable analysis by the Committee of some knotty problems is, I am quite certain, going to influence thinking and action far beyond the scope of any immediate exchanges which we have tonight.
As the House knows, the Second Development Decade was inaugurated at the United Nations General Assembly last year. The strategy was set out and has been widely supported by a very large number of nations, but a great many countries, including Britain, declared certain reservations to it. One item of the strategy was the well-known 1 per cent. target, which is the measure of national net capital resource flows from developed to developing countries. By international agreement this now includes grants by voluntary organisations. To these voluntary organisations we have already paid tribute earlier today.
The voluntary grants from Britain in 1970 amounted to the impressive figure of £17 million. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last October announced the intention of Great Britain to do her best to reach the 1 per cent. target by 1975 in the expectation that private flows would go on making substantial contributions. Because of the high private flows both in 1969 and in 1970 we would seem—I think it is almost certain, although final figures are not available—to have reached the 1 per cent. target in both those years, 1969 and 1970. The private flows were unusually high in both those years. We are now taking steps, as the House knows, to increase official aid and also to stimulate private investment in developing countries.
The official aid programme is at present £245 million. In 1974–75 it will be £340 million, which is a 50 per cent. increase over the five-year period and represents a higher rate of growth than almost any other sector. It is obvious that official aid is vitally important

1137
because it has special characteristics which make it indispensable to the developing countries.
The Government have no intention, as I have said on a number of occasions, of accepting a separate target for official aid. We attach great importance to private investment as well, and we believe that the mixture between private and official flows will vary from country to country according to their particular circumstances.
The increasing programme makes it possible for us to undertake new initiatives which have not been possible before. We have still to look after dependencies and countries which are desperately poor as well as taking account of our historical links and perhaps historical obligations, but we intend to move into some new areas. We are planning an increasing programme for Indonesia, which I was lucky enough recently to visit. We are trying to develop aid relationships with Latin America, and there are other countries outside the Commonwealth, both in the Far East and and in Africa, where a British contribution would be both welcome and useful.
I sometimes feel that we put too much emphasis on the size of the official programme, important as that is, and too little on distribution and quality of the aid which we give. There are various aspects of this. I am convinced that multilateral aid is likely to form in the future a considerably increased share in the total programme. Immediately after this debate we are going to be considering two draft Orders to de made by my right hon. Friend. These concern at important multilateral body, the International Development Association. Through this association and other bodies we intend to continue to play our full part in making aid available for development.
There is the question also of budgetary aid. It has long been the Government's policy, as the right hon. Lady will know, to try to bring the provision of budgetary aid to an end, and perhaps most because it requires a degree of probing into the affairs of another country which does not always accord very happily with the concept of independence. Budgetary aid has been running down very considerably over
1138
recent years, and this can renew our faith in the whole development process. Malawi, I think, is an outstanding example, but there has been similar progress with the three small independent countries in Southern Africa which have been assisted by revision of their customs agreement with South Africa.
Another important aspect of the quality of aid which is now receiving international attention is the extent to which it is provided on an untied basis—in other words, the extent to which it is not restricted to procurement in the donor country. For many years it has been the general view of most developed countries and of developing countries that it would be helpful both to the effectiveness of aid and to international trade if all donors could agree to untie their aid, and Great Britain has throughout taken this view. At a high level meeting of the Development Assistance Committee last September the Government reaffirmed their view that contributions to multilateral institutions should not be tied, and that we were ready to work for agreement on untying bilateral development loans as long as enough other donors agreed. I am glad to say that there has been substantial progress on the form of possible agreement between donors covering full untying of multilateral aid and of all bilateral development loans.
Lastly on the question of the quality and kind of aid we give, I have been convinced since my arrival at the Ministry of Overseas Development, as it then was, of the importance of the technical assistance which we give in a vast number of countries round the world, because one of the most important contributions which, it seems to me, this country and other developed countries have to offer is the sharing of management and other skills which we have been fortunate enough to build up in our own process of development. I have been impressed, during my visits to a number of the developing countries, by the absence of what has been described to me as the human infrastructure and by our own opportunity and ability to fill that gap.
I have already informed the House of my plans for reconstituting the council with the very formidable name, the Council for Technical Education and Training in Overseas Countries, more

1139
cosily known as T.E.T.O.C. The object of the Council, as many hon. Members know, is to increase the aid for technical education, management, and practical training in industry. All these, I have found by my short experience, are immensely necessary if we hope to increase local industrial activity, and the Government hope that they will be particularly assisted by our own private investment.
The Chairman of the Council, Sir Frederick Pedler, who has a wide knowledge of industry and commerce both here and overseas, with the reorganised T.E.T.O.C. will build up a professional staff which will be able to estimate more accurately the needs of the developing countries and help to supply those needs in close co-operation with my Department. I have every confidence that the Council, drawing on its practical experience of industry, commerce and education, will be able to deal with what is going to be a very big task.
As the official programme grows and, I hope, as private investment also grows and the two become more closely connected, it is clear to me and anyone who knows anything about the operations of my Department that the aid management responsibilities of my Department will increase. Last March, in a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, initiated by the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), I mentioned—I hope he thought frankly—the problem of the ability of my Department effectively to spend available money.
The Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee have also drawn attention to this problem, which has existed for some time. There are two main aspects of it. First, aid programmes have up to now been fixed as gross annual cash sums which can be spent to the limit but not beyond. A total which cannot be exceeded tends not to be a target so much as a ceiling which it is difficult to reach without running serious risk of over-spending. I am glad to see that the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) from his great experience, finds that familiar. Rapid changes which events sometimes force on an aid programme in the course of any one year make it
1140
exceptionally difficult to attain a precise out-turn while still maintaining the quality of the aid provided. The second problem is the permanent loss to international development—a point made earlier by the hon. Gentleman—of aid resources if the full programme is not spent in any one year.
In the light of these two difficulties, I consulted Treasury Ministers, and I am able, with their agreement, to announce some improvements. From this present year, subject, obviously, to Parliamentary authority for any necessary supplementary Vote, it will be possible for my Department to exceed the aid programme total for the year by up to £5 million. This should make that total more of a target than a ceiling and will increase our ability to come a bit nearer the target than we sometimes manage to do.
Moreover, Treasury Ministers have agreed that if the programme is still under-spent they will consider proposals, in the circumstances that exist at the time, to make good in the following year a relatively small under-spending which has resulted from the action or inaction of other Governments or international organisations. Normally, this would not be expected to be more than about £5 million in any one year. Again subject to circumstances, I should certainly be willing to consider with other Ministers the possibility of making good a larger shortfall over more than one succeeding year.
I believe that these arrangements will greatly improve the management of the aid programme as well as preserving for development, resources voted by Parliament. I would like publicly to thank those hon. Members who have been advocating courses of this kind, and I hope that the House will warmly welcome this change.
I turn now to private investment. I have already made clear the importance which the Government attach to the growth of private investment in developing countries. There are a great many obstacles in the way of a continuing increase in such private investment. This is one of the reasons why we decided to introduce the Investment Insurance Scheme and to offer where practicable to

1141
conclude investment protection agreements with overseas Governments in order to provide a more suitable and acceptable framework for private investment.
Another way we could help the private investor is by providing aid for infrastructure which would be necessary for the success of investment. We have already discussed this with the C.B.I., which has told its members of it, and the first tentative request for such use of British aid funds is being discussed in the Department now.
If this concept is to grow—and it is not new—I would expect to provide aid for purposes of this kind in agreement with the Government of the country concerned and on the normal Government-to-Government basis of official development assistance. We have also decided to adopt the practice of other donor Governments of offering financial support to firms for pre-investment studies of overseas projects. There would be no cost to the Government if the study led to investment, but there would be a payment of up to half the cost of the study if no investment were made. We are now preparing a detailed scheme, and on this and other matters we shall have further talks with the C.B.I, before the final schemes are announced.
I turn now to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Many proposals in the White Paper covered detailed recommendations of the Select Committee on the subject of private investment. We obviously have been thinking on parallel lines, because we had made considerable progress with our work in the Department while the Select Committee was making progress with its work. Other proposals in the White Paper on private investment cover some of the recommendations which the Committee made on the C.D.C.
All of us—there is no difference of opinion in the House—agree about the immense importance of the Corporation's work. It has an unrivalled fund of experience of work and working conditions in many tropical countries in the developing world and, above all, in the Commonwealth, and its report for 1970, published last month, shows a general increase in new business and overall investments to record levels, I am glad to say, and a valuable spread of business over many
1142
countries. As the official aid programme continues to grow, I intend to make available to the Corporation increasing resources and hope to be able to provide it with firm figures for several years ahead in order to make possible long-term preparation and planning necessary for sound projects.
The White Paper saw a further possible rôle for the Corporation which my Department is now discussing with it. Many of the Corporation's investments are already undertaken in partnership with other enterprises, both British and local, but I believe that it has a special rôle in making both expertise and funds available in partnership with British firms with comparatively little experience of the possibilities and problems of business enterprise in developing countries. We hope by this means and by the active cooperation between them and the Corporation to encourage fresh investment overseas by British firms.
I shall now try to put what we are aiming together to do in the broadest possible context. The objective of the official aid programme and private investment taken together——
Mr. J. D. Dormand: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I left my interruption so late because when he mentioned me I thought he might be dealing with the question of world population. I want briefly to put two points to him because I understand that he is now summing up all the matters with which he has been dealing. As he says, he and I debated this important matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I asked him two questions then that he has not dealt with today, although they are relevant to the date. Speaking about the Population Institute, he said that he would be prepared to continue discussion with those concerned who might be interested in the Institute making its home in this country. Has he made progress with that?
Second, as the right hon. Gentleman has today announced an increase in the allocation in several directions of the Government's programme, is he now prepared to say that the £1 million to be expended on solving population problems will also be increased?
Mr. Wood: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised these questions. As

1143
he reminded the House, we had a debate about this earlier this year. With the leave of the House, I should like to have the opportunity at the end of the debate of replying to certain points which are raised during the debate.
I will answer now the two questions the hon. Gentleman asked me. First, the discussions about the Institute and where it should be are continuing. Second, the amount of our future aid to population activities will be announced in due course. As I pointed out in the previous debate, it has been gradually climbing, and I hope that it will continue to be so.
The objective of our official aid programme and private investment, taken together, is to quicken the economic tempo in the developing countries and enable them to escape from their present grinding poverty and, by their own efforts, provide a better standard of living for all who live there. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the problems are enormous and are made no easier by the rapid increase in population and by increasing numbers of young men and women wanting employment, both in rural and in urban areas.
The justification for our aid programme and the motives for which we give it support may vary from one to other of us. Some may consider it a moral duty; or, as a major trading nation, we may widely judge that an increase in world trading activity, brought about by development aid, is in our own national interests.
I find neither motive more respectable than the other, and I find that both these motives, and perhaps others, are interwoven in my own support for a substantial aid programme. I hope that this support is, and will continue to be, broadly shared by hon. Members who will continue to help me in discharging the final recommendation of the Select Committee, which was
"To make the aid programme more familiar to the public at large in a form which they can readily understand."
8.24 p.m.
Mrs. Judith Hart Mrs. Judith Hart (Lanark) rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If the right hon. Lady has the leave of the House.
Mrs. Hart: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is one of those days when, on a subject on which most hon. Members get too few opportunities to speak, it is necessary for us to ask for the leave of the House to speak more than once.
Reverting to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand), there are a number of us who are extremely interested to know what the next contribution will be to the population programme. As I announced the Labour Government's contribution of £1 million last summer, I am eager to hear that this amount is to be increased when the next contribution is made.
I was closely involved in the discussions concerning the Population Institute, as many people know. It will be extremely exciting if the result of all this is that Britain is able to make this part of our contribution towards population research.
This debate is necessarily a short one because of the debate which has preceded it. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the question of the ceiling and the under-spending and his final arrangements with the Treasury, which should help a great deal in the perennial problem which arises between December and the end of March.
As to the rest of what the right hon. Gentleman said, I know that normally the pattern of debates on overseas aid has been that both sides have been in very general agreement; there has rarely been any sharp conflict. On this occasion I believe that a sharpening difference of approach between the parties on the fundamental question of the relative emphasis to be given to official Government aid, on the one hand, and to private investment, on the other, will become increasingly apparent.
I can define the precise moment of time when this difference of approach can be first identified. It was on the occasion when the two party manifestos were issued a year ago this month. The Conservative Party manifesto was absolutely frank about it. It emphasised the rôle of private investment. It gave no undertaking that there would be a commitment to the official aid target which the United Nations was asking from donor nations. On the other

1145
hand, our manifesto accepted the official aid target and gave much greater emphasis to the official development assistance programme.
We are glad that the Government are nevertheless maintaining the increases in the official aid programme and have extended the increases that the Labour Government announced a further year ahead. It is obvious from all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, as well as from the White Paper on British Private Investment in Developing Countries which he has presented, and from what he has said about the C.D.C.—he is blunt and frank about it—that he clearly sees the rôle of private investment in development as one of much greater importance than we on this side of the House would give it.
I will devote most of my speech to this point, because it is clearly the fundamental one which will arise over the course of the next two or three years. It arises sharply on the White Paper on British Private Investment. Before I make my criticisms of this I will make one or two comments on the White Paper proposals in general.
Most countries have introduced the kind of insurance scheme proposed in the White Paper, and it is certainly appropriate that Britain, too, should do so. However, the insurance scheme is no substitute for the kind of bilateral agreement that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. The country which has done most in this respect is Germany. It has been very successful in establishing agreements which cover its own private investment arrangements. Nor is the insurance scheme a substitute for firms acting wisely and entering into agreements with those developing countries which are anxious to attract private investment. It is for the decision of the developing country itself as to the degree of enthusiasm it wishes to express for the attraction of private investment.
It is open to firms to enter into agreements on such matters as joint ownership. Travelling a little, as I did at O.D.M., I was surprised how very ready the intelligent industrialist who had experience in developing countries and who was investing there was to enter into 49 per cent. ownership of joint projects and how strange a thought this seems to many investors in Britain who do not have
1146
experience in the developing world. There is that kind of arrangement. There are joint management arrangements and repatriation arrangements. There are general code of practice understandings. If a firm enters into such arrangements, it is able to make a contribution in terms of managerial and technical skills in an atmosphere of co-operation. This is much more of a guarantee for it than is even the private insurance scheme.
I come now to my criticisms. Paragraph 17 of the White Paper says that official aid is to be used for
"financial support for pre-investment studies"—
as the right hon. Gentleman said, in cases where the enterprise does not proceed. This means that some element of the official aid programme is to pay some of the costs of private profit-making enterprises in the developing world. I cannot regard that as something which we can welcome. It is not right that a private investor, when he moves into a developing country, knowing that over the years he will take far more out. of it in profit than he puts into it in capital, should expect the British taxpayer, through the official aid programme, to subsidise that part of his investigations which leads to the possibility of his investment.
Paragraph 18 on aid from the official programme to cover infrastructure on a Government-to-Government basis associated with the private investment may not be new. Indeed, the White Paper indicates that it is not new. When I was at the Ministry—I do not know whether this was the experience of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)—I was never asked to approve project expenditure of this kind. Although it may not be new, it must be rare. I regard this as a most dangerous suggestion from the point of view of the developing countries, for this reason. A developing country plans its process of development on the basis of a plan into which there may come an extra element of private investment. It does not include private investment in making its development plan. It cannot do so, because it never knows when it is coming, in what part of the country it will happen, or what resources will be developed or exploited by private enterprise.

1147
The U.N.C.T.A.D. Report of the second meeting at New Delhi and the reports of the international discussions between representatives of the developing countries say over and over again that private investment cannot be part of the development plan because it is unpredictable and the time scale makes it too difficult for the countries to incorporate it in the plan. Therefore, there is what amounts to a slight or greater degree of distortion of a country's development programme because the money it had relied on in preparing its programme, the project aid which it knew three or four years in advance it would get from Britain, is suddenly to be diverted in order to assist the infrastructure which private enterprise needs. I regard this as a danger to a developing country in that it may distort its development plan and it means devoting a new and larger element in a limited aid budget to subsidising, in effect, private investment. A new priority is entering into the allocation of the aid programme as between the kind of project aid that it is normally used for.
I wish to say a few words on why official aid is more important and why it is wrong to move the emphasis so much towards private investment. Why was the Pearson proposal in the United Nations target of ·7 per cent. of official aid more important than the 1 per cent. overall target which included private investment? Many of us made a great mistake in believing that the 1 per cent. overall target was the one on which we should concentrate. We should have said that the official development aid target was infinitely more important, first, because, as I mentioned, private investment is unpredictable and cannot be taken into account in formulating the development plans of a developing country and, secondly, because it can include many non-productive activities.
The Minister has not mentioned that last year's figure for British overall aid, including private investment, touched 1 per cent., not because private investment had been carrying out any more productive activities in developing countries, but because the Bank of England had underestimated disinvestment which was purely commercial in character and did not have a single productive element in it. That
1148
was why private investment rose to such a height. Many elements in private investment may count in the private investment figures but are not productive and therefore do not make any contribution to employment, a higher standard of living, and the removal of poverty in the developing world.
Thirdly, the private investor cannot finance infrastructure. This is why we encourage private investment. The Minister says, "We will build the roads for you". This is not what private investment ever could choose to do. How could it? I quote from an article that appeared this month in the new business journal "Vision":
"The foreign investor is not often the ruthless exploiter which he is sometimes represented as. But still less often is he a charitable institution … he goes there for the sake of profits, not of humanity."
That being so, he does not finance the schools, hospitals, roads, power supplies, health services and administration which are the main needs of the developing country in trying to break out of its poverty.
Fourthly, private investment demands markets for what it produces and this necessarily means that it does not go to the poorest countries. I quote here from the Uganda representative at the U.N.C.T.A.D. conference in New Delhi. A similar point had been made a little earlier by another very small developing country. It had done all the right things, it was prepared to enter into agreements with other countries to attract private investment, it was prepared to be constructive in its approach, to give guarantees, "Yet" said the Ugandan delegate:
"… we do not succeed in attracting private investors. Why don't we succeed? Because we cannot offer the markets. We are too small a country to be interesting to the private investor."
The poorest countries are the least likely to benefit from the right hon. Gentleman's new emphasis on private investment; yet they are the countries which most need help for development.
Again, on the point of infrastructure, a country can devote a massive proportion of its available capital to roads, transport and so on. Afghanistan, one of the very poorest developing countries, with no prospect of attracting private investment—there is no market there and

1149
no way of getting stuff out of the country easily—a year or two ago devoted 44 per cent. of its gross development expenditure to transport and road construction. Here again, only official aid can help.
The figures of private investment that are shown by the Development Assistance Committee, the figures that go to the United Nations and measure the overall flow of resources from rich to poor countries are not net of private reverse flows; that is to say, the flows back from the developing country to the rich country. There have been many years in which the figures have shown that the profits flowing back to rich countries were greater than the capital investment that had flowed into the developing countries. Indeed, this is the general pattern. It is nobody's fault. This is what the private investor is there for—to make his profits and bring them back. In giving this new emphasis to private investors, let us not believe that we are doing anything other than giving a lesser priority for official aid and therefore a lesser priority to the real development needs of the poorer countries.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, since this allows me to make a point that I cannot otherwise make because, having spoken on Pakistan, I am apparently debarred from speaking about aid. Appendix V on page 305 of the evidence given to the Select Committee well illustrates the point which my right hon. Friend has been making about private investment. Any interested hon. Members can see from that what has been the effect of private investment in the developing world. It is completely sporadic as between one year and another, it is completely sporadic as between one kind of country and another, and this reinforces my right hon. Friend's point that there is no order of priority according to development needs. It is entirely a question of where private investors think there is profit to be made. It is, therefore, a completely unreliable tool for the ends which we thought the Ministry was designed to ensure, namely, real development in the poorest countries in the world.
Mrs. Hart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining my point so effec-
1150
tively. I must be careful not to imply, in speaking of giving a wrong new emphasis to private investment, that the Government are going back on their existing commitments to official aid. Of course they are not. I have already said that they are increasing those commitments, so it is not about that that I am complaining. I am complaining about their philosophy and the distortions of the official aid programme by the use of part of that programme to back up private investment, which I suggest is of much lesser value to the developing world.
If we had had a little longer, I had hoped to talk a little about trade. In our aid debates we often neglect the fact that the other half, probably the more important half, of the aid equation is trade, what is to happen to the primary products and so on. I welcome the Minister's assurance that progress is being made on untying, and the agreement reached last autumn on generalised preference. I hope that U.N.C.T.A.D. will move very rapidly towards the next stage of agreement on the many points put up to it by the developing world on trading questions.
I had hoped to say something about population, but that must go, and about education, but that, too, must go.
I have one final comment about which countries should stand highest in our aid allocations. One of the most difficult tasks of any Minister in this direction is to see where he wants to bring his own attitude to bear on the aid framework and the allocations. The impact that anyone can make in any one year is marginal, because there is a continuing programme and existing commitments. The emphasis one gives within the allocations, however, is a measure of the Minister's own attitude.
Added to that is the question of which projects within the countries concerned merit the greatest support. I am now much clearer in my own mind than I was when I was at the Ministry about what the criteria for allocation should ideally be. I am quite clear that one of the criteria which I reject is that of economic performance measured by rates of growth. It has become increasingly clear to me that the poorest countries, those in greatest need, are precisely those which are at too early a stage of development

1151
to be successful in achieving high rates of economic growth, because they need aid to get their infrastructure, to get their administration, in order to begin to grow. Therefore, I now reject the suggestion, which has been made on behalf of the British Government at international conferences, that a country which has shown its ability to use aid and shown its performance in growth has a moral right to aid.
Our first priority should be the poorest countries, a priority modified a little by their capacity to absorb aid. Obviously, that is a necessary pre-condition.
Further, if I must choose between the poorest countries, I choose those which are deliberately directing their policies towards helping the masses of the people rather than the few, to ending elitism, ending the latifundia, all those manifestations of privilege which very often we, the old imperialists, handed on to them.
As to the projects within those countries, I believe that the general tenor of that philosophy leads directly to concentrating upon rural development, because here is where we can do something to prevent increasing unemployment as well as achieving increasing production, and upon education.
These are the questions we should debate in an overseas aid debate. We must not be frightened of breaking a little the conventions of bilateral agreements between both sides of the House on these matters. I am not sure that it would not be healthy for public enthusiasm for aid if we had some rather sharp disagreements such as I have expressed tonight.
An Hon. Member: You have done your best.
Mrs. Hart: I do not say I have not done my best. I feel these things strongly. I believe that the programme is now beginning to take a wrong direction. I am bound to say these things and cannot be expected to approve and say "Well done" when I believe philosophically that this is wrong.
I end by mentioning something which we can all agree about, but on which perhaps we need to be cautious. We must remember that development is not to be calculated in annual statistics of growth,
1152
but in terms of lifting the poverty levels of people. I believe that if the right hon. Gentleman keeps that in the forefront of his mind he will get his priorities right, and he may get his policies right.
8.46 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: It is a sad reflection on human affairs that people's interest and compassion in the plight of others is often only fully aroused when some appalling tragedy, such as that which is taking place in Bengal, hits the headlines. Rightly, horror is expressed at the immensity of the suffering, and there are angry reactions to the inadequacy and slowness of relief. But what is happening in Bengal stems from conditions of deprivation and poverty which have existed for decades and which have long demanded outside sympathy, understanding and practical help.
Those hon. Members, including myself, who visited the Indian sub-continent some 18 months ago to study the British aid programme there came back convinced that East Pakistan was heading for disaster anyway unless urgent action was taken by the aid consortium to get development under way and aid more effectively co-ordinated, and we said so at the time. What is happening in Bengal, therefore, is a frightful warning to the world community of what could happen elsewhere if the long-term problems of economic development and population control are not handled with more sense of urgency by both donor and recipient Governments. It also underlines more eloquently than I can say the need to sustain and improve our own long-term aid programme.
It is with this in mind that I turn, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, to say a few words about our report and about the Command Paper in which my right hon. Friend makes his observations on our recommendations. I should like first to pay a personal tribute to my colleagues on the Select Committee, to the Clerks and specialist advisers who served us, and especially to my predecessor as Chairman, Miss Peggy Herbison, whose dedication to her task was an inspiration to us all. We were a very happy team. When we came together over two years ago we represented many different points of view

1153
but shared a profound belief in the contribution that aid, properly administered and co-ordinated, could make to development, and as our investigations proceeded that belief became strengthened.
I wish also to thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the Select Committee and its work and to express my satisfaction that he has either implemented or is in process of implementing a good many of our recommendations. In particular, I am pleased with the prompt response he made to those of our recommendations which were designed to encourage a greater flow of private investment to those developing countries where it is welcome. I am convinced that the Government's decision to introduce a scheme for insuring new investors against non-commercial risks and to conclude, wherever possible, bilateral treaties with developing countries will bolster confidence and lead to an increased flow of private investment and all the benefits it can bring. The advantage of investment treaties of course, is that they protect existing as well as new investment and they also involve the developing country itself.
Those who have read the report will have noted that we did not spend much time in making what might be described as the moral case for aid. It surely goes without saying that the appalling poverty and deprivation suffered by millions of our fellow human beings is an affront to human dignity and is a challenge to the conscience of us all.
What our Report did say was that we all lived in one world, that it was in the interests of all that the physical and, even more important, the human resources of the poorer two-thirds should be developed as rapidly as possible, and that in this high endeavour our neighbourly duty and self-interest combine. I quote a few words from the Report:
"We can neither afford to waste the potential contribution of knowledge and ideas which the undeveloped countries can eventually make, nor neglect the opportunities which their growing markets can provide."
In short, we saw aid as investment, not as charity, as an instrument for expanding wealth and wellbeing in the world in a fair and sensible way, not as a palliative. In this sense perhaps the word "aid" is misleading. After all, the developing countries have been finding
1154
more than 80 per cent. of their investment requirements out of their own export earnings and savings. Aid has been only marginal—crucial but only marginal. What we are talking about tonight, I hope, is partnership in development.
The Select Committee was concerned not only with the reasons for Britain having an aid programme, but with the way in which British aid was organised and used. Obviously, so great are the demands upon our resources at home and so much needs to be done in the developing countries overseas that it is imperative to ensure that our aid is effectively administered and applied at every stage.
The General Election of last year had one unforeseen result for the Select Committee's work. Had it not come when it did, then, armed with the knowledge we had acquired in our evidence-taking sessions, we should have asked the then Minister, the right hon. Lady, to give evidence before we reported. In the event, the change of Government not only delayed reappointment of the Select Committee, but our new terms of reference precluded us from taking fresh evidence. It also led to the merger of the Ministry of Overseas Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thus, although some of us were concerned that this step might weaken aid administration, we were prevented effectively from cross-examining my right hon. Friend on the subject.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the Report should express strong reservations on the new arrangements and should stress that if the quality and quantity of British aid and its high reputation in recipient countries were not to suffer, it would be essential to keep the former Ministry's organisation intact within the new enlarged Department. In our view, it would be incredibly short-sighted to disperse so unique a concentration of development expertise.
On this crucial point my right hon. Friend makes no observations in his Command Paper, and I know that he will forgive me if I now ask him two questions which the Select Committee might have wished to put to him had we been empowered to ask him to appear before us. First, is it intended to keep the Overseas Development Administration intact, or are there any plans for hiving

1155
off part of it to other Departments or bodies; for example, the British Council?
Secondly, now that the O.D.A. is part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will it be able to prevent diversion of aid funds to serve political rather than purely developmental ends? I ask this question because, in reply to our recommendation that the cost of assistance given for purely political reasons should not be included in the cost of official development aid, we got the somewhat extraordinary answer, in paragraph 7 of the Command Paper, that it is not possible to distinguish between the two. Why not?
Our point in the Report was that it was quite wrong to use aid for short-term political ends, however justifiable these might be, regardless of economic priorities. Where this happens, there is a danger that funds may be denied to another country whose developmental need is greater. Clearly, those questions are pertinent if we are to maintain the present high standards of aid management, and if our aid is to be used, as the Select Committee thought it should be, for developmental as opposed to political, purposes. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to answer them.
I now turn to my right hon. Friend's observations set out in the Command Paper. In answer to the Select Committee's suggestion that aid statistics should be presented in a form which shows the true cost of aid, my right hon. Friend says that he is satisfied with what is being done at present. I fear that on this my right hon. Friend is running against the tide of Parliamentary opinion. The Estimates Committee in 1968 took exactly the same view as we did. It is a fact that the man in the street—who in the last analysis provides the money for the programme—believes that the aid programme costs more than it actually does. He does not read the small print in the statistics. If, therefore, we are to carry public opinion with us, as we must, it is essential that the Minister looks at this again.
As regards the level of British aid, I note my right hon. Friend's statement that
"the Government have undertaken to do their best to reach the 1 per cent. target for total
1156
net financial flows to developing countries by 1975",
and their refusal to be drawn into any specific commitment in regard to the percentage of official aid. I understand that. It is better not to promise more than one can faithfully perform. I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's announcement tonight of the improvements in the aid programme, but I hope that he does not overlook the fact that the Pearson targets were minimal.
By 1975 our total net financial flows may well exceed 1 per cent. g.n.p., while the level for official aid remains below 0·7 per cent. The point that I want to make—and here is where I agree with the right hon. Lady—is that the two elements are not the same—they have different, though complementary purposes—and official aid should not be limited merely because private flows exceed 0·3 per cent. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend knows, a pre-condition of increased private investment is an adequate flow of official aid to provide the necessary infrastructure.
This is not in any way to minimise the rôle of private investment, and here I part company from the right hon. Lady. The Select Committee saw such investment as making a unique contribution to developing countries, especially in the more modern form of joint ventures. After all, it is accompanied by managerial and technical skills, which the developing countries often lack and cannot acquire in any other way. It provides the training and employment opportunities which they need. It introduces new ideas and new processes, develops new markets, contributes to local tax revenues, and encourages the growth of indigenous business and industry. It is no wonder that the Pearson Report laid so much emphasis upon the contribution that such enterprise can make to real growth in the developing world, and it is good to see the Government ready and eager to encourage more investment of this kind.
As to priorities, the Select Committee attached the highest importance to rural development. The population explosion in many developing countries is now intensifying rural and urban unemployment, with all its attendant poverty, social distress and malnutrition. In India alone at least 10 million people are officially out of work, while estimates made by the

1157
Inter-American Development Bank suggest that 30 per cent. of the total labour force of Latin America may be unemployed or under-employed. It is hardly necessary for us to dwell upon the social and political consequences of allowing this terrifying situation to drift.
Our Report showed that urban industrialisation does not provide a quick or easy answer, and that the way ahead lies through improvement in agriculture and the development of the rural areas, where, after all, the majority of the people in the developing countries still live. To this end, we made a number of recommendations. I am puzzled by my right hon. Friend's response to some of them. For example, we recommended that aid to economically sound rural development projects should not be inhibited on account of local costs. Does my right hon. Friend's answer in the Command Paper mean that a valuable project may have to be rejected where the developing country concerned cannot afford the local costs involved? If it does, I suggest that some drastic revision of policy seems to be required.
Then again, in response to our suggestion that intermediate technology should be energetically applied to rural development programmes financed by British aid, all we are told is that the O.D.A. is supporting research into the theoretical and practical possibilities and so far such studies have cost £100,000. There appears to be little sense of urgency here: nor are we told what results have flowed from such expenditure.
This seems a poor response to the carefully reasoned argument in the Report that advanced technology is not the answer yet to the problems of any developing countries and that what is needed is not sophisticated equipment but tools and techniques of a kind which are within the reach and understanding of the people whom we are trying to help. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to expand on what he has said in the Command Paper.
Nor am I happy about the response to our suggestions about improving the opportunities for British consultants to take a hand in overseas development, especially as there is ample evidence of the very high value of such consultancies not only to the developing countries but to British business interests.
1158
My right hon. Friend infers that present arrangements on this score are satisfactory. That is not what the Select Committee was told by the British Consultants Bureau. We feel that the Government should take a more positive line. In response to our suggestion that the fund available to the Department of Trade and Industry for financing consultancies should be increased., my right hon. Friend said in the Command Paper that the fund is being operated for an experimental period but he does not say whether it is serving a useful purpose, or how long the experimental period will be, or whether the matter will be reviewed. I hope he will take the matter up with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and ask him, if necessary, to inject a little more dynamism into the system.
That brings me to one of the great success stories of the British aid effort, the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Here there is certainly no lack of dynamism. The Select Committee was of the opinion that this organisation makes an invaluable, indeed unique, contribution to the economic growth of developing countries, especially in the field of rural development, and we were anxious to see that contribution increased and extended to more countries. Moreover, here is a perfect example of aid conferring mutual benefits since the CDC. can not only point to a wide variety of successful ventures round the world but it pays its way and promotes substantial exports from Britain.
Precisely because of this I am disappointed at my right hon. Friend's response to our recommendation that the C.D.C. should be given firm commitments at least three years ahead regarding the amount of money it will get from the Treasury. My right hon. Friend says that discussion on this is now taking place, but, with respect, this battle has been going on for a long time and it is not further discussion that is needed but decision. Are we to interpret what my right hon. Friend has said tonight as meaning that a decision has been taken or that one is imminent?
Development, of course, is not just a matter of money. It involved finding the right people to work overseas, and keeping them. If our aid effort is to be sustained, British experts in the field must

1159
feel that their interests are not forgotten. This is why the Select Committee specifically recommended that recipient Governments should be asked, as a condition of our supplying experts, to appoint British officers in their Government departments to be responsible for the welfare and conditions of service of our expatriate British staff in the field.
I welcome the excellent example set by the Zambian Government, which recently appointed two British officers to their Ministry of Establishments. I hope that everything will be done to encourage other Governments to follow suit. It is not good enough to leave our people's interests solely to the good offices of our diplomatic staffs, especially in countries where there are large numbers in the field.
Similarly, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider carefully our recommendation that when Her Majesty's Government assume responsibility for the payment of expatriate officers' pensions, no pensioner shall be worse off. I recognise the difficulties, but it should not be beyond the wit of man to devise a scheme which is fair to all concerned.
Finally, I come to the Select Committee's last recommendation; namely, that special consideration should be given to presenting the aid programme to the public at large in a form they can more readily understand. My right hon. Friend's answer in the Command Paper is that it is best for his Department to concentrate on those groups and individuals who are, in turn, conducting extensive publicity and educational activity in this sphere. With respect, I suggest that that is short-sighted; it helps only the converted.
Tonight my right hon. Friend has been a little more forthcoming. Does he agree that the time is now ripe for a campaign to excite the imagination of ordinary people to make them aware of the purpose of the aid programme and of what is really at stake, not simply for this generation but for the future in a world whose population will double within 30 years?
I venture to make a few suggestions. Why not commission a really good film of documentary award-winning standard? Why not arrange exhibitions in city
1160
centres? Why not organise a professional market study of the communications problem with the mass media? It is not enough to publish facts and figures; they must be explained so that widely differing audiences can grasp what the challenge and adventure of development is all about.
I said at the outset that we all live in one world. Clearly, what is at stake here is whether in the long run a world in which the majority live in conditions of wretchedness will be worth living in for the rest of us, and whether in these circumstances our civilisation can survive. If we really believe in the need for action—and I hope that the Select Committee's Report makes it clear that some of us do—then it is surely our duty to inform and enthuse as many people as possible, and to do so while there is still time.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) because it enables me, as a member of the Committee ever since it was first set up under the previous Government, to underline the points he has made and, in particular, to thank him, not only for his chairmanship in the last session which we had but because, as he rightly said, as a Committee we were able to do a considerable amount of constructive work across the barriers of the two sides of the Committee, and the hon. Gentleman, in his rôle as vice-chairman, perhaps did even more to that end than he did as Chairman.
I underline all that he said about the work which was carried on in the Committee, thanks to the Clerks, and especially to the number of witnesses and the number of organisations that presented ream upon ream of interesting and very factual documentation and who spent hours being cross-questioned by the Committee.
I suppose it is usual, after having a hard slog like that, that we are inclined to know each other a little better. But we came out of the Committee convinced that we had only just started the job, and we very much regretted that, owing to the reorganisation of the programme of the House, it was not possible for

1161
the Select Committee to be reconstituted in a similar form in order to carry forward some of the ideas which emerged and which were published in the report.
I again underline some of the words of the hon. Gentleman, which arose also from the right hon. Gentleman the Minister's opening comments, that the Committee were very concerned about the change from the old Ministry of Overseas Development to Overseas Development Administration under the Foreign Office. However, Governmental changes have taken place, and many of us will be watching with great interest to see the final result. I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the points made about how much of the expertise, organisation and administration of the previous Ministry is to be retained, he will remember that when we on this side of the House win the next General Election, I shall certainly be one of those strongly pressing to revert to the idea of a self-contained Ministry having the responsibility within its own right on this extremely important part of governmental responsibility.
I also take up the point of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks about emergency aid, which although not within the remit of the Committee is certainly within the remit of this debate, and I refer to the question which has arisen under the United Nations and the report which will be given by U Thant in July on the whole question of world stockpiling.
On behalf of the British delegation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union at Caracas at Easter, I had the privilege of presenting a document and drafting a resolution, which was carried unanimously and which will now go to the world conference in September in Paris. I am pretty certain that there it will receive the unanimous support that it did in Venezuela. What it demands is the use of our computerised organisation and administrative skill in order to alert nations that within 24 hours emergency aid can be on its way. Not physical stockpiles—because for a number of reasons this is a wasteful way of ensuring a speedy use of men, materials, medical equipment and supplies—but it is quite possible to pledge, in the same way that United Nations specialised agencies now
1162
pledge that certain financial resources shall be available for the I.L.O., F.A.O., and World Health Organisation every year at their pledging conference, that also this could be done with material, men, supplies and, most important, logistics, under the auspices and control of the United Nations.
As a result of the statement made today in the previous debate and of the pressures that have come from the House as a result of this last tragic disaster in Pakistan, I am hopeful that there will be an added impetus to the organisation to centralise control at the United Nations for the speedy ability to deal with the kind of thing that has happened in the last few months in Pakistan.
I speak with some feeling about Pakistan, and on this subject I speak with a little experience. I lived there for two years. I served for three years as a technical assistance expert under the United Nations programme, and I am aware of some of the real problems, with which we had some difficulty in the Select Committee in translating them into words of documentation. Human problems are sometimes extremely difficult to express in the kind of language or jargon which we seem to have to use in the documents which we present to the public. In this connection, I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's closing observations about the need to give a better public interpretation and the use of mass media of the realities of the situation.
I wish to draw attention to one or two of the awkward questions with which the Select Committee dealt, and I take, first, the whole question of land tenure. The Committee spent some time on this issue, which is one of the hottest chestnuts in the whole field of overseas aid and development. It is basic to a country's economy, especially when that country has largely an agrarian and subsistence economy, and, if it is not tackled, a lot of the other aid one can give is abortive and simply cannot achieve the results for which one hopes.
I welcome the Government's statement on this section of our Report to the effect that they will look further at the possibility of British expertise being used to help tackle the problem of land tenure, which is primarily a political problem, but I hope also that the Minister will

1163
look into the fund of experience which we have. In this connection, I refer to our experience in India at the beginning of the century when, under the British Government of that day, there were many development schemes under way. Development schemes are a popular form of multilateral aid because they are imaginative, one can see the areas of land involved, one can see the number of people involved, one can see hydroelectric schemes, water and irrigation schemes, and so on, all in one neat package.
Under the development scheme at Lyallpur at the beginning of the century, one was able to see in progress developments of the kind which we have been trying to set on foot in recent years under our more modern development programmes. A whole area of land was reclaimed and resettled. Within two generations, however, in those days, the whole thing became entirely absorbed into the generality of poverty because the system of land tenure and inheritance in India was such that the original plots of land, which were viable agricultural units, became fragmented into units too small to be satisfactorily worked.
The whole question of land tenure and land consolidation into workable units, tough as it is, and overlaid as it is with political considerations, must be looked at far more closely, and the Ministry must accept some of the evidence which the Select Committee had before it, so that we may play a far more active part in seeking to solve the problems which still confront us in the developing countries of the world.
I was particularly interested in the Select Committee—and also because this was my job in Asia—in the whole business of rural development by means of auto-activity. There are a number of names for schemes of this kind, the most popular being co-operative systems, cooperative agricultural societies, co-operative credit and thrift societies, co-operative irrigation societies, and so on. In other cases, they were known as village A.I.D. schemes or extension schemes. Basically, however, whatever the name, it always comes down to the same thing: one is trying in a local area to get the people themselves to organise themselves
1164
and lift themselves out of their own poverty.
Whatever good will we may generate in other quarters of the world, we still come back to that basic principle, that only the people themselves can do the job for themselves. What we are trying to do, therefore, is to move away from the paternalistic approach of previous generations to an approach by which the people in developing countries accept their responsibility and we for our part accept a measure of responsibility to give a fraternal helping hand in the job which they are doing.
In this connection, I very much regret that, in spite of the evidence which we took in the Select Committee, which showed that there has been considerable development in this area and considerable research, when I asked the Minister the other day to establish a central coordinating apex research institute, so to speak, for the amount of research, documentation, experience and expertise which is now available in these matters, he rejected that suggestion and said that he was certain that enough was already being done.
A tremendous amount has been done and is being done, but the trouble is that a good deal of it is being duplicated, and a good deal is being done in different ways in different parts of the world. We need some centralised co-ordination so that the results can be used in the most effective way. I am speaking here not so much of research in terms of general study to find out more but of applied research so that, as a result of information received about what is going on throughout the world in agrarian and rural development, there can be a follow-through enabling one effectively to gear aid programmes to take practical advantage of the findings of the research.
Vital to all aid programmes is the whole question of education. One of the things which emerged in the Select Committee, especially when looking at the 80 per cent. rural areas as opposed to the 20 per cent. industrial areas and modern towns was that education did not mean simply seeing how many people could get through a schools system finishing at university. In large areas it is a question of adult education, practical education, a question of what can be done with people who have very little literacy to

1165
begin with and have to be shown how to organise their social and economic life to overcome their difficulties.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East quite rightly drew attention to the fact that one of the great problems was that as a result of the understandable desire of the developing countries to have the best possible university standards, graduate after graduate was being turned out into an environment where there was not the type of job available for them. As a result, there is not only unemployment in the villages; there is a total of 10 million unemployed in India, including many highly educated graduates, because the economic system is not yet organised in such a way as to be able to absorb them in the type of jobs capable of using the knowledge that they have acquired.
I would like to refer to the excellent papers which the Select Committee received from the Industrial Co-operative Training Centre at Loughborough and the International Co-operative Alliance and to the voluntary work that has been going on throughout the world under the leadership of these organisations. Since Creech Jones was Colonial Secretary there has been continual support for this kind of practical educational training at Loughborough. I am glad to say that this Government have continued with that.
I should like to pay tribute to the way in which practical work is going on to help overseas students in agricultural cooperatives. It is not only right that they get to know how a co-operative farm should be administered but it is right too that students under the overseas aid programme should undergo a six-month period of practical experience.
I emphasise the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) about the Minister's remarks on investment and trade. These can only be complementary to our job, they cannot be a substitute for it. I cannot emphasise too strongly the evidence that we received on this subject in the Select Committee.
We were dissatisfied with the progress being made by U.N.C.T.A.D. There should be a great extension of its work and more support for it. We were disappointed with the New Delhi conference. We felt it should have gone further. We had quite a lot of evidence
1166
on this in Committee and are pressing the Government to be more forthcoming in giving greater power and support to this body.
The question of trade ties up with another question before the House—whether Great Britain is to enter the Common Market. I would be out of order if I were to go into that now, but our trade with the developing countries and the Commonwealth is still much greater than it is with Europe and it would be a tragedy if because of the change of circumstances in this part of the world, there was a diminution in our trade with the developing countries. It would be a greater tragedy if the pattern of trade in the developing countries became such that those countries were merely the drawers of water and hewers of wood—the providers of the primary products. While we in the West are struggling to get two cars to a family these people are struggling to get two bowls of rice a day.
On the population problem I pay tribute to what has been done in India wih the propaganda campaign. One cannot move anywhere without seeing that famous advertisement of a wife and two children and saying in Hindi "Children by choice and not by chance". Millions of rupees must have been spent on this campaign, and all credit to them for doing so. I hope that other countries seek to help in this way.
The problem of population is not simply one of many births but because we have been so successful medically that we have been keeping people alive longer. The most graphic illustration which I have seen of the population explosion was one by Professor Boeke, of Leiden University, an authority on socio-economics in Asia. This demonstrates the population increase over 2,000 years since the birth of Christ. If that increase were measured by distance in this Chamber, roughly from the Bar of the House to Mr. Speaker's Chair, then the population has been so rising over that period that by the time the line of growth reached Mr. Speaker's Chair it would have risen two inches; and the rise in the last 30 years would bring the line almost to the top of the Press Gallery. That is a graph of the population explosion we are now facing and that is the problem with which we have to deal.

1167
The Select Committee took evidence from many devoted people who have given their time, attention and energy to this problem. What we tried to bring home to the world was what poverty really means. Let me put it quickly in two ways. Tomorrow an hon. Member may be entertaining two or three friends in the Strangers' Dining Room. What that meal will cost him is what many a family of eight have to live on for a month.
The most tragic situation I had to see when I was in Asia, in Indonesia, Burma, India, and in Pakistan, was the situation where a family had to decide what to do to escape starvation. The question is not whether a child of the family should be an engineer or a doctor to earn a living. The decision is that he should be a beggar and by this profession support the family. Because of the pressure of poverty a mother will take her child and quite deliberately break both its arms and legs so that it can sit in a little trolley on four wheels and so go and beg enough to keep the rest of the family. That is poverty. That is poverty in its extreme form. And this is the problem which overseas aid is trying to overcome.
The pressure from the Churches last year was successful, and I hope that it will be doubled in the next year. The organisations which came to the Select Committee urged us to do more. I hope that they will double their presure. I hope, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex, South-East, that the television and all public media will do all they can to arouse the conscience of the people. I hope the Government will give far more cash, far more resources, and far more energy to the problem.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I was particularly interested in the point which the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) made about land tenure. It seems to me absolutely fundamental to what is happening in the world at the moment, and what it will be for the next 50 years, whether in Siberia or other areas.
It is of the utmost importance not merely that land should be owned in certain ways but that it should be cared for. If we are to produce the food which is
1168
required, it is essential that we should undertake the proper care of the land. Having studied this matter in a number of lands, in this country and around the world, I think the system in north-east Africa, whereby the land belongs to the community but an individual keeps it, and it is passed on from father to son, is one of the best. If the one who keeps it goes away elsewhere, then the land reverts to the community. I think the Russians have studied land tenure in Siberia from something I read in Pravda some time ago. It is essential that we all look after the land.
I do not want to take up many minutes of the time of the House, but to make one or two points. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his first year in office, and particularly on the reorganisation of his Department. It is good to have a Minister responsible for overseas aid in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who is fairly free to go abroad and, in going around, finds, as I know he does more and more, that economic development aid is of growing interest and in many countries of greater importance than the political problems with which they are also faced. The establishment of the Minister within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is good, and I hope that as time goes on the move will be accepted more widely. I do not take the cynical view that aid is given only in order to further foreign policy. I believe that, whatever Government are in power in this country, aid will be part of our overseas policy.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West mentioned the population explosion over the last 25 years in particular. I think we made a mistake in the years after the war by stressing too much industrialisation as being the first priority. In retrospect, it seems that the production of food was really the primary task. Following that, of course, is the problem of education, in broad terms. My right hon. Friend mentioned technical education—the growing amount of telecommunications equipment, pumps, generators and vehicles which one finds all over the world, although there are seldom enough technically trained to keep it all working well. There is also need of administrators, without which these technical skills cannot be put to good use. But I believe that, within all this, it is

1169
the production of food that is the basis of the wellbeing of the people of these countries.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend stress "management". Capital is in short supply, but good management is in even shorter supply.
I add my tribute to the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has done a wonderful job. It is continuing to fill the gap between State-owned industries and commerce, and free enterprise, and has often got operations going which would not otherwise have got going, at least not as quickly. I have always welcomed increases in the activities of the C.D.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) mentioned Ethiopia, which he knows so much about. I hope that before too long the Sudan, in which I have always had a particular interest, will, when circumstances allow, be brought within its scope.
A method which the C.D.C. has been increasingly using is the employment of consultants. This, again, is part of the change from the supply only of capital to include the supply of management. By employing consultants, it is very often easier to find managers through whom to train, over a shorter period, local people who can take over managerial responsibilities in due course.
I also welcome what my right hon. Friend said about what I call insurance against political risks. He called it the investment insurance scheme. A number of us on both sides of the House have been pressing for this for some time, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who did a great deal of work on this with the Conservative Commonwealth Council about 10 years ago. I am sorry, and he regrets, that he is unable to be here today. I have always regarded him, with his practical business experience, as knowing more about this subject than anyone else I know.
We are making progress on these lines. West Germany, Japan and the United States have, I understand, done most in this way; for a relatively small outlay it can often produce a disproportionately greater result. In 1962 the Chancellor of the day said that this was a good idea but we did not then have the resources for it. I am not sufficiently technically
1170
qualified to know just where one such scheme runs into another, but the extension of the activities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department possibly covers some of the area to be covered by insurance against political risk.
Top priority should be given to the still dependent territories. When Arthur Creech-Jones once invited me to join a committee there were 42 dependent territories. Now there are about 18, all of which except one are very small. As they are very remote, these territories deserve speial attention. The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), when she was Minister, gave special attention to these territories. I stress that as long as we have sole responsibility for them we should do our utmost to help them to an even greater extent.
The International Peacekeeping Association can be of great assistance to aid. This group was initiated by a number of former officers who had commanded United Nations Forces. General Rikhye played a very prominent part in the original thinking. There is to be a conference in September to consider the possibilities, mainly on the military side. It has also been suggested that for a comparatively small outlay a conference should be held to study the feasibility of using such forces in disasters, using the same personnel.
I ask the Minister to consider whether help for such a conference would not be worth while, in view of the most recent example of the disaster in East Pakistan. We should consider establishing forces having signals, engineers and medical teams available. Such personnel must be more readily available than they are at present, as the events in East Pakistan in the last few weeks have shown. There was a good response from Singapore when the cyclone hit East Pakistan a year or so ago. I see no way of organising people and having them standing by in readiness except on some military basis.
I agree that this should be a United Nations' overall responsibility, possibly based on a regional set-up. In the past, the Congo was at first a disaster area rather than a political problem. The existence of such a group which could go into a disaster area and take immediate action might help to prevent this disaster from becoming a political problem.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall not comment on all the remarks

1171
made by the right hon. Lady. She and I disagree fundamentally. The Socialist outlook, which she stated in a classic form, is different from mine. I believe in the place of government and in letting others create wealth within the overall control of government.
The right hon. Lady spoke about people taking more out in profits than they put back in capital. That does not offend me. I am not talking about Coca Cola. I am talking of a place like the great Gezira scheme in the Sudan. Over 25 years free enterprise management under Government control probably took out twice as much as it put in in capital. Today, on the balance of payments, it is probably earning three or four times as much every year as it originally put in in capital. Those who live in the Sudan and run this great project would not feel that this was wicked capitalist exploitation from this country. There are a number of such projects, including mining developments. Large losses are often sustained. Profits are not always made all the time. When the right hon. Lady was Minister, she probably did not practise many of the things that she has told us about this evening.
Mrs. Hart: The hon. Gentleman and I share many interests, including an interest in the Turks and Caicos Islands, with which he and I are probably the only two hon. Members who are familiar. The hon. Gentleman must not be unfair to me. I was talking about the difference between the Government attitude towards official aid at the end of, but during, my time in office and the present Government attitude towards official aid compared with private investment. I practised what I preached when I was at the Ministry.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: It is a question of a swing of emphasis rather than the change of policy which has taken place under the present Government. I support what the Government are doing and hope that it will be successful. We should use every incentive possible to encourage people to manage businesses and developments well and to carry on with the creation of wealth for the greater happiness of all those who live in developing countries.
1172
The Minister spoke about motivation and why we are doing these things. The slogan with which Livingstone fought the slave trade over 100 years ago was "Christianity and commerce". It was a good slogan then, and it is a good slogan now.
9.42 p.m.
Mr. Reg Prentice: I begin by joining those who have congratulated the Select Committee on the work it did and particularly those hon. Members who are present who shared in it, like my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt), the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and others. The Select Committee did a first-class job. I should like, in particular, to join in the tributes paid to Margaret Herbison, whom many of us remember as a very able and charming colleague.
Having as Minister of Overseas Development persuaded my colleagues to establish the Select Committee, I should like to claim a small fraction of the credit. I took the view, which was not the universal view of Ministers, that it would be good for the Department that the work which it was doing should be examined, and I believe that that has been borne out by the result.
I have mixed feelings about the timing of this debate. In one sense, it is appropriate that we should be discussing these broader problems immediately after debating the situation in East Pakistan and North-East India. Public opinion in Britain and in the affluent countries generally has a selective conscience in these matters. We rightly become very concerned and compassionate about a sudden crisis of this kind, but we lose touch with the situation immediately it leaves the headlines. It is a vital postscript to our earlier discussion today that we should remind ourselves that the conditions of cholera epidemic, of threatened famine and of homelessness are very close to the normal conditions of life in that part of Asia and to the conditions in other parts of the developing world, and it is essential for us to think much more of the long-term problems than we normally do.
At the same time, it is inappropriate that this debate should be taking place in only a three-hour period at the end of the day. The House should manage

1173
every year to have at least a full day's debate on overseas aid and development. It was right to have an emergency debate on the situation in Asia, but another day should have been found for this debate. The last time that we had a debate on overseas development in Government time was when I was Minister. I spent a long time persuading the Leader of the House to provide time for it. On that occasion half the day was taken up with an emergency debate on Gibraltar. This seems to be the fate of debates on this subject. Supposing we had an emergency debate on Northern Ireland in which we discussed the conduct of our troops there, no one would think it possible to push the debate into three hours at the end of the day, following the annual debate on the Defence White Paper. Our priorities are hopelessly out of date. The other place has shown a better sense of priorities, in that it has had three debates on overseas development this year.
We go through the same ritual year by year. We spend the same number of days on the Budget and the Finance Bill and the same number of days on the Defence White Paper. Overseas Aid concerns our relationship with two-thirds of the world. We hardly ever debate it, and when we do we have to do it in a rush with inadequate time.
I should have liked to have made a number of comments on the White Paper, but I will confine myself to two general observations. My first is an attempt to bring together a number of subjects on which I should have liked to have made more detailed comments, and to make a general abservation about priorities within the aid programme and within the general framework of development.
As we look back over the large number of reports and studies of the last few years, we find that many of the assessments made have been too optimistic. For example, the important and distinguished report of Mr. Lester Pearson's Commission in many of its conclusions appeared too optimistic and in many of its recommendations appeared too modest. I still think that it was an excellent report which contained a great deal which we need to study and apply, but it took too easy a view of the progress made in the 1960s and made rather too optimistic assumptions about the progress that
1174
could be expected during the 1970s and over the rest of the century.
At the same time, some of those who have criticised the Pearson assessment have gone too far in the other direction in suggesting that the whole of the development effort is along the wrong lines. I take a view somewhere in between. We need a considerable shift of emphasis in development, but that does not mean that everything that has happened so far has been wrong. We should be learning the lessons, and the beginning of the Second Development Decade is particularly a time to be taking stock.
In our recent experience we can claim that a number developments have been successful and others have not. On the one hand, we can look back on the 1960s as a period in which the developing world achieved on average a growth rate of 5 per cent. per annum in gross national product. This is a faster rate of growth than most of those countries have ever had before. It is a faster rate of growth than we had in Britain at a similar stage of our development, and it is a rate of growth that is mostly due to the efforts of the developing countries.
All the aid programmes in the world plus all the private investment in the world amounted to only about 15 per cent. of the new capital generation in the developing world during the 1960s; 85 per cent. came from the savings and sacrifices of the developing countries. This is a success story. But we have to set against that the fact that the crude measurement of economic growth is only one of the indices, not necessarily the most important one, for judging the situation in these countries. At the same time we have seen an appalling growth of unemployment and under-employment, which is likely to become more severe in the years ahead. We have seen in many countries in the developing world a greater division between those who are relatively well off and the bulk of the population, and the enormous growth of shanty-town slums, in many of which 50, 60 or 70 per cent. of the people are unemployed. We have seen the explosive growth of population to which other hon. Members have referred.
It is vital that we draw the correct lessons from this situation. We should not draw from it any message of despair,

1175
any conclusion that the development effort should be slackened in any way. We should draw the lesson that a number of shifts of emphasis are required. I shall put them as headings, because of the lack of time, though I should have liked to develop them.
There should be a considerable shift from urban to rural development. I am very glad that the Select Committee had a good deal to say on rural development. There should be a shift from large-scale projects to intermediate technology. There should be a shift from capital-intensive development to labour-intensive development. There should be a shift in the education programmes from more conventional forms towards vocational training and education related to it. There should be a shift in the development of health services from large hospitals towards smaller clinics in the villages. These are merely examples of a kind of general shift in the direction of the grass roots.
There is nothing new in what I am saying. All of it has been said by many people observing the development scene over several years. At least some of these shifts of emphasis are already to be seen in the development plans of developing countries and the aid programmes of donor countries. The shift is beginning to happen, but it is not happening fast enough.
I have a general criticism of the Government's White Paper commenting on the Select Committee's Report. I do not think that its message is sufficiently bold and dynamic in the general direction I have tried to indicate. Above all, we must make certain that our own rules applying to our aid programme are not an obstacle to the shift of emphasis which is needed.
I was very glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about the possibilities of an agreement on the untying of aid. The progressive untying of aid could make a real contribution. But so also could a greater readiness by the Government to pay for local costs in certain cases. Whereas I think the Minister was forthcoming about the untying of aid, he has not been so forthcoming about the payment of local costs.
The insistence, not only by Britain but by aid donors generally, on such a large
1176
part of aid being spent on the kind of capital things we can easily produce and want to export has to some extent been a distorting factor in the development plans that have been brought forward. It has encouraged not necessarily wrong development but development that is not of the highest priority, not of the kind that is needed to a great extent.
I should like to say something about the size of the aid programme. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been rather too much discussion of this. With great respect to him, when we can reach agreement on it, when we can see our country fulfilling its pledges in respect of the aid programme, we can cease to talk figures and our debates can concentrate entirely on the content of the programme and the priorities within it. But we have not reached that stage.
I was very interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) said about the balance between private investment and official aid. Broadly speaking, I agree with her. My emphasis might be a little different. I am a little more friendly to the White Paper on private investment than my right hon. Friend is, but I think that the Government are moving in the wrong direction in their over-emphasis on private investment. But above all I agree with what my right hon. Friend said, for all the reasons she gave, that it is no substitute for aid growth in the official aid programme.
I want to add one further argument to those which my right hon. Friend put to the House. I do not believe that we can honestly tell the United Nations that we shall carry out the 1 per cent. pledge unless we also have an official programme that reaches the 0·7 of 1 per cent. target. I would remind the House that the official aid programme at the moment amounts to approximately 0·4 of 1 per cent. On the aid figures contained in the White Paper on Public Expenditure last autumn making certain likely assumption about the growth of gross national product by 1974–75, the aid programme is likely to be 0·45 of 1 per cent.
I put it to the House, as I have put privately to the Minister for Overseas Development and to the Prime Minister and others, that this is not consistent with our pledge which is to provide at least 1 per cent. of resources. The 1 per cent.

1177
is meant to be a floor rather than a ceiling. This is not a pledge to achieve a varying performance, that may reach 1 per cent. when we have a good year for private investment, such as occurred in 1969 and 1970. It is a pledge to achieve a total of at least 1 per cent. Private investment can be as low as 0·3 of 1 per cent. as it was in 1968 or as high as 0·6, or a little more, as occurred in 1969. On top of all the other arguments, I believe that the two figures go together. This was part of the logic of the Pearson Committee's recommendation and of the inclusion of the official target in the resolution approved by the General Assembly last autumn.
If the Government say that they are not to achieve this situation by 1975, the question is still open as to whether they might do so later in the 1970s. The Pearson Report said it should be done by 1975, but that in special circumstances there could be a delay until 1980. The Labour Party manifesto during the General Election spoke of reaching the target for official aid during the 1970s. Some countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, have said that they could accept both targets, but not the date. It is still open to the Government, if they wish, to have a programme which goes later into the 1970s and which takes us to this target, even if they cannot commit themselves to it at the moment.
We shall watch closely the aid figures in the public expenditure White Paper this autumn when a new year will have to be written in, the financial year 1975–76. We shall expect to see a further rise on the £340 million figure by 1974–75, and it ought to rise as an exponential curve so that the increase in each year is greater than that in previous years. I will not carry the argument further, because other hon. Members want to speak. We are bound to concentrate on this question of aid volume since the performance of our country remains so disappointing.
I do not criticise this Government alone. I felt critical of the Labour Government's performance in this respect as well, although in that connection I would remind the present Government that, among those who criticised the Labour Government programme, arising out of the debate on the Queen's Speech in the autumn of 1969, were the present
1178
Prime Minister, the present Foreign Secretary, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, all of whom spoke from the Opposition Front Bench in that debate and all had something to say on this subject. The logic of their criticism then means that they should be doing better now.
I do not criticise this country. I believe that the rich one-third of the world generally is failing to measure up to the modest targets which have been accepted in principle at successive conferences. We are at a critical point in the struggle for world development at a moment when we have learned something of the lessons of development. Therefore, in the 1970s every pound, dollar, frank or mark of aid can do more in human terms than at any time in the past. The question that faces us is that which is posed in the first chapter of the Pearson Report, a chapter entitled "A Question of Will". It remains to be seen whether this country and others have the will to do what is necessary in this situation.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjourment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Ordered,
That proceedings on any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: The right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) speaks on this subject with immense knowledge and dedication, and we are always glad to hear his observations. I am particularly grateful that he should have been instrumental in setting up the Select Committee on Aid, which I had the privilege to serve latterly under my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who led us with such skill and drive.
Perhaps it is in keeping with the way in which our Committee conducted its affairs that the debate should be pushed into three hours this evening, because we tended to get buffeted around as a Committee and one of the buffets we received was the General Election and

1179
our dissolution, and then, when we were reconstituted, the fact that we could not take further evidence. I regret that we were unable to call the Minister before us to explain some of the reorganisation of the administration of overseas aid which is planned.
This necessarily gave the Report which we produced a backward-looking aspect, but, at the same time, we managed to produce a substantial number of sensible suggestions. It seemed to me that, certainly on the subject of private investment, our suggestions were sensible, and I am delighted that the Minister has seen fit to accept almost all of them.
I was appalled to hear the right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) on the subject of private investment. She talked about profits being taken out of the country; she talked about planning; she talked about infrastructure. I listened to her closely, and in this passage of her speech she never once used the word "jobs". The great problem facing so much of the underdeveloped world in the next few years will be a desperate shortage of employment, and private investment in the under-developed countries can make a tremendous contribution to solving this problem, even if it does not fit so tightly into a plan.
Having attacked the right hon. Lady, I am glad that when she was Minister she appeared to be wholly converted to the importance of creating new development divisions overseas. This was a view which the Select Committee endorsed. I am rather sorry that, in paragraph 35 of the Command Paper, in response to our suggestions in paragraph 126 of our Report, the Minister did not appear to be as forthcoming as he might have been in this whole subject of creating new development divisions and the importance of seeing that more specialist staff were available to missions overseas with extensive knowledge of the actual administration of aid, because I am sure that this, alas, is a weakness at the moment. I hope that the Minister will be converted to that view very soon.
It does not seem to me to be wholly inappropriate that this debate should be held on a day on which there has been not only a debate on the East Pakistan
1180
refugee problem but a substantial statement from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the possibility of this country going into Europe. Many hon. Members believe—indeed, some hope-that we shall soon be a member of the European Economic Community.
If we join the E.E.C., clearly this will have a profound effect on our aid programme. Both France and Germany contribute substantially greater proportions of their g.n.p. to overseas aid—anyhow statistically—than we do, and I wonder what the implications of joining the Community will be on the aid programme. We know that they are planning much greater economic integration than there is now. Is it foreseen that our aid programme over the next 10 years or so will progressively be integrated into a European aid programme? Presumably some thought has been given to this question in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office just as, presumably, thought is being given to it in the Commission in Brussels.
I believe that if the Community is ever to have a foreign policy of its own, this could well come about through trying to hammer out a joint and integrated aid policy, and it does not seem to me beyond the realm of possibility that if we go in, within 10 to 15 years we shall have a European rather than a British aid programme.
I think, too, that it is appropriate that we should be debating aid in its general sense today after the emergency debate on the Pakistan refugee problem, because this surely drives home to us all the fact that overseas aid is essentially a political matter. I had the greatest sympathy with the Minister when he rather slapped us down in his paragraph 7 by saying that since aid is given on a Government-to-Government basis, political considerations are bound to be taken into account. It seems to me that the idea that one can look only at development considerations and ignore politics is inaccurate, and the Pakistan crisis has brought us back to the reality of this position. It reminds us that the giving of aid has immense political implications in the recipient country, and that political actions in a recipient country can undoubtedly be influenced by the giving or the cutting off of aid.

1181
The Minister's reply to the debate on the Pakistan refugee problem was both humane and sensible, but I would ask him to bear in mind all the sentiments of anguish that are aroused in many inhabitants in this country who have relatives and friends in East Pakistan and feel that the money which they pay in taxes may indirectly go to bolster up a regime which they believe is repressing their friends and relatives.
There is considerable justification for thinking that at least part of the aid which is earmarked for Pakistan might be diverted to the direct aid of refugees along the frontier. This problem has reminded us that aid is a political problem, that it is also a matter of life and death, and that the question of how much aid we give in this country can affect the lives and health of millions overseas.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: For a relative newcomer to the House, I detected two distinct strands of debate this evening. Members of the Select Committee have on many occasions shown an identity of knowledge and concern. It appears that the nearer one comes to the ground in this matter, the more agreement there seems to be; the nearer one gets to office or past office the greater the difference. It is on the difference that there has been in the two Front Bench speeches that I want to concentrate.
The difference between private and public capital is a very important distinction which we should look at closely. There has been a difference of emphasis, produced perhaps by the Government publication "British Private Investment in Developing Countries", Cmnd. 4656. I would suggest that one of the great differences between these two forms of capital injection is that private capital is concerned particularly with the return which it will bring. Clearly, if there is a greater return from project A, the more likely will it be to attract capital. It is this matter of distribution which is crucial to the difference between the two sides of the House.
Many hon. Members have emphasised the importance of agriculture and food production, and of smaller-scale enterprises. We sometimes forget that most countries need an efficient and flourishing subsistence economy, and in this sort
1182
of thing capital return cannot be measured, because subsistence production is, of its very nature, outside the money economy of the country and cannot be accounted for in conventional terms.
It is possible that it would be better for many countries to have a flourishing subsistence agriculture or economy which may not be measured but would provide a good basis of life for people in those countries, and have perhaps a smaller money economy than one where the money economy was nominally larger but living conditions were much worse. We must bear this in mind when we look at the pattern of distribution of capital in any one country.
The only rational way to look at this is to see what are the needs of the country. Having established those on basic principles, we would then see where private and public capital could fill in the structure we have erected out of first principles. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will be familiar with this principle in another context—that of regional planning. The two are not inconsistent.
The difficulty is that the White Paper suggests that private capital is good, but it presses that suggestion too far. I agree that it can be good in certain conditions, and the difference between the two sides of the House on this issue arises because the Government have pressed the point too far.
Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says:
"Further positive steps will be taken to bring to the attention of potential investors the readiness of the Overseas Development Administration to consider providing aid for basic infrastructure projects associated with particular private investment plans in the developing countries"—
and it adds
"where this is acceptable to the host government".
It goes on to give an example by saying that
"Such aid … would be provided … to … cover the provision of infrastructure such as a road or power supply essential to a British private investment project and which the investor could not himself be expected to finance".
It is, of course, difficult sometimes to mix these factors satisfactorily with the countrywide needs that have already been established in an overseas territory. In other words, there could be a clash. The

1183
Government qualify the paragraph by saying
"where this is acceptable to the host government"
but the pressures on the host Government to accept extra capital and so boost the total amount of capital going into the country may be so great that they may distort the pattern of capital development which the country requires. It is those pressures which will now be brought to bear on countries which should not have such pressures inflicted on them.
Paragraph 17 says:
"If as a result of the study"—
the terms of the study are mentioned earlier in the paragraph—
"he"—
the investor—
"decided to invest there would be no further Government involvement but if he decided not to invest he would be able to claim up to 50 per cent. of the final costs incurred in accordance with the terms of the agreement."
In other words, we will be subsidising—a word I use with care in the House—the search for outlets for private capital in these areas. We will, by this means, be placing greater weight on finding out where private capital can be placed rather than on making an overall assessment of the total needs of the country. That could distort the real pattern of capital investment that the nation concerned requires.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) emphasised the point about trade rather than aid. I agree with him. One might liken the world situation to the nineteenth century in Britain, when quite a large number of people with plenty of capital and relatively good living standards had a great many others dependent on them. The vast majority earned extremely low wages, however hard they worked. That is the world picture today. Wages are equal to world trade prices.
Consider the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. It is likely to change in nature. The Agreement has given stability of price, at a price marginally higher than the world market price. That sort of arrangement is needed if we are to provide not just aid but good terms of trade. It seems, however, that the Agreement is to be cut back rather than enlarged. We cannot talk in one debate of world
1184
aid and in another debate about new economic forms which we may have throughout the world.
This has been a short debate, and I join my right hon. Friend in regretting the lack of time that we have for this very important subject. I stress to the Minister the dangers of pursuing the policies which the Government have set out, the new change of emphasis in encouraging, perhaps in a rather unbalanced way, British private investment in developing countries in the future.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: Among everyone who has participated in the debate—we always feel sorry for those who have sat through it and not had the opportunity to speak—there will be general agreement that this has been characteristically thoughtful for an aid debate, and it has been useful to draw on the mixture of genuine concern and commitment and of practical field and managerial experience which contributes real substance to what we are discussing.
We have heard a good deal more difference of emphasis in the remarks from both sides of the House than has been characteristic in the past. I do not believe that this augurs badly for our aid debates. If we are to generate meaningful and valuable concern, both amongst our colleagues and in the country as a whole, it is important to be able honestly to discuss how our different political evaluations come into play in issues of major world concern.
Obviously, this debate has been truncated as a result of the debate on Pakistan. None of us would dispute that we should have had a debate on Pakistan. The horror, the crises and the tragedy of that situation demand all the time that we can spare for it. But it is a striking commentary on our political system that we could have that debate only at the expense of some of the time available for the debate on general overseas aid and development matters. It has been pointed out to me that in the past five weeks we have spent seven hours debating Pakistan, but that in the past year we have spent, in full debates in the House, about three hours in discussing major aid and development programmes.
The cross-examination conducted by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East

1185
(Mr. Braine), in his capacity as former Chairman of the Select Committee, on which I had the honour and joy to serve under him, illustrated just how much material there was for us to go into in detail in a full debate and at least a daylong debate. In the House and in the country as a whole there will be people who feel that their worst doubts when the independent Ministry was abolished and an overseas development administration was established within the Foreign Office have been more than fulfilled, and that this important aspect of the nation's affairs and the Government's programme is losing priority all the time and is not receiving the sort of constant attention, analysis and criticism that it deserves from the House.
No one could suggest that credit has begun to be given to the work of the Select Committee in the course of the three hours at our disposal this evening. If we were asked to pick out from the debate the most crucial issue facing us, I am certain that we should all agree that it is the problem of population growth. This was well illustrated in the context of the First Development Decade which has just finished. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember that the object of the First Development Decade was to see 1 per cent. of the national income of industrialised countries being devoted to developmental programmes, in the hope that a 5 per cent. growth rate could be generated in the developing countries. If one allowed for a modest 3–3½ per cent. rate of population increase in the developing countries, this would have meant a 1–1½ per cent. per capita income rise in the developing countries if the First Development Decade had been entirely successful. This would have meant that it would have taken 30 to 35 years to double living standards, and at the end of those 30 to 35 years the average per capita income in India would still have been about £50 per annum.
That drives home to us all the magnitude of the problem which confronts us, but, if these general statistics are not bad enough, there are more specific statistics which have been made available in recent years, particularly from the International Labour Organisation. We now know that, excluding Communist China for which we have no accurate statistics, there are at least about 70
1186
million people unemployed in the developing countries, with unemployment rates in specific developing countries as high as 30 per cent.
In his annual report two years ago, the Director-General of the International Labour Organisation warned of even more serious problems to come. He told us—it is there for all to read, and I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members—that during the next 10 years, the so-called Second Development Decade, we can expect an increase in the population of working age in the developing countries—again excluding China—of about 226 million. Even if we were overnight to introduce thoroughly effective population policies—and there is no indication that that would prove possible—it would be impossible to prevent that particular addition during the next ten years to the size of the population of working age. None of us can ignore this problem.
In the context of a recent debate at the Council of Europe in which I was able to participate, we had from the International Labour Organisation, a body not usually given to melodramatic assessments of world situations, a message which told us this:
"Development with benefits for the few, visible but unavailable to the vast majority, is unlikely to breed domestic stability. This has implications which stretch far beyond the prospects for the developing countries themselves to the international community. The world is one because every part of the world is promptly aware of and increasingly sensitive to the effects of events in virtually every other part. Growing unemployment in the developing parts of the world will not only adversely affect the trade and investments of the developed part of the world. It can destroy the fabric of national societies, as it once did in Europe, and thereby threaten world peace."
That is a sombre message which shows that we cannot simply think of these as abstract statistics comfortably remote by several thousand miles. They represent potential social and political crises which could engulf us all, and, quite apart from the moral challenge which we all accept, enlightened self-interest demands that we give priority in our political considerations to seeing how we can tackle these problems.
How are we to tackle these problems? Hon. Members on both sides have put forward practical suggestions during the

1187
debate. But one point which has been repeatedly made—it was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice)—is that we must recognise that the days of paternalism are gone and that this is really an operation of partnership between the industrialised world and the developing countries.
I sometimes believe that if we could put this over more successfully to the British public in its real dimensions we might have a more positive response in public opinion towards the important issue of overseas development. The striking fact brought out by Pearson and so many others is that 80 per cent. of the resources for development in recent years have come from the people of the developing countries themselves. Our contribution in the industrialised world has been 20 per cent., a vitally significant contribution, but marginal none the less. If we could get this point across to our constituents they would begin to see that they were not being asked to shoulder the whole weight, as I am sure many of them believe, of bringing developing countries to economic fruition. They would see that they are being asked to share in a joint enterprise in which the developing countries are playing more than their full part.
If we accept that point about partnership and if we accept that we are living in a post-imperial age then we should have no hesitation about being prepared to spell out to individual developing countries the terms on which we are ready to enter into partnership with them in development programmes.
This is utterly logical. I do not believe that any of us should go to our constituents and ask them to contribute taxes to development programmes if we cannot show to our constituents that these programmes are really in the interests of the majority of the people. We are not here to shore up élitism, or socially repressive or regressive systems in whichever part of the world it may be.
A good deal has been said about private investment and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) dealt with this at some length in her opening remarks. The hon. Mem-
1188
bers for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) spoke of this. Let me say, in support of what my right hon. Friend said, that it seems self-evident that what takes private investment to a developing country is the prospect of adequate and good returns on resources invested. It seems self-evident that this will not always be synonymous with the most urgent social priorities in a country. None of us suggests that there is no room for private investment, but there are grounds for real concern lest the Government should begin to argue that we are fulfilling our obligations and reaching the targets spelled out by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development or the Pearson Report if we add an increasing share of private investment. It has its rôle but it cannot tackle the social investment so desperately needed.
One point which has not been touched upon much, except by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton—and I am not sure it would have been mentioned in more detail if there had been time for a fuller debate—is the commitment to trade. What so many of the developing countries are concerned about is not the level of charity from the industrialised countries but the commitment of the industrialised world to ensure economic justice for the developing world in dealing with its problems.
On several occasions the Government have emphasised that the needs of the developing countries are high on their list of priorities as they prepare for entry to the Common Market. To date I would suggest that their concern seems to have been limited almost exclusively to the problems of those producing primary products such as sugar. Sugar is a life and death issue for many of the communities which produce it and it is right that we should give it careful attention.
It is not convincing—and we heard this earlier in the House today—to be told that the agreements worked out between the Government and the sugar producing countries have simply been "received" by the E.E.C. negotiators because we know what "received" means—it means nothing at all in terms of guarantees or commitments. However, any attempt to examine the effect of the E.E.C. common

1189
agricultural policy on the developing countries as a whole has been conspicuous only by its absence in statements by Ministers.
As the Select Committee has stressed, and we have heard this several times during the debate, the one main hope of immediately beginning to grapple with the acute social and political crisis caused by the population explosion in the third world and likely to engulf us all, is to expand agricultural production and related rural-based industry. The common agricultural policy which Britain and the other new applicants for membership of the Common Market have been told they must accept deliberately sets out to protect high-cost European agriculture from the competition with the outside world and even subsidises dumping of surplus food on world markets. Even worse, the tariff structure is designed to discourage the import of processed food products or textiles. In other words, the Common Market works against the overriding priorities of the developing world.
Against this I know that it is sometimes argued that a number of Commonwealth countries, in advance of British entry, are already voluntarily seeking associate status with the Community and that this demonstrates that they have no objection to British entry. I suspect that it proves nothing except that they have no alternative. If the market is there, they have to have some sort of relationship with it even if that relationship perpetuates the second-class status of the purveyors of basic commodities to a sophisticated élite on terms to be dictated by that élite.
Similarly, arguments about the high level of aid and technical assistance from the existing members of the Community to developing countries prove little in terms of effective commitment to development. This was starkly put by a report from the Economic Affairs and Development Committee to a recent meeting of the Council of Europe. It said:
"Whatever theory we may generate on the appropriate policy for financial aid, the biggest test of the degree to which the industrialised countries genuinely wish to co-operate with the developing world is not the amount by which they are prepared to increase their financial and technical assistance—though this is of course vital—but their willingness to agree to the re-organisation of world trade on the basis
1190
of greater justice for the less developed countries"
The most crying injustice has been the deterioration in the terms of trade between the developing countries, 85 per cent. of whose exports are composed of primary commodities, and the industrialised countries from which they import capital equipment and other industrial goods. This has meant in practice a progressive transfer of real resources from the poor to the rich countries which in some cases has been more than equivalent to the total financial resources received in aid. Within the developing countries this deterioration in the terms of trade has had unfavourable repercussions on agricultural prices and hence on rural incomes, while the benefits of much of the investment in expanding production or improving productivity have accrued to the industrialised rather than to the producer countries.
These are points we have obviously to examine carefully at this juncture as we approach possible entry to the E.E.C. We have to recognise that the reduction or elimination of trade barriers affecting primary products would have its impact on the employment situation through the expansion of exports and the resulting increase in output, since most commodities, especially in the agricultural sector, are highly labour-intensive. The increase in output would be reflected in increased demand for labour, thereby reducing the extent of open and disguised unemployment.
Indeed, with the expansion of agricultural productivity as a result of what has been called the "green revolution", it is clear that increased international outlets will have to be found if rural employment and incomes are to benefit. The report to the Council of Europe concluded that the question
"… is how far the industrialised countries are prepared to modify their present policies … as far as agriculture is concerned, there is no sign of any willingness on the part of the E.E.C. to reconsider its protectionist agricultural policy, while the prospective enlargement of the Community threatens to deprive several developing countries of their traditional access to the British market."
I wish the right hon. Gentleman would make it plain to his colleagues in the Government that it is not enough to talk about the problems of developing

1191
countries simply in that limited context of the problems of the sugar producing countries. We have to look far more seriously at the wider implications of the common agricultural policy as such.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), who chaired the Select Committee with such distinction—and I am sure that he will agree that a lead was given in that respect by Miss Peggy Herbison—made it plain that we live in one world. Basically, what I believe is that the lesson that must be derived from all this is that, if we want stability and security for our own community in this increasingly small world, we cannot have it unless we are prepared to give the highest possible priority to seeking economic and social justice for the majority of the people of the world and for the developing countries in the world.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. Wood: I am not clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I should ask for leave, or whether you will allow me——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for leave. We are on a fresh Motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. Wood: I apologise for making a second speech. I regret to have to say that it is not my last before midnight.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) were all, to various degrees, critical of our failure to accept the 0·7 per cent. target for official flows. Possibly one of the reasons for their criticism was that they were all critical, again to varying degrees, of our support for the rôle of private investment.
When the right hon. Lady was speaking I began to be rather regretful that I had given her the credit during her tenure of my office in 1969 and 1970 for reaching in each year the 1 per cent. target, because she will remember that this was very largely dependent on the contribution which private investment made in those years. When the right hon. Lady became ruder and ruder about the rôle of private investment I began to regret that I had given her the credit for this great achievement in the past two years.
1192
This difference in our philosophy, which has been echoed in a rather minor key, if he will forgive me for saying so, by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North and by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, and which has been brought out by what my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee—the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said on the other side, is probably rooted in our different political philosophies. Therefore, I dare say that we shall have to agree to differ.
I was rather sad that the right hon. Lady devoted almost the whole of her speech to this subject and omitted these important questions which I was hoping we would hear from her about rural development and education, but, as she and others pointed out, we have been limited in time and, obviously, there is not time for more than one or two important subjects to be aired.
My hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East and for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) and in my absence, for which I apologise, the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) talked about the merger between the former Ministry of Overseas Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Indeed, when the merger was announced as part of wider changes in the machinery of government there was, as the House will remember, a good deal of anxiety expressed from both sides of the House about a possible risk to the integrity of the aid programme and its undue influence, as some hon. Members suggested, by political considerations.
The White Paper which was produced last autumn made clear that the new overseas development administration would remain as a separate wing of the enlarged office with the Minister, by delegation from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in full control. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has himself confirmed that the criteria for aid remain unchanged.
The evidence of the last seven months since the merger took place has convinced me, and I hope that it will convince others, that these perfectly natural and justifiable fears have turned out to be unjustified.

1193
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East asked specifically whether there are any changes in mind for the overseas development administration. The rôle assigned to it in the White Paper on the Machinery of Government remains unchanged, but I must say frankly that this obviously does not mean that my Department—the overseas development administration—will not be subject, like any other civil Department, to the normal manpower studies of its organisation and methods and possible action on the basis of those studies.
In this connection there is the question of the possible political direction of aid. My hon. Friend has shown himself mildly dissatisfied with the reply which I gave about the difficulty of measuring political factors. I did not express myself as clearly as I should have done in the White Paper. I do not believe that, under the criteria on which we all work, there could conceivably be cases in which purely political factors are involved. Every activity of my Department must be developmental in purpose and clearly affecting a developing country or countries. Therefore, it is inconceivable that there can be such a thing as purely political aid. It is a contradiction in terms.
What I was trying to express, probably very badly, in the White Paper was the difficulty of dividing the different considerations which might enter in to the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has pointed out—and it is vivid in my mind, having listened to almost the whole debate on Pakistan—and it has been urged on me frequently, particularly by hon. Members opposite, that there should be a closer connection than I should like to apply between politics and development. Although, obviously, the concept of purely political aid is nonsense, it is very difficult to differentiate between the various factors which make up the decision whether to offer aid in any particular case.
My hon. Friend raised the question of aid statistics. This is a complicated matter, anyhow for me. I understand that the aid statistics published by my Department set out the net figures in detail. On the other hand, we have the memorandum of my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary on the Estimates which shows in the overseas aid table both the capital repayments on
1194
earlier loans and the interest received. The figures are there to be seen. It is only the net capital figures which count for international target purposes. But I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about the need properly and popularly to present these matters. I will see, if necessary in discussion with him, whether we can make any improvement in this respect.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East raised the question of local costs. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of the Ministry, will support my contention that, in general, overseas aid is intended to meet the external elements in the cost of a project, leaving the local costs for local financing. But I would not argue either to him or to my hon. Friend that this was an irrevocable principle. Both under the right hon. Gentleman's Administration and certainly at present real difficulties over local cost financing are sympathetically considered from project to project. There is, therefore, no irrevocable principle involved. I shall take into consideration what my hon. Friend said, and we shall continue to look very carefully at particular projects if they involve a considerable amount of local cost financing.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of intermediate technology, and seemed dissatisfied by the amount of research being done. I shall write to him, as Chairman of the Select Committee, in greater detail about what is going forward. It is not an easy subject on which to give definite answers in a very short span, which the White Paper was. The studies are going ahead, and if they show that more can and should usefully be done I shall be prepared to consider a much larger effort than the £100,000 I mentioned in the White Paper.
My hon. Friend was a little dissatisfied on the question of consultancies. The technical assistance funds provided for consultancies have grown every year for several years past, and are now fairly near £2 million a year. We should be prepared to look at further increases if we received suitable requests from recipient Governments.
I had expected more discussion on publicity, a question that was in fact not very generally raised, though the

1195
Select Committee found it very important. My hon. Friend mentioned it, and I know that it is in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen because they have mentioned it to me privately. My hon. Friend suggested that we should provide a really good film. There are in fact some films which the right hon. Lady will know about, and two of the major television channels are working up what sound to be very promising programmes for showing in series before very long. I shall certainly examine my hon. Friend's suggestion about exhibitions in city centres.
He also mentioned the question of a professional market study. We ourselves made a study, at about the time of the General Election, when public opinion polls were in rather low repute. But I believe that this public opinion poll, which was based on a considerable sample yielded useful results, and I should like to make them more available if the House in general felt that it was worth while.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West, whose speech I regret I missed, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham stressed again a matter which was mentioned in the earlier debate this afternoon—the need for a centralised organisation under the control of the United Nations to deal with emergencies. I should repeat, because I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Willesden, West was here earlier, that I suggested putting in the Library the memorandum which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has submitted to the United Nations which I very much hope will form a basis of such a centralised emergency disaster relief unit. I believe that the kind of things mentioned in the memorandum are the matters very much in the minds of a number of hon. Members.
Mr. Pavitt: I heard the right hon. Gentleman's original comment. Because I moved the motion in the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I have followed very carefully all the representations and the fact that the United Kingdom sponsored the original United Nations Resolution. What I am now pressing for is that there shall be expedition of the matter, instead of just the report in July, so that, in the light of the recent circum-
1196
stances, there can be a greater emphasis on the report that is about to come out.
Mr. Wood: We shall certainly try not to lose time. It will be discussed in July, as I made clear earlier, and I hope that substantive decisions will be taken at the United Nations General Assembly this autumn. I hope that we shall now make progress.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned questions of land tenure probably being the basic problem in developing countries and the question of education and the large number of graduates and others who have educational qualifications but are without jobs.
This brings me to a question which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North and others—the major problem facing all of us—the provision of jobs for the young men and women who will be joining the labour forces in the next few years in vast numbers. Unless we make what the right hon. Gentleman called the various shifts which he was kind enough to admit were not original and which a number of us have been discussing, it will be very difficult to meet anything like the demand for this vast number of jobs. This led my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham to suggest that the criticism which had been levelled by the right hon. Lady and others about the relative un-desirability of private investment was a little wide of the mark because private investment would at least play its part in the provision of jobs, the most urgent problem which we have to face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said that he was dissatisfied by my rather lukewarm reply about the new development divisions. It was not meant to be lukewarm, or even evasive. It was merely that I was not able to give him the answers he wanted at the time. However, I sincerely hope that before long I shall be able to give him a more satisfactory answer because I agree with him that this is very important.
My hon. Friend and others had in mind the effect that our joining the European Economic Community would have on our relationship with the third world. I have always felt—I have said it in the House from time to time—that one of the reasons why I believe it is most

1197
important for Britian to join the Common Market is that by the increase in prosperity which I expect to result we shall be in a better position to assist the third world.
I have always been in doubt until recently about whether the enlarged Community would be inward-looking or outward-looking. I have always realised that there was a danger that it would be inward-looking and merely build up its own prosperity and relatively forget the third world. But I do not now believe that this is so, and I think that the agreement which we have reached on sugar, and the interpretation which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has made with the Commonwealth sugar countries and the acceptance of that by the Community, has finally convinced me that the enlarged Community will be an outward-looking body which will increase
1198
our connection with and our usefulness to the third world.
I join with others in regretting the shortage of time in which we have had to deal with this vast subject. I had hoped to have longer, and we should have done so had we not had the emergency debate. However, it has been an extremely useful debate. It has given me a number of new ideas. I should like again to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East and other members of the Select Committee for producing what I consider to be a valuable document which, as I said at the beginning of my speech, will not be merely discussed and dismissed tonight but will for a long time order our thinking and, I hope, led us to more constructive paths.
Mr. Keith Speed: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

OVERSEAS AID
Motion made, and Question proposed.
That the International Development Association (Third Replenishment) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]
11.0 p.m.
Mrs. Judith Hart: I have one comment to make and one question to ask. I thoroughly approve of and give the warmest welcome to the two Orders which we are considering. One Order continues the present replenishment and the other provides for the new replenishment. I understand that one Order is needed because it is unlikely that the new replenishment can come into operation on 1st July as was originally hoped. Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to explain why this is? Will he tell us how far this relates to the inability of Congress in the United States to pass the necessary appropriation? There was a delay at the time of the last replenishment, and I well remember being pressed on this by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman, but I should like to know for information what is the position. I recognise that the Americans are finding it difficult to get appropriations for aid through Congress. Is this the reason for the delay? Are there other factors? What are the prospects?
My comment is that since these Orders carry out the replenishment which was agreed just over a year ago, it would not be inappropriate for me to pay a tribute to Sir Geoffrey Wilson, the former Permanent Secretary of O.D.M. and the other officials of the Department who put a tremendous amount of devotion and enthusiasm not only into getting our replenishment figure but into getting the total figure of replenishment. It is right that in this important area which matters so much to the third world we should recognise the great effort which they put into this work.
11.2 p.m.
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): The right hon. Lady has asked me several questions which I will try to answer. The historical
1200
background she has given is unfortunately very relevant, as she realises. The Orders propose a course similar to the course she proposed earlier. They will enable us to ratify the third replenishment arrangements and to take part once again in the interim arrangements to keep the International Development Association going.
The right hon. Lady knows better than anyone, because she did it, that Britain played a leading part in achieving replenishment of $800 million a year. As she will remember, we would have been prepared to go to a higher figure on the lines recommended by the Pearson Commission, and she deserves great credit for this. I am deeply grateful for the credit she has given to others, particularly to Sir Geoffrey Wilson, who is no longer in my Department. I am glad that we agree—although we cannot agree on other things—about the value of the International Development Association, which allocates two-thirds of its aid to the Commonwealth countries.
If the House approves the I.D.A. (Third Replenishment) Order, we shall be able immediately to assure the Association that we shall make both the contribution and the subscription which the right hon. Lady arranged when she was in my office. The Order will not be made by my right hon. Friend until the replenishment becomes effective and we become bound by the arrangement, but the payment that we eventually make under the first Order will be reduced by subtracting the interim amount of our advance contribution, as under her arrangements.
In regard to the second Order on interim payments, the prospects for bringing in the new replenishment this summer have gradually grown more and more dim as they grew dim in 1968, for reasons the right hon. Lady will remember. Before the replenishment arrangement can be effective, at least a dozen Part I members with a certain category of subscriptions must express their readiness to pay. This makes notification by the United States essential before it can come into force.
On 8th April this year, Mr. McNamara, the President of the I.D.A., told Britain and other Part I members that there was virtually no chance of the U.S. Congress passing this by 30th June,

1201
which is the date replenishment would begin. But he repeated the assurance of the United States Secretary to the Treasury that President Nixon attaches great importance to replenishment at the agreed level and said that he would use all his influence to clear the passage of the legislation which had already been introduced into Congress and which he expects to be completed by the end of the year.
Shortly afterwards, in April, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I myself met Mr. Mc-Namara and discussed the situation. We have made various approaches to the other Part I members and have said that we are prepared to go ahead with this on the understanding that they will also be prepared to make their contribution. The position is that if the House approves the Interim Payments Order tonight, other Part I countries will be aware that Britain, which is the second largest contributor, will be ready to join with them in an interim replenishment. This will provide the certainty for the I.D.A. to plan the important loans which it is anxious to promote.
I hope that the House will be prepared to accept these two Orders.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the International Development Association (Third Replenishment) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.
Resolved,
That the International Development Association (Third Replenishment: Interim Payments) Order, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

ASTON CLINTON (TRUNK ROAD)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rossi.]
11.8 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Raison: I wish to discuss a long-standing and, in its way, quite serious local problem which affects my constituency, namely the impact of the A41 trunk road on the village of Aston Clinton. The more gluttonous Members may know Aston Clinton
1202
through its excellent pub, but Aston Clinton is also of some interest because it provides a good case study of the kind of effect the traditional style of village planning—or accidental village planning—can have today.
Aston Clinton is essentially one long main road. This was a reasonable thing to be in the days when the village grew up, but today it has almost disastrous effects on its inhabitants. The village is split in two by this main trunk road. The business of crossing from one side of the village to the other at times can be almost horrible, particularly for old people and for the quite young. It also presents a fairly considerable risk for motorists coming from side roads—and I do not refer only to motorists emerging from the Bell Hotel. It is an awkward place in which to turn round, the village school is divided by the trunk road, and there is an overwhelming need for a bypass for the village.
The parish council and the county council have both acknowledged this need for a long time and have been urging it. In 1958, a draft route was published. It was then decided to delay the whole matter because the M1 was coming into being and it was felt proper to study its impact first. Then, after some years, the threat of the third London airport at Cublington was a further reason for delay. Happily, that horror has been relieved, thanks in part to the Department of the environment, and a positive decision to build the bypass is now urgent.
This need is increased by the fact that, for Tring, which comes just before Aston Clinton on the London side of the A41, a draft order for a bypass has been published. This is all to the good—Tring needs it as badly as Aston Clinton—but the short-term effect will be to decant more traffic even more rapidly into Aston Clinton.
I will not enter into the argument as to whether the bypass should go to the north or south of the village—the south is more likely—but would re-emphasise that our troubles will be solved only with the bypass. But, in the meantime, there are one or two actions which could be taken to relieve the plight of my constituents.
The first is some kind of pedestrian crossing. The parish council considers this vital, particularly as traffic flows so fast through the village. Last October,

1203
at a meeting with the divisional road engineer, this question was discussed and some kind of count was put in hand to see whether a crossing was justified. I do not know the results, but even if they prove that the sheer numbers of people trying to cross are not all that high, I hope that it will be accepted that those who do have to cross face exceptional difficulty. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure us that there will be some kind of pedestrian crossing. When canvassing the village during the General Election, I certainly found it difficult to cross; a crossing would be greatly appreciated.
Secondly, there is the immediate problem of the extent of the speed limit. There is a 30 mile-an-hour limit through the village, a 40 mile-an-hour extension on the Tring side, but on the Aylesbury side, to the west, we need either a 40 mile-an-hour buffer zone going towards Aylesbury as on the Tring side or an extension of the 30 mile-an-hour limit towards Aylesbury. Traffic goes very fast through the village. The road is mainly straight and I have no doubt that an extension of the speed limit would be welcomed by the residents.
Then there is the problem of an improvement line. A development line was laid down under the Restrictions of Ribbon Development Act, 1935, the effect of which is serious in that it covers a number of properties in the village. This line was based on the pre-war idea that the way to solve what was then a much smaller problem was to widen the road through the middle of the village. It is clear that this plan has long since been jettisoned. The county council tells anyone making application today about planning aspects that there is no possibility of this widening ever taking place.
But the improvement line has the effect of making property sales more difficult in the village and perhaps the more important effect that the rural district council does not give standard improvement grants on properties affected by this line. So I would seriously ask the Minister whether it is possible for powers to be taken to rescind this improvement line, which serves no useful purpose and is now a vestigial anachronism.
Then there is the general question of road safety. In the view of the parish
1204
council, there is an especial need to make the entrance to Brook Street safer. My hon. Friend will know the details of this point and I will not give them now. There is also a need to provide, in this part of the village, a double white line down the middle of the road to help make this area safer.
I am sure that the case I have made could be repeated in many parts of the country. Essentially this is a village in which life has become seriously affected by the road problem. The sooner we have a bypass, the sooner we may get rid of this problem. But in the meantime, before a bypass is provided, some useful steps could be taken to alleviate the harm and damage now being caused.
My hon. Friend's Department has shown in its action over the Third London Airport that it has the interests of the environment of Buckinghamshire close at heart. I hope that, on a smaller scale, the Department will now show the same enlightened attitude in tackling the problem I have raised.
11.16 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I must disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on at least one score. My familiarity with the name Aston Clinton is related entirely to its traffic problems and bears no relationship whatever to its pub and restaurant, but I intend to put this right at an early opportunity. In this respect, therefore, my hon. Friend has performed another admirable service on behalf of his constituents.
I agree that the trunk road, the A41, through Aston Clinton is one long straight road and, while this may have virtues in some respects, it produces its problems. No one disputes that the answer to these is the creation of a bypass.
My hon. Friend will be aware that preliminary work on a bypass is already proceeding. It is well known that a southern route is protected by Buckinghamshire County Council under its planning powers. This would be a dual-carriageway bypass of Aston Clinton with full grade separation running from the west end of the proposed Tring bypass. We are considering the possibility of including such a scheme in the next instalment of

1205
the trunk road Preparation Pool which we hope to announce in the next few weeks. I cannot anticipate any decision that may be made, and I can tell my hon. Friend only that that is the next time at which a decision can be made on the possibility of moving further forward with this bypass.
As my hon. Friend made clear, there are a number of points of a smaller nature that could be dealt with in the meantime in an attempt to solve some of the village's problems. He will be the first to agree that while we are considering the general issue of whether or not to proceed with the bypass, there must be a restriction on the amount of work that we can do in the village.
My hon. Friend was anxious to ensure that we should take a sympathetic attitude to this problem. One example is a one-quarter mile improvement of the A41 in the village which will eliminate a very dangerous bend. Work is to start this month and will cost about £38,000.
The question of providing a new pedestrian crossing on the A41 was mentioned by my hon. Friend. While I would not suggest the provision of such a crossing to make it easier for him to canvass his constituents, the traffic and road safety arguments are extremely real at this point and I am pleased to tell him that a site was agreed yesterday for a crossing a few yards west of Brook Street. It has been difficult to make this decision because of circumstances of which my hon. Friend will be aware. However, the crossing will be in operation within six months, some delay arising from the fact that the electricity board must lay a new supply.
Then there is the question of increasing the area covered by speed limits. Orders are now being prepared to increase by 45 yards the 30 m.p.h. speed limit to the west of the village. This too we hope to put into effect later this year. I would have to tell my hon. Friend that I am aware that the parish asked for more ambitious schemes than this, but we and our local divisional road engineer found that the situation on the ground did not merit additional changes to the ones that I have announced tonight, the reason being that the areas to the west of the village are not as built up as those to the east. One of the problems about imposing speed limits is that we have to
1206
be absolutely sure that they will commend themselves as sensible to motorists. There is no point in imposing limits which people simply ignore.
The next point was the possibility of improving the road safety measures at the entrance to Brook Street, and various suggestions have been put to us. But, again, we are not satisfied that it would be possible to expect people to observe the painting, for example, of "slow" markings on the roads, and on this we have the backing of the county council and the divisional road engineer, who have looked at it extremely carefully.
My hon. Friend mentioned the development line, and I appreciate that this was first laid down a long time ago in 1937. I can give an undertaking tonight that this line will be replaced as soon as a decision has been made about a new line which, when established, can take the place of the old line. Obviously I cannot say when that decision will be made, but my hon. Friend will judge my answer in the light of my remarks tonight. Certainly when that happens it will have the effect of removing the blight to which he has drawn attention.
On the general question of whether or not the by-pass is to come, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that it is impossible to anticipate a final decision, but I can say that we shall be making a decision about a number of schemes within the next few weeks and within that time we shall be making the major decision of whether to proceed with the bypass at Aston Clinton.
There are a number of small schemes about which I have been able to reply tonight. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that these will be a helpful addition to what we have been able to do in the village.
Mr. Raison: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful response on these small schemes and reiterate that I look forward to a positive and favourable announcement about a bypass, and I hope that he will be able to make one soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Eleven o'clock.

POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  National Giro
  National Giro
  Telecommunications Equipment (Purchases)
  Telecommunications Equipment (Purchases)
ENVIRONMENT
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Improvement Grants
  Housing Policy
  Housing Policy
  Site Clearance Contracts (South Ayrshire)
  Site Clearance Contracts (South Ayrshire)
  Housing Finance (Owner-Occupiers)
  Housing Finance (Owner-Occupiers)
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee
  House Thermal Insulation (Booklet)
  House Thermal Insulation (Booklet)
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Admiralty (Working Conditions)
  Admiralty (Working Conditions)
  Sex Supermarkets
  Sex Supermarkets
  Oil Pollution
  Oil Pollution
  Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Act, 1971
  Motor Vehicles (Passenger Insurance) Act, 1971
  Lunn-Poly (Sale)
  Lunn-Poly (Sale)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Contract Fanning
  Contract Fanning
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
CIVIL SERVICE
  Nationalised Industries (Pensions)
  Nationalised Industries (Pensions)
  Pensions (Increase) Bill (Diagrams)
  Pensions (Increase) Bill (Diagrams)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland (Incidents)
  Northern Ireland (Incidents)
  Admiralty Citadel (Staff)
  Admiralty Citadel (Staff)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department
  Refreshment Department
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SCOTLAND
  Advance Factory (Cumnock)
  Advance Factory (Cumnock)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Pensions)
  South of Scotland Electricity Board (Pensions)
  Edinburgh (Planning and Transportation Study)
  Edinburgh (Planning and Transportation Study)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Divers
  Divers
  Group Charter Flights
  Group Charter Flights
  Air Travel (Report)
  Air Travel (Report)
  Nursery Factories, Lampeter
  Nursery Factories, Lampeter
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Savings (Review Committee)
  National Savings (Review Committee)
WALES
  School Meals (Cardiganshire)
  School Meals (Cardiganshire)
  Housing Programme
  Housing Programme

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

BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE
Evelyn Hester, widow of the Right Honourable lain Norman Macleod, having been created Baroness Macleod of Borve. of Borve in the Isle of Lewis, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Grenfell and the Lord Butler of Saffron Walden.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS COUNCIL GRANTS
2.48 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: 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 have formulated plans for increased assistance to historic towns and historic buildings.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes that the increase from £700,000 to £1 million in the annual amount of grants he can offer on the recommendation of the Historic Buildings Council for England will make it possible roughly to double the level of expenditure on town schemes as well as increase substantially expenditure on individual buildings of outstanding historic interest. I shall be meeting the Historic Buildings Council to-morrow to discuss the way in which the increased allocation can best be apportioned.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that very encouraging reply, may I ask him whether he can say what co-ordination has been
176
arranged between the town hall and Whitehall in town scheme grants, especially for historic towns?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the local authority applies to the Historic Buildings Council. If the Council recommend that the buildings collectively are of outstanding historic or architectural interest, they are eligible as a group; they do not have to be outstanding individually. Buildings, whether in historic towns or elsewhere, which are individually outstanding are eligible for Historic Buildings Council grants in the normal way. The Historic Buildings Council make it a condition of a scheme that the area concerned should be included in a designated conservation area.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the improvements he has mentioned will apply also to the Scottish Historic Buildings Council?
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; that is another question.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the penalty for the demolition of scheduled historic buildings is still totally inadequate in relation to the benefit which a developer may receive for having a cleared site?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; I do not think I would agree that the penalty is inadequate, but that is a different subject. I will go into it, however, if the noble Lord will put down a Question.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, while all sides of your Lordships' House will welcome the increase of £300,000 a year in the H.B.C. money, could the noble Lord remind the House what was the annual rate of money for historic towns which was committed by the former Government and cancelled by this Government on January 1 of this year?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords; I am not aware that we cancelled any grants for town schemes. We maintained the last increase which the Government had made, from £575,000 to £700,000, and we continued the town schemes which were then in force. There are 27 town schemes in force, and two are being

177
negotiated at the moment. The point at issue between us, so far as I can recall, was whether immediately to introduce legislation for a conservation grant. This is rather a different thing and our decision will be subject to the pilot projects being carried out in Bath, Chester, York and Chichester.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, can the noble Lord remind the House what was the amount of central Government and local government money committed for the year 1973/4 by the last Government on May 20, 1970?
LORD SANDFORD: I think the noble Lord will probably remember that better than I can. But the proposal, which would have required legislation, and which we have not adopted without further investigation, was that the conservation grant, if and when it was introduced, would rise to about £11 million in 1973/4. The proposals we are making now are to increase the Historic Buildings Council grants to £1 million in this year.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord endorse my memory: that it was to be £11 million central Government money and £12 million local government money, making £3 million annually, and that this was cancelled on January 1 of this year? And while it is very welcome to have a £300,000 increase in the central Government money, would the noble Lord join me in hoping that his colleagues may soon be able to restore the other nine-tenths of what they cut?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will gladly join with the noble Lord in seeking to find the best way of ensuring that our historic towns and historic buildings are safeguarded, preserved and, conserved. We could not have cancelled any of his conservation grants because it would have needed legislation to introduce them (it still will) and legislation had not been prepared, let alone introduced.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, may I, very deferentially, remind noble Lords that the purpose of Questions and supplementary questions is to elicit information?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl, as Leader of the House, is completely right; but is he aware that the House is in a difficulty when Members of the Government Front Bench are unaware of facts that are known to some of the rest of the House?

NORTH SEA GAS PRICES
2.55 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: 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 they reconcile Lord Denham's answer on Monday, May 24, 1971, according to which "the contracts for natural gas produced from the Continental Shelf are a matter for negotiation between the Gas Council and the producing companies" with (i) the Continental Shelf Act 1964, s. 9(2) and (3) and more especially s. 9(3)(a); (ii) the statement in the Conservative Party Manifesto (p. 11/2) according to which "we will subject all proposed price rises in the public sector to the most searching scrutiny. If they are not justified, they will not be allowed"; and (iii) the Prime Minister's statement on June 16, 1970: "taking a firm grip on public sector prices and charges such as coal, steel, gas …".]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the provisions of Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 do not provide for the intervention of my right honourable friend in a situation where the Gas Council and the producer agree upon a price for the gas. As to the second and third parts of the question, these statements referred not to prices charged to public sector industries but by them.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his short reply to my long Question, may I ask some supplementary questions? First, is he aware of the fact that on the basis of the statements cited in my Question the Government have undertaken to investigate thoroughly each increase in price? Secondly, is he aware of the fact that the cost of gas to the Gas Council is an item of cost in the Gas Council's price to the

179
public? Finally is he aware of the fact that his Prime Minister endorsed the previous statement given in the Communist manifesto—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BALOGH: I plead guilty, my Lords; but I think that the noble Lord's Party is as destructive as the Communists. Finally, is he aware of the fact that his Prime Minister endorsed this? And does he think his reply really contributes to the credibility of the new-style Government?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am aware of, and I would fully defend, the statements made by my right honourable friend and his right honourable friends: that they would investigate the charges by nationalised industries. I am certainly aware of that. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, said that the actual price of the gas is an item of cost; but one ought to get this into proportion. If the additional cost of this gas were to be passed on to the consumer, the average price of gas would go up by 0·4 per cent. It is against that figure that I would ask the noble Lord to look at this matter.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for asking how he got that extraordinary information; because so far as is known the cost of gas itself is roughly 40 per cent. of the price to the consumer and one old penny on the price is almost 40 per cent. of the price. Is the Minister aware that 40 per cent. of 40 per cent. is not 0·4 per cent?
LORD DEN:HAM: My Lords, I hesitate to argue with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in matters of mathematics, but I will tell him exactly how I worked out that figure. The additional cost of the gas is 0·3 of a new penny per therm. The gas in question is exactly one-eighth of the total gas available to the Gas Board (or will be when the field is in full production) and the average cost of gas to the consumer is 10·5 new pence per therm. If the noble Lord works that out he will arrive at the same answer as I did.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, while the noble Lord is quarrelling about percentages, can he give us an assurance
180
that the figure of 8·5 per cent. for the increase in the price of food since the Government came into office is correct?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that that was another question; but I am not sure because I did not hear the noble Lord clearly. Would he care to repeat it?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord whether he would consider getting a new set of matchsticks—which we know are familiar and useful devices for calculation on the part of Conservatives—and see whether or not these studies have in fact been properly organised. He said that he himself did the sums; but have his own accountants looked at this matter?—because it is the most extraordinary approach to costing that any of us who has ever been concerned with accounting has heard of. May I ask whether he is aware that my noble friend perhaps committed a slight error when he referred to "his" Prime Minister? He is our Prime Minister, however much we may regret it.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am quite aware that my right honourable friend is the Prime Minister of the noble Lords opposite as well; but I would stick to the fact that my sums are correct. I will certainly, at a more convenient time and place, justify them to the noble Lord.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government, when faced with a Question of this length, consider following the admirable example of the late Sir Stafford Cripps who, when asked a Question of approximately this length about how he did something or other, replied with a single word, "Easily"?

DESIGN OF POSTAGE STAMPS
3.0 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: 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 why, now that postage stamps of a design not unworthy of our original stamps have at last been produced, these must be spoiled by the addition of regional emblems on the background.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the design of postage stamps is now primarily a matter for the Post Office.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I accept the Answer given by the noble Lord. But may I ask him whether he does not find it regrettable that these stamps, which go all over the world, should convey an imputation of the taste of the population of the region when it is really the taste of the Post Office; and which, if I may explain it, to me resembles the taste of the urchins who deface the features of women in their school books with pencilled moustaches?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I cannot agree with what the noble Lord has said. Before submitting the designs to my right honourable friend, the Post Office consulted a number of authorities. For instance, in Scotland—in which I am sure the noble Lord will be most interested—both the Lord Lyon and also the Scottish Royal Fine Art Commission were consulted.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Denham, aware that many people in the regions of the United Kingdom are delighted to have their own emblem on the stamps and do not accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, who asked the Question?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend and I quite agree with him that that is so. I am also certain, that if the Post Office came to the conclusion that regional definitive stamps were no longer wanted by the areas concerned it would take appropriate steps.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in that case may I ask the noble Lord whether he and the Government will exercise their influence with the Post Office to enable people who share my opinion to buy undefaced stamps for their own use?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me or my right honourable friend to exercise influence in this way, but I have no doubt that the Post Office will take account of what the noble Lord has said.

SITTINGBOURNE TERRITORIAL DRILL HALL
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now allow the South-East Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association to retain the Drill Hall, Sittingbourne, Kent.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the drill hall at Sittingbourne was transferred in 1968 from the Ministry of Defence to the then Ministry of Public Building and Works, for use as a reception and re-establishment centre for the Department of Health and Social Security. The need still remains. No other suitable building or site is available and I therefore regret that I am unable to agree that the premises should be returned to their former use.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that nothing has been done since 1968; that the drill hall was purpose-built for the Territorials; that recruiting in Kent is going extremely well; that the Cadet Force, the Sea Cadets and the Girl Venture Corps use the same site and that the people of Sittingbourne do not think it right that men of an unsettled way of life should be in the same area with their children?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am not quite clear how many of the words of the noble Viscount are statements and how many are questions, but I cannot accept the statement that nothing has been done since 1968. There has been planning, which takes time, to get the conversion plans right, and planning permission has now been obtained. A start is to be made later this year, and we hope that in about 18 months' time the place will be in use. I was very glad to hear what the noble Lord told your Lordships about recruiting and the Sea Cadets. I am quite sure that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence will, if he sees fit, come to the rescue of the Sea Cadets and the Territorials in the future.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I am sorry to go on with this point, but is the noble Lord aware that the people of the area will not allow their children to go to the premises when they have gone into the new use? That is the trouble.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we have to think of those gentlemen with an unsettled way of living who need somewhere to go. The Supplementary Benefits Commission have found this to be the only suitable building; they had been looking around for ten years before this building became available.

E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the Common Market negotiations at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, as several noble Lords have expressed a wish to speak on the Second Reading of the Anglesey Marine Terminal Bill, I propose, with the leave of the House, to postpone my Motion for Second Reading. I have tried to find another time that would be convenient for all noble Lords who have expressed a wish to speak, but I have failed to do so. Because I expect that a number of noble Lords have come to the House this afternoon in order to speak, seeing that the Notice for the Second Reading is on the Order Paper, I propose to postpone my Motion until about 7 o'clock this evening.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask whether there is any proposal to have a limited discussion, or is it likely to go on without any time being fixed?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, my reply to the noble Lord is that we do not have a fixed time for any debate; but I can assure him that this will be a short debate and will not make a longer interruption than the normal interruption in the proceedings on the Industrial Relations Bill.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in order to prevent any disagreement later on, I think it would be better if we had an understanding about this. If we could say that the debate would be terminated within the hour, or postponed after that time, I think that would satisfy most noble Lords.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I quite agree that it would be better if we had a fixed time for the debate. I would propose that if the discussion is not completed by 8 o'clock we should adjourn the debate and conclude it next week.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I express my sense of disappointment, and indeed protest, at a proceeding whereby the business which is down for a certain time is changed from that time to a later time on the same day when certain noble Lords who wish to speak—including in this instance myself—cannot make it, and when there is only one and a half hours notice given? The Second Reading was on the Order Paper this morning as first business and it was on yesterday's Order Paper as first business. The Lord Chairman of Committees has said that he cannot find a time at which everybody who wishes to speak can do so. That surely must be within a certain number of days, and my question to the Lord Chairman is this: within how many days can he not find time? I appreciate that he cannot find time this afternoon, or perhaps next week. But surely a time may be found during the week after next when all Members of your Lordships' House who wish to speak could do so.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House to support the protest of my noble friend? Some of us, who look upon this as a particularly interesting development in Anglesey, are not sure that the debate could be finished in a short time—not that one would wish to filibuster. The noble Earl tells us that the debate will be short. Speaking personally—not that my wishes and desires matter much—may I say that I had intended to say something in the debate and that, as it happens, I cannot be present at the time now signified. Consequently, will the Government in their magnanimity try to postpone this debate to another period to give us a little more time? I can assure noble Lords opposite that none of us

185
wishes to trespass too much on Government time but we wish to put forward constructive views on this matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene. We do get into this sort of difficulty from time to time. It is not just a matter of the Government being unable to control the situation. It is a matter of the Chairman of Committees doing his best to achieve the impossible; that is, to suit everyone. None the less, we are confronted with this sort of situation at one time or another. It might be that between now and 7 o'clock the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees and the noble Earl the Government Chief Whip—who I know always try to consider the convenience of the Members of your Lordships' House—may wish to consult noble Lords who wish to speak on this matter. It looks as if the debate is likely to take more than an hour. I would entirely exonerate the Lord Chairman of Committees or the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, from doing anything other than trying to suit our convenience, but with no time rule it might just be possible that another time might be suitable. On the other hand, I can see some virtue, if that is what is proposed, in starting the business at 7 o'clock when at least some of the arguments could be put forward. But it might suit the convenience of those noble Lords who cannot speak and to whom this is important, if in the conversations he has between now and 7 o'clock the noble Earl would consider adjourning the debate. I only throw out this suggestion because I know how one can get into a jam in this way.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. This is a difficult position. It is the normal custom that if noble Lords wish to raise any matter on the Second Reading of a Private Bill, they give notice to the Lord Chairman of their intention so to do. Late last night some noble Lords had given an indication that they wished to say something. To the best of my knowledge, I do not think that either of the noble Lords who have spoken so far this afternoon gave any indication of their intention.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl. I had not
186
known that, maybe because I am practically new and have not yet caught up with your Lordships' procedures.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I did, and I am on the list.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, perhaps it will help noble Lords for the future if they know that on a Private Bill it is normal to let the Lord Chairman know that they wish to speak so that he can try to arrange that the Bill be taken at a convenient moment for all concerned. Certainly I shall be happy to look at this matter between now and 7 o'clock, but there are other considerations besides those of the two noble Lords who have spoken. Other noble Lords may not be able to find another time which is convenient for them. Those connected with the Bill are, I believe, travelling down from the North of Wales especially in order to hear the discussion. But as I say, I am very willing to look at this to see whether we can find a better time. If not, I would suggest that we proceed as planned at 7 o'clock until 8 o'clock and then postpone it, if necessary.

LAW REFORM (JURISDICTION IN DELICT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (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.]
Clause 134 [Application to Industrial Court with a view to discontinuing or deferring industrial action]:
On Question, Whether Clause 134 shall stand part of the Bill'?
LORD CHAMPION: In our consideration of whether this clause shall stand part, we must once again I think range a little wide of the clause itself and impinge on subsequent clauses. We had to do this at an earlier stage in the Bill in relation to some clauses for which I was responsible and I am fairly sure that this resulted in a shortening of proceedings and of the time taken on the subsequent clauses to which a clause particularly related. We start our discussion of this Part of the Bill with the consideration that it is desirable, so far as possible, to prevent any industrial action of any sort that is
"… likely to be gravely injurious to the national economy, to imperil national security or to create a serious risk of public disorder, or to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury."
These are the words of subsection (2) of this clause.
If we agree to that proposition (and I imagine we all do) any area of disagreement that lies between us must clearly relate to whether these clauses will prevent the sort of industrial action envisaged in Clause 134, and whether the course of action to be pursued under this and subsequent clauses is likely to be effective in preventing such industrial action with the least possible delay and damage to our security, our economy or our health. But that is not all. We have also to consider whether such action would be fair to the parties in the dispute. Would it be fair to the workers? Would it in some circumstances be fair to the employers? Those matters, too, have to be considered in relation to this clause besides the national position and the national economy.
The clause places on the Secretary of State a heavy burden, that of deciding whether the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) exist and, if they do, whether they are as represented in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2). That is the sort of position taken by Government up to now only when considering the possibility of advising the Sovereign under the Emergency Powers Acts of 1920 and 1964 to issue a proclamation declaring that a state of emergency exists. These are powers that have been used on very rare occasions, but they have always been held in reserve for emergency conditions.
188
The words in those two Emergency Powers Acts are very similar to those being imported into the Bill in this clause. The difference between those Acts and this Bill is that under those Acts action can be taken only by Royal Proclamation and the action applies mainly to the use of troops in agricultural or other work of national importance. Under this clause the Secretary of State, if he decides that the conditions I have mentioned exist, may apply to the Industrial Court for an order. If the Court is satisfied on the evidence, it shall direct by order that no person shall call, organise, procure or finance a strike or threaten to do so for a period of up to 60 days from the date of the order.
That is going far beyond what was contained in the Emergency Powers Acts, which place no bar at ail on striking or on peacefully persuading others to participate in any strike. Striking has been held to be lawful by Acts of Parliament, most of which were prompted by decisions of the courts. In so many cases these decisions have the effect of restricting the right to strike, for the courts, in their interpretation of various Acts of Parliament, have almost invariably gone far beyond what Parliament intended when passing its trade union and trade disputes and like Acts.
If some noble Lord cannot understand our objection to more legalism, to a greater use of the courts, even of an Industrial Court such as is proposed in this Bill, they clearly have not realised that in the past judges have mostly been very reactionary and have sprung from a class normally hostile to what trade unions stand for. They have almost invariably, in their interpretation of trade union legislation, been far more reactionary than Parliament itself. These clauses not only go far beyond what is contained in the Emergency Powers Acts but they also go quite a long way beyond the Taft Hartley provisions in America. Of course, the provisions now included in this Bill have been largely imported from America. As I understand it, in the United States when a strike threatens to cause a national emergency and before the strike may proceed, the Government have the power to invoke a procedure involving an independent inquiry and a vote by the employees on the employer's last offer.
The proposals in this Bill go beyond that. The only action before an order of

189
the Industrial Court is made is the assessment of the situation by the Secretary of State and the consideration of the evidence put before the Industrial Court. No one would consider that the examination of evidence considered by the Court on the limited reference to it, which really is that it must consider whether the conditions referred to in subsection (2) of this clause exist at all, is in any way an independent inquiry into the merits of the dispute. It is nothing of the sort. So, despite the fact that these proposals are to a large extent an importation from the United States—and, I would add, not intrinsically any the worse for that—the Government have not even imported the element of an independent inquiry before drastic action is taken by the State against the workers.
If any noble Lord reminds me that these clauses may be used against employers as well as workers, I must reply that this Bill, with the exception of certain "sop" clauses, is anti-trade union legislation. I question whether the use of the compulsory ballot will improve industrial relations and brine a greater degree of peace and a lessening of days lost through industrial strikes or industrial action of any sort. I hope to say something on Clause 137 in due course.
The next point to which I should like to refer is that these clauses bring the Secretary of State into the industrial relations arena much earlier than has hitherto been the case. Up to now he has intervened in an industrial dispute only at the point at which he has considered that intervention would bring the parties together and would enable his excellent conciliation officers to assist in providing terms for a settlement. Under this clause he will, particularly if he is a Tory, be under very heavy pressure from his Party to set in motion these clauses in almost any dispute or threatened dispute which might be classed as "gravely injurious". This very loose terminology will cover a very wide range of industrial disputes, for almost any dispute to-day which results in a strike or in irregular industrial action short of a strike could be held to be injurious to the national economy.
I am bound to say that the State has best served the country when it has limited its intervention in industrial dis-
190
putes to encouraging a willingness on both sides to negotiate. That explains why there is such great respect paid to the conciliation officers of the Department of Employment and Productivity and why their interventions are almost always welcomed by both sides to an industrial dispute. This clause, and the reference to the Industrial Court, are designed to lead without delay to the 60 days' cooling off period. The Ministry of Labour submitted written evidence to the Donovan Commission and they had this to say about the cooling off period:
"It has been found that the attitudes of the two sides are at least as likely to harden as the reverse during the cooling off period and every vote that has been held on the employer's final offer has in practice gone against acceptance."
They were talking about the United States' experience. If the noble Lord cares to look at the written evidence submitted by the Ministry of Labour to the Donovan Commission, he will find that something very similar was said by them about the experience in this country of anything comparable to a cooling off period and a ballot of the workers in connection with it.
We are against this clause and the immediately following clause, because the procedure may well bring the Government of the day into very nearly every industrial dispute at the wrong stage of the dispute. It will undermine the value of the Department's conciliation officers and their efforts to bring the parties together. It will almost invariably cause employers to drag out negotiations in the knowledge that the crunch will come towards the end of the cooling off period and no final offer will be made until then. Both sides in a particularly stubborn issue might use the cooling off period to augment their resources in an attempt to secure the defeat of the other side; and the result may well be to increase the bitterness that had already been engendered in an industrial dispute. It may well cause a comparatively small dispute but one that might be considered "injurious", to be blown up into something far exceeding its original limits.
The terms of the clause are open to a variety of interpretations of a difficult and, in many cases, of possibly a Party political nature which in their exercise could set trade unions unnecessarily

191
against the State. The clause is objectionable, because complete and absolute discretion is given to the Secretary of State on the matters he may bring to the Court. The Court will have the power and will be expected to enforce any order it makes by sentences of imprisonment; and we may well have the spectacle of mass disobedience to an order of the Court, leading to the stupidity of another Betteshanger situation and bringing the law into disrepute. We all know what happened in that dispute in the coalfield and how stupid the whole thing was. The dispute had to he settled by the Minister of the day actually negotiating with the men who were in gaol because of what was done during that dispute.
I am positive that future industrial relations in this country would be best served by the well-tried and tested voluntary negotiation procedures which have resulted in fewer days being lost through disputes of a long and serious nature than is the case in the country from which these procedures have been imported. I suggest to the Committee that this clause could, with advantage, be left out of the Bill and that national emergencies might be dealt with under the procedures of the Emergency Powers Acts of 1920 and 1964, because it seems to me that the words "Royal Proclamation" are bound to have a much greater effect in an emergency situation than an order of an Industrial Court. As I hope I have indicated, I am very much against the procedures set out in Clause 134 and the subsequent clauses. I do not believe that they are right for this country. I believe that they will lead to more and greater difficulties than this country has up to now experienced in the industrial field.
3.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It might be convenient if I were to reply to the noble Lord at this stage, because I feel certain that the debate will continue afterwards and it might be better if I were to express the Government's views, which might act, to some extent, as a corrective to the views expressed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord started in the way one would expect him to start; namely, from the point of view of the national interest and our desire so far as possible to prevent disputes. That I am sure is a view that we should all share. He then asked whether these clauses would prevent this
192
sort of industrial action, and whether they are likely to be effective. The noble Lord referred to the Emergency Powers Acts. I would remind your Lordships of the purposes of the Emergency Powers Acts. They are there to secure the provision of the essentials of life for the population—the supply of food, water, fuel, light and transport.
The one thing that the noble Lord did not mention is subsection (1)(c) of this clause: that is, that when the Secretary of State is considering whether to use these powers he is to have regard to all the circumstances of the industrial dispute, and where it appears to him that it will be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if industrial action were discontinued or deferred, then he may make an application to the Court. So the purpose of these procedures is twofold. Undoubtedly it is for the protection of the public, but it is also for the settlement of the dispute. I want to put that in the forefront of what I have to say, and I hope that the subsequent discussion will be conducted with that in mind. The Committee will have to make up its own mind on the question that the noble Lord has asked.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but I am not quite clear. He used the words "with that in mind". But the noble Lord said a number of things.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The last thing I said—and "that" would normally refer to the last thing—was that the whole of these procedures are directed towards a settlement. That is one of the things that the Secretary of State must have in mind. He must have it in mind that a conciliation pause—and this is a phrase that has often been used—is likely to be conducive to a settlement in the circumstances of the case.
LORD SLATER: Can the noble Lord clear up one point in regard to his statement? Power is vested in the Secretary of State, and he passes the instruction to the Industrial Court. Are the Industrial Court accepting delegated powers from the Secretary of State whereby they are in a position to say "No" to the instruction from the Secretary of State?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes; that is so. The Industrial Court will have power

193
to say "No" to the Secretary of State, just as the courts in America have power to say "No" to the President: and I believe that in 4 out of the 29 cases, or something of that kind, they did say "No".
This brings me to what the noble Lord said about what has been happening in the United States. I was glad he said that, while this was an importation, it was not necessarily the worse for that, because I think many people have regarded the mere fact that the procedures are derived from experience in the United States as in some way derogatory. Comparable procedures to those in the Bill were introduced under the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, but there are marked differences between them and those proposed in this Part of the Bill.
Before we consider the differences, I should like to refer to the noble Lord's reference to the way in which the Taft-Hartley Act has worked. The Act empowers the President, as the noble Lord said, to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate and report on any industrial dispute which imperils the national health or safety. It empowers him on receiving that report to apply to the Federal Court for a 60-day injunction against that strike or lock-out. It enjoins him to make available the Federal mediation and conciliation service, which the parties are obliged to use during the 60 days until a settlement is reached. Before granting an injunction the Federal Court must be satisfied on two grounds that the strike or lock-out affects an entire industry, or a substantial part of an industry, and will imperil the national health or safety. During the 60 days the board of inquiry must make a report which it must present before the expiry of that period if a settlement has not been reached. The report must include a statement of the employer's latest offer. In the 15 days following the end of the period the national labour relations board is required to hold a ballot of the workers involved on whether to accept that offer, and within five days after that they must certify the result of the ballot. If the ballot goes against the offer, the injunction is discharged and the strike or lock-out can be resumed.
The latest information available to us is that within the past 25 years there have been 29 instances in which the pro-
194
cedure was invoked. In 25 of these injunctions were granted. In only one of the 25 cases was the stoppage not halted by the injunction. In 12 of the 25 cases a complete settlement was reached during the 60 days, and in 3 more a partial settlement was reached. Of the remaining 10 cases, in 4 a settlement was reached quite soon after the standstill period ended and without further industrial action. This could hardly be described as a record of failure. The salient points of the procedure are that an inquiry must precede the application for an injunction, and that a ballot must be held on the employer's latest offer at the end of the period if a settlement has not been reached during it.
How does that procedure compare with the procedure in the Bill? The period of the injunction under the Bill is to be limited to a maximum of 60 days, whereas the period in the United States of America extends in all to 80 days: and it is understood that the legislation before Congress would extend it a further 30 days. But on the two salient points to which I have referred there is a wide difference. The Bill envisages emergency action by the Secretary of State. Let me lay the greatest stress on the fact that this is an emergency procedure, and that is the reason why there is not a further inquiry before the procedure is invoked. I would also say to the noble Lord that this is not envisaged as in any way a substitute for the normal proceedings of the Secretary of State in conciliation and the like: it is definitely a last-ditch measure.
The Bill envisages emergency action by the Secretary of State. There is therefore no preliminary inquiry. The Secretary of State has to ask himself two questions. First, is the stoppage, whether it has already begun or is imminent, likely to injure gravely the national economy or national security, or to create a serious risk of public disorder? Secondly, is the stoppage likely to endanger the lives of a substantial number of people or to expose them to serious risk of disease or personal injury? The Secretary of State must also have grounds for believing that a discontinuance or deferment of the stoppage would be conducive to a settlement of the dispute. There are thus two concurrent objectives: the settlement of the dispute without further embitterment,

195
and the protection of the public interest. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the answer to either of the two questions is "Yes", he may then apply to the Industrial Court for an order, and he must satisfy the Court that there are sufficient grounds for making the order.
In applying for the order the Secretary of State must specify the person or persons responsible for initiating or threatening the stoppage. The person might be a trade union, or an organisation of workers, or a federation, or a company, or an association of employers. If the injunction is granted, then for the period of the order, which is limited to a maximum of 60 days (it may be less), to be tailored to the circumstances of the dispute, no person specified in the order may call, organise, procure or finance a strike or irregular industrial action short of a strike, or threaten to do so, or institute, carry on, authorise, organise or finance a lock-out or threaten to do so. The order may require any of the persons named to take steps within a specified period to secure the discontinuance or deferment of the industrial action.
Unlike the United States procedure, there is no ballot at the end of the period related to the employer's latest offer. The Donovan Commission drew attention to the filet that out of the dozen or so cases where a ballot was held, in not one was the employer's latest offer accepted in the ballot. Since these were all cases in which negotiation and conciliation had failed during the 60 days, that is hardly surprising. Logically the result throws doubt on the usefulness of holding a ballot in those particular circumstances, but not on holding ballots in general. The criteria by which the Secretary of State will judge the need for a ballot are the same as those by which he will judge whether to make an application to the Court for an order to restrain industrial action. There is one important addition: he must have reason to doubt whether the workers concerned really want a strike or the irregular industrial action, and whether they have had an adequate opportunity of indicating what they really want.
Before the Court makes an order for a ballot—if I may refer in advance to this matter because it is linked in the American procedure—it must be satis-
196
fled that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the industrial action appearing to be imminent would endanger the national economy, national security, public order, or the public health. That in itself should help to bring home to the workers concerned the seriousness of the issue. The ballot will do no more than reveal the true wishes of the workers in relation to the question put to them by the Court, assisted by the Commission on Industrial Relations if need be. Their leaders will not be bound either to desist from further action if the ballot goes against them, or to proceed with it if the ballot supports them. Unlike other statutory ballots provided for under the Bill, the results will be indicative, not decisive.
The concept of a mandatory conciliation pause before or during a strike or lock-out in order to settle a dispute which would almost certainly have serious consequences for the nation surely is a sound one. It was first adopted in the United States of America nearly a quarter of a century ago, and has worked tolerably well. In introducing it here we have the opportunity of learning from the experience of our friends in America, and of not only adapting their procedures to our needs but of improving on the procedures themselves. For instance, what has given rise to a good deal of argument in the Federal Court is the meaning of "imperilling the national health and safety". The criteria in subsection (2) of Clause 134 are much more precise and relate to the national economy, national security, public order and to the avoidance of disease, personal injury or risk to life itself on a considerable scale. Secondly, the Bill does not enable the Industrial Court to issue an injunction against a strike or lock-out, but only to make an order restraining the leaders of a strike from taking further action to promote it, and requiring them to take steps to discontinue the strike in the area of employment defined.
We have sought to devise a procedure which is both realistic and more flexible. The order does not directly apply to anyone except the persons named in it. They, and they alone, can lay themselves open to the discipline of the law if they fail to comply with the order. If it is found that there are individuals fomenting

197
trouble who are not covered by the order and ought to be covered, then the order can be extended to cover them. If not enough time for settlement has been allowed in the first instance, it can be extended. All this is absolutely necessary if you are going to try to reach a settlement within the period of 60 days. This is in line with the general tenor of the Bill. The noble Lord said that this was anti-trade union legislation; it is nothing of the sort. It is legislation designed to achieve settlements peacefully. Where the eruption or continuance of a strike or irregular industrial action is likely to impose serious hardship, loss of health or life itself for a considerable number of people, or to endanger the economy or the security of the nation, there is surely a special obligation on the Government to secure that it does not take place or is suspended until all possible steps to settle the dispute by negotiation and conciliation have been taken.
I ask your Lordships particularly to note that it is only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a conciliation pause would be conducive to the peaceful settlement of the dispute that he is to be empowered to make an application for an order to the Industrial Court. The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State would be under perpetual pressure to exercise these powers. I hope I have made it very clear that these powers are expected to be exercised only in the last resort where there is a serious threat to the life of the community. In other words, strikes, lock-outs and irregular industrial action that will impose widespread hardship and endanger the wellbeing of the nation are not outlawed by the Bill, but it is surely right to do all that we can to ensure that they are absolutely the last resort.
It is true that, despite the Taft-Hartley Act, strikes last longer in the United States than they do here. I think the noble Lord, Lord Slater, said that they last four times as long. But they come at the end of an uninterrupted period of work. There are fewer stoppages per 100,000 workers in the United States than there are here. More people are involved in each stoppage in the United States than here, and stoppages, on average, last much longer. The Taft-Hartley Act was not directed against strikes as such, but
198
towards protecting the public from those strikes and lock-outs that could be particularly harmful. Mercifully such events are rare. What is needed is an emergency procedure to deal with them when they occur, and that is what Part VIII of this Bill is all about.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, for he was giving us some very interesting statistics. He gave us the statistics of stoppages per 100,000 workers. The relevant statistic is the number of days lost. I am sure he has those figures, and the Committee would be much helped by them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have those statistics. I have the number of working days lost per 1,000 through industrial disputes in mining, manufacturing, construction and transport, and the average for the year—the number of working days lost—over the ten years, 1960 to 1969 inclusive, is 268 in the United Kingdom and 977 in the United States. But we have said, time and time again, that our particular problem—the Donovan Commission brought this out—is the incidence of strikes; the fact that they occur suddenly. that they are frequent and unpredictable. This is what we have discussed at great length in the earlier stages of the Bill.
This Part of the Bill does not in any way conflict with the powers available under the Emergency Powers Act, which has been in operation for half a century. Under that Act a State of Emergency can be declared, as the noble Lord said, by Royal Proclamation, but that is in circumstances where the community or a substantial part of it is likely to be deprived of the essentials of life. That Act envisages the means of securing that the essentials of life will continue to be available. These provisions are directed towards a settlement of the dispute. In practice it is likely that an application would be made under this clause before a State of Emergency was declared under the 1920 Act powers. The application might well avoid the need for such a declaration.
In conclusion, may I stress four things. This Bill accords with the American procedure in leaving the Court discretion as to whether or not to issue an injunction on the application of the Executive. Mrs. Castle's plan also borrowed from the United States of America the idea of a

199
conciliation clause, but the order was to be made by her, not by the Court. The noble Lord contrasted the possibility of an order's being made by a Minister and the order's being made by the Court. But if we have to choose between arbitrary government and legal process, we on this side prefer legal process, if only because, whatever may have been true a hundred years ago, the courts are far more widely regarded as impartial than any Minister can possibly be. When we are dealing with emergencies, speed is of the essence. I want to be fair about this. I recognise that arbitrary action has the advantage in the short run in the matter of speed; but in the long run acceptance is surely of greater importance and value.
These emergency procedures place no liability whatever upon the ordinary worker; they put nobody at all at risk of any penalty unless he wilfully and flagrantly flouts the order of the Court. And the order of the Court, let us bear in mind, is made in the interest of the whole public. An order to restrain industrial action implies no judgment on the merits of the dispute, no imputation of blame at all. And lastly, the procedures are designed, as I have said before, to achieve two objects: the peaceful settlement of disputes that could be harmful or dangerous, and the protection of the public and of the national interest, which, after all, is the prime duty of Government and Parliament.
With that explanation of this Part of the Bill, I beg to move at this stage that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: LUXEMBOURG MEETING
3.54 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like, with your permission, to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place on
200
the Common Market negotiations. The Statement is as follows:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the meeting with the European Community which I attended in Luxembourg on the 7th of June.
" This meeting recorded agreement on three important matters, and made useful progress in discussion of a number of other outstanding questions.
" First, exports of sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries. The House will recall that when I reported on the previous Ministerial meeting with the European Community on the 17th of May, I said that the Community had made a proposal regarding the developing Commonwealth countries whose interests are at present covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I made it clear then to the Community that Her Majesty's Government would need to consult with the other Commonwealth Governments concerned before replying to the Community's proposal. A meeting of the Commonwealth Governments concerned was held accordingly in London on the 2nd and 3rd of June. I was able to explain to them that the firm assurance which the Community had proposed met their anxieties and interests, and the meeting agreed on a communiqué, which, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. On the basis of the statement included in the communiqué, the Commonwealth representatives agreed to accept the Community's proposal.
" I informed the Community accordingly in Luxembourg on the 7th of June. At the same time, the Community made clear its position regarding imports of sugar from India, which is a party to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and whose interests will be covered under the arrangements agreed earlier for Commonwealth developing countries in Asia.
" These exchanges mean that the essential question of sugar from developing Commonwealth countries has been satisfactorily resolved. This represents a very substantial and satisfactory achievement.

201
" Secondly, the House will recall that I reported on the 17th of May that agreement had been reached on satisfactory arrangements for the continued import of certain important raw materials for British industry. The problem of alumina was the only one left outstanding. This has now been settled. With permission I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
" The third question on which agreement was reached was monetary matters. The future of sterling is not strictly speaking an issue in the negotiations. The Six have, however, expressed interest in the problems which would arise from the inclusion of a major reserve currency in an enlarged Community progressing towards closer economic and monetary union. We on our side have made clear our readiness to envisage an orderly and gradual reduction of official sterling balances after our accession, but we have also made clear that three conditions would need to be satisfied:

(1) any proposal would have to be acceptable to official holders of sterling, who would need an alternative reserve asset;

(2) it should not impose an unacceptable burden on our own resources and balance of payments;

(3) it should promote the stability of the international monetary system.

" In my statement in Luxembourg I reiterated that we were prepared to envisage an orderly and gradual rundown of official sterling balances after our accession. I undertook that after our accession we should be ready to discuss what measures might be appropriate to achieve a progressive alignment of the external characteristics of, and practices in relation to, sterling with those of other currencies in the Community in the context of progress towards economic and monetary union in the enlarged Community. I said that we were confident that official sterling could be handled in a way which would enable us to take our full part in that progress. I also said that in the meantime we should manage our policies with a view to stabilising the official balances in a way which
202
would be consistent with these longer-term objectives.
" The Community took note of my statement with satisfaction and expressed their acceptance of our suggestions about the way in which this matter should be handled. It is therefore no longer an issue between us.
" In addition to these matters on which agreement was reached on the 7th June, I took the opportunity to explain to the Community the very great importance which we attached to a satisfactory agreement regarding fisheries. What we have asked for is a categoric statement that the present common fisheries policy would be modified after enlargement to meet the circumstances and needs of a Community of Ten. In addition we want a clear understanding from the start that there would be adequate protection for our inshore fishing grounds in particular. We have proposed that this could be secured by reserving exclusive fishing rights within six-mile limits—drawn from the base lines that were agreed at the 1964 European Fisheries Convention—together with an establishment clause which would be worked out to ensure that only vessels genuinely based on our ports and fishing from them could operate within these limits.
" We consider this to be a safe and reasonable approach, given our existing position and that of the Six, who already possess historic fishing rights of one sort or another round our coastline within the six to twelve mile zone. The really important thing to remember is the base lines agreed in 1964 from which the six mile limit would be drawn, as this means protection of such important areas as the Minches, Moray Firth, Clyde, Cardigan Bay, Morecambe Bay, Solway Firth and the Wash.
" The Conference agreed on procedures for considering this question.
" Finally, I drew attention to the need to agree on machinery for the new member countries, if they were to join the Communities, to be closely associated with all aspects of Community development and activity in the period, which could cover a number of months, between the signature of an accession treaty and its entry

203
into force. It is clear that all concerned have an interest in making satisfactory provision for this period, since both existing and prospective members of the Community will wish to ensure that the development of the Community's policies during this period will proceed in a manner acceptable to all.
" We confirmed that the next meeting with the Community at Ministerial level would take place on 2Ist-22nd June."
Following are the details of the Communiqué. and Alumina imports referred to in the Statement
Communiqué issued after Consultations with the Developing Member Countries of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, 2–3 June.
Representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Antigua, Barbados, Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica. Kenya, Mauritius, Swaziland. Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, British Honduras, and of the East Africa Community and the Caribbean Free Trade Association met at Lancaster House from June 2 to 3, 1971. In the light of consultations that took place, Commonwealth Ministers agreed on the following statement:—
" The Governments represented expressed their satisfaction at the Community's readiness to offer the Governments concerned a choice of forms of association or a trading agreement and also at the readiness to recognise the United Kingdom's contractual commitments to all the C.S.A. member countries up to the end of 1974.
" They noted that, in negotiations with the enlarged Community on association or trading agreements, it would be open to the Governments concerned to act individually or collectively. They further noted that the negotiations were due to be concluded by 1975, and that pending conclusion their existing patterns of trade with the United Kingdom would be maintained.
" There was a full discussion of the Community's offer made on sugar after 1974. The British Delegation assured other delegations that the Community's proposals constituted a specific and moral commitment by the enlarged Community, of which the United Kingdom would be a part. The British Government and other Commonwealth Governments participating regard this offer as a firm assurance of a secure and continuing market in the enlarged Community on fair terms for the quantities of sugar covered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in respect of all its existing developing member countries. The developing Commonwealth countries will continue to plan their future on this basis."
On this basis, Commonwealth Ministers agreed to accept the Community's proposal and stated that they would proceed accordingly, it being further agreed that Mr. Rippon would so inform the Council of Ministers
204
of the European Community at their forthcoming Ministerial meeting with the United Kingdom, and would communicate to the Community the text of the agreed statement.
In the course of the meeting, Mr. Rippon gave the assurance that it would be the firm policy of the British Government to ensure that the proposal of the Community would be implemented in accordance with the statement recorded above in the event of the United Kingdom joining the European Community.
While recognising that the present meeting was concerned with the arrangements to apply to the developing Commonwealth sugar producers after Britain's entry into an enlarged Community, the Government Representatives stressed the importance of a continuing and viable international sugar agreement to all sugar producing countries. They expressed the hope that the enlarged Community would participate actively to this end.
THE TARIFF TRFATMLNT OF ALUMINA
At the Ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on 7th June the Community agreed to the following arrangement on alumina. The Common External Tariff on alumina would be suspended from its current level of 8.8 per cent. to 5.5 per cent. Imports of alumina into the United Kingdom would be free of duty until 1st January, 1976, would as from that date pay half the suspended rate, and would from 1st July, 1977, pay the full 5.5 per cent. rate. But it has been recognised that in the particular circumstances of the aluminium industry we should be able at any time after entry to apply in advance for a duty free Community tariff quota for the period after 1st January, 1976.
4.3 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. Before I put one or two questions to him. perhaps I may simply comment that in my view the essence of negotiations is that there should be concessions on both sides, and I express the hope modestly that perhaps we might one day hear a Statement which contains news of some concessions made by the other side. Also with the very best of good will, perhaps I may offer a word of advice which I hope will not be taken amiss. It might be better if the noble Marquess's right honourable friend did not make such resounding statements at airport Press conferences about the timetable of important political decisions which have not yet been placed before the Houses of Parliament.
Having said that, may I ask him a number of specific questions about the Statement which has been made to-day? First, can he clarify what is meant by,
" our suggestions about the way in which this matter should be handled"?

205
That occurs early in the Statement, when the noble Marquess said:
" The Community took note of my statement with satisfaction and expressed their acceptance of our suggestions about the way in which this matter should be handled."
We are not told what those suggestions were, and I wonder whether we may have some clarification of that. Then there is a reference in the Statement to,
"an orderly and gradual run-down of official sterling balances after our accession".
May I ask the noble Marquess whether this means that we have undertaken to reduce our sterling balances by instalments? Is that the significance of the remark? If so, how does it square with the condition that it should not impose an unacceptable burden on our own resources and balance of payments? On the face of it, there seems to be a contradiction, and I wonder whether the noble Marquess can explain it.
Finally, may I make a comment on the reference in the Statement to the fisheries problem? We note, of course, that this is only an interim statement. No final solution has been arrived at. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government realise that this is a matter of considerable importance and concern to the fisheries industry in this country, and I am confident that they will bear that in mind in future negotiations.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, once again we on these Benches welcome wholeheartedly the progress in the negotiations recorded by Mr. Rippon, and extend to him and to his brilliant and devoted staff our sincerest congratulations on his success. It seems to us, if I may respectfully say so, with regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just said, that the Six have in fact made very important concessions from our point of view, notably as regards sugar and sterling, on which points they have completely abandoned their previous position. If that is not a concession, I do not know what is.
From what we hear, it now looks as if there is a very good chance of an agreement before long on the other main outstanding points; certainly there should be if the Six accept Mr. Rippon's fishery proposals, and if our contribution to the Central Agriculture Fund is within the limits which have been rumoured in the
206
Press. Even New Zealand now seems to present a much less formidable obstacle than it did. If an agreement satisfactory to us all on these points is shortly forthcoming it will be clear that the only real opposition, if I may say so, to our entry will come from those who oppose it on grounds of principle; namely, those who believe that it would in some way prejudice our national personality and integrity. Well, they are entitled to their view, which is often sincerely and passionately held, though how they can reconcile it with the fact that the proud French nation in no way shares it so far as they are concerned—or the Dutch, either, for that matter—is rather difficult to understand.
But, my Lords, there can he no doubt that this great issue does divide all the political Parties. So what we feel is that it cannot be decided on a purely Party basis but solely on the interests of the nation. We would therefore ask the Government to bear this consideration in mind when it comes, as no doubt it may shortly come, to getting at any rate the provisional agreement of Parliament to the arrangements for our entry which will have been reached after nearly a year's intensive negotiations.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating the Statement, but having listened to it carefully it appears that all that is agreed upon in regard to fishing, for Cardigan Bay and elsewhere, is procedures for discussion. Secondly, if the noble Marquess will look at Le Monde for this morning, a copy of which is in the Library, he will find that there is not this wonderful solution of the sterling problem—far from it. And Le Monde is a paper of whose remarks most of us know the value. It points out the possibility.
I respect the ability and the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who has had vast experience as one of our most excellent ambassadors in a number of countries abroad. Therefore, I hope that he will not think that I am in no position to talk in a deprecating manner about the point of view that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has taken. Nevertheless, I want to put forward a point of view which must be put to this nation. Parliament has no right to rush this through in this emotional manner—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I can put up with that quite easily, my Lords, because what I say is the truth. The people who are in favour of it are rushing it through just as emotionally as we who are against it are trying to stop it. That is all I mean, and it is quite logical. I want to make this clear: because 90 per cent. of this Parliament believes that a referendum may reveal an alternative point of view—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order! Speech.
LORD JELLICOE: My Lords, if the noble Lord could ask a question it would be more in accordance with our usual procedure.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Yes, my Lords—those were just my introductory remarks. I want to appeal to noble Lords. I have already been frustrated once and stopped from making a speech because of the long answer made by the noble Lord on the Industrial Relations Bill, so I will finish with this. I hope that there will be some opportunity for a serious discussion about the possibility —I do not want to upset the noble Earl opposite—of some form of referendum before either House of Parliament comes to a firm decision.
4.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have so far spoken. I thought the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, were rather qualified but I took it that he was still basically in favour of joining the Common Market. I think the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, really answered his point about concessions being made on both sides. I believe this last meeting has shown, very properly, how far the Community has gone to help us.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, does not the noble Lord really mean how far France has gone?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I said the Community: it is Community negotiation. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me one specific question about the passage on page 4 of the Statement in regard to the way in which this matter should be handled.
208
This does not refer to any detailed matters. This sentence refers to the paragraph above in general terms. Obviously these matters of sterling, when they come to be discussed after our accession, will be matters of great complexity. Indeed, they are really the province of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should prefer to leave it at that for the time being. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for what he had to say, and I will certainly see that his remarks are passed on to my right honourable friend. I do not intend to get emotional, any more than the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but I confess I have not read Le Monde this morning; perhaps he will translate it for me on some other occasion. But, of course, I cannot speak for my right honourable friends regarding the matters that he raised, concerning rushing or referenda and that type of thing. I have no doubt that they will listen to his remarks.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess two very short questions. First of all, will the official agreements on sugar and alumina be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT in this House as well as the OFFICIAL REPORT of the other place? My second question concerns sterling balances and sterling as a reserve currency. May we hope that one day money will cease to be a commodity for purchase and sale?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I hope not. I do not think so. As to the noble Lord's first remarks concerning the two agreements mentioned, I will certainly look into this point and make sure that the agreements are placed in the Library.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, on the matter of fishing, may I ask one question on the timetable? As I understand it, the Statement says that the Minister has asked for a categorical assurance that the present Six proposals are scrapped, and that he has put forward certain broad outlines for settlement. May we have an assurance that this matter will be settled as Her Majesty's Government consider satisfactorily, that it will be reported to Parliament as a specific proposal before the proposals are put forward as a complete entity, and that it is not left to subsequent negotiation in its final stages?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, we do not want to leave this matter over until the final stages, Obviously, I cannot give the noble Lord a categorical assurance that the Six will be ready at the next meeting with their answer to our proposals. My right honourable friend has pressed them pretty hard about this, and indeed he hopes that they will be; but I cannot really say more than that.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware, in spite of congratulations from the Liberal Bench, that many of us think it is easy to get agreement if you are prepared to sacrifice every British and Commonwealth interest to the Common Market? Is he aware of the Press statement that it only took four minutes to settle the sterling problem, a huge problem to this country? Is he further aware that there was a King of England who received subsidies from the French to do their bidding, and that now this Government are doing the French bidding to make us a vassal State?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord expects me to agree with any of those observations.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask two questions on the sterling agreement. First of all, are we to understand that the agreement, in the event of our entry into the Common Market, is that the sterling balances rundown would take place in advance of substitute arrangements for sterling balance holders in the primary producing countries of the developing world? My second question is this. Are we to understand from the communiqué that we are committed, in the event of our entry into the Community, to the target of progress to an economic and monetary union—this in advance of agreement on the defence of the countries so united?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that progress towards an ultimate total monetary system for the E.E.C. will be extremely slow, and I should not think that the danger that the noble Earl has in mind would come to pass; but at this stage of time it is very difficult to prophesy exactly what the position will be. Regarding the question of the run-down of sterling balances, as
210
was said in the Statement, obviously any proposals that may be made will have to be agreed with the current holders of sterling. That is really the most important part, that we cannot make any alteration in the system as it is without full consultation and agreement with other sterling countries.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, does not the noble Marquess realise that all that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has accepted from the Community, but in principle from the French, is a series of assurances and promises and compromises, for which Her Majesty's Government have no mandate whatever, either in the other place or in your Lordships' House? In those circumstances, would he not regard it as treachery to the British democracy and to the Westminster Parliament that the Government should rush this matter unduly without careful and meticulous consideration, without giving the electors of this country an opportunity of coming to a decision, upon which mandate the Government can act?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should have thought that this Government had a mandate to negotiate to see whether we can find terms satisfactory to enter the E.E.C. In fact this, I thought, was really following the policy of the late Government in this matter. I do not really think we can be accused of rushing matters. This has been going on for four or five years, if not more. I think talk of treachery really is not right.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that I have taken part in every single debate on the proposed British entry? Perhaps it is just as well for your Lordships to know exactly what has happened. I took part in every single debate in another place on the proposed British entry into the E.E.C., ever since the first announcement was made by Mr. Harold Macmillan, and on no single occasion was a mandate given by the other place which would justify our entry into the Common Market. Is it not a fact—I am dealing with facts, and there is no emotion about this—that the only acceptance by the other place in all the debates that have occurred was in respect of whether the Government were entitled to proceed with

211
negotiations, to engage in probing, but that no mandate whatever was ever granted by the other place to accept the assurances that the Chancellor of the Duchy now presents, not to the country but to the Press, and only in a very modified fashion to the other place?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not really think I can add to what I said before. We have a mandate to negotiate and that is what we are doing.
LORD SHINWELL: Why do you not answer the question instead of running away from it?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am asking the noble Marquess why he does not answer my question; namely, did the other place ever grant Her Majesty's Government a mandate to proceed any further than negotiations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, that is what we are doing. We have not proceeded any further than negotiations.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I put another question to the noble Marquess? I do not necessarily want an answer now, but perhaps we might take it up at a later date. Do I understand that the sugar agreement, as interpreted by the Commonwealth countries, has been positively accepted by the Six and not just negatively accepted, so to speak, by default'? I do not need an answer to that question now, but perhaps we might be enlightened on that at a later date.
I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Gladwvn, who, from his intervention, seems to be basically in favour of our entry into the Common Market, say that the Six had abandoned their position on sterling. This does not seem to me to be the position, but perhaps there is more than one way of looking at it. On the question of the translation of the article in Le Monde, if my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek is not available to assist with the translation, perhaps the noble Marquess might apply to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
212
May I make my own position and that of my colleagues on the Front Bench here quite clear, as the noble Marquess said that my remarks seemed to indicate that I was basically in favour of entry into the Common Market. The position simply is that if the negotiations produce acceptable conditions for British entry, then we believe it would be advantageous for this country and for Europe. We are not yet clear what those conditions are. When those conditions are clear, then we shall be able to arrive at a clear position.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely accept the noble Lord's point.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, having recently visited the Orkney Islands and discussed the fishing problem with a prominent figure, may I ask whether the noble Marquess can confirm the report in the Press that the fishing industry interests and the Secretary of State for Scotland are going to meet, to confer again about the anxieties which exist over the importance of the 12 mile limit?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid I have not seen that report, so I cannot confirm or deny it. I think it is more than probable.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, can the noble Marquess indicate how soon it is hoped that a common unit of currency will be introduced? Much has been said about sterling balances. Because of the size of the sterling balances at the time, our recent devaluation cost those who had left their sterling with this country an enormous sum of money. That was brought about by variations in the balance of trade. Surely, until you get a common unit of currency, on the final unit, there must be economic imbalances between the different parties? Therefore, how can you avoid the likelihood of fluctuations in the value of the different currencies until you get a common unit of currency?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble Lord at the moment. I do not anticipate that we shall get anywhere near common units of currency for some considerable time.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.24 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Debate resumed on the Question, Whether Clause 134 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Because of the most important and necessary interruption of our discussion of this Bill, which none of us object to, I shall curtail what I wanted to say about one of the most vital clauses in this entire Bill. The entire Bill revolves on the hope of the Government of improving industrial relations, and this hope rests on this Industrial Court as much as anything. With all sincerity, and no vituperation at all, I beg the Government to think deeply before they include Clause 134. Under subsection (2) the Government may apply for powers to discontinue or defer an industrial action upon (a) the basis that the strike is gravely injurious to the national economy, et cetera, or (b), is likely,
" to endanger the lives of a substantial number of persons, or expose a substantial number of persons to serious risk of disease or personal injury."
We have known all that phraseology over 50 years of industrial action. We have known it under the 1920 Act and under the 1964 Act, which gave emergency powers to deal with this. Those of us who lived through periods of great industrial tension in the 1920s and the 1930s know that Britain can be very proud of its industrial relations, which have been worked out over more than 100 years of hard trial and error, and which are second to none in the world. I do not know why Tory policy has suddenly become so eclectic that it has to pick up little bits of philosophy from the Common Market or the United States of America about industrial relations. We can be very proud of the fact that intelligent, organised industrial relations sprang from the basic political common sense of the British people. It is one of the assets that this country possesses. This clause is flying in the face of that, and I will endeavour briefly to explain why.
First, I must make an apology to the Minister. I have never done this before, but I shall not have the pleasure of listening—and I do not say this in any
214
facetious way—to the careful replies that he endeavours to give to the Committee. I have an engagement at 5 o'clock, and I am going to be a hit late for it as it is. Therefore, if I disappear, do not think it remiss of me. I want to be as short as possible, but I want to make the point that under the Acts of 1920 and 1964 we have these powers. Disputes sometimes arise where, whatever the merits and demerits of the case, the Government's prime responsibility is to protect the public interest. We acknowledge that, and so do all responsible leaders of the trade union movement. Why, suddenly, in this Bill, because of the wave of denigration of the trade union movement by the Press for the 12 months before the last General Election, have we produced a legal framework as ironbound as this? We already agree, and any responsible trade union leader agrees, that certain public interests have to be protected. Even in the pits, and the steel industry, during the major strikes in the 1920s those who had mining enginering ability, and the firemen, were allowed by the trade union movement to go down the pits in order to protect life and limb, and to see that flooding did not take place.
All that protection is there without this Bill. This new piece of phraseology, or jargon, which has been clutched out of the air and reproduced in this clause is, in a way, going to make it difficult for the judges. I have not been trained in the law, but I cannot see how on earth they will be able to apply Clause 134. As I have said, the Government at present have powers if a state of emergency arises. Obviously the Government do not regard these powers as satisfactory. I tried to listen to what the Minister said. He said that the Secretary of State must be given additional powers to intervene in disputes which may seriously threaten the national health, safety, or the economy, and that in this clause they are providing them. In other parts of the Bill there are other powers, too. Under these powers the Government can go to the Industrial Court, who will go through the motions of adjudicating on another issue. When the Court is adjudicating on that second issue is when it will make an order postponing any further strike action for 60 days or so.
The Minister hopefully said, "Ah, it will be of help if there is this stage.

215
Tempers will cool, and we shall get them coming together for a reasonable settlement." But, in 99 cases out of 100, before a strike takes place there will have been long negotiations about wages and conditions. A strike does not appear like magic or like the dagger in Macbeth. It is something palpable which has grown up over 12 or 18 months between employer and employees. This clause seems to assume that a strike springs up overnight like a mushroom; and this is a type of mushroom clause that has been hurled into the Bill as an afterthought, to give the Secretary of State further powers.
I should have liked to develop this argument further, but that would be unfair. However, I should like the Minister to say that he will take back this clause and look at it, because it serves no function whatsoever and does not go beyond the rights which the Government already possess in existing Acts of Parliament. It will exacerbate industrial relations rather than temper them and heal them, and it will not make people co-operate. No Act of Parliament was able to deal with the Betteshanger situation at the height of the war, when this country was in a most terrible international and national situation. I do not think that this Bill could have dealt with it either, and I sincerely hope that the Government will listen to the appeals from these Benches.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I have listened very carefully indeed to the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the retention of this clause. I was surprised at some of his examples, and by his reference to the American set-up. He was asked about the comparative position of this country and America in regard to days lost through strikes, but the two systems are completely different. In America there is a legal set-up, and the Tory Government are now suggesting something similar for this country. One would have thought, on listening to the noble Lord, that the American record in regard to strikes was much better than ours, but noble Lords ought to know the difference between the two systems. The latest available figures I have were published in the D.E.P. Gazette in 1968, and show that then 1,590 days were lost in America for every 1,000 working people, compared with 370
216
days lost in this country. Your Lordships will therefore see that the Americans lost nearly five times more days through industrial action than we did. Why should we change from our voluntary system to this legal system which has proved so disastrous elsewhere? As regards mining, manufacturing, construction and transport, where we have our major unofficial stoppages, we are sixth in the international table; Australia, Italy, New Zealand, Ireland and France are all well above us, Canada is just below, and the United States is below that. That has been achieved with our voluntary system, so why change it to establish these legal courts?
There is a completely new departure here, and under Clause 134 the Secretary of State can immediately apply to the Industrial Court for an order. The conditions are specified in the various subsections and paragraphs, and there is great potential for the Secretary of State to make an order. Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) states:
" that, having regard to all the circumstances … it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred".
That is turning the present position upside-down. The normal practice in industry is to negotiate freely and unfettered, concentrating on the demands of the workpeople for a higher standard, and on the position of management in regard to their commercial success or otherwise. That is the accepted procedure under which negotiations take place. But under this Bill the Secretary of State will be able to step in immediately he thinks that something is going wrong, before the conciliation boards have had a full opportunity of going through the pros and cons. Whether or not he interferes will depend upon his political complexion, because this is a political Bill and one knows the different rulings that are given when political questions arise. That is why I deprecate this clause, and I am certain that it will not improve industrial relations.
As regards the cooling-off period, in a number of cases in America it has not led to an easement of the trouble. In effect, it has hotted up the disputes between both sides, because before the position is reached of declaring a strike,

217
or anything of that description, both sides of industry are a long time in negotiation, and this is the cooling-off period.
We shall not prevail, and the Government will carry this clause; but I think it is as well to get on record that we are changing from a voluntary system, which has kept a better and longer peace in this country than in the six other industrial nations which are above us in various types of legal procedures. They lose far more days per year per 1,000 people than we do with our voluntary system. It is as well to get that on record, because that is something factual that should go out to the nation, irrespective of the ideological approach that we are now witnessing in this Bill.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Is there any strike except the most trifling one which is not either "gravely injurious to the national economy" or which creates "a serious risk of public disorder"? That is my first question. My next question is: does the Bill enable the Court to forbid practically any strike up to 60 days without any responsibility to Parliament? Why do not the Government, through the Secretary of State, have at least the obligation to consult with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. before taking action under this clause? They appear to intend to do so under Clause 137. Is this interference with the freedom to strike not a violation of the international obligations which the Government have under the European Social Charter, where we undertake to respect that freedom?
My principal objection to the proposals as I see them is to page 97, lines 14 to 16. Under the Emergency Powers Act 1920, a Royal Proclamation of Emergency can be made if
" any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and so extensive as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light or with the means of locomotion …,"
and so on. Now we have that protection. Why do we want this further protection? There must be a limit to the exercise of the freedom to strike where human lives and human health are involved: I grant that. But the Emergency Powers Act gives you all that. It requires that at least a substantial portion of the com-
218
munity must be in danger of being deprived of the essentials of life.
But no emergency provision that I have been able to find goes so far as Clause 134. It contains three elements: the likelihood of grave injury to the national economy; the likelihood of imperilling national security—I accept that one; and the likelihood of creating a serious risk of public disorder. My concern is with Nos. 1 and 3. First, grave injury to the national economy. It has been rightly observed that it is this point which distinguishes the Bill not only from previous legislation here but also from the Taft-Hartley Act, which has been constantly quoted here. Is there any major labour dispute which does not cause "grave injury to the national economy"? If, in the external economic relations of the country, it reduces exports, it obviously does. If it increases the need for imports, it obviously does. If newspapers, for instance, had to be printed abroad, it would affect the economy by affecting imports. So far as I can find, the formula goes further than any emergency provision in this country or abroad. It certainly permits intervention in any major dispute in which the Government choose to intervene without their going to Parliament.
On the third point, what is "public disorder"? Every transport strike, I should think, causes public disorder somewhere. More than that, any strike in any of the public services does. The dustmen's strike certainly did. Given the enormous scope of the emergency provisions, it becomes all the more important that the Government should be responsible to Parliament for the measures taken. In the Emergency Powers Act the powers of Parliament are most carefully safeguarded. So far as I can read them, if it is not in Session, Parliament must be summoned. within five days after a Proclamation of Emergency. Regulations must be confirmed within seven days by both Houses. No proclamation is in force for more than one month, though it may be extended. Under the Bill, as I read this clause, the Secretary of State must take the initiative, and for this he is no doubt accountable to Parliament. But the decision to impose sanctions goes beyond that. The decision comes from the Industrial Court, and cannot even be debated by either House.

219
This is, in effect. a total reversal of policy compared with the 1920 Act. This clause is modelled on the pattern of the Taft-Hartley Act, but that Act operates in a Presidential and not in a Parliamentary democracy. I think this clause is wrong for this country, and will not produce the industrial peace which we all desire. I urge the Government to take it back.
4.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may answer the points which have been made, first of all, may I deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, has just said. He has described this as a total reversal of policy. It is not that at all: it is the taking of complementary powers to cover an area which is not at present covered. The Emergency Powers Act, to which he referred, does not give power to order people to go back to work. The purpose of these particular provisions is to get people back to work while a settlement is being negotiated. The noble Lord made reference to what happens in America; but before I deal with that I would point out that the incidence of this kind of intervention (if the noble Lord would like to call it that) in America has, over the years,been roughly about one per annum and, as I said, in about half those cases a settlement was reached during the period of conciliation pause.
On the point of responsibility to Parliament, the Secretary of State is always responsible to Parliament for his conduct of industrial relations. In the normal way he does not have to go to Parliament to be authorised to take the steps that he takes in the course of industrial relations. He reports what he is doing; he does not need any kind of formal authorisation. It is only in regard to the Emergency Powers Act that confirmation is required. So that in this case he will be in exactly the same position as in any other case in relation to the conduct of industrial relations.
The noble Lord then asked, "Why not consult the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., or at any rate why should there not be a provision requiring the Secretary of State to do so?" These are emergency provisions, and the purpose of them, obviously, would be to bring people back to work as soon as possible in the conditions specified. The conditions specified
220
must be that the strike has begun or is likely to begin—this is the first provision —and you either want to avoid a strike that is about to take place or to stop a strike that has already begun, with a view to reaching a settlement. These are the purposes; and this is something that is not provided for in the law at the present time. As I say, in America the experience is that it is not often used; but it is something of a last resort, to fill a gap that at present exists in the armoury of measures available to the Secretary of State.
It is not necessarily a question of introducing this measure before all conciliation has been exhausted. The point is that when a strike is just about to take place or has already begun and conciliation has already failed, he might be able to take these steps if he thinks that they are likely to lead to a settlement. I hope that will clear up the position at any rate to some extent. The noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, shakes his head; but in all the speeches I have heard him make here I have never yet found him to be convinced by anything. One of these days, I hope, we shall succeed.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with those figures which I quoted, regarding days lost in America and in this country?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord is quite right. I quoted similar figures myself; but I took a ten-year average while he took a particular year. He is right about the number of days lost in comparison between the United States and here; but this is not the point. This involves a great number of stoppages in both countries over the years. In the case of America we are dealing with an average of one stoppage a year where there is a really serious danger to the economy.
LORD HUGHES: I have a point that I wish to raise. It is rather interesting that I should be doing so now, because yesterday, with the co-operation of the noble and learned Lord, my noble friend Lord Stow Hill was able to raise a point in relation to Sections 4 and 5 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 which were related by him to Clause 134 which we are now discussing.

221
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord about the remarks he made in respect to that which do not seem to me to read in the way which I am certain he intended them to read. I will read from yesterday's Hansard, col. 102:
" 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."
He went on:
" 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…."
I will not continue reading, but it seems to me that either the noble and learned Lord used the wrong word or he has been misreported, because the word "protect" is a nonsense in this context. It would mean that Section 4 protects strikes in breach of contract and that Section 5 protects acts which would endanger human life. I am certain that that is the last thing the noble and learned Lord intended to convey, but it would be wrong that it should remain a record of what the sections mean.
I should like to go on to one other point. Later on, in referring to the sections, he said (col. 103):
" … though the deterrent of a £25 fine, the maximum at present existing, is not something which one might think would instill fear into the heart of the more determined criminals."
I looked up the 1875 Act, first to find out whether, by some peculiar legal caprice, "protect" in law could mean the opposite of what people would ordinarily take it to mean; and I found, in my reading, that in the Act of 1875 the provision was not for a £25 fine but for a £20 fine. There was also the alternative of three months' imprisonment to which the noble and learned Lord did not refer. It may be that a £20 or a £25 fine would not be a deterent; but three months' imprisonment might well be. What I want to ask is: was the £20 fine subsequently amended to £25, or was that an error? If so, was the three-months' imprisonment alternative removed at some time, and is there now no imprisonment? I think that this is rather important because we have been discussing in the last few days the possibility of imprisonment or
222
the possibility of there not being imprisonment. I should like to be quite clear in my own mind whether this particular penalty of imprisonment has been removed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right in the first point he raised. The word "protects" should obviously read either "prevents" or "prohibits", as the context requires. Whether this was a misprint or a slip of the tongue I cannot charge my memory with saying; but I do not think that anybody could be misled by the printed Report, which is obviously in error, either because 1 was guilty of a slip of the tongue or that there was a slip by the shorthand writer or the printer who set up the type. With regard to the other point, I regret that I was wrong about the £25. I am afraid that I read from my brief without looking at the Act. The noble Lord was good enough to draw my attention to the point that the Act says £20 or three months. My brief said "£25". I should have looked it up. I am sorry.
LORD DONOVAN: I think it is right to say that the three months' imprisonment has remained unaltered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They both remain unaltered.
4.56 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, earlier stressed the point that the conciliation pause which is contained here will be conducive to the settlement of a strike, or of industrial action short of a strike. Experience has shown that this sort of cooling-off period merely enables the positions taken up to harden. This appears to be the experience which comes to us from the United States: that during that period not only do positions harden but in some cases the extent of the strike becomes greater than it was initially. 'The noble Lord called in support of his argument some figures which I thought were those given in the Donovan Report, in paragraph 421, which says:
"In all but one of 24 cases in which injunctions were granted, a stand-still period was successfully imposed. In sixteen cases a settlement was reached during or shortly after the stand-still period, but in seven cases stoppages did take place or were resumed after it."

223
The noble Lord might have gone on to read paragraph 423, which says:
"The record under the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States has been worse than the record in our country. We have been singularly free from strikes in recent years which would have come within the scope of a ' Taft-Hartley' kind of procedure."
Later, in paragraph 424, the Report says:
" However, account must also be taken of the occasions when strikes have been imminent but have been averted through our existing flexible proceedures If the more rigid arrangements of the fixed cooling-off period had been used in their place, strikes might have taken place which were in fact avoided. The 60-day period may be taken into account in advance by the parties and in any case fits more easily into a system where collective agreements expire on fixed dates, unlike the system here, where the timing of negotiations is less hard and fast."
On this part, the Donovan Commission conclude with these words:
"We think it preferable that the Government's present freedom of action should be preserved, and we do not think it has been shown that its powers need to be increased."
Anyone who has ever had anything at all to do with industrial relations is bound to support that point of view, which is here expressed by a body that spent so much time looking into the matter and with such great expertise.
The noble Lord talked about the figures. I must say that I find the sort of figures he gave not at all convincing. If we look at the table given on page 95 of the Donovan Report we see that the number of working days lost per 1,000 employees in the United Kingdom is given as 190; in the U.S.A., as 870. I believe that it is now the case that Canada has provisions of this sort operating. In the case of Canada, the figure is 970 days lost per 1,000 employees. The average number of persons involved per stoppage in this country is 340, and in the United States of America 470. It is true that the number of stoppages per 1,000 employees is smaller in the United States than here; namely, 13·2 in the United States and 16·8 here. What the noble Lord is trying to tell us is that the short, snappy strike that so often takes place in this country is more damaging to the economy than one that lasts much longer. I cannot accept that, and I will not, because I believe it is wholly contrary to the facts.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, also talked about emergency procedures; and
224
so did my noble friend, Lord Bernstein. I agree wholly with my noble friend Lord Bernstein that, by the procedure under this Bill, we are taking important decisions out of the hands of Parliament and placing them in the hands of the courts. This is not something which I regard as satisfactory. What is the position under the Emergency Powers Acts? First of all, the Government manage to persuade the Sovereign to issue a Royal Proclamation. Under the terms of that Proclamation Parliament passes the necessary regulations, so it is necessary to come to Parliament for sanction to do anything under the Emergency Powers Acts. As I said in my original speech, this procedure has worked extraordinarily well in this country, and I should have thought it crazy to interfere with the Acts in the way in which the Government are doing here. If you take something out of the hands of Parliament and place it in the hands of the Court, as the Government propose to do under this Bill, it is inevitable that we shall be told that it is not right for Parliament to criticise the Court.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I intervene for a moment? I tried to make plain that these powers were regarded as complementary. They are in no way conflicting; they deal with different things. It is also the case that the emergency powers can come into effect right away and lapse, unless they are confirmed by Parliament.
LORD CHAMPION: If the emergency powers deal with something entirely different, why do we get here words which seem to me very similar to those in the Acts? There are additions which I regard as wholly objectionable, but the main words appearing here seem to be lifted, with slight emendation, from the Emergency Powers Acts. I regard this as a matter of very great importance. The noble Lord says that in the United States of America there is, roughly, one intervention per annum in the cases of the instances that fall to be dealt with under Taft-Hartley. I believe that is what he said, and the noble Lord nods, so clearly he did say that. The noble Lord also told us that the powers in this clause are wider than those under Taft-Hartley. I understood him to say that—that these powers are wider.
LORD DRUMALBYN: They are more precisely defined than Taft-Hartley.
LORD CHAMPION: That may be so, but in my opinion they are very much wider than anything that I have read which it is possible to do under Taft-Hartley. If I am right, clearly the one intervention per annum is not in any way comparable to what might occur under the provisions of this Bill when it comes into force, as I fear that it will. Noble Lords opposite are determined to push it through, but it is right that we should point out the mistakes and errors contained in the Bill. I might live long enough to say one day, "I told you so", but I would not be too sure about that. But I shall always keep it in mind in case at some time I have the great pleasure of standing at this Box and telling the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, "I told you so on—" I forget what date it is, June 10, 1971.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: It is June 9.
LORD CHAMPION: It is June 9; I am one day in advance. I have another day to live before—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that the noble Lord will live a very long time and that he will be in a position to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box for a very long time.
LORD CHAMPION: That is very kind of the noble and learned Lord. I reciprocate that wish, in respect both of the noble and learned Lord and also the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whom I have always held in great friendship. But I think he is making a mistake in telling us that this is a good Bill; it is not, it is a bad Bill. For that reason I hope that the Committee will divide against this clause and defeat it, but I fear that may not be the case.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 134 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Margadale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Amherst, E.

Falkland, V.

Merthyr, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E.

Meston, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Forester, L.

Monck, V.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Garner, L.

Morrison, L.

Barnby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Grenfell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gridley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Belstead, L.

Guest, L.

Norwich, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hacking, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Bessborough, E.

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

Oakshott, L.

Blackford, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hankey, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Boston, L.

Harris, L.

Poltimore, L.

Bradford, E.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brecon, L.

Headfort, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Henley, L.

Rea, L.

Byers, L.

Hives, L.

Reay, L.

Caccia, L.

Hood, V.

Reigate, L.

Clwyd, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rennell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Howe, E.

Rhyl, L.

Conesford, L.

llford, L.

Robbins, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Inchyra, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rochdale, V.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Rothermere, V.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kindersley, L.

St. Just, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Salisbury, M.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Sandford, L.

Derwent, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sandys, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Dudley, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Sherfield, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Somers, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Swinton, E.

Vivian, L.

Strang, L.

Tan law, L.

Wade, L.

Strange, L.

Teviot, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Teynham, L.

Windlesham, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wolverton, L.

Wrottesley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hoy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Hughes, L.

Royle, L.

Balogh, L.

Leatherland, L.

Segal, L.

Bernstein, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Silkin, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Slater, L.

Brown, L.

McLeavy, L.

Sorensen, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Maelor, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Mais, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Moyle, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Pargiter, L.

Walston, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gardiner, L.

Plummer, Bs.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Williamson, L.

George-Brown, L.

Raglan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.[Teller.]

Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 134 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 135 [Order of Industrial Court on application under s. 134]:
5.14 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 277F:
Page 97, line 38, leave out from second ("Court") to ("that") in line 40 and insert ("if it is satisfied on the evidence").
The noble Lord said: The situation here is that the Secretary of State, using his absolute discretion, brings a matter to the Industrial Court on an application which will, I presume, tell the Court that the Secretary of State is of the opinion that there is existing in this country a grave risk of injury to our national economy or to our security or a risk of public disorder or that the lives of people are in danger by reason of a strike or a threat of a strike or other industrial action. The Court then, under subsection (1) of this clause, will have to be satisfied on the evidence that there are sufficient grounds for believing that those conditions exist, and if it is satisfied, the Court shall make an order.
The Court has to be satisfied, not that the situation is gravely injurious to the national economy, et cetera, but that there are sufficient grounds for believing that this is the case. It will be obvious to your Lordships that I am not a lawyer,
228
but it has been represented to me that this believing (with "believing" underlined) that a condition is fulfilled is about the lowest standard of proof required anywhere by an English court of law. In civil law, as many of your Lordships will know, it is necessary to prove matters on a balance of probabilities. In criminal law, it is necessary to prove matters beyond reasonable doubt. I think it fair to ask here what is the sort of evidence that will be presented to the Court. What evidence will be called for? What State documents will be presented to the Court and what State documents might be withheld by the Secretary of State, claiming privilege? Certainly it ought not to be sufficient, as some people have suspected might be the case, for the Minister's affidavit to be accepted by the Court. The course that the Court might follow is the serious one of bringing the law into an industrial dispute, and it must satisfy itself on the evidence before it that the condition alleged by the Secretary of State really does exist. It ought not to be enough for the Court to believe that the condition exists; the Court ought to be completely satisfied on the evidence adduced before it that the conditions exist beyond a peradventure.
One is entitled to ask what sort of hearing the Court will be expected to ensure before it makes an order. I take it—and I hope that the noble Lord will answer this point when he comes to

229
reply—that here there is no question of a judge of the Court, or a judge and one appointed member, granting an order in chambers restraining a person or persons from certain,actions. What I am getting at here is that it ought to be and must be done in open court and not in camera, as I understand happens in certain actions which take place in some courts in our land. Upon whom will the Court call to give evidence of the existence of the conditions set out in Clause 134(4)? As I have said, it ought not to be enough for the Secretary of State to say that the conditions exist. It ought not to be enough for him to go along and say, "I am positive that these conditions exist."
I think that under this Bill a number of arbitrary actions will be taken by the Secretary of State. This may well be an arbitrary action, but the Court must not accept that any arbitrary decision which the Secretary of State may make necessarily proves to the Court that the conditions postulated in this clause in fact exist. Appearing before the Court there ought to be witnesses giving evidence, in the case of a strike, of its extent and probable effect if continued, and, in the case of a threatened strike, how many firms or undertakings will be affected, the products of the firms or the nature of the services provided by the undertakings, and certainly, in the difficult area of the contemplation of an irregular industrial action, competent witnesses as to the possible effect of such action if the contemplation turns into action.
The Court in any case will have a very difficult task, and I would have thought that before it has heard all the evidence it ought to have any emergency would be over. Certainly the Court, before making an order, ought to be satisfied on the evidence—and "being satisfied" seems to me to be a lot more than "believing" that something is the case. It would be disastrous if the Government's assertion that a national emergency was threatened were to be accepted almost without question. The experience in the United States under Taft-Hartley has been that no court has ever been willing to override the judgment of the Government on such a matter. As George Meaney, President of the American
230
Federation of Labour and Congress of Industrial Organisations, puts it:
" In practice under Taft-Hartley a national emergency is any labour dispute that the Government decides to so label."
That is the experience of the United States. I hope it will not be the experience here. But one is inclined to think that the system of justice in that country is very similar to the system of justice here, and it would be a very bad thing if, after a few years' experience here, we should have to say precisely this.
It may well be that the Court may find itself so ham-strung that almost inevitably it will be forced to believe what the Secretary of State has told it. I would have thought that this would be contrary to anything this Committee would want, and anything that Parliament would desire. For that reason I hope the Minister will be able to satisfy me on this point of "believing", and if he cannot we must try to do something about removing it from the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I support my noble friend Lord Champion in all that he has said. May I ask the noble Lord to tell us whether a system of case law will be built up on the decisions arrived at by the Industrial Court?
5.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord is seeking to substitute here for the the words
"the Court, subject to its being satisfied on the evidence"
the words
" if it is satisfied on the evidence".
LORD CHAMPION: And it leaves out the word "believing".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was referring to the wrong line. In fact he is really asking for a very high standard of proof.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION: That is right.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The wording would then be:
"… the Court, if it is satisfied on the evidence that the condition specified in subsection (2) of that section is fulfilled, shall make an order under this section."

231
We are not here dealing with a criminal situation, nor would we expect a standard of proof such as is required in criminal proceedings; but we are dealing with an emergency situation. Obviously the effectiveness of this clause would be seriously altered if there were to be a long wrangle in court as to whether the condition specified in subsection (2) of the previous clause was fulfilled—that is involving a question of grave injury to the national economy, and so on. The function of the Industrial Court is not to decide whether there has been a breach of law by any of the parties in the circumstances of an industrial dispute: that is not the standard of proof required. The function is to impose a statutory restraint on a party organising industrial action which is seriously damaging to the national interest or likely to be seriously damaging to it. That restraint is for a limited period and for a specific purpose: for the purpose of negotiation or conciliation.
The Court also has the further function of acting as a watchdog to ensure that the Secretary of State, in his anxiety to avert a damaging strike or lock-out, or to see that a strike which is or is likely to be damaging is desisted from, does not invoke these procedures without having sufficient grounds for believing that a national emergency exists or is likely to exist. One has to envisage the circumstances that may arise here. The Secretary of State, before he makes his application, has to be convinced that he has a duty to the nation to bring to an end a dispute which is already running into the strike area. It would be quite wrong to change the burden of proof in the manner suggested. As I said, this is a burden of proof that is more appropriate to criminal jurisdiction, when a court has to be satisfied on the evidence before it can convict. But to apply that formula to the circumstances of an industrial dispute could mean industrial action continuing for days or even weeks before the Court reached a decision, with the parties accumulating evidence and counter-evidence, while the situation was deteriorating in the meantime.
By the time the Court reached a decision in such circumstances, the hope of averting an emergency might have gone, and an application for a restraint order might have been rendered quite futile. It
232
is no good suggesting that the Court could make an interim order in these circumstances, because it would still have to be satisfied on the same criteria before doing so. Therefore that would not work. If the substantive order were to require the burden of proof suggested by the Amendent there is no doubt that considerable time would elapse before the evidence which would enable the Court to make that substantive order had been presented. This is not to say that the Secretary of State will not have to make a convincing case to the Court on the basis of sound and sufficient evidence. It is simply to recognise the needs and realities of a potential emergency situation. I understand—I am subject to correction on this—that this is a unique formula to meet a unique situation of the utmost importance. It is not appropriate to an emergency situation that the Court would make an order if, and only if, it were satisfied that there were cast-iron grounds for deciding that the condition existed or was likely to exist. There is a matter of judgment involved here. I hope I have not shown an undue lack of sympathy for this Amendent.
The noble Lord asked what documents would have to be produced. Obviously, here the same rules would apply as apply in general so far as the production of State documents is concerned. This will certainly not be done on an affidavit of the Secretary of State. The Court will be able to test the evidence and to hear counter evidence. But if, as I say, the standard of proof were made as high as the noble Lord seeks to make it, it would defeat the purpose of meeting the emergency which it is designed to meet. Therefore we consider that the words that have been suggested to meet these special circumstances are the right words. The Court must be satisfied that there are good grounds for believing that these conditions exist or are likely to exist, and the Court will have to be satisfied by the Secretary of State on the evidence that that is so.
LORD SLATER: The noble Lord said that the Court will be set up as a kind of watchdog, and I want to pose these questions. The Secretary of State must be in a position to present his case to the Court on the basis of having information in regard to the two parties engaged in negotiation through the conciliation machinery

233
that exists between them. Do I take it that the evidence to be submitted by the Secretary of State to the Industrial Court for an order to be made will be evidence that has been collected by his conciliation officers? If this information is collected and is to form the basis of his application for an order, does one take it that it is submitted in memorandum form to the Court, and they examine the evidence without any consultation with the Secretary of State on the memorandum that he has submitted?
Secondly, will the two parties involved in a dispute be called in front of the Court, collectively or separately, to give reasons why they are unable to agree? And will a decision be given as and when they present their case? Will the Court, after sitting for some time, bring in a form of judgment whereby the order is brought into operation? Is that to be the position? If so, I can see great dangers. I do not know whether noble Lords realise that what is being done is the transferring of delegated powers away from Parliament which ought to remain with Parliament. They are being passed on to another body outside Parliament to form a judgment in regard to an emergency in which the State may be involved because of the action taken. When emergency powers are taken they cover more or less everything in regard to the State, and it is a decision that must be taken by Parliament, not by an outside interest. By these clauses I think we are seeking to remove powers from Parliament which should remain with Parliament.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend, will he say something about the point that I raised? In case he did not get it, I will repeat it. Will a system of case law be built up as a result of the decisions of the Industrial Court?
5.35 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: The broad question of policy has already been argued, and the Committee came to a decision on it in the last Division. But, having entrusted the Secretary of State with this duty and having involved the Industrial Court in participation in the discharge of their duty, it is, I should think, the bounden duty of this Committee, as a revising Chamber, to see whether the scheme is likely to work in practice and
234
exactly what is involved in the provisions of the two relevant clauses as they are drafted. The immediate observation of the Minister which brings me to my feet is that which he directed to the question of interim orders. If he will look back to Schedule 3, which I have no doubt he has well in mind, he will see that there is specific provision there for the making of interim orders. Regulations will have to be formulated stating exactly in what circumstances interim orders can be made, but there is obviously to be a genuine power to make interim orders.
How is this to work out in practice? We are, in the assumed circumstances, dealing with an emergency situation. Obviously tempers are going to be high, emotions will be running strong, and there will be keen controversy, perhaps ranging over large areas of the country, as to the rightness or wrongness of particular industrial action. One is examining this question against that background. I should have thought that in terms of the powers to make interim orders what is very likely to happen—and, indeed. what would be done by a Secretary of State if he were impressed by the critical nature of the situation, with which he had to deal—is that the Secretary of State will, as one now does in the case of the ordinary common law courts, go straight to the Court and ask for what in common law parlance is described as an interim injunction.
What has he to do in order to obtain an order from the Court for the equivalent, in terms of Clause 35, of what is in common law known as an interim injunction? Under the provisions of Schedule 3 he has to give notice to the persons whom he wishes to be affected by the interim injunction—if I may use that term for want of a better; it describes pretty closely what the Court can do under the terms of Clause 135. He can do that, normally speaking, in the course of a single hour. He has to serve a notice, which no doubt will be a written notice, and he can have that done almost immediately. In order to approach the Court, what has he to do? He has to satisfy the Court that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the conditions specified in subsection (2) of Clause 35 are present. He has to prove nothing. All he has to show is what again in the

235
parlance of the ordinary courts is described as a prima facie case. I suppose that in practice it means that his department will draft an affidavit, perhaps 10 or 15 paragraphs long, setting out the circumstances, and it may be that those circumstances unexplained undescribed, unexamined, give rise to the view that there is a prima facie case for supposing that the conditions specified in subsection (2) of Clause 134 are present. The Court can make an order straight away.
You will have a situation where 5,000 or 10,000 workers may be on strike. Passions run high and a situation may arise in which the people in the country as a whole may begin to think that they are in an emergency situation. Is it practical politics to entrust the Minister with that most drastic power? Is it desirable and wise in constitutional terms to put the court of law at risk? Remember that it is a court of law and that the public must retain trust in its impartiality. Is it wise for the Court to be called upon in the course of half an hour to make such a drastic order, as it is empowered to make under Clause 135, bringing that strike to an end—unless, of course, the order is disregarded? We like to think that we are a law-abiding people, and if the order is obeyed by those concerned the strike comes to an end at once. That is the most drastic power one can conceive. Is it really wise, in the first place, to involve the Minister and, far more seriously, to involve the Court in that situation?
This is a country in which the rule of law is supreme and the courts are highly respected. It would be tragic if the public confidence in the impartial administration of our justice were ever undermined even to the least degree. A court cannot help but make that order; it is in duty bound to do so if it thinks that there are sufficient grounds disclosed in the affidavit put before it. If one assumes that that is being done in the situation I have described, is one not and I use a phrase I used in a previous debate on this Bill—putting the Court at serious risk of having its decisions misunderstood, resented and gradually, with the passage of time, seriously mistrusted? In recent times we have had quite enough said about arbitration tribunals being not
236
sufficiently impartial to inspire confidence in industrial disputes. It would be a first-class disaster if a tribunal set up under this Bill, over which a High Court judge presided, was open to the same criticism. That is what the Government are doing. If this Amendment is not accepted by the Government—and the object of the Amendment has been clearly explained—that is the situation the Government are bringing about.
I have said that it will be a great tragedy if the confidence in the courts were undermined. It will also be a great tragedy of a similar character if the law begins to be treated with contempt. If an order is made in that critical situation, when tempers are high, people do not obey it and it is impractical to get it obeyed. I venture to intervene in this matter because I have had some personal involvement in the operation of what used to be called Order 1305. I know just how difficult it was when that order was broken—as this order may be disregarded in the future—to maintain respect for the law. It will be very said if legislation is put upon the Statute Book which produces a situation in which Ministers and the courts themselves are thought to be frightened of doing their duty. It is a situation which anybody who has ever heard of the office of the Attorney General has very much in mind, and in any legislation which is put upon the Statute Book we should be most careful not to produce the making of orders by courts which cannot be enforced, or which may produce the result that the impartiality of the court is suspected by large numbers of people.
5.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I deal with Lord Stow Hill's point first. He has referred to the possibility that an interim order may be made, and has gone so far as to say that if an affidavit were made an interim order would have to be made by the Court. The noble Lord will be aware that under paragraph 22 of Part II of Schedule 3 it also says:
"The rules shall not enable any interim order to be made by the Industrial Court against any person unless all reasonable steps have been taken with a view to securing that notice of the application for the interim order, and an opportunity of making representations relating to that application, have been given to that person".

237
He perhaps has not realised entirely what the effect of any such interim order would be. The order would affect persons, and the persons in question who would be affected would be the strike leaders. If an interim order were made, it seems to me that the strike leaders could well be affected and it would be their duty then to cease to promote the strike, if that were already in operation, or to defer any further action if the strike were not already in being. I am advised that in this particular case the Court would still have to be satisfied, before it made even an interim order, that there were sufficient grounds for believing that the conditions specified in subsection (2)—
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL: So I said.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not understand the noble Lord to say that.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry; I certainly said that. They have to be satisfied that there are grounds for believing that the situation has arisen in which the order can be made.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That the specific grounds referred to in subsection (2) of Clause 134 existed. In other words, the Secretary of State would have to satisfy the Court in the case of an interim order that there was reason for believing that the condition existed in exactly the same way as if it were making an order.
LORD SILKIN: It would be only the one side that would put up the case. The Court would not have the advantage of hearing the other side.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is precisely what is not so, if the noble Lord will look at paragraph 22 of the Schedule. An ex parte interim injunction of that kind could not be given. It does not seem to me that there is very much likelihood of an interim injunction in a case of this kind at all. An order will be made, and the question we are discussing is whether that is not something like an interim injunction, and whether we should not have a very much higher standard of satisfaction of the court. That is the question we are discussing. I have been asked about the kind of things the Court has to be satisfied on. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, I do not think he is right in the points that he made. Perhaps I ought to answer
238
the questions he asked. He asked whether the evidence to be submitted is the evidence collected by conciliation officers? The answer to that must be, "No" because where a strike is likely to begin, or has begun, the question of whether it would be conducive to a settlement of it by negotiation, conciliation or arbitration, if the industrial action were discontinued or deferred is not a matter for the Court. The matter for the Court is dealt with in subsection (1)(b) and the conditions specified in the next following subsection—
LORD SLATER: The noble Lord has misunderstood me. I asked whether the conciliation officers of his Department, in view of what is likely to happen, will be responsible for getting the evidence or information whereby the Secretary of State would be in a position to make application for an order because of the emergency that might arise owing to the action that might be taken by the two parties.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Clearly, the Secretary of State will have to be satisfied by his conciliation officers in order that he may make up his mind on paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 134. Obviously, in this he will be helped by his conciliation officers. All I am saying is that this is a matter for the Secretary of State to make up his mind on before he makes his application to the Court. What he has to satisfy the Court about is that the condition specified in subsection (2)—which is the provision dealing with whether there is risk of grave injury to the national economy and so on—is fulfilled.
I am not certain whether I misunderstood a previous question of the noble Lord about an affidavit. Obviously, affidavits will be made in cases such as this. But I understood him to ask whether the Court was going to act simply upon an affidavit. It would of course be a matter entirely for the Court to decide at what point it is satisfied by the evidence that the Secretary of State has supplied, and what further evidence it will require and so forth. But the Court must be satisfied, on the evidence, that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the condition referred to in subsection (2)—that is about the risk of grave injury to the national economy

239
and national security, public disorder, public order and so forth— is fulfilled.The difference between us relates to the standard of proof. This is all that is between us. if the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has put forward were accepted, then the standard of proof would be practically the same as in criminal proceedings. We do not believe that this would be either practicable or sensible in the situation of an emergency. The Secretary of State will obviously have access to figures as to the economy and as to the production of the factory, enterprise, undertaking or whatever it is, that is involved how long supplies are going to last, and all the rest of it. All this he will be able to show to the Court, in very much the same way as a Minister might show it to Parliament to satisfy Parliament also.
I was coming on to the noble Lord's next point regarding transferring powers away from Parliament. At the present time, Parliament has no power in any way at all—this is the very point—to arrest a stoppage, or to get people to go back to work. It has no power to do that. It is in circumstances where a stoppage is going to result in this grave injury to the economy, or possibly to security, or is going to cause injury to persons, or will be likely to cause injury to persons or to health, or where there is an imminent risk of that happening, that the application will be made. I should have thought that one could rely on any Secretary of State, who after all is in the long run responsible to Parliament, to exercise this responsibility himself of deciding when to make an application to a Court, in the full knowledge that he will have to satisfy the Court that he has reasonable grounds for believing that these serious results will ensue.
If one had to prove—this is the problem here—that the conditions specified in subsection (2) of the last clause were involved; if one had to prove that
" the industrial action in question has caused, or … would cause, an interruption in the supply of goods or in the provision of services of such a nature,"
and so on, up to the standard of criminal proof, it might take a very long time.
240
The application might be hotly contested; there might be a great deal of opposition from the parties concerned, and this would obviously defeat the whole purpose of the application. In the meantime, as I have said, the situation would be likely to deteriorate, and the whole purpose of these emergency procedures would be defeated. I am sure that that is not what noble Lords really want. What they want is some check upon the complete liberty of action of the Secretary of State in this matter. This is what we believe ought to happen. We believe that the Secretary of State ought to have to convince the Court that the grounds he thinks he has for considering that a serious situation is going to arise are good grounds. This is what is provided by the wording of the clause as it now stands, and I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept it.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: What about case law?
LORD DRUMALBYN: On case law, each application is going to be made in different circumstances. Obviously, the Court will learn from its own experience as things go by. But the Court would obviously not be bound by previous decisions in circumstances of this kind. In any event, the circumstances are likely to be different in each case. I am not quite clear what the noble Lord expects from the Court's being bound by building up case law in a matter of this kind, but I should have thought that in these particular circumstances of an emergency situation the circumstances would be likely to differ in each case and that the Secretary of State would have to convince the Court in each case of the ground he has for the belief he holds.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: What the noble Lord is saying is that it is very unlikely that a system of case law will be built up.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I am sorry that the noble Lord has skipped over the point I put to him in regard to the emergency powers when he said that Parliament has no power to deal with problems of this type with which the Court will have to deal. My goodness! he must have a very short memory. Emergency powers have

241
been passed by Parliament on numerous occasions. Once case I shall never forget is that of 1926, when it had to introduce emergency powers because of the miners' strike at that particular time—or, rather, it was not a strike but a lock-out. Emergency powers operated as a result of Parliament's introducing them at that time. I cannot see any reason why Parliament should break itself, as it were, in two in dealing with certain emergency power regulations on one side here, while hiving-off certain emergency regulations governing certain issues or circumstances which might occur within a particular type of industry to the Judiciary outside Parliament, when Parliament itself ought to be responsible through the relevant Department. I cannot understand it at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is obviously a difference of opinion between us.Under In Place of Strife it was the Minister who, without reference to any court, was going to make the order. We think it is better, in order to avoid controversy, to place this above politics by taking it to the Court, and the Court should decide, on the evidence submitted to it, whether or not there is an emergency situation in being or likely to occur.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Do I understand the noble Lord correctly, because he seems to imply that there would be no case law built up?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Obviously, lawyers always have regard to what has been decided in previous cases. But I do not think that case law, in the sense that one understands it in the ordinary way, would apply. If the noble Lord is referring to having regard to precedence this is one thing, but I understand case law to have a special sense, and it was this that I was suggesting would not apply in these circumstances.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I think that is a better answer than the one which the noble Lord gave to my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield. I have mentioned this matter of case law on more than one occasion because, despite what may be said by the noble Lord, case law built on certain principles will gradually accumulate. If the noble Lord feels that this is a difference between the criminal
242
and the industrial courts, that is his opinion; but this has now been brought within the ultimate power of the Judiciary and one can reasonably foresee that case law on certain given lines will be laid down.
LORD CHAMPION: It seemed to me that towards the end of his first reply to this debate the noble Lord expressed the fear that delays might be caused by opposition from the parties concerned. As I understand Clause 134 of this Bill, "the persons so specified"—that is, specified in the preceding subsections—" together with the Secretary of State "are to" be the parties to any proceedings on that application". I hope no suggestion is going from this Committee that anyone who can be party to proceedings on anything will be in any way excluded from the proceedings of the Industrial Court. Clearly, they must be there; they must be invited to be there, or at least they ought to be there if they indicate their willingness to attend that Court and to appear in the proceedings. That will mean that there will have to be a careful examination by the Court itself of the things that are said to the Court by the witnesses who are parties to the proceedings.
I hope that it will never go from this Committee that a quick answer must necessarily be given, an answer which has not taken in all the evidence that may be available, just because the Minister feels that the action ought to be immediate. The noble Lord has said that the standard of evidence required ought to be different from that required in the criminal courts, which means that he is telling us that it ought to be of a lower standard. I cannot for one moment accept that. The idea here is that the Court will impose a statutory restraint by issuing an order. The noble Lord said that as though this were a rather trifling matter. It is not. It is a statutory restraint, and if the order is disobeyed the result to the parties concerned may be much more disastrous than some criminal proceedings might be. If the order is of a nature which is objectionable to the parties concerned, this result may flow from it; and certainly in the case postulated by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill the circumstances may well be much more disastrous than actions which take place from time to time in the criminal courts.

243
I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is still thinking in terms of the Court's acting almost on the "say-so" of the Secretary of State. But that would be absolutely wrong and contrary to everything we should expect from a Court set up under this Bill which, as I understand it, is to be a court of justice. It must be just to the parties who will appear before it and to the parties that will be named in the order which will eventually be made. I do not regard the reply as being satisfactory. I certainly did not quite understand—and I must read it again—the answer given to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill about the interim orders. It seemed that there was some suggestion that interim orders would require a different standard. I should have thought not. I should have thought they would have had the same effect on the people, although one would be for a much shorter period than the period of 60 days contained in Clause 135.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has exactly repeated what I said: that both in effect and on the evidence they would be very much the same.
LORD CHAMPION: I thank the noble Lord for that. I am bound to say that I cannot regard the answers that we have received on this side of the Committee as being completely satisfactory. However, it is a matter which deserves the most careful consideration. The noble Lord has made points to which I would wish to give a considerable amount of study, as would my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, whose knowledge in this sort of matter is perhaps unsurpassed in your Lordships' House. Therefore I am not proposing to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, but I shall seek to withdraw it, always bearing in mind—and I hope the Minister will bear in mind—that it is my intention to go through his remarks with a fine toothcomb before the Report stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord actually withdraws the Amendment may I clarify one matter? If I may say so, I thought he summed up very fairly, but there is perhaps a slight misunderstanding. We are of course talking only about what the Court has to be satisfied about before making the order. That is
244
one thing: the other thing is. whom the order will affect, and of course the parties to be affected will have the right to be there and to make their representations. There will be no short-cutting on that.
LORD CHAMPION: I would expect, too, that, because this would be a part of the proceedings before the Court, the parties would be present at the proceedings taking place on the part of this clause that we are now discussing. However, I will not continue with this discussion but will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.9 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD) moved Amendment No. 277H:
Page 98, line 27, after (" section') insert (" made on an application relating to a strike, or to irregular industrial action short of a strike").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would ask the agreement of the Committee to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 277J, 277K and 277L. These four Amendments deal with the powers of restraint against promoting or threatening to promote industrial action which is causing an emergency situation. As it now stands, Clause 135(4) requires the Court to make an order directing that no specified person shall promote the particular industrial action to which the order applies. In saying that, I am referring to the phrase "as the case may be" which is to be found in line 30. If, therefore, a specified person decides to organise some other form of industrial action than that contained in the order, he could do so without breaching the order so long as he refrained from continuing to organise the action to which the order applies. Thus there would be nothing to stop the organisation of a go-slow in breach of contract of employment while obeying a Court order to refrain from organising a strike.
It may be suggested that such a person could be prevented from doing this by a supplementary order under the next clause, Clause 136. But this, I would submit, is not so. That clause, in subsection (3), applies the supplementary order to persons not covered by the principal orders, and not to actions. The

245
supplementary order applies the provisions of the principal order to those additional people.
So the purpose of the first three Amendments which I am asking permission to take together is to ensure that where an application by the Secretary of State relates to a strike or irregular industrial action short of a strike, the Court's order will prevent any person specified in the order, or in a supplementary order, from taking any action to promote a strike or irregular industrial action or to threaten to do so. That is, of course, within the area of employment specified. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a really much more sensible way of dealing with this difficulty than the alternative, which would be to make the supplementary order provisions a great deal more cumbersome. It harmonises in fact with Clause 139(1) relating to a strike ballot order.
The last of these four Amendments relates to restraint against promotion of a lock-out and is largely consequential on the last three. Again it applies the procedure already laid down for the strike ballot order in Clause 139. Obviously the promotion of a lock-out by an employer is a different form of activity than promoting a strike or irregular industrial activity. A restraint order applies, however, either to the one or the other. We have simply dealt with this by deleting the present paragraph (c) of subsection (4) and placing the general restraint powers against promoting a lock-out in a new subsection. The general powers of restraint are, however, the same. I hope that in those circumstances there may be support for these four Amendments. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: We are all very grateful to the noble Lord for his very clear explanation of the group of Amendments we are discussing, and I do not wish to raise any question on the merits. I should, however, be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us of the genesis of the alterations. Under what circumstances did the Government come to the view that the proposals now being made are better than the proposals earlier made? I do not know what representations have been made, and I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Lord could enlighten us on that.
LORD BELSTEAD: I should have thought in all reasonableness that the Government reflected that what they wanted to do was to secure particular objectives, and the way to secure those objectives was to move these four Amendments.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not wish to delay the Committee. I am sure that what the noble Lord said is accurate, and of course I take it completely. Therefore, what he is saying is that the Government had second thoughts, and it is not the case that any particular interest has been promoting a particular point of view.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, not that I am aware.
LORD LEATHERLAND: One of the provisions of this particular subsection is that the Minister may apply to the Court for an order to prevent somebody financing a strike. I wonder whether the Government have taken into account the extent to which that might be an interference with ordinary business procedures. Let us assume that a union, thinking of embarking on a strike and preparing itself for the struggle that lies ahead, goes to its bank manager and says, "Will you give us an overdraft?" I have known unions to do that. Will the Minister be able to ask the Court to make an order prohibiting the bank from giving an overdraft? I have known similar circumstances where a union has gone to its stockbrokers and said: "We hold half a million pound's worth of such-and-such stocks and shares. We want to sell in order to grapple with the strike that lies ahead". Will the Minister be able to ask the Court to tell the stockbroker not to deal with the union?
There is also the question of supplementary benefits payable to the wives and families of strikers. That money will be used indirectly to fortify the man thinking of coming out on strike and will probably prolong the strike if it is begun. Will the Minister be able to go to the Court and ask them to make an order telling the Supplementary Benefit Commission not to advance money to the families in those circumstances? There may be a union which goes to its solicitors and says, "We should like to mortgage our head offices", or some other property. Will the Minister be able to

247
go to the Court and ask for an order prohibiting such a transaction?
We have the further question of public collections, public functions that are promoted in order to support strikes. My mind goes back to the strike of 1926, when on behalf of the miners many very respectable people organised public collections; letters were written in respectable papers like The Times soliciting subscriptions. Will the Minister be able to go to the Court and ask for an order prohibiting the organisation of such collections or other money-raising functions? As I read the Bill as it stands at the moment, the Minister could do that and the Court could do that. I sincerely hope that that is not what is in the mind of the Government. If I should be mistaken in thinking it is in their mind I hope they will consider the matter and come forward with Amendments at a later stage.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that he bowled me a slightly fast ball and I did not mean to seem discourteous in my reply. It may be worth while repeating the point made several times by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, that we are not talking here about the concept of sanctions against specified people. What we are talking about, as I understand it, is the desire which is to be found I should think, in all parts of the country, that where there is a dangerous emergency situation there should be the chance to hold up matters for a time to try to get a solution by arbitration or conciliation. It was with that in mind, in the context of that thought, that I gave my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. The Government felt that they were not achieving the objective they had set out to achieve and so in order to achieve it they put down these four Amendments.
I think it was in the debates yesterday —or perhaps it was the previous week—that the matter of provident funds and the use of such monies was threshed out at very great length in your Lordships' House, and I do not think I can say any more on that particular subject to the noble Lord. Lord Leatherland. But the noble Lord raised, of course, a great many other points about finance. Again as I understand the Bill, this is not going to be for Parliament to decide: it is
248
going to be for the Court. If the noble Lord would like to delve any further into that matter, we have the Report stage ahead of us and he can table Amendments.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I know it is not for Parliament to decide, and therefore I have raised it in Parliament long before it gets to the Court. I think it would be disastrous if applications like that were to go to the Court, and therefore I hope that the Minister will look at it again.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Do I take it that under the Bill as it now stands the Industrial Court will have power to apply an injunction against the selling of securities or the borrowing of money in the legitimate operation of a trade union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Anything in the way of a commercial transaction of course would not be covered here. If the noble Lord looks at Clause 134(3) he will see at whom the orders are likely to be directed. In the main it will be, in the case of a strike, the persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for "calling, organising. procuring or financing the strike". In other words. normally it will be the trade union. If it is irregular action, then it may be persons or some body other than a trade union. I was using "irregular action" not in the technical sense, as in the Bill. In the case of a lock-out, it will be the employer, or the employers' association. It is as simple as that. It certainly cannot go as far as the noble Lord suggests.
LORD BERNSTEIN: It is not quite equal. A large industrial organisation might have more funds in its bank than a trade union, so that it would not be comparable in the way the noble Lord is suggesting. Where in the Bill does it say that the Industrial Court would have the same powers over a commercial company—not an employers' organisation, but an employer—in the same way that they have over a trade union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It says:
" where it relates to a lock-out, shall specify the persons … appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for instituting, carrying on, organising, procuring or financing the lock-out …"
This means the employer or the employers' association.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has not answered the point which I raised. He has said that the Court's attention would be directed to certain people who would be named. It may very well be that the Minister in his letter to the Court, would not name the bank and would not name the stockbroker. He certainly would name the general secretary of the union, and the union as a corporate body. One of the instructions that the Court might lay down in its order is that this particular union, having £2 million in stocks and shares, shall be prohibited from cashing those stocks and shares in order to fight the strike. That is the kind of point I am getting at. It may prohibit the union from going to the bank and saying, "We should like an overdraft of a million pounds or so for the next two or three months." Similarly, the union might be inhibited under an order of the Court, on the application of the Minister, from raising money in many other ways to conduct a strike.
LORD SHINWELL: May I ask a question on a somewhat similar point, because I understand we are dealing with a group of Amendments? When I look at Amendment No. 277L, which refers to a lock-out, I read that an order relating to a lock-out is not dissimilar to an order relating to a proposed strike. I read towards the end of the Amendment,
" of this section shall institute, carry on, authorise, organise or finance a lock-out, …"
What is meant by financing a lock-out? I can understand what is meant by preparing to finance a strike, but what is meant by financing a lock-out? Would the noble Lord be kind enough to define what a lock-out is? What does it actually mean? It is possible to understand this, because we have had lock-outs in the history of industry in this country on several occasions, but I cannot follow what is meant by financing a lock-out. I think we ought to understand the meaning of this proposed Amendment.
LORD DONOVAN: May I say one word from a purely neutral aspect? I refer to the analogy of unemployment benefit under the National Insurance Acts. One of the disqualifications from receiving unemployment benefit arises when someone is thrown out of work through someone else's
250
strike: they are not entitled to unemployment benefit if they are financing the strike. Those Acts have been consistently operated on the theory that if any one of those persons so thrown out of work belongs to the union which is organising the strike, and is paying his current subscriptions, he is thereby financing the strike. We recommended in our Report that that theory should cease to be practised. I understand that the Government have decided not to implement that recommendation. I also have reason to believe that the Chief Insurance Commissioner either has decided, or is about to decide, a case on the question whether merely paying your subscriptions to the union which is running the strike is financing the strike. What decision has been come to, or will be come to, I do not know, but I think this goes to show that the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, has raised not only an important question but a difficult question. Those matters to which I have referred may be of some assistance to the noble Lord if he is going to consider this matter on Report.
6.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We will certainly look at the point. I would just suggest to him that the numbers of people who can be specified in an order are undoubtedly limited under Clause 134(3) and again Clause 135(2), which says,
" Any such order shall specify—
(b) the persons who are to be bound by the order, …
It is undoubtedly the intention of the Government that the persons to be bound by the order are primarily, if it is a strike, the trade union itself—we shall come to the Amendments concerned before very long—because anybody acting within the scope of his authority will then be covered there. In the case of an unofficial strike, then of course it would be particular persons, but it would be the strike leaders, the leaders of the unofficial strike. To that extent I think that his fears that this net would be cast very wide are perhaps not wholly well founded.
In the light of what I have just said, I do not think that the points that other noble Lords have made have any very great substance. So far as a lock-out is

251
concerned, the noble Lord will find the definition of "lock-out" in the definition clause, Clause 158. Who actually finances a strike from an employer's point of view must be a question of fact, and I am afraid I must just leave it there.
LORD SHINWELL: Is that a complete reply? I accept what the noble Lord says about the definition of a lockout, but let us assume that one of a group of employers decides to institute a lock-out for some reason or other, which may be quite a valid reason, but then, because he is well aware that this may involve him in financial difficulties because it means a loss of production, he goes to his bankers and informs them of the projected loss that is likely to be sustained, and asks for assurances about an overdraft. Does that mean that the Minister can make an order to the bankers preventing any assurances about finance in order to prevent any loss that is likely to be sustained? I am merely raising the point because it is necessary to understand the purpose and meaning of the Amendment—that is all.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord's latest reply seems to indicate that, when the Minister applied to the Court for an order against somebody who was thinking of a strike, that would be against certain persons. He said that it would be against a limited number of persons, and that it would be the officers of the union or the leaders of an unofficial strike. If I may refer to Clause 134(3), the word "persons" is very strictly defined by the words in brackets which state:
"(whether they are organisations of workers, officials of such organisations or other persons)"
So that when the Minister asks the Court to rule against a certain union, he is not only asking the Court to rule against the general secretary, the president, and the executive of that union, but also against the hundreds of thousands of members of that union.
LORD STOW HILL: In view of what has been said, may I intervene shortly? It is important to try to get this right. The question that has been asked is: who are the persons who can be specified in the application? In order to find that out, one looks first at Clause 134(3)(a). There one finds certain persons set out.
252
Having done that, one then has to look at Clause 135(3)(a) and (b), and one finds a whole lot of people taken out of the previous paragraph. The question is: who has been left in? I should be grateful if the Minister would be so kind as to see whether this is the position.
First, if you look at subsection (3) of Clause 134, you find that the notice may
" specify the persons (whether they are organisations of workers, officials of such organisations or other persons)".
"Person", I suppose, includes an incorporated body and therefore there would be included in that category of people: first, unions who are registered under this Bill and who have therefore become corporate entities; secondly, unregistered unions who are not corporate entities but who are still aggregates of individuals; and,thirdly, officials of both registered and unregistered unions. That is where subsection (3) of Clause 134 leaves the matter.
Then one looks at paragraph (a) subsection (3) of Clause 135 to see who has been taken out. So far as I can make out, the following people are taken out: first, everybody—members of both registered and unregistered unions—who has no other responsibility for the strike except that he is included among the strikers. That is the first category, and it would take out an enormous number of people. It would take out all the members of the registered and unregistered unions of whom it could be predicated that their only participation in the strike is that they are strikers. Then one looks at paragraph (b) and one finds a number of other people taken out; there you find that everybody is taken out except somebody who has a responsibility beyond his responsibility as an official. You take out all officials if their sole responsibility in the strike is as such officials.
Then one proceeds to see what is meant by an "official". I always thought I understood what an official of a union was, until I began to look at the definition that one finds at page 177 of the Bill, which is really an extremely wide definition. "Official" is there described in the following terms:
" ' official ', in relation to an organisation of workers or an organisation of employers, means any person who is an officer of the organisation or of a branch …".
That is what one ordinarily understands as an official—a regional organiser or

253
somebody of that sort. But then the definition goes on and becomes greatly widened. It states:
" … or who (not being such an oficer) is a person elected or appointed in accordance with the rules of the organisation to be a representative of its members or of some of them, including (in the case of an organisation of workers) any person so elected or appointed who is an employee of the same employer as the members, or one or more of the members, whom he is to represent";
Does that include the president, the general secretary, and the national executive committee'? Prima facie, I should have thought that all of those people came within that definition. If that is right, and one looks back at subsection (3) of Clause 135 in relation to an official strike, all those people will presumably come out. None of them can be served with a notice, as I read the subsection. The only categories of persons who can be served with a notice are: first, the officials of an unregistered union—because the only officials who are taken out are officials of a registered trade union, so that the officials of an unregistered union are left in—and, secondly, persons who have taken part in a strike, but who are not officials and who have some responsibility for it other than merely being strikers.
It is very important to know exactly who are the people against whom an order can be made, because an order can only be made against those who are specified in the notice. It seems to me that they would be officials of an unregistered union—not officials of a registered union—and members of a registered or of an unregistered union whose participation in the strike went beyond simply being a striker; and, also, the official registered union itself, because that would be a person; it is an incorporated body. I hope I have understood correctly, but I should like confirmation from the Minister because it is very important when one is seeing what is the effect of this clause.
6.37 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is a little difficult to follow exactly what the noble Lord said, and I am afraid I shall have to say to him that I must look at what he said to see whether he is right. But my impression is that, in the main, he
254
was right. Trade unions as such will be named and, as I said before, it will not be necessary to name the general secretary or any of the officers or officials acting within the scope of their authority. It might be that one would name an official who was not acting within the scope of his authority, and who was continuing to foment a strike after the union had ceased to do so. He might be named and might be one of the people to be added. Secondly, there are the organisations of workers that are unregistered. There, as the noble Lord said, it will be those who are leading the strike—presumably, the officers or officials—and any other persons who might come in from outside and who are not connected with the strike.
But I am not quite certain that the noble Lord and I agree on the interpretation of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Clause 135. That states that those excluded shall not include any person who
" has no responsibility for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike or other action in question, or for threatening to do so, except in his capacity as an official of a trade union"
All those are taken out. So that all who take part except those who are leading a strike are taken out. That is the general effect.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having explained the situation and for narrowing the field of people who might be named. But is there not another category of people who might be named? Let us imagine that there is a strike at Dagenham—which does not require very much imagination. A shop steward is holding forth to a crowd of a thousand workers at the factory gates. Let us imagine that, at the end of his inflammatory remarks, he says, "Hands up all those who want to strike" and 998 hands go up. Two hands do not go up. Those two men are obviously excluded from liability under the terms of this clause. But it seems to me, as those 998 people have instructed their leaders to call a strike, that that is a very positive act. It looks to me as though Lord Drumalbyn's little pack of guilty people will have to be enlarged to cover that vast concourse.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I ask one more question? Whatever may be the Government's intention, I think they will wish to give in the Bill the appearance of equality. Take Ihe case of two factories in any one town doing a similar job. In one factory there is a strike, and the union have £200,000 in their account. There could be an injunction to restrain them from using that money. In the other factory there is a lock-out, and the owners of that factory have £200,000 in their bank account. They can use that £200,000 in cash for their outgoings. That surely cannot be equality. That surely cannot be the intention of the Government, if they wish for equality.
LORD DRUN1ALBYN: It is always difficult to get exact equality in the case of people starting from different circumstances. I would only say to the noble Lord that the object is to get as close to equality as the circumstances permit, with the object of achieving a settlement. But perhaps I ought to say, more generally, that noble Lords, quite rightly —I do not complain about it—are thinking all the lime in terms of the order being broken. Our expectation and hope is that an order of this kind, which is made in the public interest, will be adhered to, and so I hope that only in the most exceptional circumstances will the kind of difficulties which noble Lords have in mind ever arise; namely, the kind of difficulties where individuals who are specified in an order fail to comply with the order and some kind of disciplinary action has to be taken.
6.42 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: Without wishing to prolong the discussion, may I say that I hope the Government will consider the points which have been put forward, and particularly this difficult question of financing a strike. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, has reminded me that I once appeared for a man who was not on strike. It was partly a demarcation dispute within a union, and the object of the strike was because certain men wanted certain kinds of work. If they had got that kind of work there would have been less work for my client, so he was naturally against the strike and he voted against it. He was thrown out of work by the strike, and was denied
256
unemployment pay, simply because he was naturally, as a member of the union, subscribing to the union, and it has been held by the court, as the noble and learned Lord has said, that if you are a member of a union which is paying out strike pay you are financing the strike and are therefore not entitled to unemployment pay, although you yourself were entirely against the strike.
It has to be remembered that this Bill will, I suppose, be construed in the light of the existing law as to what financing a strike means—and this is a point which I should have thought deserved serious consideration. My recollection is that the Government of which I was a member was going to deal with this point in accordance with the recommendation of the Commission of which the noble and learned Lord was Chairman, and I understand that this Government are not going to. So this particular thing, which is a plain piece of injustice, is apparently to go on. I think that the whole concept of what is meant by "financing a strike" needs consideration, and when one comes to "financing a lock-out" I find that even more difficult to understand. I suspect that the word "financing", when we come to a lockout, is simply there so that in the Bill it may appear that, word for word, the employers are being treated the same as the unions.
LORD DIAMOND: I was about to ge up twice on the same point and I an happy to say that the words were taker out of my mouth by both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner; therefore I feel in unusually good company. I am returning to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. I think that on this very point of financing he said to my noble friend Lord Leatherland, who I agree has raised a most important point, that if this subject was going to be raised he hoped it would be raised at Report stage. I want first to make a preliminary comment: that the only way in which your Lordships' House and this Committee can function satisfactorily is for the ground to be covered fully on Committee stage—for matters to be pointed out and for them to be polished on Report stage. Therefore it is necessary to know the Government's view as far as possible on Committee stage.

257
I am therefore asking the Government now whether they can help us a little more on this question of financing. The ground has been very largely cleared by what the two noble and learned Lords to whom I have already referred have said. I supplement it by saying that I am a person who goes round raising money for good causes, as I conceive them to be, and I have raised money for a number of political and semi-political causes as well as charitable ones. It may well be that in the future I shall wish to raise money to help the continuation of a strike in support of a principle which I hold dear and which the strikers hold dear.
Let us suppose that that is the case. Not being a member of the union and not being an official of the union, I should not, I suggest, be excluded by any of the exclusions referred to in Clause 135, and should therefore be one of the other persons referred to in Clause 134(3)(a) who is responsible for financing a strike. That would be my intention: that I should be responsible for financing it and would be going to try to collect a great deal of money from your Lordships, for example, on all sides of the House because I thought the cause was dear and proper to be supported. Now am I a person who can be ordered by the Secretary of State to desist; and, if so, how far does this order go? How many other persons, not being members of the union— be they financiers, be they bank managers, be they mortgage brokers, stockbrokers or anything of the like—who would wish to facilitate the strike by providing money for it, can be stopped by the Court from doing so? I should be greatly helped if the Government could tell us now how we stand, so that we can consider their answer in order to enable careful thought to be given at Report stage to any Amendment that might be appropriate.
6.48 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I think perhaps the point has come when something might be said from these Benches on this subject, because it seems to me, with all humility, that we are rather getting away from the original point. We are going along working out who is going to be restrained and who will not be restrained. But I must say: do not let us forget that
258
we are faced in these clauses with a situation where a major national emergency is at hand. I hope that a great many people will be restrained. I do not like the Tweedledum and Tweedledee situation that we have in industry. I think that both sides should be restrained, and I hope that during the 60 days, or the period up to 60 days, when strikes are at any rate postponed we shall do as much as we can to stop the parties concerned whetting their knives and getting ready. If they have at the end of that period to start again with their financing, so much the better. We then have a little more time at our disposal to see that neither side of industry is too ready to bash the other.
Personally, speaking as a diplomat, I have always thought that force was a remarkably poor way to settle things. It never settles anything on its merits, and I really think that in the years we live in we ought to find a better way to do this; and if we can give ourselves a little more time for the conciliation officers to get busy, to postpone the moment when the thundercloud breaks over Tweedledum and Tweedledee at the end of the period, so much the better.
Finally, I should like to say—and I do so with some apology—that I find these clauses a little obscure, with the exceptions to negative statements. I am not clear whether the actual officials and shop stewards of a registered trade union are or are not to be prevented by the Industrial Court from sharpening their knives. I think that they ought to be, whether they are officials of trade unions or not. Similarly, I believe that people in an employers' association in the circumstances of an impending national emergency ought also to be prevented. I hope that the exclusions on the employers' side will be just as rare as those on the other side. When the Government reconsider these clauses I hope they will make sure that they really are able to work as effectively as possible in holding off the thunder clouds.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord to bring us back to the realities of the situation. So far as the exclusions on the employers' side are concerned, the powers to prevent the employer locking out are just the

259
same, but the circumstances are not exactly similar. That is why they have been put into a separate clause. It is really rather extraordinary that we have had this long debate on what was virtually, as I think my noble friend supposed when introducing it, a purely drafting series of Amendments. However we are no doubt wiser after it.
On the subject of financing, the noble Lord is perfectly right to ask us exactly what we mean by "financing". I think I am also entitled to say that I should like to consider 'what is the meaning of the word in the light of the comments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Diamond. I ought to add that this is very much in line with what has just been said: that if anybody deliberately sets out to defeat an order of the Court I do not think he ought to expect very much leniency from the Court. I think it would be possible to add names to those specified in the original order if it transpired that there were other people—for some might have obeyed the order and some might not have done so—whose actions are frustrating the effectiveness of the order. Their names could be added to the order. With that explanation, I should like to have a further look at the word "financing".
LORD DIAMOND: I take it that the noble Lord was going on to add that he would propose at the earliest possible convenience to write to those who have raised these matters so that consideration can be given to them well before Report stage. It is conceivable that over the next three months we may finish the Committee stage of the Bill and therefore the time may be approaching when one has to consider carefully what Amendments are appropriate for Report. It would be a matter of convenience and courtesy if the noble Lord could give an answer prior to the Report stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, willingly.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 277J.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 30. leave out (" (as the case may be)").—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 277K.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 34, leave out from ("so") to end of line 36.—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 277L.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 39, at end insert—
(" ( ) An order under this section made on an application relating to a lock-out shall be an order directing that, during the period for which the order remains in force, no person specified in the order in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of this section shall institute, carry on, authorise, organise or finance a lock-out, or threaten to do so, within the area of employment specified in the order in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection or any part of that area ").—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 278:
Page 99, line 2, leave out ("any instructions issued by") and insert ("or securing the withdrawal of any instructions issued by or on behalf of").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 278. It is the intention of the Government that not only should those specified in an order have to withdraw any instructions previously given to their members involved in an industrial dispute, but also that steps should be taken to ensure that these instructions, whether issued by the persons specified or on their behalf by other persons who may not be specified in the order, are actually withdrawn. The responsibility for ensuring withdrawal is thus deliberately placed on the persons specified in the order. If it were necessary for the persons or organisations specified in the order merely to issue instructions cancelling previous advice without any obligation to ensure that any instructions were acted upon, the likelihood of industrial action being deferred would be reduced and the possibility of evasion of the terms of an order by the persons specified would be increased. We believe that withdrawal, and action taken to ensure withdrawal, of instructions issued either by the persons named in an order or on their behalf must be a prerequisite for the deferment of industrial action causing an emergency situation.
This is what the Amendment seeks to ensure. This applies particularly in the situation where instructions to take industrial action have been given to and passed on by an authorised union official acting on behalf of a trade union and therefore exempted under Clause 135(3). The Amendment will make it the responsibility of organisations specified in the restraint order to take all steps specified in the order to ensure their officials withdraw any previous instructions to take the industrial action now restrained by the order. That is the objective in view.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may now be a convenient moment for us to break. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
6.59 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on the Second Reading of this Bill. In my view it is a very important Bill, and it is not one that ought to go to a Committee at all; but in the event that it does go, it ought to go with a definite indication of the views of this House. Anglesey is a small island in the North West of Wales, some 270 square miles in area, and thus one of the small counties of Wales and the United Kingdom. It has a population of some 60,000. Its main industries are agriculture and holidays. The holiday industry is becoming very popular, and it has an expanding income which last year was computed at 7 million. Those of your Lordships who have been there will know that it is an island of great beauty with a mild climate, and with sea shores at Amlwch and elsewhere. I particularly stress Amlwch, the little fishing town and holiday port, with a great attraction to many people, not only from
262
Wales but also from England. Noble Lords who are not Welsh will not know that Anglesey has a very special place in Wales. It is in fact what we call Mon Mam Cymru—the "Mother of Wales"—because from there came a great deal of the one-time culture: I will not say the present way of life, but the way of life at the time. It was in Anglesey that the Druids made their last stand when they were wiped out by the Romans, who objected to them because, it was alleged, they ran the "resistance movement", not only in Wales but also in Northern Europe— particularly in France and Belgium— where Celts were situated. Whether they did or not, the Romans, like many other occupying Powers, in order to justify their aggression had to wipe out any part of the local population which was felt to be a danger to them. Unfortunately, this tendency did not end with the Romans. We have seen, only too obviously, that it still exists at the present time; not only in Europe but also in the East.
Perhaps what is more interesting to your Lordships is that from Anglesey came that great race of Monarchs, the Tudors; the three Monarchs, Henry VII, Henry VIII and Elizabeth, about whom we have seen so much on television lately. They brought England, kicking and screaming, out of the Middle Ages into the modern world. In my view, to them more than to any other Monarchs we owe the greatness of this country. I refer not only to our past greatness but also to the present and future greatness; because we are only in the middle of the stream. We are still a great country. In spite of everything that is said about it. Britain, in my view, is the greatest country in the world. I have lived in a large number of countries and this is the only one where I would wish to live.
To this little island of Anglesey, as to other parts of rural Wales, come large numbers from the North-East of England, from the Midlands, and indeed from all over the world. They come for rest, refreshment and re-creation—I stress the word "re-creation"—as well as recreation. It is so necessary in these days when there is precious little rest or recreation anywhere else. The object of the Bill is stated in the Preamble and in the Long Title. If I may read the

263
Long Title, I think it sets out the position fairly well. It states that this is
" An Act to provide for the vesting in the Anglesey County Council of the harbour undertaking of the Amlwch Urban District Council; to authorise the said county council and Shell U.K. Limited to construct works and acquire lands; to confer powers on the said county council with reference to the undertaking vested in them or authorised by this Act …"
and that in fact is what it does. It provides:
" For the safely of navigation and the efficient and economic importation of such crude oil and petroleum products …"
and in order to do so, the Bill states:
" it is expedient to authorise the construction of a marine terminal off the north coast of Anglesey to accommodate vessels (including large tankers)"—
I wish your Lordships especially to note that—
" and to receive and convey to and from such vessels such oil and products and in connection with and as part of such terminal the construction of breakwaters and other works in the harbour of Amlwch."
So in this little seaside town, this little port where the main traffic is holiday traffic, with people bathing, fishing and going out in little boats, there is to be planted down on it this enormous oil terminal with large tankers; that is the object of the Bill.
When Private Bills come before your Lordships' House—and I have dealt with many during the 20 years or more that I have been here—one is told one of two things. On Second Reading one is always told. "You must not say anything about the Bill because it is to be considered in Committee." On Third Reading one is always told." You must not say anything about the Bill because it has been considered in Committee." And so one cannot win. In the normal way that is all right and I do not object—although I may say that I have objected from time to time. But I think it is reasonable, because when it is a matter of detail, a question whether a road should be on this or that side of a valley or something like that, it is a matter for a Committee to decide. But when it is a matter of great principle it is, to my mind, for the House to decide and not a Committee. This is a matter of outstanding principle; that is to say it is, as I have described, a question whether, in this little rural area, there is to be a vast marine terminal
264
with large tankers. I say that that is not a matter to be decided by a Committee; it is a matter for your Lordships' House.
Why do I object to this proposal? First, because in my view, and surely in the view of every noble Lord, these works are bound to be seriously detrimental to the holiday and tourist industry. Secondly, they would grievously affect the amenities that I have mentioned, such as yachting and bathing. Thirdly. they would, irretrievably and irreversibly, destroy the quality of the nearby coastline—all the little bays and beautiful stretches of sand around that part of the coast where people may take their families. I think this is too big a decision and responsibility for a small council.
As I have said, my Lords, the population of Anglesey is only 60.000. Soon, and whichever Government are in power, Anglesey will cease to exist as a County Council because both Government and Opposition have decided that Anglesey shall be part of Gwynedd, a much larger area; in fact it will be one of five districts in Gwynedd. It is likely that Gwynedd, the new and much larger authority, will take—or certainly some of them will—an entirely different view. I do not think for one moment that they will agree to this. But whether they do or not, if this Bill becomes law they will not have the opportunity of objecting. It is Government policy that county councils like Anglesey are not big enough to carry out these duties. That is why they are merging Anglesey with a number of other counties to create this large new county. But what is most important of all—I hope this will appeal to your Lordships; it certainly appeals to me—is that, with the increasing industrialisation and urbanisation of England—I stress "England"—and to a lesser extent industrial Wales; the bit in the North East corner and South Wales, we must have some parts of the Island—I mean the Island of Britain —which are entirely different from the urbanised and industrial areas. That is the strongest point of all that I would make, and I seriously press this on your Lordships and on the Government.
Anglesey is not in Mid-Wales but it is nearby; and the present population of Mid-Wales is smaller now, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, than it was in the time of Elizabeth I. Other than during the tourist season, you can go for mile

265
after mile and see not a house, or car, or a man, or a dog. Where else can you do that? It is an area of great beauty, which we ought not to lose. People from the Midlands, the industrial North and London come there to see the country as it was before industrialisation. I am not suggesting that everybody in Wales will agree with what I am saying— they never do anyway—but this is a vital point. Recently I put a question to the Government on the proposals for mineral prospecting in the Snowdonia National Park by United Kingdom, South African and Canadian companies. There is also a suggestion to erect a great marine barrage near Barmouth, where they want to dredge for minerals. Where is it going to end'? Where are people to go to see Britain as it used to be, if we are to have these industrial works in our beauty spots and National Parks? I remember the discussions when the National Parks were set up, and at that time we never assumed that this sort of thing was going to happen.
This is not just a problem of Wales. The House, on January 31, 1968, rejected on Second Reading my Bill for a domestic Parliament; therefore it is the duty of this House to decide what is best for Anglesey and for Wales—and for the residents in and visitors to Anglesey, because I am not making this a nationalist plea, I am looking at it from the point of view of both England and Wales and also from the point of view of visitors to our shores from overseas. The proposals in this Bill have aroused a storm of protest and a Petition has been signed by no fewer than 17 opponents of the Bill, including the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales. the North Wales Naturalist Trust, the Anglesey Residents' Association, the Amlwch and District Residents' Association, the Wildfowlers' Association, the Amlwch Chamber of Trade, the Llandudno Chamber of Trade, the Welsh Yachting Association, the Holyhead and District Angling Club and many hotel and restaurant owners and others—I have not mentioned them all by any means—all of whom feel that this is an attack on the interests of this part of the world.
This Government have made their position quite clear. In Command Paper No. 4506, The Reorganisation of Central Government, in paragraph 31. they say:
266
" Accordingly, the Ministries of Housing and Local Government, of Public Building and Works and of Transport will be unified in a single Department of the Environment under a Secretary of State. Except in Scotland and Wales, where the Scottish and Welsh Offices will continue to play the major part, the new Department will be responsible for the whole range of functions which affect people's living environment. It will cover the planning of land—where people live, work, move and enjoy themselves. It will be responsible for the construction industries, including the housing programme, and for the transport industries, including public programmes of support and development for the means of transport. There is a need to associate with these functions responsibility for other major environmental matters: the preservation of amenity, the protection of the coast and countryside, the preservation of historic towns and monuments, and the control of air, water and noise pollution: all of which must be pursued locally, regionally, nationally and in some cases internationally."
Those are brave words, but I want the Government to put them into force. It is all very well to put them in a declaration of Government intention. Anybody can intend anything. What we want is that the Government should carry them out.
What must Parliament and the Government decide? I think they must decide how Wales, other than the industrial South and the North-East, must be treated. Up to now, successive Governments have tried to cajole industry into Wales by offering them expensive carrots in order to settle there. This must now cease. In the comparatively vast area of rural Wales no more industries should be maintained except those that are already there and the tourist and holiday industries. Local authorities, instead of being badgered by the Government to attract industries, should be instructed—or badgered—by the Government not to maintain industry and should be compensated for having to refuse industries, if any should want to go to their areas, which is unlikely. I am speaking of rural Wales but I know that exactly the same problems are to be found in Cumberland and Westmorland, in Cornwall and in Devon—in the Western parts of the country, in what were the old Celtic areas. It is only in this way, by stopping industrialisation, that we shall retain some part of our country in a state of natural beauty, free from industrial slums and subtopia. Once there are these extensive works in an area, the beauty of it is gone for ever and we can never put it back.

267
I could take your Lordships to many places in South Wales which I have seen destroyed in my own lifetime. I could take you to Lord Aberdare's own part of South Wales, which is still a lovely spot but not so lovely now as it was in my young days.
I would refer particularly to Swansea, because many eminent people, including His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, have referred to it. At the end of the 18th century it was intended to make Swansea a beauty spot, a watering place, because it was so lovely, set in Swansea Bay with the rivers coming down from the mountains. Instead of that they industrialised Swansea, especially out towards Morriston to the East and now nothing grows there. Nothing has grown there for a hundred years. Swansea College, of the University of Wales, has made experiments to restore the area and has had some slight success, but it is still a sort of moon landscape. That is what I say we are going to have if we let this Bill go through and it is something we cannot afterwards reverse. Once a rural area has become industrialised, its beauty is gone for ever and nothing will restore it. That is all I intend to say, my Lords. I feel that the time for platitudes, bromides and waffling is past. What we want from the Government and from Parliament, if they mean what they say about this environment problem, is "Action this day"—now.
7.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I shall be very brief. Despite what the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, has so eloquently said, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading in the knowledge that it will go to a Select Committee and, if passed by that Committee, will return to this House and go through various other stages, and indeed through the Parliamentary procedures in another place. However, this being a Bill which is sponsored by the county council in conjunction with a very major oil company, I think we should go through our normal procedures and refer it to the Select Committee in the normal way.
Perhaps the most useful thing I could do would be to fill in the picture in so
268
far as it goes beyond the Bill itself. I would like to make two points. The first is that the Shell Company have submitted to the local planning authority two applications for planning permission. One is for the construction of a tank farm and transfer pumping facilities at Rhyd y Gwyn, Rhosgoch, and the second is for the construction of facilities for the reception of submarine pipelines, booster facilities, associated tanks and equipment at Amlwch Port. These applications were referred to the Secretary of State by the planning authority, as they are substantially out of accord with the approved development plan, and as they affect the whole of the neighbourhood the Secretary of State has called them in and decided that a public local inquiry should be held before he makes a final decision. The arrangements for that public inquiry are now in hand. The second point worth adding is that the Shell Company also propose that from the tank farm they will lay pipelines for some seventy-five miles, going under the Menai Strait to Stanlow. The actual route will have to be surveyed and negotiated with landowners and other interested parties, and it will be subject to the procedures laid down in the Pipelines Act 1962 which is administered by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Therefore the picture I would like to leave with your Lordships is three-fold. First of all there is the Bill, which deals principally with the offshore works; there are the two planning applications; and there is the pipleline to Stanlow. All these are separate parts of one main proposal and they are subject to separate procedures. Each of them is going through the appropriate routine, and it would not be right for me to comment on their respective merits. The Government is naturally fully aware of the conflicting interests involved, but we feel the proper procedures are there and should be followed, giving an opportunity for all sides to be heard before final decisions are made.
7.24 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for adding to the information to be gathered from reading the Bill or from looking at the deposited plans, which I hope all noble Lords will have looked at. What he has

269
said confirms my feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is right and that this Bill contains a great deal which is really too important for us just to say, "These are Committee matters and we will let them go through on the nod, because a Committee will consider them." There are great considerations here which I think we, as a House, ought to consider, and hope that if we give the Bill a Second Reading the Committee will have regard to what is said here this evening.
The first point that struck me concerned the large number and the very wide range of objectors. The objectors are not just small groups and societies who might be expected to be opposed to any form of change. On the contrary, there are two chambers of trade; there are strong tourist interests, which one might suppose would he attracted by the idea of such additional business as might come from a development of this kind; and there are also natural history and conservation societies. I was interested to see the objections from the two societies with hotel interests, because I am president of a regional tourist board in another area and I know that these objections are not put in without good reason. In addition, some years ago I used to know Angelsey well, and particularly this corner of it, Amlwch.
The second reason why I feel we should look closely at this Bill is that when a small local authority is teamed with a large public company, no matter how high the reputation of that company may stand, we should look closely at what is proposed in order to check that, as time goes by, the public authority will remain the master in its own house and will not become the weaker partner. In such cases our local authorities are notoriously bad judges in their own cause, and they are often at a disadvantage. Councillors become excited at the idea of developments on a large scale. They think in terms of greatly increased rateable values and feel that something is at last going to happen in their distant neighbourhood; while their officials tend to become even more excited. But most of them have had little experience of industrial development. It can well be that they have in the short term the prospect of some advantages which, as
270
the years go by, will be outweighed by the far larger advantages accruing to their partner from the industrial venture. I am not accusing anybody of doing anything underhand or dishonourable: this is just part of the facts of life. Hence, I think we should look most carefully at these proposals, because in the end a public company of the size, nature and scope of that which we are considering here has resources which are far greater, and an influence which is far stronger and wider, than that of the council of any small county.
My third point refers to planning. Much of our coastline has already been spoilt for all time, and what is left is surely precious. I had hoped that, even though this process of spoiling the coastline was still going on in some countries abroad—notably Italy—we had checked it here. If planning means anything at all, it means establishing great installations of this kind near other industrial development and away from areas where it is bound to be the dominating feature of a stretch of coastline which at present is entirely different in character. If I remember rightly, this coast is important to the tourist trade, which is probably the biggest industry in the area. The coast is also important from the point of view of conservation, and although Conservation Year is now over, that surely does not mean we should forget it. Further, this part of the coastline would seem to be where we should think of establishing smaller-scale industries more appropriate to the population and scale of the neighbourhood.
I do not know what the Shell Company's reasons are—it could be the deep water—but perhaps the noble Lord, speaking for the Promoters, will tell us. Certainly I think that we should be given some explanation. I say that in the knowledge that there are other places along our West Coast where old-established industries on a big scale are now shrinking and where there is hence substantial unemployment, so that industry on this scale would be welcome. Why has this particular area been chosen? The development proposed is apparently unwelcome to many people, even though not unwelcome to the county council. It would indeed be welcome elsewhere. I can only speak for the area

271
of England that I know best. Barrow-in-Furness is a place where an installation of this sort might be welcome. There is the small town of Millom a little further up the coast, and there is Whitehaven, and also Workington. I deserve to be told why it is necessary for an installation of this kind to go to an area where it is entirely out of character when there are industrial areas in the North-West where some development of this sort would be welcome.
7.30 p.m.
LORD BOSTON: My Lords, originally I did not intend to speak in this debate, but as I am possibly the only Member of this House who lives in Anglesey I felt bound to say a few words in view of my personal knowledge of the island. I have known Anglesey since about 1910 when I first used to go there as a small boy, so I know it pretty well. I now have a house, which I had built not long ago, within 50 yards of the sea, and it will be within five miles of this new terminal. If anything goes wrong with the oil of that terminal, the strong currents which run along there will no doubt mean that I shall be smothered in oil. That is what I have to face. That coastline used to be rather like the Mediterranean. You go along its cliffs, 50 feet to 150 feet high, and look straight down into clean, pure sea-water, because there is a strong current and the water is very deep: incidentally, that is why the terminal is going there.
Unfortunately, there has been a series of developments along that coast. The North coast is divided between these rocky stretches and pleasant bays, and on the other side of the island there is an area of nothing but sand dunes. It is within full sight of Snowdonia. The tourist has a bit of everything—the sea for sailing, Snowdonia for climbing and so on—and it is an area where tourists should be able to stay and enjoy themselves. Instead of that, first of all along came a factory connected with rubber. That was close to the Menai Strait. The smell from that factory is well-known for up to ten miles away. Not far from where the oil terminal will be there is a high octane spirit factory. That is dependent upon good clean sea-water from which to extract the chemicals required,
272
and the owners at least will keep the water clean. But, unfortunately, again this produces an unpleasant odour. So it goes on all along the coast.
Recently the county council, partly due to unemployment difficulties, admitted an atomic station, which is progressing rapidly. There are dangers again over a fairly large area. Then, not far away from the atomic station they have put an aluminium works. So your Lordships can see that the county has been more and more encroached upon, and I feel it is time to stop it. If an oil terminal is required we should at least be assured that other places have been looked at. I am not qualified to say what places, and I cannot make any suggestions. I think that covers all that I have to say, other than to express the hope that during the course of the passage of this Bill all the aspects of preservation will be considered.
7.35 p.m.
THE. EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, asked just now that whoever spoke for the Promoters should answer various questions and give various explanations. I do not appear for the Promoters. I am speaking in this debate because I am generally interested in the issues raised by this matter, which I believe, in United Kingdom terms as well as regional development terms, we ought to treat with the greatest sympathy and, I would add, balance. Just as you cannot carve satisfactorily in butter, so I believe you need a measure of wellbeing to be able to afford the luxury of indefinite and unlimited amenity protection. What I would plead for is a regard for this matter with a sense of balance and perspective.
My real reason for intervening is that I believe that the deep waters off the coast of Britain offer a superb opportunity for the recovery of Britain's industrial prosperity in the future, without any damage whatsoever to amenity. I see the berthing of the very large crude carriers as offering in this country a means for keeping industrial fuel costs low by giving us the chance to make the most of the economies of scale which the very big tankers provide. That would give us a head start over our European competitors. It may not be generally known that the net price of motorists' petrol at the pump before duty to-day,

273
despite the rise in crude oil prices thanks to the operations of the OPEC—the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries—is much the same to-day as it was in 1959, owing largely to improvement of techniques in producing and transporting it.
One-third of the oil tanker capacity now at sea is in the range above 100,000 tons displacement. Something like 520 ships in this class are now afloat, totalling more than 48 million tons out of a total of about 150 million tons of tankers altogether. More than 90 per cent. of the current tanker building is in the class above 100,000 tons. There are now 660 such ships on order, or being built, which total 65 million deadweight tons, out of total tanker orders throughout the world of 70 million tons. The expectation is that these ships are going up to half a million tons and even one million tons. I submit seriously to your Lordships' House, not least because this is the Parliament of Wales as well as of the United Kingdom, that we must look at this matter in the widest possible and most sober sense, bearing in mind that Britain alone in Western Europe has undredged deep water deep enough to attract these mammoths, thus enabling Britain to intercept the European bulk trades and to keep her basic industrial fuel costs below those of her European competitors.
It may not be generally known, but at the risk of telling some noble Lords something which they know already may I remind your Lordships that British demand for oil fuel, whether petroleum or crude, distilled in one way or another, is rising at 7 per cent. per annum, and it doubles every seven years. The very large crude carriers are the main hope of enabling us to satisfy this demand—and I beg your Lordships to pay careful attention to this point—without needing to encroach on a multiplicity of new refinery sites, on new virgin sites, with a fresh affront to amenity elsewhere.
There is a fashionable environmental litany in our day which is easy to make the most of. Somebody said:
"To make a name for learning
"When other roads are barred
" Take something very easy
"And make it very hard."
I sometimes wonder whether those who care so much for the countryside fully
274
appreciate the problem that we are up against, unless of course we want to turn our industrial civilisation backwards. I sometimes think that people are using a quiverful of outdated concepts; that they are armed with bows and arrows in the atom age.
Noble Lords may well ask why I, from Scotland, speak about Wales. But this is not simply a parochial or regional matter. I regard the deep waters all around the West and North coasts of Britain as being valuable assets. I realise that those that are closest—and perhaps this answers Lord Boston's point—to the industrial markets of Britain are likely to come into use first. Objections by the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales, and I believe also by the National Trust, can be thrashed out at the public inquiry later this summer or the autumn. The noble Lords, Lord Ogmore, Lord Boston and Lord Inglewood, seemed to speak with some confusion about what is proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, saw his home and surroundings being smothered in oil. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, told of an enormous oil terminal with large tankers, a vast marine terminal—I quote his words. He said it would be something which would be bound to be detrimental to holidaymakers and tourism; something that would irretrievably destroy the nearby coastline. These were the words he used.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say that I was not under any misapprehension at all. In view of what the noble Lord has just said I will quote from what is proposed. I did not say this in my speech because I did not want to talk for too long. As a necessary corollary to the marine terminal contained in the Bill (which is the main subject of this debate) it is, and I will quote:
"… proposed initially to construct adjacent to the harbour of Amlwch displacement, surge, and bunker fuel tanks the largest of which will be 46·50 metres in diameter and 18·50 metres in height, heaters with chimneys approximately 20 metres in height, an electrical substation and a radio mast approximately 30 metres in height, hereinafter called the shore installation ', and inland at Rhosgoch a tank farm, hereinafter called ' the tank farm ', which will consist inter alia of eight large crude oil storage tanks 78 metres in diameter and 22 metres in height, together with six smaller tanks 17 metres in height, the main pump-house, heaters with chimneys 20 metres in height, and smaller works including control equipment and electrical transformers".

275
How do the bathing parties, yachts and so on, and the holidaymakers, fit into all that? That is what I should like to know.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, for spelling out what he has just spell: out. I wonder whether some time he would come with me to Finnart—
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE: Where?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: He has never heard of it, but it is on Loch Long and there is a marine terminal much more complicated than this, with greater tanks than are now proposed and greater pipelines than are now proposed. We will go there together, if the noble Lord will give me the pleasure of his company, and I will show him that by means of screening and sinking tanks partly underground it is possible to reduce what I will call the eye-sore menace to very limited proportions.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords—
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I have given way to the noble Lord, we have only a limited amount of time, there is a Committee ahead. So may I be allowed to continue? To describe these as extensive industrial works, and as industrialising a rural area, suggests that in one critical respect the noble Lord has not fully grasped all that is proposed. The terminal consists of what is called a single buoy mooring, that is, a buoy which physically is about as big the the Arundel Room of our Library. The buoy floats in the sea and only the top is visible. There is then a pipe which goes down from that, which is buried in the seabed, comes to the booster station, and is again buried all the way to Stanlow refinery on the Mersey. There is little that is visible. The buoy has a swivel top enabling the tanker to swing and head into the winds and tides to the best advantage, and it is not a very large undertaking.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked: can we know why this site has been chosen rather than others? I do not speak for the company, but my own observation is that this is the deepest water close to the industrial Midlands, and that is why it commends itself to the company; and as to planning, I am sure my noble friend Lord Inglewood
276
will have studied the document, "The Planning of the Coastline" by the Countryside Commission, and will have seen the passages from paragraphs 184 to 189, which bear very largely on this problem. The document recognises that terminals of one form or another are desirable and can be managed perfectly reasonably. There has been a good deal of fear that the existence of these large ships would be a hazard and would lead—
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I thank him for what he said about the deep water; I had guessed that, and he will understand that I am not against the developments that he spoke about. I am against putting them in places where people do not want them when there are more suitable places available. Could he say anything about the other industrialised sites on the West coast where an installation of this sort might be welcome?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I cannot do so without notice, although I have given some time and trouble to the study of deep water sites and I am aware that there are a number ranging from Falmouth to the Severn, to the coast of Anglesey, the Lune Estuary in Lancashire, the West coast of the Lake District, and to the West, North and East coasts of Scotland. I frankly hope that proper use will be made of all of them in due time. Obviously it is for the entrepreneur to decide which of these is most suited to his needs.
I do not want to take more time than is necessary, but I want to point out first of all that this kind of undertaking should diminish the hazard of pollution which may well arise through collision in the crowded, narrow Mersey. The single-buoy mooring allows the ship to stay safely moored in all weathers, free to swing its full circle and to lie at all times in the best position for wind and tides; and if people object to the sight of a ship may I say that to the viewer the only difference between a very large crude oil carrier and any other ship is simply that the carrier is bigger. My observation is that tourists like looking at ships, and I have yet to meet one that does not. The smaller the tanker, the greater the risk, because its crew is inevitably less experienced; more crews are required

277
for smaller tankers because there are more of them. Most accidents, for example in the Dover Straits, have occurred with the smaller tankers. The bigger the tanker, the more expert the crew is likely to be per volume of crude oil, and therefore the less the hazard.
There are more than 50 of these single-buoy moorings in the world and so far there has been no pollution from any of them. More than 16, I understand, are owned by the company in question—Shell. They have handled more than a thousand ships, more than 50 million tons of oil, for over seven or eight years without pollution. There is a settled blanking-off routine for the fuel hose after discharge, so that no dangers arise there. Two of the most knowledgeable local bodies, I understand, are satisfied; namely, the Mersey Pilots, whose advice led to a modest re-siting of this proposal, and who considered this an immense improvement, from a safety point of view, to bringing these big ships into the Mersey; and secondly, the Lancashire and Welsh Fisheries Joint Committee, who apparently also believe that this would be a great protection rather than a hazard to fishing.
There are those who say: why not dredge the Mersey deeper? The answer is that playing with Nature has a way of bringing you a "hit-back", as Rotterdam has found. The danger of navigating these big ships in the narrow waters is a very serious one. There are the objections by the urban district council of Amlwch. May I just call your Lordships' attention to one or two points in regard to Anglesey, which has a high unemployment rate at present, of between 8 and 9 per cent. This proposition would bring 35 to 40 permanent new jobs to the local people, about 20 or so maintaining the two launches and the S.B.M's. and about 15 to 20 on the tank farm. There would also be a slight spinoff in local services. All this would arise in a rural area whose population is less than 4,000, where the rateable value is less than £150,000 and where an old penny on the rates would not raise much more than £600. In addition, the company in question seem to have read the maxims of a favourite of mine, Lord Halifax, who in his Maxims of State wrote in the 17th century:
278
" A wise prince will not oblige his courtiers who are birds of prey, so as to disoblige his people who are beasts of burden ".
The client company in this case, the applicants, Shell, eager to set people's minds at rest have made a very serious proposal which is to be found in Clause 50. They offer an ex-gratia payment of one new penny per ton of crude oil passing through this pipe per annum, offering Anglesey an eventual revenue in altogether new money of something like £250,000 per annum—this, when the rateable value of the county is not more than £1·5 million and an old penny on the rates there does not raise more than £6,500. The fund or the revenue would be under county council control as things are, and would be used—I quote from the Bill
" for the benefit of the Island and its (60,000) inhabitants."
When this Bill goes to Committee, as I pray it will, I feel sure that all that has been said and objected to in this House will be considered by the Committee. All I would say, in wishing the Bill a fair wind, is that to refuse it would be a wilful waste of natural resources. And wilful waste, my Lords, makes woeful want.
7.53 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for any length of time because I appreciate that we have some ephemeral legislation coming a little later on. But what we are now discussing is more permanent legislation, namely, the landscape and the amenities of the Island of Anglesey. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that this is a matter which will come back to this House and which we can discuss at a later stage, after the Bill has been fully examined by the Select Committee. On the other hand, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in, as it were, giving notice to the Committee that this is a really important Bill.
I know that Select Committees are always conscientious in regard to their duties. Nevertheless, the proposals in this Bill have given rise to considerable concern in the Principality—partly, of course, because this is not the only project for some kind of industrial development in North Wales. I think all of us are deeply concerned about the proposals in respect of the Snowdonia National

279
Park. That is quite a different proposition, and we must not confuse the two. Nevertheless, it adds to the apprehensions. This is a complex matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explained, there is this Bill, but there are also the planning applications and matters concerning the pipeline. As I know well from my own experience as a Minister in the Welsh Office, this kind of multiple situation is difficult for those who are protesting, in all good faith, that they have to prepare material for the proceedings in Parliament as well as for the public inquiry, for planning and so on. It puts a great burden on the amenity societies when we, no doubt, for good constitutional reasons, have these multiple situations. I am not in any way blaming the Government for that, but I am making the point that it adds a great burden to societies which had to go through all this process for the Rio Tinto application in Anglesey. Also, as the noble Lord, Lord Boston, remarked, there is the Wylfa power station, and the Valley Airport, and so on. Therefore this proposal has to be looked at in the total complex of a very small and beautiful island. It has to be seen partly against the matter of scale.
I want to make clear to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that I am not opposing the Bill as such; it is too early to take a stand one way or the other until it has been fully examined. But I would ask him to bear in mind that there are matters of scale involved, and however well the tank farm may have been camouflaged at Loch Long, it may nevertheless be obtrusive on a much smaller scale on the landscape on parts of the Island of Anglesey unless very stringent conditions are laid down. The noble Earl mentioned, for example, tanks being partly sunk in the ground. Everything of that kind, I would respectfully suggest, should be borne carefully in mind before any agreement is given to the proposals as described by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I must also dissociate myself from the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. He said that he did not wish to see any further industry at all in rural Wales. This is really praising the plumage and forgetting the dying bird.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if I may intervene, what I intended to say, and
280
what I hope I did say, was that I did not want any industry of this kind. Agricultural industries pertaining to rural areas— something concerning milk or something of that kind—are all right. What I meant was that we have had enough of industries coming from industrial areas into Wales, and I do not want any more.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with that view, because it very much depends on the way in which the buildings are designed, erected and so on. With great respect to the noble Lord, I feel that he somewhat exaggerated when he referred to the appalling landscape of Llandor and Morriston, to the moonscape there and, by implication, suggested that these proposed installations would have anything in common with that. After all, we want to keep people alive on Anglesey, and it is a question of judgment as to how far the tourist interests and possible industrial development can best do that. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, would agree that, welcome as it is, the additional employment is a very small advantage. We have had this before in regard to Milford Haven, where we have deep-water oil concerns and where the degree of local employment in relation to the capital investment is vestigial. One should not overplay the advantages to Anglesey. One ought to weigh them very carefully in the balance in comparison with the possible detrimental effects which could follow from this development.
The EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene for a moment, surely the relationship that should be looked at in terms of jobs is not that between jobs for Anglesey and the Shell company's money but between the jobs for Anglesey and whatever disfigurement of the environment there may be. How much Shell care to spend on it is their business.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am entirely at one with the noble Lord on that. Sometimes one is apt to speak of these enormous investments as though they are going to bring some comparable local advantage, which of course they do not. We have had ample experience of this in another very beautiful part of Wales, in Pembrokeshire, where I urged the oil companies to do

281
more with local processing. I am not suggesting this for one moment in regard to Anglesey; but welcome as this employment is, it is not as great as all that. I was interested to hear about the present, which I assume is going to be free money, this one penny on the— is it ton or gallon?
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, as I understand it—I am not speaking for the company—this is an ex gratia payment by the company to the local authority, and it is per ton.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, is it in relation to rates? Does this mean that the local authority are going to lose precisely the same amount in the rate-support grant? Is this, or is it not, a gift to Her Majesty's Treasury? If it is free money, then it is welcome. I do not wish to detain your Lordships' House further, except to emphasise again that this is a very important matter in the context of both industry and amenity in North Wales, and we hope that we may have a further opportunity at a later stage to discuss the matter in greater detail.
8.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I have listened with very great interest to all the speeches which have been made this afternoon, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and all the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken that their remarks will be carefully studied in the OFFICIAL REPORT by the Select Committee to which this Bill will be referred if your Lordships give it a Second Reading. I think all I need do now is to remind your Lordships that it is customary for the House to give a Private Bill a Second Reading so that it can be referred to a Select Committee to hear evidence on behalf of the Promoters and the Petitioners against the Bill. Having done this, the Committee will be in a position to report to the House whether or not the Bill should be allowed to proceed or be amended. The House will then be able, if the Bill proceeds, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, pointed out, on the Third Reading to consider the Bill with the benefit of the views of the Select Committee.
This is an opposed Bill and three Petitions have been deposited against it.
282
They will be considered by the Select Committee to which the Bill is referred, and they raise, I think, almost all the points that have been made in criticism of the Bill in the speeches of noble Lords this afternoon. The Committee will, of course, pay the closest attention to everything that your Lordships have said. I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.2 p.m.
House again in Committee.
On Question, Whether Clause 135, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CHAMPION: We have to a great extent discussed this clause on Amendment 277F and the Government Amendments. I must admit that I thought the discussion on the Amendments ranged rather wide, but I have no fault to find with that. But quite clearly it relieves me of any responsibility of putting, on the Question, That the clause shall stand part?, the points I had in mind which have been adequately covered on the Amendments that we have dealt with. Some of the points I wished to put related to the words "or finance", but they have been so much better deployed by my noble friends—in fact very much better deployed than I could have hoped to deploy them myself. That applies also to some extent to the meaning of the exclusion of persons under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3). But I should like to put a question on the exclusions.
As I understand it, under that subsection, while orders can be made under the terms of Clause 134 against organisations of workers, the protection provided for under subsection (3) of this clause applies only to officials of a trade union, which presumably means a registered organisation of workers. As I understand it, this will mean that officers and shop stewards of an unregistered trade union may be subjected to orders under this clause and to the penalties if they contravene them. I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will tell me whether I am

283
correct in this supposition or not. Even if I am not, I shall not be unduly abashed because, quite clearly, better minds than mine have applied themselves to this Bill and have not been wholly satisfied with some of the things they have read or some of the answers they have received.
The discretion which the Court may exercise is very wide indeed. If we take the phrase in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) "the area of employment", while the Secretary of State must in his application specify the persons against whom the order is made, the area of employment is to be determined in the course of the proceedings before the Court without any previous commitment on the part of the Secretary of State. It seems to me that this is wholly within the purview of the Court itself and the Secretary of State will not have to commit himself as to that area before he submits his application. I am not too sure about that, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to satisfy me on the point because there is some importance in this definition of "the area of employment" which arises from the fact that the Court may issue prohibitions on a narrow or on a very wide scope. The Court may, for example, it seems to me, make its order applicable to the maintenance of a full or only an emergency service. Is this so? I should very much like to know.
Everything that was said on the Amendment convinces me that the procedure in Clauses 134 and 135 will produce no way to secure reasonable industrial relations in this country. Altogether, this clause and the preceding clause introduce factors into our industrial law wholly out of keeping with what has grown up and worked reasonably well in an area full of potential difficulties, which this certainly is. I do not like the clause; I do not like the clause that preceded it. But, before asking my noble friends to divide upon it, I should much like to hear the answers to the questions that I have put, and answers to the questions which I believe my noble friend Lord Stow Hill wishes to put on this clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I gather that the noble Lord has already dealt adequately with his noble friend's points on this clause. The noble Lord. Lord Champion, with his customary modesty, has suggested that others have dealt with
284
this question better than he has, but he has put his points extremely clearly, as usual. My understanding so far as organisations of workers are concerned is the same as his; namely, that particular officials of organisations of workers can be specified in the order; and of course so long as they comply with the order they have no trouble. As to the area of employment, no doubt the Secretary of State will have to indicate to the Court what the area of employment is, but he may not be able to do it with sufficient accuracy, and in this the Court will have the assistance of the Commission on Industrial Relations. It can call on them if it needs to do so.
I did not quite understand the point about full or emergency services. I did not quite understand the noble Lord's question. Perhaps the noble Lord would like me to write to him on that point when I pick it up.
LORD CHAMPION: The point was merely this. Clearly, "the area of employment being left to the Court will enable them to decide the extent of the order, when made: whether there shall be a limited or a very full emergency service. Is that clear to the noble Lord? It would be possible for the Court to order in such a way that only a part of the service needs to be maintained in order to avoid what is feared, or would be feared, under Clause 134. The very fact that they may themselves decide the area of employment would enable them to decide just what the extent of the service should be. Is that reasonably clear to the noble Lord? I hope it is. It is fairly clear to me.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not quite certain that the noble Lord is entirely with us on this point. We are talking of emergency procedures and I think he is still confusing the case somewhat with the other legislation. the Emergency Powers Act. The definitions of the areas must to a large extent follow the persons, officials and such organisations as are responsible for calling or procuring or financing the strike. As the noble Lord will see from subsection (2)(a), the areas concerned may be
one or more industries … or one or more undertakings or parts of undertakings … or one or more descriptions of workers so specified.

285
This is what is meant by the areas. From what I gathered from his question I think the noble Lord was really asking how many people have to be got back to work in order to supply the services that are basic. I do not think that is really the relevant question; the relevant question is how to get people back in the works so that normal work can be restored during the period when a settlement is being sought.
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, but an order has to be made, and there should be stipulated in the order the extent of the employment to be covered in that order. That is what I feel is fair in the question that I was asking. What I really wanted to know, and rather suggested, was that the importance of the area of employment to be defined by the Court would actually cover this very point, and they
Resolved in the affirmative, and clause 135, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
might then decide, when deciding the area of employment, the extent to which the order shall in fact spread. That is what I was seeking here. If the noble Lord feels that I have not been clear enough on it to satisfy him, and I am not particularly clear about the answer that he has given, perhaps we can have a word about it between now and the Report stage. There is certainly a point here that I would like to have elucidated before we part with this Bill altogether.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Broadly speaking, the area to be covered is the area affected by the dispute.
8.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 135. as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-contents, 31.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falkland, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrier, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V.

Reading, M.

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

Redmayne, L.

Balfour, E.

Greenway, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Barrington, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Beauchamp, E.

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

St. Just, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandys, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly

Bolton, L.

Headfort, M.

Skelmersdale, L.

Boston, L.

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Hives, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Byers, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Conesford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Thomas, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Mar, E.

Vivian, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Milverton, L.

Wade, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monck, V.

Wigram, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Slater, L.

Blackett, L.

Hoy, L.

Stonham, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.[Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Platt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Diamond, L.

Popplewell, L.

Clause 136 [Supplementary provisions where order made under s. 135]:
8.22 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 278D:
Page 99, line 23. leave out from ("to") to ("the") in line 24.
The noble Lord said: With the agreement of the Committee I think with this Amendment we might also discuss Amendments 278E and 278F. The essential purpose of these Amendments is to harmonise the procedure for the making of a supplementary order more closely with that of the principal order to which the supplementary order relates. The purpose of this clause, to which this Amendment relates, is to enable the Secretary of State to apply to the Court for a supplementary order to specify additional people not specified by the principal order and to apply the provisions of the principal order to them, restraining them from promoting any form of industrial action to which the principal order applies as causing or being likely to cause a serious emergency.
Thus, if a trade union and its officials have, for instance, been restrained by the principal order from organising a strike likely to lead to an emergency, a supplementary order can be made applying this restraint to a person or a group of people not specified in the principal order who, despite any union instructions to the contrary, continue to organise industrial action. The real purpose of these Amendments is to make it clear that persons who are to be specified in a supplementary order have the same rights to make representations to the Court as those in the principal order, and that the exclusions from specification laid down in Clause 135(3) apply to them.
The effect of the Amendments is that the Secretary of State must specify in an application to the Court the persons against whom he wishes a supplementary order to be made, and those people are then to be joined with the Secretary of State in proceedings before the Court. Those persons can then make representations, either that they have no responsibility for the industrial action in question (and must therefore be covered by Clause 135(3)(a), even though they are participating in the industrial action. Or they may claim exclusion under Clause
288
135(3)(b) on the grounds that their action was taken as an authorised official of a registered trade union. Or they can claim that a supplementary order cannot be made against them at all because the period of the principal order has in fact expired. These Amendments therefore make it explicit that people whom the Secretary of State wishes to be restrained by supplementary order from promoting industrial action which could continue or worsen an emergency situation have exactly the same rights as those carried by the principal order to make representations to the Court as parties to the proceedings. We feel that is only natural justice. On those grounds I hope that the Committee will approve of this group of Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 278E:
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 31, leave out from (" the") to end of line 34 and insert (" Secretary of State may make an application to the Industrial Court, specifying those persons and applying for the principal order to be extended to them: and the persons so specified shall, together with the Secretary of State, be the parties to any proceedings on that application.
(3A) Subject to the next following subsection, on any application made by the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of this section the Industrial Court shall make an order specifying the persons who were specified in the application and directing that, in relation to any time after the order under this subsection takes effect, the principal order, while it remains in force, shall have effect as if those persons had been included among the persons specified in the principal order in accordance with section 135(2)(b) of this Act.
(3B) The Industrial Court shall not make an order under subsection (3A) of this section after the end of the period specified in the principal order, and, where it makes an order under that subsection, shall not include in it any person required to be excluded in accordance with section 135(3) of this Act").—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 278F:
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 36, leave out (" (3)") and insert ("(3A)").—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 278L:
Page 99, line 39, leave out (" 126(5)") and insert (" 135(5)").
The noble Lord said: I think this is a plain slip, and I believe it has now been covered by a corrigendum. Whether it is consistent with the rules of your Lordships' House to correct the text of a Bill approved by another place by a corrigendum addition I do not know. The context of my Amendment deals with the erroneous numbering, and I do not want to take any time about it. I do not believe that Ministers would be committing a very serious contempt of the proceedings of this House if they did seek to correct an obvious slip by corrigendum. But perhaps the simplest way out of the difficulty, if I am right about this matter, is for the Government to say that they accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I willingly adopt the simplest way and accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 136, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not want to delay the Committee on this clause, because we touched on it when we were discussing the previous clause. I merely wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who was good enough to say that he would write to those of us who raised questions regarding the persons who might be affected and the extent to which persons might be affected who were financing a strike, whether he would be good enough to take into account Clause 136 as amended. If it is easier for him to specify those persons who could not be sent to goal, that would be just as good. Perhaps he would either let us know who would be affected and could be sent to gaol or who would not be affected and could not be. In either case, would he be good enough to include Clause 136 as amended?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall be glad to do so.
Clause 136, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 137 [Application to Industrial Court for order for ballot relating to industrial action]:
8.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 278G:
Page 100, line 34, at end insert—
(2A) Any application under this section shall specify the persons (whether they are organisations of workers, officials of such organisations or other persons) appearing to the Secretary of State to be responsible for calling organising, procuring or financing the strike or other action in question, or for a threat to do so; and the persons specified in the application in accordance with this subsection shall, together with the Secretary of State, be the parties to any proceedings on that application.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 278G. Your Lordships will have noted that under Clause 134 the application made by the Secretary of State has clearly to identify those persons against whom the Secretary of State seeks an order. Persons thus become parties to proceedings before the Court, and have every opportunity to hear and rebut the case presented to the Court by the Secretary of State. The purpose of this Amendment is to make similar provision in relation to an application for a strike ballot under Clause 137. As at present drafted, Clause 137 does not, in terms, require the Secretary of State to specify the parties who may be bound by ballot order, although he is, of course, required under subsection (3), so far as is practicable to consult the employer or employees, and the union or unions, concerned in the dispute. It seems only right. and in accord with natural justice. that Clause 137 should incorporate the additional safeguard which this Amendment provides. I therefore commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: This is a matter upon which, over the last weekend, I prepared a number of considerable broadsides that I was going to fire at the noble Lord, but he sneaked up on me and spiked my guns. This Amendment was put down very late. I did not see it until yesterday morning, as indeed is the case with a number of other Amendments which have been put down, some of a very important character. I shall not complain too much about that because I know what can happen within a Ministry, but it is difficult for anyone who has not the advantage of the help of a considerable staff to follow things when they are placed on the Marshalled List as late as this one was. It appeared there yesterday morning, and indeed a later and massive sort of Amendment

291
that we shall deal with subsequently was placed there at the same time.
This is a sensible addition. It brings into Clause 137 something which is already in Clause 134, and, as such, I have not the slightest objection to it. As I say, my only objection is to the fact that the Amendment went down so late, so that I spent much time over the weekend which might have been used to better advantage to myself.
LORD SLATER: May I ask a question in regard to this Amendment? The Amendment says,
" procuring or financing the strike or other action in question,…
The noble Lord will be aware, as will other noble Lords, that where there is, or has been, a strike, finances in support of those engaged in that strike have not just come into the strike fund from people within the borders of this country, but also from outside. What is the position of the Government in respect to that kind of support? The reason I ask the question is because when I paid a visit to Moscow I was reminded by Mr. Khrushchev that in the 1926 strike he had been assigned by the Dombas miners to get money and to send it to the British miners who were on strike —or what I always call a lock-out. Many people inside the industry at that time would not accept it because they said that it was "Red money", and they did not like the Communist attitude. Nevertheless, that money came into the country, and it was disbursed among the miners at that particular time. What would be the current position with regard to anything like that? I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to give me an answer to that question. That is something that could arise, and there will be questions asked about it inside trade union branches.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I would need notice of the question which the noble Lord has just asked. My first reaction is that it would be difficult to show that these people were within the jurisdiction of the court, if I understand him correctly. If I can obtain any further information I shall be glad to write to him.
I apologise for the lateness in putting down these Amendments. This is partly
292
because of our procedure. I think they actually went down on Thursday, but of course they only permeate to the Marshalled List at a later time. I am very sorry for the hard work that the noble Lord had to do to no purpose over the weekend.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Would the noble Lord enlarge on his reply to my noble friend Lord Slater? I agree with him about the details of what happened in 1926. The money was very welcome to the miners and their families, and particularly to their children. The noble Lord said it would be impossible to bring the donors of money from Russia, or any other foreign country, within the jurisdiction of the Court. Could any other action be taken to stop the money being paid for the purpose for which it was sent? Could there be, say, an embargo at the bank, or something like that?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I must say that I think we are going a little wide of this particular Amendment. May I also write to the noble Lord about that? I think we should perhaps be out of order if we were to follow that question up on this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 137, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.37 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: Here in this clause we have the idea of the compulsory ballot being introduced. Under this clause the Secretary of State may apply for an order requiring a ballot to be taken where there exist conditions very similar to those we have been discussing in relation to Clause 134 and Clause 135, but with the additional alternative condition, so far as the Secretary of State's assessment of the situation goes, of his doubts as to whether the workers' wishes, desires and intentions have been sufficiently taken into account before a strike or other industrial action has been decided upon. The additional consideration is that in the opinion of the Secretary of State the result of such action is likely to be
" seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers …"
That means that in the case of action by the Secretary of State under Clause 134, in making an application to the Court for

293
an order under Clause 135, he could, as I see it, at the same time make an application to the Court for an order under Clause 137 requiring a ballot to be taken.
The additional condition that would have to apply in that case would be that one of his doubts is as to whether the workers concerned had been able adequately to express their wishes before the decision of the organisation of workers had been taken. The question that immediately springs to mind in that connection is, on what sort of evidence the Secretary of State acts before he arrives at the conclusion that there are reasons for doubting whether the workers have been adequately consulted. Under this clause will the Secretary of State act on the complaint of a disruptive minority which might succeed in planting a doubt in his mind? If so, it will be only just one more case or instance under the Bill of opening the door to the disruptive minority.
This is of considerable importance, for although the Secretary of State shall consult, so far as appears to him to be practicable in the circumstances, the parties to the dispute, his decision on the matter of the application arising out of his doubt as to whether the workers concerned have been adequately consulted will not fall to be questioned by the Industrial Court. It will not be up to them to ask a single question on this matter of the doubt which apparently exists in the mind of the Secretary of State, as to whether or not the workers have been adequately consulted. This is a factor to which attention will be drawn again when we come to consider Clause 138.
Altogether this clause is even wider in the conditions formulated under it than the sweeping conditions of Clause 134, for in addition to the doubt in the mind of the Minister which I have mentioned there is the additional and alternative condition that the Minister may apply for an order for a strike ballot if he is of the opinion that the effects of the industrial action are likely to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of persons employed in the industry. It will be seen that under the terms of subsection (1) an application may affect an unregistered trade union, but the Secretary of State will not be under any obligation under subsection (3) to try to consult such an organisation before submitting an
294
application to the Court, as he would in the case of a registered trade union. This again is a distinction which is clearly going to add enormously to the difficulties of operation of this Bill. We have called attention to it many times in this connection.
What we really have to consider here, on the principle of the clause, is the possible efficacy of the ballot combined with the cooling-off period as a strike-stopper, as an adjunct to a greater degree of enforced democracy in unions, whether registered or unregistered. The chief consideration in the mind of the Government is clearly that the ballot will serve to check the number of strikes that occur in this country. The argument for the clause springs from the premise that if only the workers could express their wishes, and not be led by the nose by their trade union leaders, there would be everlasting peace on the industrial field. Such a belief is pathetic, and contrary to all the evidence available from the United States of America and such evidence as springs from our conditions here. Certainly, the evidence that springs from our conditions here is far from reassuring.
In paragraph 428 of the Donovan Report there appear these words:
"There is little justification in the available evidence for the view that workers are less likely to vote for strike action than their leaders; and findings from our workshop relations survey, already cited, confirm this."
Anyone who has ever sat on the executive committee of a great trade union will be conscious of the tremendous pressures that build up behind anyone occupying that sort of position, or the position of general secretary to a trade union. Almost invariably the pressures are such that it is extremely difficult for the trade union leader to resist them. Pressures for increased wages, pressures for decreased hours, pressures for longer holidays—they all build up; and it is very seldom that the trade union leader has to lead the trade union members by the nose in order to get them to agree to action on the industrial field, whether strike action or action of some other kind. That simply does not happen.
I was on the executive of a trade union during the war years when, clearly, conditions were such that we did not want to see any disruption occurring which might interfere with our effort in the war. But

295
I remember the tremendous difficulty we had, even then, to resist the pressures which from time to time built up behind us. It is true that in the main we did resist them, and that was because we did not wish to exploit the situation of tremendous power in which we found ourselves at that time, and we did not want to cause any difficulty when the country was fighting for its very life. What I am saying here is that it is very seldom that trade union leaders want to be in advance of those people whom they lead, but the pressures behind them are enormous at this or any other time. The written evidence submitted on this point by the Secretary of State's own Department to the Donovan Commission concludes with these words:
" In general, there is no sound reason for supposing that compulsory secret ballots would reduce the number of strikes."
That is a conclusion of one of the sanest and most capable Departments of Labour in the world and I am rather proud of this Department of Labour, or this Department of Employment and Productivity, which happens to be ours. That is their considered view, and that was in the written evidence which was available to the Donovan Commission.
I am bound to conclude by condemning the procedure commenced in this clause, for it would tend to bring the Secretary of State into the industrial relations arena at a much too early stage of a dispute. He would be subjected to Party political pressures which would be hard to resist, even against his better judgment and against the advice of his Ministry. He would be flying in the face of all the evidence to the contrary, both here and in the United States, that it would not be practicable to use the procedure in an unofficial stoppage and dispute, and if that were attempted it would be only one more instance of unenforceable laws bringing the whole system of our laws into disrepute.
The difficulty that would arise in dealing with the unofficial stoppage which, as I understood the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, this afternoon, is one of the stoppages which he fears is seriously injuring our economy, is a very strong point. I do not believe that this compulsory ballot procedure would do anything to stop an unofficial strike. The
296
Government best serve the nation when they limit their intervention in industrial disputes to encouraging a willingness on both sides to negotiate— which, I may add, is a reason why in present circumstances such great respect is paid to the Department's conciliation officers. I do not like this clause, and I did not like Clauses 134 and 135. This clause will to some extent be unenforceable, and if an attempt is made to enforce it there will be greater trouble in industrial relations than there would have been without this Bill.
8.48 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I hesitate to follow when my noble friend Lord Champion, from the wealth of his great personal knowledge and experience, has deployed such an extremely formidable case, but I should like to emphasise from the point of view of the lawyer who possibly looks at this matter legalistically a few of the many points he made. First, why on earth is it necessary for the Government to be so provocative as to require the Secretary of State to consult employers' associations and registered trade unions, but not unregistered trade unions? If one is trying to find some way of bridging over difficulties between both sides of industry, why throw such a provocative ingredient into the potage as that? It is quite unnecessary. Two words added to subsection (3) would cure the trouble and their addition would, in many cases, avoid bitterness which is otherwise most probable, as my noble friend has pointed out so forcibly.
On the second point, again I speak from the point of view of a lawyer. If at the outset one looks at what has to be thought by the Minister before he can take action, one sees that it has to appear to him that there are reasons for doubting whether the workers have been adequately consulted, and so on. His view cannot be challenged. if he thinks that there are reasons for doubting, it is no good trying to say when you get before the Industrial Court that there were no such reasons. His view is supreme: it is his ipse dixit. That aspect of the matter is much the more serious, if one is trying to think again of accommodation between two opposing sides and when one bears in mind, as the noble and learned Lord and his Commission pointed out and as my noble friend has

297
reminded us from the wealth of his experience, that in the great majority of strikes the leadership of the union do not goad their members into strike action: the impetus comes from the members themselves. When, as we know from experience widely gathered, that is the position with which the Minister will in fact have to deal, is it not asking for trouble to make his ipse dixit on the matter of law. unchallengeable? That is the second point.
The third point I wanted to make was this. My noble friend pointed out that the Secretary of State can approach the Court in one, two or three situations. One situation is where the condition described in Clause 134 is present; namely, that there is danger of injury to the State and to people's lives. That is one situation. The other is where the condition is present that the livelihood of workers may be impaired as the result of strike action. That is the second situation. The third is where there is a combination of both those situations. What I want to emphasise is that you are dealing with one of those situations in which I should have thought this clause would be particularly unworkable. That situation is the situation in which the Minister wishes to establish before the Court—and I quote from paragraph (b) of subsection (2)—
" that the effects of the industrial action in question on a particular industry are, or are likely to be, such as to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers employed in that industry ".
Now if that condition alone is shown, without the other, that is enough to justify the Secretary of State, if he thinks there are reasons for doubting whether the wishes of the workers have been adequately taken into account, to approach the Court. He has to satisfy the Court (to quote the words of the next clause) that there are "sufficient grounds" for supposing that that condition is present. What on earth is the criterion that the Secretary of State, in the first place, and the Industrial Court, in the second place, are to impose in order to determine whether in the case of a given strike the effect on a particular industry is likely to he such as to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers? How do you test it? Can a more flabby, indeterminate formula possibly be con-
298
ceived? And it is to the resolution of that formula, and its application to a given strike, that the unfortunate Court is in duty bound to address its endeavours.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn: how would he approach a question of that sort? Take a strike in which 5.000 workers are involved. They are under a sense of grievance. They and their leaders take the view that the particular industry or undertaking concerned could easily afford to pay them increased remuneration. Perhaps the management take an exactly contrary view. Perhaps they take the view that the wage bill which would result over the years would be too high. They may take the view that as a result they would have to reduce their programme of capital expenditure. There is a sharp, flat conflict of view between both sides. Both sides have obviously considered it and taken counsel about it. If the management's view is correct, then it may well result from the strike that over a period of time redundancies on a large scale will develop, and if that should happen I suppose it could be said that the livelihood of a substantial number of workers in that particular undertaking would be impaired.
But how is the Court to determine whether the view of the management is right or whether the view of the union and the workers employed is right? By what criteria is it to judge? What evidence is it to have? Is it to summon before it the directors? Is it to summon before it the programmers of the capital investment plan on which the company may be embarked? Is it to try to estimate the future progress of our economy —the balance of payments, and all the rest of it? I should have thought that what the Court was being called upon to do here was to undertake the resolution of a question which is so utterly indeterminate in form as really to be beyond the scope of resolution except by a parade, an almost interminable parade, of expert witnesses—expert accountants, economists and all the rest of it. That is what the Secretary of State is to be entitled to ask the Court to do. If he succeeds in getting the Court to accept the view that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the management view in that situation is right, then it makes the order.

299
It is not only that sort of situation. Suppose there is talk of a productivity agreement. Productivity agreements may have two results. The optimists hope that they will greatly expand the scope of the industry, and improve the condition of the workers over a period of years. Others may say that the result, and indeed the object, of a productivity agreement is to reduce the numbers of the necessary labour force, with the result that a number of workers will lose their livelihood. If that is the situation, is that within the ambit of the condition which is being postulated here? I ask again and again: how on earth is the Court to address itself to this subject?
When I said that I approached this issue rather as a lawyer than as a person versed in industrial relationships, I did so having in mind again, as I have had on a previous occasion, the position of the unfortunate Court and the Judge who presides over it, and the really distressing consequences which would ensue if the decision of the Court was misunderstood; if the consequence—and I repeat it because it is incapable of excessive repetition—was that confidence on one or both sides of industry, or by the public at large, in the completely impartial and effective administration of justice by our courts began to wane. I take the view that the information which was presented by the Donovan Commission as to the likelihood of workers' wishes not being taken into account in ordinary strikes, reinforced by the experience of Members of your Lordships' House well-versed in trade union law, in trade union history and in trade union situations, shows that in any event it is unnecessary to have this highly provocative clause. It is a dangerous clause. It is unlikely to result in the resolution of strikes, and it is likely over the years to result in an impairment of confidence in the Industrial Court. I hope that, in the circumstances, the Committee will decide that this clause ought to be excised from the Bill.
9.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Champion said, but I want to concentrate on one aspect—I think the weakest —of this clause. This is where the Minister takes a decision, in effect, to arrange a ballot where it appears to him
300
that a certain proportion of the workers have not been sufficiently or properly informed about the situation to enable them to form a judgment. The immediate question that occurs to me is: how does he get these opinions? On what evidence? Does he base his decision, which of course will be made in his office—he will not go down to the works and interview the workers—on what his officials tell him? They in turn will not go down to make first-hand inquiries. They, too. will have to rely on very questionable information.
For example, a strike of this kind creates a lot of public attention. Above all, it comes to the notice of the television people. It is a very simple matter for the camera team to get hold of a few people, sometimes two or three, who state their views on particular aspects of the subject. They may be asked whether they want to strike. Inevitably they say, "No". Of course they do not want to strike; nobody in his right mind wants to be deprived of his livelihood; and the worker's wife is particularly concerned about this. Or take the case of the Press reports. The Press reports usually reflect the policy of the newspaper—which almost inevitably is pro-Government and anti-strike. Such reports are selective in the extreme. The newspapers get somebody to say what suits them. Or they allege that they do. What other evidence is the Minister going to rely on if he or his officials do not go down and report, as it were, on the job—as they cannot? This seems to be the crux of the matter. As my noble friend Lord Stow Hill said, the Minister's say-so is the ipse dixit to the Industrial Court. His decision must inevitably be based on the most questionable information. It is not the kind of decision that a Minister would take in other circumstances. Therefore I feel that unless the Minister has an answer to this point, unless he can show me that my anxieties on the matter are groundless, we are right to ask for this clause to be deleted.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I should like to support my three colleagues in opposing this clause. It seems evident to me that it has been drafted by people who have very little knowledge of what takes place in industry. My noble friend Lord Stow Hill has rightly pointed out all the legal difficulties raised by the clause. My noble friend Lord Champion and I, and

301
others with experience in dealing with this type of suggested ballot can visualise the difficulties that may arise for the Secretary of State who can apply to the Industrial Count for an order requiring a ballot to be taken. In some industries a ballot can easily be arranged; the rules of some of the unions concerned will stipulate that a ballot must be held before industrial action can take place. But there are various other organisations in which it would be very difficult to arrange for a ballot.
I feel that the Government have inserted this clause because they have accepted so much propaganda from the public media that they are convinced that the situation in industry is much more difficult and critical than it is. We have all seen on television groups of agitated people, housewives and others, expressing mixed opinions about a strike or the prospect of one. If we accept that type of thing unquestionably, then every strike that is envisaged gives power to the Secretary of State to apply to the Industrial Court for an order requiring a ballot. The significant words, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill are,
" that the effects … are, or are likely to be, such as to be seriously injurious…"
But every strike is injurious—particularly to the strikers; because when they lose their regular wage and go on to strike pay their livelihood is seriously injured. Therefore the Secretary of State is given complete power in every dispute that is likely to take place. If he gathers his information solely from the Press or the other media, he will use that power on every occasion. I should like to know what steps will he taken by the Minister to assess the real feeling among people who will contemplate withdrawing their labour.
There is another serious factor which I do not think is appreciated on the other side of this Chamber. Arranging a ballot to decide whether a strike should take place is calculated to create more strikes than if the matter in dispute had been left to responsible trade union leaders to negotiate. Pressure for industrial action usually comes from the shop floor level, and goes up by various stages of negotiating machinery until ultimately it arrives at the national executive, the ruling body of the union. At that stage difficulties
302
often arise. The ruling body realises the difficulties involved and refers matters back, and pressure is built up among the rank and file. If a ballot is to take place before responsible people can arrive at any decision, I visualise that there will be more strikes than at present.
The provisions of this clause give wide scope to the Secretary of State and I do not think that is justified. It would be much better that the position should be left as it is, and that both sides of industry should meet the conciliation officers of the appropriate Ministry to assess the position. There will be difficulties over this clause, because it is possible that some trade unions will not be blackmailed " into registering, and therefore they will no longer be trade unions according to the provisions in this Bill. Some organisations whose income tax concessions on their provident funds may be in jeopardy may register, because many thousands of pounds will be involved. But other organisations may take a chance and refuse to register, and the provisions of the Bill will come into force. That seems to me an entirely wrong approach. This appears to me to be something which has been brought about by people with little or no knowledge of industrial matters. I am certain that had the opinions of many employers and the C.B.I. been canvassed completely different advice would have been given to the Government. One can only assume that this is one more effort at "bashing" the trade unions.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: This is a political clause which will prove a nightmare for lawyers and not a paradise, because they will find its provisions so difficult to deal with. It brings out the persecution mania of the Government in regard to strikes in general. The Government really believe that strikes are brought about only by a small number of "firebrands". If that view is held you do not believe that strikers ever have any grievances. It follows logically that the Government do not believe that there are any problems, and if there are no problems there are no strikes. It seems to me that this clause underlines the superficial attitude of the Government towards industrial relations. They would not bring forward rules of this sort if they looked far deeper into problems to discover what are the grievances.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I feel that if this Bill had been on the Statute Book the critical position of the wonderful Tyneside shipbuilding firm of Swan Hunter and Wigham Richardson might have been different. In this sort of industry a small section of a huge number of employees can bring the whole works to a standstill. No one section of an industry or the community should ever be allowed to hold the rest of that industry or the community to ransom. I feel that in many large industries, when a small section takes industrial action that affects all the other employees a cooling-off period of only 60 days might improve our economy and prevent hardship. Therefore the Secretary of State, whichever Government are in office, should have the power to take action in these clauses which cover emergency procedure. "Emergency" is the really important word here. The Secretary of State is not going to take action over any tinpot strike or any strike that is not going to create tremendous hardship or affect the health of the nation or the livelihood of a vast number of other people. I stress this to the Committee: we are talking of clauses that affect emergency procedure and nothing more.
9.15 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: We have heard from this side of the House statements dealing with major points on this clause. I should like to highlight some other aspects. I would refer the Committee to the introductory Part I of the Bill, where it says
"The provisions of this Act shall have effect for the purpose of promoting good industrial relations in accordance with the following general principles, that is to say,—
(a) the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted; "
I doubt whether this clause allows that. It says at the beginning:
" Where it appears to the Secretary of State—
(c) that there are reasons for doubting …"
Governments can be wrong in their doubting. Not many years ago—it affected my life—the Government of the day were wrong about their doubting of Hitler. Later, the Government of the day also affected all of us by being wrong in their doubting of Nasser. We do not know what would the Secretary of
304
State's reasons be for doubting. I do not know how one works out in any sort of rigid terms what is a reason for doubting. No psychiatrist could help us. True, the Secretary of State may consult every employer, trade union and employers' association appearing to him to be a party to an industrial dispute. But note this: he is not required to consult an unregistered organisation. Further, even registered trade unions and registered employers' associations need not be consulted—only in so far as the Secretary of State thinks practicable in the circumstances. There is nothing in the Bill requiring him to consult the T.U.C. or the C.B.I., who might help in a case of emergency.
My questions, therefore, are these. Can the Secretary of State act on the mere reason of doubting whether a union is properly representing its members? Why does the Secretary of State have no obligation to consult the T.U.C. or even the union concerned, and if he does consult, only
" so far as appears to him to be practicable in the circumstances"?
Should the Court be concerned with this point and only examine the matters mentioned in subsection (1) of the clause?
I find it difficult to see how all this can be reconciled with
" the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted;"
written so bravely, or so hypocritically, in Part I of the Bill. What evidence does the Secretary of State seek before he arrives at a decision that there are reasons for doubting—gossip, newspaper talk, television commentators, what? This is another godsend—not the only one in the Bill—for a disruptive minority of which we have heard so much. I repeat that what Clause 1 of the Bill says:
" the principle of collective bargaining freely and responsibly conducted"
is the basis of this Bill. If this means anything, then I say to the Government that they have made a psychological mistake and should change this clause.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: This clause empowering the Secretary of State to seek powers from the Industrial Court to take a ballot is a complete

305
innovation. I think that it is dangerous. I think it will create more difficulties and more problems than it will solve. To me, it presupposes that ballots in connection with industrial disputes have never been heard of—"Why should we not start now?" I should like to ask the indulgence of your Lordships in order to say a few words about the procedure followed during all my lifetime in the mining industry. I remember three national mining stoppages in 1912, 1921 and 1926. I would draw attention to the fact that they could not take place without a ballot of the men. Furthermore, there had to be a two-thirds majority.
I should like a little information from the Minister about subsection (3). May I read the words to your Lordships?
"Before making any application under this section"—
that is to the Industrial Court—
"the Secretary of State shall "—
not "may"—
" so far as appears to him to be practicable in the circumstances, consult every employer, trade union or employers' association appearing to him to he a party to the industrial dispute in question."
What I am saying is that in my view this clause is out of touch with reality. I doubt very much, whatever the intentions of the Government may be, whether it will work. May I put this supposition to the noble Lord who is to reply: when the consultations between the employer and the trade union and the employers' association have taken place, and they have discussed the dispute or the threat of a dispute from every angle, the trade union, for example, may say to the Secretary of State "We have heard all that you have had to say but we are still convinced that the course upon which we propose to embark is completely and fully justified." The Secretary of State may reply "All right: if that is your attitude we cannot finalise this situation. I am going to the Industrial Court for an order for the taking of a ballot." The employer or the trade union, or both, may also say" Our co-operation on the taking of a ballot will not be forthcoming."
Suppose also that the trade union says to its members, "We are going to embark upon a propaganda campaign because what we are asking for is completely justified, and our campaign will be to
306
advise all our members not to take part in the ballot." Then suppose that that campaign is successful, and the members of the trade union act upon the advice of their officials and tear up the ballot papers in the yard. Your Lordships may laugh, but this is a serious matter, and it is not an impossible situation. If that does happen, the trade union has had no part in the matter. What happens then? You have not the consent of the trade union, or of the individual workers, because they have boycotted the ballot. What then is the situation? In my view it will be a completely ridiculous one, and that is why I say that this clause, because of the possibility of those circumstances arising, is really out of touch with reality.
9.26 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think we have to start from the beginning and see how this situation can arise. The first thing is that there must, in the belief of the Secretary of State, be an emergency situation or the threat of one. I believe that everybody would take this seriously, and that if there were any doubt as to what the members of the union wanted everybody would regard it as justifiable that the matter should be put to the test. I cannot see why anyone should disagree with this. Here is an emergency situation, and there is some reason to doubt whether the strike would have the full support of the workers concerned. This is the situation that is predicated. Noble Lords say: "How will you know that? Where will you get the information?" Obviously, it will not be obtained only from one source. It will be checked and crosschecked, time and time again. There will be the conciliation officers, the Press and all the things that have been mentioned. All kinds of people are gathering information all the time.
It has to be borne in mind that this is not something that will emerge suddenly. There will be an emergency arising, but it will not as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would say, arise out of the air: there will no doubt have been attempts at conciliation and all the rest on the way. It is impossible to say how we will know. All I am saying is that what is predicated here is that there is some reason for doubt. Everybody knows that this will be a rarity. For one thing emergencies, thank goodness, do not spring up every day, and the life

307
of the country is not threatened every day. The viewpoint of the Government is that where that happens there ought to be no doubt whatsoever where the workers stand, and that if there is doubt, then there is justification for putting it to the test. I should have thought that what I have said so far would not be in any way contentious.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, talked about television and the Press, and he used words which I should not myself have used about "trying to get someone to say what suits them". I do not think this is what the television and the Press seek to do in these circumstances. Undoubtedly they like to get contrary expressions of opinion. But simply because the television interviewer asks three people for their views, and two say one thing and one says another, they are not going to conclude from that that the division of opinion in the industry as a whole is two-thirds to one-third.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, then raised the question of subsection (2)(b), which says:
" the condition that the effects of the industrial action in question on a particular industry are, or are likely to be. such as to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers employed in that industry."
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, asked what is going to be the criterion for determining that the effect on the industry is likely to be injurious. One cannot draw up a list of the various circumstances that can arise. The noble Lord has a very fertile imagination; he produced one or two circumstances, and asked: "Is this what is meant?" Until the situation arises you do not know. To tax my rather de jure imagination, for one thing it may be that the industry referred to here would be very much larger than the actual area of the dispute. One has only to think of an industry like the motor industry, where a strike among a small number of workers can throw a great many workers out of work. It may permanently damage that particular enterprise or undertaking. It may permanently damage their livelihood; it may lead to redundancies. The strike may cause the undertaking to price itself out of the market; it may have to go completely into liquidation. This is one thing that could happen. I am not saying that it is likely to happen very often,
308
but we are thinking only of the very rare emergency occurrence. The noble Lord referred to the question of capital expenditure and investment, that where there are strikes the proprietors may not be prepared to invest and so keep up to date and competitive. All these things could happen.
We are trying to paint the broad picture to cover the case of an emergency situation where there is some doubt as to whether the workers really want to create it. The fact of having a ballot will bring to the notice of the workers the nature of the emergency, the danger that can occur to the national economy, to national security, possibly health and even life itself. The noble Lords, Lord Champion and Lord Stow Hill, both referred to consulting the trade union. The noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to this in moderate terms, and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in unusually sharp terms, and pointed out that this would leave out an organisation of workers. I am not certain why "trade union" was put in, and we are prepared to look at that again, especially as the words in the clause are:
"…so far as appears to him to be practicable in the circumstances ".
One of the difficulties of organisations of workers is that they may be purely temporary and it may be difficult to identify and consult them. But we will look at that point again.
The noble Lord referred to the efficacy of the ballot. Let us remember what we are trying to do. I said earlier that the ballot would be indicative and not decisive. It is to show what the opinion is not only to the union leaders, and the union itself, but also to the public as a whole. I should not have thought that this was to the disadvantage of the trade union. If the ballot showed a tremendous majority in favour of the strike then the public would be bound to deduce that there was something wrong. They would think: "Something should be done about this". I should not have thought that this was necessarily in any way against the trade union. On the other hand, it might be that the trade union leaders had been wrong—even trade union leaders can be wrong. The Secretary of State might be wrong, too. All I would say is that if the Secretary of State had

309
to be certain before he applied for a ballot it would not be worth applying for the ballot at all: he would know in advance. The whole point is that there is doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, also spoke about pressures on trade union leaders. We are well aware of this, and the noble Lord will agree that they do not always come from one quarter. There can be "hawks" and "doves" and other sorts of birds and reptiles as well. One does not quite know where the pressure may be coming from. The union itself may genuinely be uncertain where the balance of opinion will be. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, mentioned—and it is of course true—that many unions have their own procedures for holding ballots, and this is very important. But not all unions have them. I would not imagine that, where it is the regular procedure according to the rules to hold a ballot, this provision would arise. But not all unions have these procedures. The mere fact that some unions have them and others have not is an indication that this would be a useful power to have.
LORD TAYLOR OF' MANSFIELD: On that point, is not the noble Lord aware that those unions that do not have procedures for ballots are in that position because of the almost physical impossibility of conducting a ballot? Take the seamen, for instance, or the agricultural workers. One can quote a number of unions in which it is almost a physical impossibility for a ballot to be taken. The Secretary of State will be no more successful than have been the leaders of the unions I have mentioned.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not so certain about the seamen. I think my noble friend Lord Balfour might say more about that. I do not want to argue particular cases. I am merely saying that there are gaps that could be filled by this kind of procedure in particular circumstances.
I do not want to pursue the point that the compulsory secret ballot would reduce the number of strikes. We could have provided in this Bill that there should be a compulsory ballot as exists in the National Union of Mineworkers: that there should be a compulsory ballot before any strike. We have not done so,
310
and one of the obvious reasons for that—although a great many people thought it should be done—is that it would be very difficult to enforce. It is much better that the unions should do this themselves where they think it right. But where the livelihood and life of the country as a whole, and the safety of the country, are involved, then surely there is a case for this kind of procedure. I would not for one moment say it is likely to arise often. It relates to emergency conditions. It comes in the Part of the Bill dealing with emergency procedures. My noble friend Lord Balfour was quite right to point this out. I would not disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, in saying that what we have to do is to find out the problems and solve them; but that also is part of what is provided for in the Bill. We are here dealing with what happens when, despite everything we have tried to do in the Bill, the situation breaks down.
I believe I have covered the points which the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, raised. The fact is that anybody may be wrong, for both the Secretary of State might be wrong in his doubt and so might the trade union leaders be in their certainty, if they were certain. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, generally succeeds in picking difficult questions, and he asked what would happen if everybody tore up the ballot papers: what would be the situation then? No one will go to prison for that, so far as I can see; but if people did this the workers themselves would have to consider what would be the effect on public opinion. Part of the object of this particular provision is to open the cupboard, so to speak, and to show the public what really is the opinion of the workers in a particular case. I would have thought that the workers would be very anxious to show what their opinion in this particular case would be. So I really do not think this clause need be opposed.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to ask one question. Apparently there is to be an army of people going around, trying to get information and finding out whether the workers really want to strike. May I suggest that it would be much better if there were an army of informers and of people going around and finding out where the grievances lay, which would stop the strikes?
LORD DRUMALBYN: We have already passed a clause dealing with conciliation officers, and conciliation officers will be spread pretty well round the country. They will be well informed, and one hopes that they will be in at the early stages of any dispute.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Do we understand from that remark that there will be special conciliation officers appointed to go up and down the country assessing the position. as distinct from the present type of conciliation officers?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No: conciliation is a different thing. and I was not suggesting that they would form a kind of Gestapo, which I believe is what the noble Lord was getting at. Of course this is not the intention. What is intended is quite clear: it is the closest possible cooperation between the conciliation service, to which a great many people have paid tribute, and industry so as to prevent strikes arising; and when disputes do come on the horizon to try to settle them before they become damaging or dangerous.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his attempt to answer my questions, and I claim the privilege of waiting until to-morrow when I receive the OFFICIAL. REPORT to see whether my questions have in fact been answered.
9.38 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: If I thought the ballot would serve the purposes which the noble Lord has suggested I should be in favour of it; but I am not. In the course of his remarks the noble Lord did not refer to the fact that the ballot in this case is to be associated with the cooling-off period which is to be enforced under the next clause of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I intervene for a moment? If by "cooling-off period" the noble Lord means the period during which the ballot is held, then he is correct in saying that that is what the next clause does; but I should make it clear that it is not the 60-day cooling-off period.
LORD CHAMPION: Of course I was quite aware that it was not the 60-day
312
period, and when we come to that clause I shall have to point out that the cooling-off period may be well in excess of 60 days. Sixty days happens to be the limit under Clause 135. This may well be a much longer period, for no period will be stated by the Court. except that it will be the period necessary for the conduct of the ballot. As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield pointed out, there will be tremendous difficulties in taking the ballot in some industries. For instance, we shall look well, having a cooling-off period for seamen who might be in Singapore or somewhere else during the 60-day cooling-off period. I know that is stretching the point rather far: nevertheless, it will apply to many other industries as well.
The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State will take his action only in those cases where there is an emergency which threatens the life of the country. Surely he is not right about that. Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) says it shall he where it appears to the Secretary of State
" that either or both of the conditions specified in the next following subsection are fulfilled … "
The conditions there are, first, the conditions specified in Clause 134(2); namely, the ones to which we were referring under Clause 134, the real emergency conditions, and, secondly,
" the condition that the effects of the industrial action in question on a particular industry are, or are likely to be, such as to be seriously injurious to the livelihood of a substantial number of workers employed in that industry".
You can have a strike of that character without its being a national emergency or creating a national emergency. Those are alternatives under (a) and (b), so I do not think the words of the noble Lord apply here in both cases.
But the main thing about this ballot, and the cooling-off period associated with it, is that we do not think it will have the effect which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, rather thought it would. If I thought he was right. I should be wholly in favour of this ballot, associated with the cooling-off period. But I am not, for the reason that all the evidence seems to be against it. For example, an outstanding observer of our industrial relations in this country said of Labour Party

313
proposals on this matter of the secret ballot:
" Employers reacted with mixed feelings. Many of them disliked compulsory strike ballot, which, with reason, they saw as likely to increase, embitter and prolong strikes."
I am sure that he was absolutely right about this. This was the point made by my noble friend Lord Popplewell.
The Government, and indeed many people in this country, are very mixed up about this whole thing. There is often inconsistency among those who make such proposals for strike ballots. They assume that in unofficial strikes the union officials know better, yet that in
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 137, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
official strikes the rank and file members may possibly know better. One can see the inconsistency that lies there between what is thought about the official and the unofficial strike. This runs through the whole of the thinking of the Tory Party in this connection. One could talk quite a long time about this. I do not propose to. Time is getting on. I think we ought to vote against this objectionable clause, and I hope we shall do so immediately.
9.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 137, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Pender, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Exeter, M.

Platt, L.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrier, L.

Reading, M.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redmayne, L.

Balfour, E.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V.[Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Barrington, V.

Gray, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Just, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

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

Sandford, L.

Boston, L.

Sandys, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hankey, L.

Sempill. Ly.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Burton, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Headfort, M.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hives, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Inglewood, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Swansea, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kilmany, L.

Terrington, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L.

Monck, V.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wigram, L.

Dudley, E.

Netherthorpe, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.[Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blackett, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Clause 138 [Order of Industrial Court on application under s. 137]:
9.57 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 278H:
Page 101, line 20, at end insert—
(3A) Any order under this section shall indicate the scope of the industrial dispute in consequence of which the Order is made, in such manner as may appear to the Industrial Court to be sufficient to indicate the area of employment affected by the dispute and the extent of the matters to which the dispute relates."
The noble Lord said: We have tabled this Amendment for the express purpose of harmonising the provisions for making a ballot order with the provisions for making a restraint order, and your Lordships will see that the wording is exactly the same as the wording in subsection (6) of Clause 135. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 138, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CHAMPION: Our doubts about the compulsory ballot proposals were expressed on the Question, Whether Clause 137 shall stand part of the Bill? But there are some features of this clause which we must bring to the notice of the Committee. The first of these is the limitation in subsection (1) to which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill adverted earlier. This is concerned with matters about which the Court has to be satisfied before making an order under the clause. It seems to me that a very important matter which ought to be brought under review by the Court in taking its decision under subsection (1) is whether the Secretary of State was correct in deciding that a decisive condition contained in Clause 137(1)(c) was at all fulfilled. Under the terms of Clause 138, all the Court has to be satisfied about is whether there are sufficient grounds for believing that the conditions specified in Clause 134 are present, and/or whether the industrial action may be such as seriously to injure the livelihood of a substantial number of workers. But there is nothing in subsection (1) about the doubt which has actuated the mind of the Secretary of State. Surely that is a serious omission, particularly when the application stems from a doubt in the mind of one who may well be the subject
316
of considerable Party political pressure and who has to take a subjective and not an objective decision.
We have heard a lot about the independence of such a Court from the Executive, and this is surely the sort of instance where the Court should be allowed to exercise its independent judgment on a very important matter. It was a serious omission from the Bill that the persons affected were not to be parties to the proceedings on the application, as was the case from the outset under Clause 135. That defect has now been remedied. But even though the parties will have a statutory right to be parties to the proceedings in the Court, it seems to me that the first and obvious question an organisation of workers will wish to raise will be whether the doubt of the Secretary of State was justified about whether or not the workers had an adequate opportunity to indicate their wishes in this respect. This is surely a matter which an organisation would be expected to raise with the Court, and they ought to be able to. Yet, so far as I can see, they will be precluded under subsection (1) from doing anything of the sort. Under subsection (1), the Court has to satisfy itself on two counts only before making an order, and those two counts do not include the vital one in connection with this and the preceding clause, namely, the question of the doubt in the mind of the Secretary of State. I still do not think that this clause is good enough, despite the alteration to Clause 137 as to satisfying the Court before it makes an order.
The other matter to which I would call the attention of the Committee is the fact that so far, under this Part of the Bill dealing with emergency procedures, there has been no mention of the Commission; but here, in subsection (4), we learn that the Court may if it thinks fit invite the assistance of the Commission in formulating an order under this clause. Incidentally, I must point out that there is not a word here, as is the case with the rest of the Bill, about consultation with either the T.U.C. or the C.B.I.—the people who know something about all this. Be that as it may, I would have thought that in every case of an order by the Court, the Commission, which under the Bill is expected to be the body most closely in touch with the problems

317
of industrial relations, ought by statutory provision to be brought into consideration of the possible order by the Court, so that it would be mandatory to consult the Commission, and not permissive.
I believe that the Commission is such a body that it ought to be brought in on matters of this sort; and particularly is this the case when the Court is considering the question on which the ballot is to be taken. If I had moved the previous Amendment, I should have had to spend some time on this particular aspect of it. The simple fact is that the question could be loaded. It ought not to be by any responsible Court; but the best people to advise the Court on a matter such as this would surely be the Commission, the body which, as I have previously said, is adjudged by the Government whose Bill this is to be the group most closely associated with the problems of industrial relations. Taken altogether, this is a clause which is bound to have the effect of exacerbating the troubles that led to the dispute, for action under it will inevitably be regarded as anti-trade union, for a decision of the Court will be taken in a wholly arbitrary way—mainly, I fear, on the "say so" of the Secretary of State, based on his judgment of the doubt which we have been discussing under the previous clause. I do not think that this clause, either, should remain within the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The trouble about asking the Court to decide whether the Secretary of State is right to have doubts or not is that it is very difficult to prove a matter of this kind in a Court. In any case, surely, this is something which is eminently within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State himself. As I said before, the sources from which he might learn that there are doubts might be very wide and varied. For example, the T.U.C. might be a source; but I do not know whether one would want to bring them into the Court and indicate that there were doubts about it. All kinds of matters might arise on this. I think it would be extremely difficult to get any kind of certainty about the doubts in the Court. This is something about which the Secretary of State must make up his own mind. He is responsible for the expenditure and
318
all the rest. I must say that he would look rather silly if he took the matter to the Court on the basis that he had reasons for doubt and it turned out that he was 90 per cent. wrong. So, clearly, he is going to be careful about this. He is going to be answerable to Parliament and I should have thought that that was enough.
The noble Lord said that he thought the C.I.R. should be brought in mandatorily. I should have thought it sufficient to say that the Industrial Court may invite the assistance of the Commission. I agree with the noble Lord that the Court will be well advised to ask the views of the C.I.R. in the framing of the question. Whether there will be any difficulty about the framing of this question, one cannot be certain. It may be a very obvious question. On the other hand, the Industrial Court may want to have the advice of the Commission; and on the whole it is better to say to an independent body that they "may" consult rather than they "shall" consult. Obviously the whole reason for putting this matter of framing the question of the ballot into the hands of the Industrial Court is to avoid the possibility of the question being loaded. I am sure that the Court is eminently equipped to see that the question is not loaded. It may not be quite so well equipped to say that the question is right. So far as that is concerned, it will have to decide whether or not to consult the C.I.R. I understand that the noble Lord does not like this provision—that is clear from the discussion on the last clause. But perhaps that explanation will answer the points which he has raised.
LORD GARDINER: While my noble friend Lord Champion is considering what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said, may I say that this is the first of three or four clauses which refer to the results of a ballot? We have had in the earlier Parts of the Bill other groups of clauses which raised the same question. When discussing those, I pointed out that the Court has to accept what the Commission says is the result of a ballot. The Bill makes no provision for a perfectly bona fide dispute about what is the true result of the ballot. After those discussions, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wrote to me saying that the Government had given serious attention

319
to this and that if I would raise it again when we came to this group I might learn something to my advantage. I accordingly now do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give an answer to the noble and learned Lord. I am sorry to have raised his hopes only to dash them. But I hope to be able to answer him later.
LORD CHAMPION: Does that mean that the noble Lord wil not be able to answer my noble and learned friend at all on this group of clauses, and that he must wait until we get to later clauses which specifically deal with how the ballot is to be taken? The noble Lord shakes his head. I take it that my noble friend must wait until the Report stage or near it.
The noble Lord said that it would be difficult for the Court to decide this matter of doubt. I cannot see why it would be particularly difficult for the Court, with the evidence that would be placed before it, to take a decision as to whether doubt existed or not. I cannot see that there is or would be the slightest difficulty about the Court deciding a matter of that sort. I think the Court ought to be in a position to check the Secretary of State. It is true that in this matter the Secretary of State might eventually have to justify his decision to Parliament; but that might be after a long time, after a decision had been taken. and after the ballot had been taken. The noble Lord suggests that the ballot might show, one way or the other, whether there ought to have been a doubt. I feel that this is a bad clause, but, in order not to waste the time of the Committee, I propose to allow it to be carried.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [Provisions pending result of ballot ordered tinder s. 138]:
10.11 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 278J:
Page 101, line 29, after ("workers") insert ("or other person")
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee I beg to move Amendment No. 278J and with it to dis-
320
cuss Amendments No. 278K, 279B, C and D and Amendment No. 280A. The first and most significant of the points concerned is the identity of those who, under a strike ballot order, are required not to take any action to call a strike while the order is in force and are required to use their best endeavours to have such strike discontinued. Subsection (1)(a) of this clause refers to four different categories of persons: an organisation of workers, an official, any other person specified and any person falling within a specified description. The first two Amendments, Nos. 278J and K. and the fourth and fifth, Nos. 279C and D, seek to reduce those four categories to two; namely, an organisation of workers or any other person.
The purpose of these Amendments is not only to simplify, it is also to ensure that any person or organisation bound by an order to refrain from calling a strike is identified by name in the order; as indeed he will have been identified by name in the Secretary of State's application. The second point covered by the third of this group of Amendments, No. 279B, is the application of a ballot order to a lock-out. It is conceivable —I put it no higher—that an employer might wish to forestall a union by locking out his employees at a time when a ballot order was in force. It would clearly be wrong to permit an employer to conduct a lock-out in these circumstances. The Amendment proposed to line 38 on page 101 will therefore make it clear that it would be a breach of the ballot order for any person to lock out employees who are being balloted while the ballot order is in force.
Finally, the last of this group of Amendments, in line 5, page 102, refers to what I think is now a familiar point. It sometimes happens that where a union is supporting a strike, strike instructions have been issued by the shop stewards. Where this is the case the strike ballot order would require the union to withdraw any instructions it had issued under its authority, and to ensure that its stewards withdrew instructions which had been issued without union authority. I feel that this point has been argued in some detail on Amendment No. 278, and I beg to move the first Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 278K.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 29, leave out from ("order") to first ("shall") in line 33.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 279B.
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 38, leave out from ("employer") to ("shall") in line 41 and insert ("organisation of employers or other person").—(Lord Belstead.).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 279C.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 1, after (" organisation") insert ("or other person").—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 279D.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 4.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 280A.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 5, after ("withdrawing") insert ("or securing the withdrawal of").— (Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 281:
Page 102, line 10, at end insert—
(" (3) The provisions of subsection (3) of section 135 of this Act shall with any necessary modification apply in relation to an order made under this section.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 135(3) provides that persons who merely take part in a strike and officials who have no responsibility for it except in their capacity as officials of a registered trade union cannot be included within the order for the 60 days' pause. Clause 139 also deals with an order for a suspension of strike activity so that the ballot can be taken. One would have thought that inasmuch as it has been thought proper to exclude ordinary strikers and officials from the order for the 60 days' pause, they should also be excluded from the order which requires a pause so that the ballot should be taken. The object of the Amendment is to exclude them from the scope of that order. There seems to be no reason in justice why they should be excluded in one case but nevertheless made liable in the other. They seem to be in equal case and it seems illogical to make that distinction between the effect of the operation of Clauses 135 and 139 on those persons.
That consideration seems to me, unless I am mistaken, to be equally applicable to Clause 139 in its amended form. The only change that is made is to describe in more simple and compendious terms those categories of people who can be included in the order. Those who are excluded by the provision in Clause 135 to which I have referred are still included in the amended Clause 139.
The way in which my noble and learned friend Lord Donovan, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, seek in this Amendment to achieve that change is by making applicable to Clause 139 the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 135. If that subsection were made applicable, with necessary changes, to Clause 139, it would exclude from the ambit of an order relating to a ballot both the categories of persons who are excluded from the order for a pause which can be made under Clause 135. I hope the Government will accept that the same situation should apply to those categories of persons under both
324
clauses, and that they will indicate that they are prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he has examined Amendment 281A. I was under the impression that subsection (6) of this Amendment to Clause 139 covered the point he had in mind. If that is not so, we shall certainly give consideration to the point he has made. My impression, however, is that it is covered by Amendment No. 281A.
LORD CHAMPION: It seems to me to be so.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the Minister. When I looked at it I thought not, but it has only recently been put on the Marshalled List. Perhaps I might look at this again. However, the noble Lord has kindly intimated that this point might be looked at again, and if I am right in so understanding him, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.22 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 281A:
Page 102, line 10, at end insert—
(" (3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the persons (whether organisations of workers or other persons) specified in the order in accordance with subsection (1)(a) of this section shall be the persons specified in the application in accordance with section 137(2A) of this Act.
(4) If at any time during the period mentioned in subsection (1) of this section it appears to the Secretary of State that persons other than those specified in the order (in the following provisions of this section referred to as "the principal order") in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection are at that time responsible as mentioned in section 137(2A) of this Act, the Secretary of State may make an application to the Industrial Court, specifying those persons and applying for the principal order to be extended to them and the persons so specified shall, together with the Secretary of State, be the parties to any proceedings on that application.
(5) Subject to the next following subsection, on any application made by the Secretary of State under subsection (4) of this section the Industrial Court shall make an order specifying the persons who were specified in the application and directing that, in relation to any time after the order under this subsection takes effect and before the result of the ballot to be taken under the principal order has been reported to the Court, the principal order shall have effect as if those persons had been included

325
among the persons specified in the principal order in accordance with subsection (1)(a) of this section.
(6) The persons specified in the principal order in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) of this section, and any persons specified in any order under subsection (5) of this section, shall not include any person who in the opinion of the Industrial Court (notwithstanding that he is specified in the application for the order)—

(a) has, or (as the case may be) would have, no responsibility for the strike or other action in question beyond that of being included among the persons taking part in it, or

(b) has no responsibility for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike or other action in question, or for threatening to do so, except in his capacity as an official of a trade union acting within the scope of his authority on behalf of the trade union.

(7) On and after the date on which the principal order takes effect, the Industrial Court shall not (whether before or after the date on which the result of the ballot is reported to the Court) entertain any application under section 137 of this Act in respect of the same industrial dispute, or in respect of any other industrial dispute in so far as it appears to the Court that its scope falls within the scope (as indicated in that order in accordance with section 138(3A) of this Act) of the industrial dispute in consequence of which that order was made.")
The noble Lord said: I must apologise for the lateness of this addition to Clause 139. I hope its purpose will be reasonably welcome to noble Lords opposite, and indeed to the whole Committee. Its purpose is to secure for trade unions and their officials and members the safeguards which are already provided in Clauses 135 and 136. Perhaps I might go very quickly through the subsections.
The new subsection (3) ensures that a strike ballot order will in general only extend to bind those identified in the Secretary of State's application—that is, those who are parties to the proceedings before the Court. In short, the order cannot go wider than the Secretary of State's application. The new subsections (4) and (5) cover the situation where, after a ballot order has been made, a person not bound by the order calls or procures a strike through the workers involved in the statutory ballot. It would make nonsense of these provisions if such a person were free to organise industrial action without let or hindrance. While therefore he cannot be held to have broken the Court's order, it is proposed that the Secretary of State should be able to have the new strike leader's name added to
326
those who are bound by the original or principal order.
The purpose of the new subsection (6) repeats mutatis mutandis the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 135. It would prevent the Court making an order specifying a person who was no more than a participant in the strike, or who was a union official acting within his authority in calling a strike. I should make it clear that throughout the Bill the Government have consistently maintained the principle that sanctions should only be imposed against strike leaders or organisers and not against those who participate in a strike. The Government have also been concerned to ensure that, wherever a union official takes action within the limits of his authority, his union must be responsible for the official's acts. It follows therefore that if a union official calls a strike in circumstances in which the Secretary of State considers it desirable to invoke the emergency powers, the consequential order is made against the union and not the official. When, on the other hand, the union official has no authority for strike action, the strike ballot order may name him personally rather than his union, or possibly in addition to his. union.
Finally, the new subsection (7) makes it clear that the Secretary of State may not apply for a second ballot order in respect of the same industrial dispute. He may seek to add further persons to the list of those bound by the original order, but he cannot under the terms of the proposed new subsection (7) defer the strike for a further period while another ballot is held. I do not think I need to explain to your Lordships the need to protect trade unionists in this way. I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: This massive Amendment was put down, as the noble Lord has said, very late, and we have not yet had time to study it thoroughly. This seems to me to be particularly so in the case of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. whose grasp of these things is so immediate that it rather surprised me that he was not absolutely au fait with subsection (6). It appears to be an importation into this clause which ought to be accepted by the Committee if they accept the principle of the clause itself. It ensures that the persons to be specified

327
shall be parties to any proceedings on the application, and it also seems to me that subsection (6) extends to persons the same sort of thing as is embodied in Clause 135, which I would regard as wholly desirable. There is one question that I should like to have answered by the noble Lord, and it is this. Clause 137 (3) says that before making any application under that clause the Secretary of State shall, as far as practicable.
" consult every employer, trade union … appearing to him to be a party to the industrial dispute in question."
Under this Amendment the scope of the application may be considerably widened, perhaps bringing into its scope trade unions not included in the original application. Ought there not to be in this Amendment a similar provision to that in Clause 137(3), so that the trade unions or others are consulted before the application is made by the Secretary of State? I certainly should not advise my colleagues to divide against this Amendment, but it will have to be further studied between now and the Report stage, for the fact is that we have only seen this so recently that we have not had an opportunity to study completely this massive Amendment, as I think I rightly called it. Certainly we shall not divide against the Amendment. We think it embodies some improvements into the clause.
LORD DIAMOND: Before the noble Lord replies to my noble friend, I should like to ask him a question the answer to which I have not been able to spot, although I frankly admit that I have not read the Amendment with the care that my noble friend has. I am referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said about the persons against whom an order will not be made, one of those persons being an official of the union who acted within the authority of the union. What I am concerned with here is the same principle that I was concerned with elsewhere; namely, a shop steward acting outside the authority of his union, but in anticipation of subsequent confirmation, where that subsequent confirmation takes place. Is that shop steward to be named in the order, notwithstanding that subsequent confirmation takes place of
328
his action which at that point of time is unauthorised?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord. To deal with the second question first, I should have thought that here we are in a rather different sphere from the one which we were considering earlier. To defy a court order is rather a different matter from the kind of situation the noble Lord was raising earlier on. I should not have thought that there could be any question of endorsement later, because if you defy an order outside the scope of your authority you obviously do it on your own responsibility, and even though later the union, an organisation of workers, itself decides to defy the order, I do not see that you can endorse a defiance of a court order.
As to Lord Champion's point, I wonder whether he is right. Obviously, he has not given me notice of this question because he has hardly had notice of the clause; but we are here dealing with persons, not an area. He used the words "scope of the order". We are dealing with particular persons acting in defiance of the order. I should not have thought that there was any question of consulting any trade union about it. I am quite willing to look at the point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 139, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10.32 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: The submission I would make with regard to Clause 139 as a whole is that it is quite unnecessary and that it does harm which could be avoided. This Part of the Bill really contains two separate sections. Clauses 134 and 135 provide for the order to suspend a strike for 60 days where there is a national emergency. Both clauses are carefully framed to ensure that the total period for which the strike is suspended does not exceed 60 days on the first order. There may be more than one order, but in the aggregate they must not extend for a period in excess of 60 days. When one is dealing with the ballot clauses, Clauses 136 onwards, the object presumably of the Government is to find out in the case of any given strike whether or not those who are taking part in the strike really are in

329
sympathy with it. I take it that that is the sole purpose of the Government. They feel that if the result of a ballot showed that there was a majority against the strike it would come to an end. In the nature of things it is impossible to lay down any time limit within which the ballot has to be taken. It is impossible to formulate any idea as to how long the strike is going to be suspended.
What has to take place? The Secretary of State has to make up his mind to approach the Court. When he gets to the Court he has to satisfy it that the necessary condition, or both the conditions, are present: either that there is a national emergency, or a likelihood of the workers' livelihood being impaired, or both. It is very important to consider in this particular context that the ballot can apply where there is no national emergency at all. It can apply in the case of any strike with regard to which the Minister can say to himself honestly that he has doubts as to whether the majority of those taking part in it are in favour of it. So this can apply virtually to almost any strike. One can doubt about any strike whether that is the case or not. One has only to doubt: that is all. So, in the case of any strike, without any emergency, this procedure can be applied.
If the Government's object is really to find out whether the strikers are with the strike or not, what on earth is the need, if the strike has already started, to have it stopped while the ballot is taken—from the time the Court makes its order, while the ballot is taken, until the result of the ballot is reported to the Court, a period of time which is quite indeterminate but which may be at any rate some weeks? These things cannot be arranged at five minutes' notice. During that time it seems to me, so far as the Government's purpose is concerned it does not make the slightest difference whether the strike goes on or stops. One always hopes that the strike will stop, but let it stop of its own momentum, rather than as the result of this arbitrary order which it is contemplated will be made as a result of the application to the Court.
The reasons which impel the conclusion that I urge upon the Government are these. It has been pointed out over
330
and over again from this side of the Committee that where you have the case of a strike, particularly where there is no national emergency behind it, it is going to exacerbate the position very badly if the Minister can obtain from the Court this order suddenly stopping it; and not only suddenly stopping it, but stopping it for an indeterminate period. In that respect the situation is more aggravating, from the point of view of the strikers and the union leadership, than when an order is made in the case of a national emergency, which order cannot exceed 60 days.
The question that I put to the Government Front Bench is this. Is it really necessary to cause the strike to be suspended while a ballot is taken? The ballot can be taken while the strike goes on. There is no need for the men to have to go back to work in order to take a ballot; it does not affect the position one way or the other. I would respectfully submit that the whole procedure would be far more acceptable, from the point of view of the union side of the table and from that of those taking part in the strike, if this compulsory return to work were omitted and if the clauses which provide for it were removed from the Bill.
10.38 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: One point has not been made which I think ought to be made and which the Government should consider. If the Secretary of State is in doubt and requires a ballot, and a ballot is decided upon by the Industrial Court, it could well happen that the majority of workpeople concerned would vote for the strike. The strike would then continue, and the union would negotiate with the employer with a view to reaching a settlement. It might be that the employer and the trade union would arrive at a settlement which they would want to recommend to their people. But, having been compelled to hold a ballot to determine the actual participation of the workers in the strike, if there were a dissident element among the workers might they not then use the situation to demand a further ballot before a return to work? It seems to me, knowing trade union people, that this is a natural course of events and a sequence of thought which could take place in the minds of people involved in the strike.

331
My view is that this is quite a serious proposition which ought to be looked at very carefully by the Government if they are really seeking to avoid unnecessary strikes and also to avoid an undue delay in a return to work when a trade union has been able to negotiate what they feel to be, as an executive maybe, a proper settlement with the employer concerned.
LORD CHAMPION: I shall be most anxious to hear the reply which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will make to my noble friend Lord Collison on his important question. I must admit that it is a question that had not occurred to me. It appears as though there may be circumstances such as he has mentioned in which a strike may be prolonged unnecessarily, and I would hope that the Government would pay some attention to the words of one so experienced in trade union matters as is my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has made some of the points that I proposed to make in relation to the number of days during which the cooling-off period may operate in association with the taking of a ballot. What may be a maximum of 60 days in relation to the national emergency orders finds no comparable period or limitation under this clause, or indeed any maximum at all. I am far from sure, as yet, that the Amendment to which the Committee has just agreed might not have the effect of lengthening an already lengthy cooling-off period during which the ballot is being taken.
Under the clause as it now stands, despite the Amendment made to Clause 137, the Court wil lhave to define the area of employment and the question of who is to be eligible to vote. In any event that will require a set of complicated but very important definitions that will have the effect within the terms of the clause of making the persons coming within those definitions liable to be sent to prison for contempt of court should they contravene the order of the Industrial Court.
The difficulties of definition will really be enormous when there is. as is so often the case, a dispute involving a limited group of workers within an undertaking. This was the case at the Port Talbot steelworks a few years ago, where a group of maintenance workers within a very large undertaking held up the whole
332
of the works by their action. The whole business of the cooling-off period, started by a doubt in the mind of the Secretary of State, seems to me to be very much the making of a charter for the splinter group or dissident minority. This is so, for all that is needed is for a minority group, acting in a dispute about recognition, for example, to create a doubt in the mind of the Secretary of State, and from such a doubt the whole machinery of these clauses may spring into action.
Again, this clause perpetuates the stupidity of the distinction between the registered and the unregistered trade union, and I understood the noble Lord to say that they would be looking at that and perhaps altering it before the Report stage, but we shall have to look at this most carefully. I do not like this clause a little bit. What we do on this side of the Committee will depend very largely on the Government reply to the points so well put by my noble friends, and I very much look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn.
10.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I should clear up a point straight away on one of the last things said by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. The actual point on the distinction between a trade union and an organisation of workers that we were dealing with was on the question of consultation only. I do not think I can hold out any hope in other respects. There are obviously difficulties about the strike period. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, drew attention to these, and in particular to the fact that no maximum period is specified. Of course the area of employment to be covered will vary very much indeed from circumstance to circumstance, and plainly the time required for the ballot will have to vary accordingly, and there will be other circumstances involved, such as dispersion, and so forth. But the period within which the result of the ballot is to be reported to the Industrial Court has to be determined by the Court. Of course it could be reported very much sooner. In that case the standstill, so to speak, is, I think, discharged.
The noble Lord raised the much wider question of whether it is necessary to defer the strike, or indeed to interrupt

333
the strike in order to hold a ballot at all. Our view on this is that it is much better, for a number of reasons, to bring the workers back to work. From the point of view of the actual conduct of the ballot alone, of course, it is very much easier. Secondly, in an atmosphere of worklessness I am not at all certain that you are likely to get the best results. I think that probably it is much better that people should be together at their normal jobs when the ballot is conducted. I recognise at once that it is not in all cases going to be very easy to achieve this object and to bring people back to work in those circumstances, but I believe that the publicity that will be given in these circumstances will be sufficient to bring them back. I remember in the debate on In Place of Strife quite a lot of stress was laid upon the status quo ante, and I think a restoration of the status quo ante in a case like this is probably desirable.
The question of demanding a further ballot was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who was, of course, a member of the Donovan Commission. He has enormous experience, and I think he was quite right to do this. But the Government decided that this was not really on, and indeed subsection (7) of the subsections that I have just moved into this Clause would make it impossible to have a second ballot on the same subject. So that if there was a demand, I would suggest that it would be for the union to conduct it, as unions so often do conduct ballots for a return to work. I hope I have dealt with the various questions that have been raised.
I must make it plain this is an experimental area, and one cannot be absolutely dead sure that one has got everything right here. That is why I have dealt in that spirit with the points the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Champion and Lord Collison, have raised. But we have done the best we can on this question, and on balance we think that it is better to bring everybody back to work, partly, of course, because of the very factor that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred to, that the time that the Court will have to allow for the ballot may vary very much
334
in certain circumstances, and that it would be rather stupid to prolong the strike in order to hold the ballot.
It was suggested, either by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, or the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that holding a ballot might in any case prolong a strike. But we believe it is better to bring everybody back for the ballot and to hold it in that way. The ballot will not necessarily determine whether a strike takes place or continues or does not take place at all. What it will do is to show what the workers want. We believe that that is a good thing in itself, in circumstances where there is a doubt.
10.50 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: I apologise for continuing this discussion, but I am quite serious about it. I think there is a point that ought to be looked at quite carefully. This is meant to be helpful. If a ballot is demanded by what the trade union people will see as State intervention, I think they will equally well demand, and with justification, that, before they accept their union's decision as to the acceptance of a settlement which some of them may not like, there should be a further ballot. But I do not want to appear to be overstressing the point. Obviously, the question as to who pays for the ballot comes into this. In the first instance, it can be paid for from outside union resources. If the union are put into a position that they have to conduct another ballot in order to satisfy their membership, and to meet a real attack by people who may be considered as being not very loyal trade unionists, in the sense that they are trying to disrupt the union—and this happens, as we all know—a real problem arises. I intervened simply because the point had not been previously made. I think there is a great deal of substance in it. If an answer could be found, it should he looked at. There might be difficulty about this.
LORD DRUMALBYN: When someone with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, raises a point of this description, of course I should certainly want to give it further consideration, and I will clearly do so. But I cannot, of course, make any commitment.
10.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 139, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 139, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 140 [Conduct of ballot]:
10.59 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 282K:
Page 102, line 28, after ("conducted") insert ("either")
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' agreement, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 282L and 282M with this Amendment. The provisions of Clause 140, to which we now move, envisage that the C.I.R. will ordinarily conduct a strike ballot, except where the workers concerned in the ballot are members of a trade union which has approved balloting rules, and which is willing to conduct the ballot itself. This group of Amendments do no more than permit the C.I.R. to delegate the work of conducting a ballot to some body other than the union concerned, provided that the C.I.R. retains responsibility for supervising the ballot and for ensuring that it is conducted according to the proper rules.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 15.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Goschen, V.

Rochdale. V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

St. Aldwyn. E.

Balfour, E.

Greenway. L.

St. Helens, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Just, L.

Belstead, L.

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

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Sandys, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harvey of Prestbury. L.

Selkirk. E.

Buccleuch and Queensbury, D.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Burton, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale. L.

Conesford, L.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Cork and Orrery, B.

Inglewood, L.

Stamp, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strange, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmany, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L.

Latymer, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L.

Dudley, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington. L.

Dundee. E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Thomas, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.[Teller.]

Thorneycroft. L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Exeter, M.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. B.

Ferrers, E.[Teller.]

Pender, L.

Vivian. L.

Ferrier, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wigram, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reading, M.

Windlesham. L.

Gisborough, L.

Redmayne, L.

Wolverton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds. L.[Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.[Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder. L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

This brings this clause into line with the rest of the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will see no reason why the C.I.R., as in the rest of the Bill, should not enjoy this discretion in respect of strike ballots. I beg to move.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord said that under the Bill the Commission would be expected to ask, and in fact would ask, a trade union whose rules had been approved by the Registrar under Part IV of the Bill to conduct the ballot. It says here that the Commission "may" request the trade union to conduct the ballot in relation to those workers. There is nothing obligatory about this. It does not say "shall"; it says, "may". So I would have thought he was not quite right when he told the Committee that the trade union would in fact conduct the ballot if the rules had been approved by the Registrar. That is really what it amounted to.
The other point about which I wanted to ask in this connection concerns the second Amendment to which the noble

337
Lord has spoken. What is meant by the words proposed to be added to the clause, "by some other body"? Does this mean that in some circumstances the Commission may ask an unregistered organisation of workers to conduct the ballot? As I see it, an unregistered trade union would be a body other than the body mentioned in subsection (2), and would appear to me to fall within the terms of the Amendment. I wonder if I am right about that. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give me an answer on this before we part with the first of these Amendments.
LORD BELSTEAD: I must apologise for perhaps not sticking as closely to my brief as I should have done. I should have said "would normally", and the noble Lord was quite right to pull me up. I should have thought the answer to the noble Lord's second point was that this surely is within the C.I.R.'s discretion. Obviously, from previous discussions on the Bill, what the Government have in mind on this is a body like the Industrial Reform Society. Apart from saying that this is within the discretion of the C.I.R I. do not think I can give the noble Lord any more information on this point at this moment.
LORD CHAMPION: I should not like to see anything added to the Bill which would exclude an unregistered trade union, but I have some doubts as to whether the noble Lord is right about this. I should have thought the words "a body" used in this connection would ensure that the unregistered trade union could be brought in under the terms of the clause and of the Amendments which the noble Lord has moved. But perhaps he will look at this point further between now and Report if he feels that he has made a mistake about it.
LORD BELSTEAD: We shall he only too pleased, of course, to do this, but, once again, at the discretion of the C.I.R. —and I think I have been right in the intention which I imputed to the Government in this particular subsection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 282L.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 28 after ("Commission") insert (" or by some other body under the
338
supervision of the Commission, and in either case shall be conducted ")—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BELSTEAD: I beg to move Amendment No. 282M.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 29, at end insert ("for the purpose of securing that the ballot will be properly conducted and that the voting in the ballot will be kept secret")—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 141 [Supplementary provisions as to conduct and result of ballot]:
On Question, Whether Clause 141 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GARDINER: This is the last clause which refers to the result of a ballot. When I raised this question on Clause 135 I expected to be told what precise Amendment the Government were going to put down at a later stage. One must consider the Report stage. It is three weeks since the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wrote to me. I hope now that we have reached this clause he may be able to give me at least some indication of the thinking of the Government on this point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me yet another opportunity to reply. I hope he will be indulgent for I am afraid I am not yet in a position to answer him. I hope to he able to write again to the noble and learned Lord before Report stage.
Clause 141 agreed to.
Clause 142 [Conciliation officers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 142 shall stand part of the Bill?
11.7 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: This is an important clause, in the sense that it provides for the appointment of conciliation officers. I think one ought not to part with the clause without some statement by the Government as to their intentions about, broadly. how many conciliation officers will be appointed. What, in general. should be their functions? Where shall they operate? Shall they have different appointments in various parts of the country? Shall they

339
have special areas under their responsibility'? In particular, I should like to know roughly the number which the Government estimate it will be necessary for them to appoint.
If one looks at the Bill, one finds they are given extremely important functions. Let us take one function, that of intervening in cases where claims are advanced under Clause 102 of the Bill in respect of unfair dismissals under Clause 20. The Schedule that we have already passed, as the Government will know, enables the case which is brought before the industrial tribunals for compensation for unfair dismissal to be adjourned in order that a conciliation officer may intervene and offer his services to try to bring the parties to an accommodation. That is a very important and valuable function. It is the more so when we bear in mind the discretionary nature of the jurisdiction conferred on industrial tribunals. A feature of this clause which I think requires some explanation is subsection (6) which says that anything communicated to a conciliation officer may not be used in evidence (except with the consent of the person who made the communication) in any proceeding before either the Industrial Court or an industrial tribunal that is to say, it may not be given in evidence without that consent before any of the courts that are set up under the terms of this Bill.
I suppose that: in the case of any other court there is nothing to stop anyone serving a subpoena upon a conciliation officer who, if he is put into the witness box, can be asked questions (which he will certainly be obliged to answer if the learned judge thinks an answer would be relevant) about anything communicated to him. It seems to me that this double standard of confidence is very difficult to explain. It is difficult to understand how it can be sensible that his mouth can be closed by lack of consent in any of the tribunals set up under this Bill, whereas he is bound to say everything imparted to him by any person who spoke to him in confidence if he is subpoenaed to appear in any other court.
It is undoubtedly the case that he must be subpoenaed to appear in another court. If one looks at Clause 108, one finds that the Lord Chancellor is given
340
powers to transfer to the industrial tribunals jurisdiction which at the moment would be largely invested in county courts, and in some cases in the High Court. It seems very difficult to understand how the obligation of the conciliation officer either to keep his counsel or to disclose what was said to him could depend on whether the Lord Chancellor exercised his power to transfer proceedings to the Industrial Court, and upon the accident of whether the officer was called as a witness before an industrial tribunal or before a county court. That seems to be rather an unjustifiable anomaly. One would have thought that his obligation to maintain silence would apply either in all courts or in none.
I feel very reluctant to extend in any sense the right of persons who are brought before courts of justice to refuse to answer questions. Legal professional privilege, the secrecy which attaches to what passes between a client and his solicitor and the barrister who represents him, is, I should have thought, absolutely essential. The question of what could be disclosed by, say, a priest or a doctor or someone of that sort, or what must be disclosed by a journalist, has frequently been discussed in the courts. My general approach is that disclosure should be complete, because without disclosure injustice might result. It is for that reason that I regard this question which arises under subsection (6) as one of principle and of importance. Before we part with this clause I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, would give me the Government's views on this, and in particular the reason which he thinks justifies the secrecy which in some circumstances is imposed upon the conciliation officer.
LORD DIAMOND: There is one further point that I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has said, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. could deal with it at the same time. I see that under subsection (5) the Secretary of State may direct a conciliation officer to perform services in relation to claims for damages. Conciliation officers should be conciliation officers. Nobody who becomes involved in assessing damages as between the parties will ever remain an independent conciliation officer able to carry

341
out his full functions of conciliation. He will be regarded with suspicion or hostility by one side or the other, and conceivably by both sides. Is it not therefore a pity that these duties are put upon conciliation officers?
11.14 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): I welcome the opportunity to make a short statement on the subject of conciliation. As the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, rightly says, this is one of the central features of the Bill; indeed, it is included in the general principles in Clause 1. A little later in the Bill, where an application has been made to the N.I.R.C. under Clause 35 about a non-existent or defective procedure agreement, or under Clause 43 for recognition as the sole bargaining agent, the Secretary of State again is enjoined to promote agreement between the parties. This means by recourse to conciliation. Under Clause 80 the Registrar also must promote a settlement of complaints referred to him without the matter becoming the subject of complaint to the tribunal. And of course the tribunals and the Courts will afford the parties the opportunity for conciliation, and in practice will encourage this.
The reason for this emphasis on conciliation is that we believe conciliation is one of the best available methods for settling disputes. It has the added advantage of avoiding unnecessary litigation, as we have said on a number of occasions. The legal institution, the tribunals and the Court is there as a last resort, when the parties have not been able to reach agreement between themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, asked about numbers. The explanatory financial and staff memorandum at the beginning of the Bill estimates a figure of 190 extra staff of the Department of Employment; but how many of the 190 will be conciliation officers will depend on how the work builds up. The noble Lord asked whether they would be centrally or regionally distributed. I can tell him that some will be based on central London and others will be regionally based in each of the nine regions.
The noble Lord went on to ask me about subsection (6), which says that the consent of a person who gives information to a conciliation officer must be obtained before that information is used in court.
342
The reason for this is quite straightforward. It is to try to avoid the case reaching the tribunal, to allow the conciliation officer to talk as early as possible and to have as much information as possible, in the hope that the dispute will not need to go before the tribunal. It was felt that if the parties to whom the officer is talking are worried all the time that what they say may be reported verbatim to the court, they will wait until they get to the court and then say what they have to say in front of the members of the tribunal. It was felt that the provision in the clause would make the task of the conciliation officer easier to perform.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me about subsection (5), and he expressed some doubt whether it was desirable to involve the conciliation staff in breach of contract of employment cases under Clause 108. I am informed that at the moment, although it is on an informal basis, conciliation does take place on breach of contract of employment cases, most frequently on entitlement to notice and accrued holiday pay on termination of employment. These lend themselves to conciliation, and the staff have had some success in these areas. We think it would be rather anomalous if in future conciliation officers dealing with cases of unfair dismissal were prevented from dealing with breach of contract of employment claims arising out of the same circumstances.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: We are deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for the points he has raised under subsection (6) and it does not seem to me that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has begun to answer the points raised. I am not a lawyer, but I have been involved in the Convocation of Canterbury, where the whole question of whether anyone under the law of England could be allowed to refuse to give evidence came up time and again on the question of the secrecy of the confessional. The compromise which has been arrived at in practice seems to be one which casts the utmost discredit on both Church and State. Neither of them has faced up to the real problem involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will correct me if I am wrong, but I have always understood that one of the main

343
problems in this situation, and in a number of other situations which have arisen with regard to journalists and others, is that it has never been written into the law of England that any evidence can be inadmissible in a court of law. That this should be written into a subsection of a clause in the Industrial Relations Bill seems to me to be totally extraordinary. If I am wrong in my major assumption—and I gather from the gestures of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that I am not absolutely wrong—this is a very new departure in the law of England. I would be very interested if we could be told in what other circumstances and what other Statutes such provision is made that communications should be private and not produced to the courts of the country, and whether this particular exception which seems to be here is as grave as it seems to me, and as I think it also seems to the noble Lord. Lord Stow Hill. I think we are entitled to a very serious answer on this point.
LORD WINDLESHAM: One might think from listening to this discussion that we are debating subsection (5). There was an Amendment on the Marshalled List to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord did not move an Amendment on subsection (5), though the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to the substance of it; but instead he asked a number of questions about subsection (6). I gave what I believe to be a perfectly common-sense answer—that it will make the task of the conciliation officer easier. If the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, feels that there is a great issue of principle here, I should need notice of it. I take his point: I think we should look into this carefully and tell him in a little detail what the position is. But I think he will appreciate that it is a little difficult to do that when there has been nothing at all about this subsection on the Marshalled List, although there was a previous one in the Amendment which has been withdrawn.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I entirely take the point put by the noble Lord that it is a little difficult for him, particularly in the absence of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, but I put to him that although he is, in my view, absolutely right in saying that this is absolute common sense—and I would
344
entirely agree with him on that—I still believe that it is a completely new departure in the whole of the law of England, as I have understood it, and that therefore we are entitled to an explanation of it whether or not we have given notice—not at this particular moment, but at some fairly near moment in the course of the Committee stage of this Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: May I say one word to the noble Lord, because I am sure he was speaking out of his knowledge of precedents of your Lordships' House of which I am ignorant. But if he were to say to me, in relation to a question I raised without notice on the Question, That the clause stand part, which is in plain English and which raises a totally new issue, that he was not prepared to deal with it because I had not given him notice that I wanted to raise it, then I should regard that as one of the major differences—and expected differences—between the two Houses. That is putting it extremely bluntly. I have already indicated that an Opposition is unable to do its job properly if, when towards the end of the Committee stage, the Government have not yet disclosed their mind with regard to issues raised in the Bill so that an Opposition can point its required Amendments precisely and with polish at the Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, is as usual generous and chivalrous to a degree. I regret that I do not rise to his heights of chivalry or generosity.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord may not rise to Lord Beaumont's heights, but I think he is a little harsh in his remarks. I have not refused to give an explanation: I gave quite a full explanation of what I am informed is the purpose of this clause. If I may say so, it seemed to me rather a good explanation of the basis of conciliation and how it will work. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, feels that there is a new departure in the Common Law. I am just doubtful when I hear these words in Committee—"a new departure in the Common Law". I think he will find very similar words in a Statute very close to my heart, the Race Relations Act 1968, Section 24. So I do not think it can be a completely new departure. However, I take the noble Lord's point. I

345
think this is something that we should look at. I will certainly do that and will communicate the results to him and to other noble Lords.
Clause 142 agreed to.
Clause 143 [Effect of strike notice ]:
11.25 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 282C:
Page 104. line 33, at the beginning insert (" Neither )".
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment it might be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 282D, 282E, 282F and 282G; they all deal with the same point. It is an important point, but it is quite straightforward and I can put it shortly. This clause gives, I think for the first time in a Statute, some definition, although a bit of a backhanded one, of the right to strike. It is excessively limited, and we seek to widen it by the plain and simple words of the Amendment. We hope that the Government will share our view. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am afraid that this is not a straightforward clause, and the Amendments which have been tabled, for reasons that I will explain, will not make it any better: indeed, they would have the effect of adding confusion. I think I am right in saying that these Amendments are the same as those which were moved in another place, but not debated, before the new subsections (2), (3), (4) and (6) were inserted by the Government. The drafting is defective, because it confuses the effect of giving notice to strike with the effect of actually going on strike. These are two different concepts. If noble Lords look at Clause 143, on page 104, they will see that they are separated. The first one is in subsection (1), and the second in subsection (2). We believe that this is much clearer than trying to wrap up in one single section a concept that is already none too straightforward. Perhaps I should therefore explain what this clause is all about.
The purpose of subsection (1) is merely to set out the legal effect of giving due notice, which is defined in subsection (5), of intention to take part in a strike; that is, that such notice, unless expressly
346
provided otherwise, shall not be construed as a notice to terminate a contract of employment or of repudiation of that contract. This arises out of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the well-known case of Morgan v. Fry. The Master of the Rolls in that case said that a notice to strike could not be unlawful in circumstances where a similar notice to terminate a contract would be lawful.
The noble Lord in moving this Amendment has spoken to the other Amendments, and perhaps I should comment briefly on them. Amendments Nos. 282C and 282D merely seek to do in subsection (1) what is already contained in subsection (2). That the approach advocated by the Amendment is not workable is shown by the fact that a strike may or may not be a breach of contract, but it cannot possibly be a notice to terminate a contract, as the wording of Amendment No. 282D implies. That is why subsection (1) of the clause deals purely with the effect of giving due notice of intention to strike, while subsection (2) deals separately with the effect of going on strike, after due notice has been given, by removing the words "not, unless it otherwise expressly provides".
Amendment No. 282E would establish that a due notice to strike can never be construed as a notice to terminate a contract or as a repudiation of the contract. This would apply even if the notice stated explicitly, "We give you due notice to terminate our contracts by going on strike" or, "We give you due notice that we intend to repudiate our contracts by going on strike". While it is true that this is not the usual intention of people going on strike, in the occasional instance where it is the purpose there seems no reason why this clause should over-rule it.
Amendments Nos. 282F and 282G would also be out of place in subsection (1). There cannot be a breach of contract as a result of a notice of intention to take part in a strike although there may be repudiation. The proper place for references to breaches of contract is in subsection (2), dealing with the situation when an employee takes part in a strike. Noble Lords will see that breaches of contract are referred to in subsection (2).Subsection (2) along with subsections (3), (4) and (6). was added in another place after the Amendments were

347
tabled, and it is understandable that the Amendments do not fit the clause as it has been re-drafted. I hope with that explanation noble Lords will see what this particular clause is concerned with, and how it takes into account the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Morgan v. Fry.
11.33 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I should like to seek further clarification at this stage and then I will have it on the Record, consider it carefully and take advice about it. I am seeking a very clear statement by the Government that the Bill means, and is intended to mean (or it has to be altered in order to mean) that a notice to strike by itself (not in-including, as the noble Lord read out in his examples, a notice to strike and terminate the contract, but a pure notice to strike) does not mean in any case a breach of that contract. If the noble Lord can say that in those simple terms I shall be grateful.
LORD WINDLESHAM: What I can say in simple terms is that a notice to strike cannot be a breach of contract. The act of going on strike can be a breach of contract, but not giving notice. In subsection (2) the Bill says that where somebody, having given due notice of their intention to strike, actually comes out on strike no action can then be taken against him for breach of contract or any proceedings in tort, or under Clause 5 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, or under Clause 92 of this Act.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful for that assurance. What I further understand from what the noble Lord is saying is that the act of striking cannot be a breach of contract leading to these proceedings unless it was an express term in the contract which is, I take it, what Clause 143(3) means.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): After due notice.
LORD WINDLESHAM: After due notice.
LORD DIAMOND: Unless it was a breach of an express term of the con-
348
tract without giving due notice; and if it is without giving due notice then the act of striking can be a breach of that contract, but not otherwise?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The whole of Clause 143 refers to where due notice has been given, not otherwise. Subsection (3) is a little stiffer. It says that in certain contracts there is an obligation to do more than give due notice. There may be certain procedural steps to be gone through. Furthermore, there may be a no-strike clause for a period of, say, two years. Therefore there may be additional requirements beyond giving notice, and that is what subsection (3) refers to.
LORD DIAMOND: I repeat my gratitude to the noble Lord. I shall consider carefully what he has said. I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD HENLEY): Before I call Amendment No. 282P, I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 282A.
11.36 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 282P:
Page 105, line 7 leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I move Amendment No. 282P for the sake of probing and getting further information on the important aspect which the noble Lord just referred to. I do not think any Member of your Lordships' Committee would doubt that he was dealing with a very important issue indeed. It is one which has, I am informed, not previously been given statutory effect or description. What the noble Lord has just said was that this is a stiffer provision under subsection (3), and I understood exactly what he was referring to. What I now wish to raise is the question where a collective agreement is an "agreement" in inverted commas; that is to say, the new type of agreement which the Government have created whereby one is deemed to have agreed to something which one totally disagrees with. That is, where an agreement is imposed on one, which can happen under previous clauses of the Bill, and it is deemed to be an agreement. In those circumstances, could it arise that

349
such an agreement included a term of the contract referring to a period of service without striking, so as to make the act of striking a breach of that agreement?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The whole of this clause refers only to contracts of employment; that is, the individual relationship between the employer and the employee. It does not affect collective agreements as such. Therefore, any provision which has been negotiated in a collective agreement or any Clause 39 order which is an enforceable contract, has to he taken in, as it normally would be I think, to the individual contract between the employer and the employee. So this clause can come into effect only when there is a contractual relationship between the employer and the employee. On the Government Amendment—that is, the next Amendment—I shall have a little more to say about this matter, because we are proposing to remove the words in parenthesis from subsection (3) for a reason which I can explain.
LORD DIAMOND: In the hope that what we are about to hear will be welcome or helpful news, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 282A:
Page 105, line 10, leave out from (" agreement") to ("excluding") in line 12.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 282A in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. The substance of Clause 143 is not altered by this Amendment. The clause provides that due notice to take part in a strike is not to be taken as notice to terminate or repudiate the contract of employment, as I have explained. Subsection (3), to which this Amendment relates, withholds protection afforded by subsection (2) if the strike action is in breach of a no-strike clause incorporated in an individual contract of employment, including one incorporated by a legally enforceable contract so constituted by a Clause 39 Order. This Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendment No. 287B, which provides for the introduction of a new clause after Clause 157, which defines "collective agreement" and "procedure agreement". Subsection (3) of the new clause provides that wherever "collective agreement" occurs in the Bill it will be taken to include any provisions
350
which are regarded as a legally enforceable contract by reason of an order under Clause 39. The separate reference to such contracts which is at present in addition to the reference to "collective agreement" in subsection (3) of Clause 143 will thus become unnecessary.
The Committee will recall that the Government are moving the definition of "collective agreement" out of Clause 32, where it is at the moment, into the definitions part of the Bill because some people found the original location in Clause 32 confusing and difficult to find. So that is the reason for removing the reference in this part of the clause under discussion. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: If I have understood the noble Lord right it is not welcome news at all; it is merely removing what would be otherwise redundant. It has been said elsewhere, so there is no need to say it here, and certainly there is no need to say it twice. Redundant, otiose or supererogatory: in none of those three cases is it welcome news. What the noble Lord is saying is what I feared was the effect of this subsection; namely, that an "agreement" (in inverted commas)—meaning an arrangement imposed upon you—can include (I shall be delighted if the noble Lord will tell me I am wrong) a provision, under which a no-strike clause is involved, as a result of which it is a breach of that contract to strike. What I am concerned with is getting a clear statement from the Government of the limitations on the freedom to strike. It is a very important issue and one wants to know exactly what the Bill has to say and what the Government wish it to mean. Am I right in my construction of what the position will be, arising out of this Amendment?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No, I do not think this alters the position at all. If we go back to the earlier part of the Bill we recall that the imposed procedure is at the end of a very long road. The words, I think, are "non-existent or defective procedure agreement", and various steps, including conciliation, that we have just been discussing, have to be gone through. The C.I.R. are then asked to come up with a proposed agreement to which they hope that the parties will agree. if the parties do not agree, the C.I.R. make their recommendation to the Court, and the Court can impose that

351
on the parties as a legally enforceable agreement.
As I was saying earlier, if the terms of that agreement were then taken into the contract of employment between the individual employee and the individual employer, they might well have the effect that the noble Lord says. It would depend upon whether or not the C.I.R. had recommended that a term of this sort was in their view necessary. If they did, and if it was then taken into the individual contract of employment, as one would assume it would be, it would then have the effect that the noble Lord has referred to in subsection (3). But that situation is not altered by the Amendment that. I have moved.
LORD DIAMOND: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, because the position is now quite clear: it is not altered by the Amendment. I raise it on this Amendment, and. I did not raise it earlier, as I did not know what the noble Lord was going to say on this Amendment. What is absolutely clear is that the right to strike can be limited by an arrangement imposed upon a body of workers which is euphemistically called an agreement. That is what the noble Lord has just said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure this is quite right. Perhaps I am talking out of turn, but I think the difficulty lies in the difference between the two phrases "collective agreement" and "procedure agreement". I find it more convenient to look at the text as printed because it happens to be to my hand. A collective agreement is one of two things: it means an agreement which is either an agreement prescribing, wholly or in part, terms and conditions of employment, or a procedure agreement, or both. Under Clause 35 the Secretary of State's powers, which set in train the particular course of events which the noble Lord is referring to, relates to procedure agreements and not to collective agreements as such. The outcome of it therefore remains a procedure agreement, and in order to look at what can be in a procedure agreement one looks at the definition clause. I am not quite persuaded— I will see that this is considered—that the noble Lord has not put more into the Bill than is intended to be there, or is there, because the sequence of events
352
prescribed in Clause 35 is, as I understand it, limited to defective or unobserved procedure agreements and not to collective agreements as such.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord because he is helping us to do our job of finding out what is in the Bill and in the mind of the Government. I am not at all surprised to be told that a procedure agreement which can be imposed upon one cannot, in the nature of things, include a term of employment such as I am complaining about.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I see the point.
LORD DIAMOND: But the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, used words which seemed to me to say it could. The noble Lord may have misled himself, or misled me, or may have been quite right, but certainly what he said in his last speech but one, as I understood it, was that it could in certain circumstances if the Court thought right and appropriate. The agreement which would then be subsumed into a collective agreement could include, for example, a term of no strike for three years, under which circumstances a worker would have imposed upon him a severe limitation on his right to strike by an arrangement which, so far as he was concerned, was no agreement but was something imposed. I do not want to pursue it any further unless the noble and learned Lord wants to say anything. I am grateful for what has been said, and I would like to read about it in Hansard and come back to it at a later stage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I intervened, possibly wrongly because I think my noble friend may have been better acquainted with this than I am, but my understanding of it was that a collective agreement can contain terms of employment as such. A procedure agreement does not; it is confined to the definition clause which is contained in Amendment No. 287B:

"(a) machinery for consultation with regard to, or for the settlement by negotiation or arbitration of, terms and conditions of employment;

(b) machinery for consultation with regard to, or for the settlement by negotiation or arbitration of, other questions arising between an employer or group of employers and one or more workers or organisations of workers;

(c) negotiating rights; "

353
I do not think this is altogether easy, and this is why I am not being dogmatic. As I read that, I understand a procedural agreement as excluding the kind of term in which the noble Lord, in the questions that he is putting, is particularly interested. If he looks back at Clause 35, he will see that the sequence of events which the Secretary of State sets in train, and which is ultimately sanctioned by an order of the Court, relates to a defective or unobserved procedural agreement and not to a defective or unobserved collective agreement. Having said that, I would rather look at it again in order that I may be able to retract if I am wrong. I think that the noble Lord has got my point, and I think I have got his.
11.51 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: It is probably too late at night. There was a time when I thought I understood what the Bill was saying. The position at the moment is that trade unions continually enter into agreements on behalf of their members. Indeed, that is one of their main tasks. At the moment, no trade union, in the eye of the law, has any power to do anything of the kind. That is right, is it not? It has always been held by our courts that no agreement made by a trade union on behalf of its members is binding on its members. The reason is a very simple one. If you want to know whether something a limited company has done is infra vires or ultra vires, you look at its articles of association; and the courts have always said that if you want to know whether what a trade union has done is intra vires or ultra vires you look at its rules. I speak with deference to those who know a great deal more about this than I do. I have seen a great many rules of trade unions, and I have never seen rules of a trade union which gave them any authority to enter into any agreement binding on their members.
There was a case which came before the Court of Appeal which is rather typical of everything we are discussing here. It was a case of an employer who decided to follow up his legal rights, and it shows the difficulty you get into when you try to bring the law into these matters. It was a very simple case in which the miners had been promised during the war that if they did a six-day week during the war they would do a five-day week after the war, and so the
354
members of the N.U.M.W. did. But the deputies, the safety men, who gave orders to the miners, being a small union, got a rather poor agreement. The miners were told that they need not work on Saturdays, but if they did they would get overtime. They said that was all right. So far as the deputies were concerned, they were told that they had to work on Saturdays; and that they would work at an inclusive flat rate; and they got no overtime at all. They put up with it for 15 years, and then the deputies in a pit in Derbyshire said, We are fed up, and we refuse to work on Saturdays any more.". There were 84 of them. Thereupon the National Coal Board took out 84 High Court writs, and sued them for damages for the loss of the profit they would have made on Saturdays, because without the safety men the whole pit could not work.
Sensibly, both the N.U.M.W. and the National Coal Board agreed to take one test action at Derby Assizes. There were many issues, but one of the issues was whether the agreement made by the Union was binding on the man who was chosen as a test case, because he voted against it at his branch meeting. The Court of Appeal found that it had never been held that any trade union could make an agreement binding on its members, and they declined to do so. The judge at Derby had found for the National Coal Board and awarded damages, which I think were something just over £100. The Court of Appeal, while upholding the judgment, said the measure of damage was wrong, and the National Coal Board on the evidence could have found a deputy, so they reduced the damages to the cost of a deputy for a day, which was £2 18s. 3d. Whether the miner ever paid his £2 18s. 3d., I do not know. The union no doubt paid the costs. I never heard any more of the other 83 actions. That shows what happens when people try to decide industrial disputes by law. I draw attention to it here only because the Court of Appeal were clear that the trade union had no power to make an agreement.
If I understand Clause 33 rightly, its effect is that a trade union, which so far in the history of our law has had no power to make a contract on behalf of its members, is to be presumed when

355
it makes a procedure agreement irrevocably and conclusively to have the authority of somebody to make a contract to bind him, when in fact it does not have that authority. Now when we come towards the close it appears that if there is a procedure agreement, and it is a term of that procedure agreement that there shall be no strike for two years, or no strike until the procedure agreement has gone through, that also is to be incorporated into a contract which will bind the members.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With respect, that is not what I said. It is the opposite of what I said, and I think it is also the opposite of the fact. I think the noble and learned Lord is really blinding himself with science. If he looks at the proposed definition on page 9 of the Marshalled List, he will see the definition of "collective agreement which is approximately the same as it was in the old Clause 32. It is of course an essential part of that definition that, in addition to being an agreement between a trade union and an employer or an employers' association, collective agreement must be prescribing
" the terms and conditions of employment of workers of one or more descriptions, or an agreement or arrangement relating to one or more of the matters specified in subsection (5)",
which refers to a procedure agreement. In other words, it really means the same as the old definition in Clause 32. So I was right in saying that a collective agreement can be one of two kinds. Either it can be in relation to the terms and conditions of employment, or it can be a procedure agreement.
Taking the first case first, I will assume for this purpose that the noble and learned Lord was entirely right when he said that, if all that happens is that a union agrees with an employer that the rate of wages shall go up to £10 a week, that is not at that stage an agreement of employment between the employer and his individual workmen. If, thereafter, that agreement is kept and wages are raised to £10 a week, instead of remaining at £5 a week, to use ridiculous figures, and a workman works at that different rate, then obviously a new contract of employment on those terms is made. So far so good. This must be
356
plain, and this is the same with hours and other conditions of work.
On the other tack, if you look at the definition of "procedure agreement", your Lordships will see that it does not relate to that sort of case at all. It relates to the machinery for negotiation between the employers and the union, or between the association of employers and the association of unions; and that, in the nature of things, is not something which is imported into the individual contract of employment, because the individual workman does not necessarily work on those terms. Although I cannot immediately point to the clause in the Bill, it fits in with that Part of the Bill which points out that, when a procedure agreement which will be binding if this Bill goes through is made, whether it is made by negotiation between the parties or is imposed by an order of the Court, then all that the union is bound to do is to do its best to see that its members perform the agreement. But it is not at that stage, and cannot be in the nature of things, as I have so far said it—and it was at that point that I said I hoped I would be given a chance to correct myself if I turned out to be wrong—a term of the individual workman's contract of employment.
I hope that I have made my point plain. As I say, I am not always sure that I am right, but I believe myself to be right. I think I have got the point which is made on the other side, and I hope that now the other side have got the point I was trying to make to them. If either of us turns out to be wrong, perhaps we shall be told as these pieces of paper pass to and fro whether what I have been saying is nonsense or not.
12.1 a.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I really do not want to prolong this fascinating discussion except for one purpose. Would the noble and learned Lord be so good, when considering the particular question which has been raised, to consider with it this further point? If I am right in the suggestion I make, it may be that the Government do not achieve their purpose. If you give due notice that you are going to take part in a strike, you do not by so doing commit a breach of contract. That is subject, as we have been saying, to subsection (3), which says that if there is a

357
term in your contract which either expressly or impliedly says you are not to strike, then you do commit a breach of contract. My noble friend Lord Diamond pressed the noble Lord, Lord Wind le-sham, to say whether he was saying that subsection (3) related only to an express term. The noble Lord did not say "Yes", and I should have thought he could not have said"Yes" because there is no limitation to an express term that can be an implied term.
I can put quite shortly to the noble and learned Lord the point that I should like him to consider. It is that if you engage anybody to work for you for, say, a month, it is an implied term that he will work, not that he will strike. That is the short point. If that is so, when he strikes in that situation does he not automatically conflict with an implied term of that contract? As I said, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would consider that point. If I am right it means that the Government may not have achieved their purpose by the language they have used in subsection (3), and I feel sure the Government will be ready to change it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Obviously, that is basically a question of drafting. It may be that the drafting is imperfect, and I will see that the point is considered. I think that is all I can say about that. I think it is not a good point, but I need not go in detail into why because ultimately it is simply a question of using the right words.
LORD STOW HILL: I quite agree, and I am much obliged for what the noble and learned Lord has said.
LORD DIAMOND: May I add just this? I hope that the noble and learned Lord will find it convenient to give this matter fairly early consideration so that he can write to me as soon as possible having regard to the rapid progress of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the best course would be for either myself or my noble friend who started this discussion to write to the noble Lord as soon as we get a proper view as to the extent to which, if at all, I am right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 282Q:
Page 105, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) requires a very full explanation. It says:
" Nothing in subsection (2)"—
which was, as I might call it, the relieving subsection—
" shall be taken to exclude or restrict any right which an employer would have apart from that subsection to dismiss (with or without notice) an employee who takes part in a strike."
It seems to me that this is a very plain subsection, and makes the matter utterly unacceptable. It gives the employer a new right, which he previously did not have; and far from the clause continuing on what I thought was to be its happy course of giving statutory form to the workers' right to strike, it proceeds first of all to limit their right to strike in a number of ways—and possibly the way we have just been discussing in addition —and then proceeds to reiterate the employer's right and to give him yet a new right. It does not even say that nothing shall restrict his right to give notice to terminate an employment. But it gives him a right to dismiss (or does not restrict any right he has to dismiss) an employee who takes part in a strike. Before getting over-heated, may I ask the noble Lord to be good enough to tell us what this subsection means; then I will tell him what I think of what he has told us.
LORD W1NDLESHAM: I will certainly do that because I think the noble Lord has approached this whole clause with a misconception. He spoke earlier, and again just now, in terms that suggest he thinks the earlier subsections of the clause in some way give statutory recognition of the right to strike. That is not so. Subsection (1), which is the substantial subsection of the clause, is concerned with the effect of the strike notice. As I mentioned there is a decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Morgan v. Fry that a notice to strike could not be unlawful in circumstances where a similar notice to terminate the contract would be lawful; and that is what Clause 1 states. In another place these additional subsections were added to spell out what happens when somebody acts on subsection (1); and subsection (2) describes what happens

359
when somebody actually goes on strike. Subsection (3) refers to these additional terms and subsection (4) refers to the right of the employer to dismiss.
Let us now dwell on this point. Subsection (4) states that nothing in this clause over-ride,; the employer's rights in relation to dismissal which are contained in Part II of the Bill (in Clause 24) and elsewhere. We need to distinguish between the legal liability of an employee who goes on strike as regards civil action of the type mentioned in subsection (2) and the question of dismissals. The two are separate, and have to be kept separate in our minds if we are not to become confused. Where an employee has given due notice of his intention to take part in a strike and subsequently does so, he is then protected as regards proceedings for breach of contract and a number of other respects by subsection (2). But by withdrawing his labour, he is in effect refusing to fulfil his obligations under his contract. Thus, as a corollary to the right of the employee to say he refuses to work, we have the right of the employer to terminate his employment. This is the present situation. It is not affected by the Bill.
I should emphasise that subsection (4) does not assert that in each and every strike situation an employer necessarily has the right to dismiss. The legal immunity established by subsection (2) of this clause must not be presumed to over-ride any right the employer may have to dismiss a striker in a particular situation. The Committee earlier considered, on Clause 24, what would amount to an unfair dismissal in connection with a strike. What this subsection does is to make clear the underlying principles as regards dismissal; what constitutes unfair dismissal is not affected by this clause of the Bill.
12.10 a.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I take it that what the noble Lord was saying in his last two sentences meant that nothing said earlier in the Bill about the employees' rights in relation to unfair dismissal is affected by subsection (4) of this clause. That being so, I will do what I said I would do on previous occasions, and consider carefully what the noble Lord has said, and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 282H:
Page 105, line 19, leave out from ("than") to end of line 21 and insert ("one week").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment to line 19 which is in effect to substitute a notice period of one week. Whether the Bill as it stands is fair or not could be a matter of opinion, but whether or not it is workable cannot be a matter of opinion. As it stands, it is totally unworkable. It says in line 19: that
" due notice ', in relation to an employee, means notice of a duration not less than that which…he would be required to give to terminate his contract of employment."
Take a normal factory where there are different categories of employees with different terms of employment and different terms of due notice, and consider how you are to have a strike. First you have to find out from every employee exactly what are the terms of employment, so as to find the person with the longest notice. That is virtually impossible. Then you have to give notice in respect of people whom you can reasonably expect to be entitled to one week's notice. Then you have to give notice to a person who may have entered into a contract under which he has agreed not to strike for three years; and so you have to give three years' notice in respect of the whole factory. It may not be quite so far-fetched as that, but there would be totally different periods.
So you would be in an impossible position, (a) to find out, (b) to give effect, and (c) to hold the position. Because what would happen would be that those with the shortest notice would press on those with longer notice that the strike should take place after giving the minimum notice in respect of the categories of employees with the shortest term of notice. It would be an impossibly difficult situation. The industrial atmosphere would be poisoned and the whole thing would be totally unsatisfactory. Therefore it is proposed that there should be a workable and sensible period, which seems to be one week. I should have thought that to give notice for one week was reasonable, and that is why I am moving this Amendment.
EARL FERRERS: Clause 143 provides what we consider to be reasonable protection to employees who go on strike

361
after having given due notice of their intention to do so. Under the clause employees would not be liable for civil or criminal proceedings in respect of breach of contract. Nor would the organiser of the strike merit any liability under Clause 92. Subsection (5), to which the Amendment relates, imposes what we believe to be a reasonable qualification, that is that the "due notice" to be given of an intention to participate in strike action should not be less than that required to terminate a person's contract of employment.
The Amendment seeks to ensure that in all cases this should be a week. The Bill itself provides in Clause 17, by amending Section 1 of the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, that the minimum period of notice required to be given by an employee who has been continuously employed for more than 13 weeks should be at least one week. Therefore, in subsection (5) of this clause due notice has been defined as not less than the notice required to terminate the contract of employment. The great majority of employees anyway will only need to give due notice of a week under the provisions of the Bill. In that respect, therefore, I would suggest to the noble Lord that the Amendment is unnecessary. But for the employees who have less than 13 weeks' employment the Amendment would in fact seem to be restrictive, since it applies a minimum statutory period of due notice where at the moment none exists for the purposes of this clause.
We think it right that the clause as a whole should relate to the requirements of the employee's contract of employment. Subsection (2) refers to due notice which is given by or on behalf of an employee, and due notice should therefore in our view relate to that notice which an employee must give to satisfy the terms of his own contract of employment, whether this is applied by statutory enactment or whether it results from a voluntary agreement, and regardless of whether this may be for a greater or lesser period of notice than is envisaged by the Amendment. We believe it is correct and fair in this case that the terms of a strike notice should be in the same terms as those applying in contracts of employment.
12.16 a.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for having said what is perfectly plain to everybody and adds nothing to the argument at all. He has not dealt with the point at all. Of course, I recognise that if a man is engaged for more than 13 weeks, he is entitled to a week's notice. What I am trying to put to your Lordships is that we are not talking airy-fairy stuff, but about a factory of people going on strike, and we cannot have individuals giving strike notices which work out at different periods. That is not a strike. If the Government say that that is the way it must happen, they are restricting by another way the right to strike. If that is what the Government want, let them say so. In a strike, the workers have to walk out together. It is not a case of the workers on one bench walking out in one week and those working on a second bench not walking out until a week after. That is not a strike. There has to be the same period of notice for all concerned. The question is. what that period shall be. The Amendment suggests the very reasonable period of one week.
The noble Earl is quite right in saying that those working for less than thirteen weeks are presumed, in the absence of an agreement, to give less than a week's notice. Some people would have to give only one day's notice of a strike. No doubt the vast majority would have to give a week's notice; but there are others who would have to give much longer periods, up to a very considerable time indeed. That makes an impossible situation, so the noble Lord must see our point that unless all can walk out on one date the Government are effectively preventing a strike from taking place, at all events on the basis of the benefits which attach to strikes where due notice has been given. Unless the noble Lord meets that point, he is not dealing with the Amendment at all. If he wants to suggest a different period, say three days instead of a week, well and good; but we must have one period for all.
12.20 a.m.
EARL FERRERS: I wonder whether the noble Lord is under a misapprehension—no doubt it is my fault if he is. He said that if this subsection stands as it does at present, the Government

363
are inhibiting the right to strike. That is not so, because the right to strike is clearly laid down in the Bill, and also in Clause 124 it is laid down that nobody is compelled to work against his will in circumstances which he feels to be objectionable. He has, therefore, an absolute and implicit right to strike, and this particular subsection does not alter that at all. What it does is to say that in certain circumstances if a person strikes without due notice he may be caught for breaking his contract.
Let us take the example of a registered trade union and an official of that union who calls a strike, acting on behalf of his union. He may call a strike, and his people may come out on strike, irrespective of their contract of employment; and that is one of the benefits of registration, because if you are registered you can call your men out on strike and you cannot be sued for an unfair industrial practice. The case which the noble Lord may have in mind is that of an unregistered trade union. In many respects, this would be exemplified by a "wildcat" strike. The noble Lord shakes his head, but in fact if people who are not members of a registered trade union, and are not prepared to accept the protection which is given under this Bill, are prepared to call people out on strike, then under this clause they may find themselves held by their employers to be liable for breach of contract. But this does not inhibit their right to strike: all it means is that if they are a registered trade union they cannot even be sued for breach of contract.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Earl is not advancing the argument at all. There is no point in pursuing it. The present position is that a worker could be sued for breach of contract for striking without having given notice corresponding to the term of his contract; but it never happens, as far as I know—never. The proposal in the Bill means that an unregistered union would effectively be denied the right to strike—that is the right to strike without incurring the damages resulting from a breach of contract, which would not apply to a registered union, because there is no period necessarily which corresponds to the due notice for all the individual workers in a factory and it would not be possible
364
to bring all the workers out at one and the same time. That is no strike
That is the position, as I understand it. I do no want to delay the Committee by causing unnecessary walking through the Division Lobbies—indeed, I see that noble Lords opposite are not very numerous: I have no eyes in the back of my head. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that I regard this as a very serious matter, and were the hour a little earlier I should press the matter further.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I may be allowed to say this to the noble Lord. What he says is completely fallacious, because he overlooks that in subsection (5) which he is attacking, as it stands, the notice must be not less than that which is the minimum notice for each employee. He probably has not much more experience of this matter than I have. The great majority of employees have relatively short notices. If he in fact has to make a simple case, two classes of employees who want to strike, one on a fortnight's notice and one on a week's notice, it is perfectly simple that they all give a fortnight's notice, and that is all right. But to pretend that that is to deny them the right to strike is absolute rubbish.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
12.26 a.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND: moved Amendment No. 282J:
Page 105, line 21, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where due notice has been given by an employee of his intention to take part in a strike he shall have a right to strike and his action shall not he regarded as an unfair industrial practice.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks an explicit declaration it may be implicit in the Bill; I do not know—that a strike after due notice is not caught elsewhere in the Bill as an unfair industrial practice. That is the short point. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he wishes for a clear undertaking that anyone who takes part in a strike will not be guilty of an unfair industrial practice. If that is so, I can give the noble Lord that assurance, because the question of an unfair industrial practice in relation to participation in a strike by an individual does not

365
arise, as all unfair industrial practices refer to the inducement of a strike and do not refer to the practice of an individual taking part in a strike. I hope that with that the noble Lord will be satisfied.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Earl, and would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 143, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not wish to delay your Lordships, but merely to underline the fact, that must be obvious, that we are very unhappy about this clause. We shall read carefully what has been said, and particularly carefully what the noble and learned Lord is going to write to some of us, and will seek to put the matter into much better perspective on the Report stage.
Clause 143, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 144 [Race Relations Act 1968]:
On Question, Whether Clause 144 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BROCKWAY: I wish to ask certain questions on this clause before we pass it. I hope I summarise the clause correctly in this way. If a complaint is made to the Secretary of State, or the Race Relations Board or one of its conciliation committees, which has been, or could have been, presented to an industrial tribunal, if it goes to such a tribunal and the tribunal finds that there has been an unfair industrial practice on the ground, it may be among others, that the unfair practice was taken because of colour, race, or ethnic origin, the matter may then be referred to the Race Relations Board. It can only be referred in those circumstances. As a consequence of this clause, there is a confusion that two separate authorities are given the duty of deciding whether race discrimination has taken place. We have the Race Relations Board, and its conciliation committees, which have been established for this particular purpose, and which now have long experience; and it has been shown, particularly in the case of the conciliation committees with a personnel which is accustomed to this problem, that they have served a very useful purpose.
Now it is suggested that an industrial tribunal should intervene in the circumstances which I have described, and that a complaint would go to that tribunal rather than to the Race Relations Board or the committees of conciliation. I appreciate that other elements than racial discrimination may be one of the factors when a complaint of this kind is made. May I ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the suggestion that if racial discrimination is the only ground of complaint it should go directly to the Race Relations Board, or one of its conciliation committees, and that if there are other grounds the industrial tribunal concerned should ask the Race Relations Board to consider the complaint, and convey its decision to the industrial tribunal before the tribunal comes to a conclusion?
There is also the danger of the delay which appears to be involved in this procedure. A complaint must first go to the industrial tribunal and only if the complaint is not dismissed, or if it is found to have good grounds then it will proceed to the Race Relations Board. The time of that procedure must be long. This is recognised in subsection (3), which extends the time within which anything may be done under the Industrial Relations Act. It is quite clear that the delay of the complaint may be for a very considerable period indeed. I want to submit, first, that this may cause grievous frustration; but secondly, and more important, a serious injustice. Frustration by the procedure, by the delay, may be particularly felt by Commonwealth immigrants who are unfamiliar with our administration, and bewilderment may be caused among them. It may also be severely unjust. A worker may be demoted or dismissed. A man may be demoted if he proves his case before the industrial tribunal. Is there any provision by which he should not only be reinstated, but be given compensation for the period when he had been demoted wrongly? If he is dismissed, is he to receive compensation and be given the opportunity of reinstatement? I ask Her Majesty's Government seriously to look at the points which I have raised, and between now and the Report stage to consider whether this clause should not be reworded and amended in a way which can deal with the problems which I have put.
LORD CHAMPION: My noble friend has put some extremely important points in connection with this clause. I want to put a different one. The Consultative Document issued by the Department in connection with this whole Bill said that some of the proposals in this Document overlap with the Race Relations Act 1968 in relation to claims that dismissal by an employer, or discriminatory action by a trade union, whether registered or not, was due to colour, race or ethnic or national origins. Where the remedies to be provided by the Industrial Relations Bill are more generous to the aggrieved individual than those provided by the Race Relations Act, it is intended that the Government's proposals should take the place of the Act. It is proposed, however, that in such cases the Race Relations Act machinery should still be available for securing an assurance of no further acts of discrimination and for dealing with breaches of such assurances.
The only question I wish to ask in this connection—and I am hoping to get a satisfactory answer on the Record—is this. Does this clause completely give effect to paragraph 64 of the Consultative Document? I ask this because I can find nothing in the clause which appears to give effect to the Document's words about more generous remedies when a complaint is treated under this clause. This is a very short point, but I certainly feel that it ought to find its way into the Bill if it is not already there, because clearly the Government's original intention was to be generous in this matter. I think this, too, has some importance to add to those points which have been raised by my noble friend.
12.38 a.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think I can give the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that assurance. When it investigates complaints of discrimination under the 1968 Act, the Race Relations Board attempts not only to find a suitable remedy, where the complaint is upheld, but also to ensure that there will be no further acts of discrimination by the same employer. Neither the industrial tribunal nor the Industrial Court will have powers to obtain an undertaking of no further discrimination on the grounds of race or colour, or ethnic or national origins. So this clause enables the Race Relations Board, where a tribunal or a court up
368
holds a complaint and finds that the reasons for the action involve the complainant's race, colour, ethnic or national origin, to entertain a complaint with the limited object of securing a written assurance against any repetition of the act of discrimination, or to bring proceedings under the Race Relations Act where such written assurance has been broken. Therefore, the powers of the Race Relations Board to require the employer to cease to practise will not be overridden by this Part of the Bill.
I want to come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, because I listened with great attention and great sympathy to it—I always would listen in that way to him and to other noble Lords on this subject—and I find myself in the end coming down on exactly the opposite side to him. There is a real issue of the way in which we treat immigrant workers here. A good deal of thought has gone into this matter and I should like to explain our thinking. The object of this clause, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Champion. correctly said, is to avoid overlapping jurisdiction between the Race Relations Board machinery and the new industrial tribunal machinery in respect of complaints of unfair industrial practices. The cases where such overlapping would be most likely to arise in practice are complaints of unfair dismissal, but complaints of unfair treatment in respect of trade union activity are also covered. The clause provides that the Race Relations Act machinery shall not be used if the complainant is eligible to proceed under the new industrial tribunal machinery. If it is decided under the industrial tribunal machinery that racial discrimination is an element in a case of an unfair industrial practice, subsection (2) of this clause provides that the Race Relations Act machinery can be used, as I have just said, to obtain a written assurance from the employer against a repetition.
There are two reasons for this decision for taking the choice whether or not somebody should proceed via the Race Relations Act or what will be the Industrial Relations Act of 1971. The first is that the remedies available under the Industrial Relations Bill are somewhat more generous than those under the Race Relations Act. The noble Lord mentioned compensation; he mentioned re-engagement: he will find that the powers

369
in this Bill are greater than in the Race Relations Act. But the second point—and this is the point of principle where I part company with him—is that where minorities in our society can be properly protected under legislation which is of general application to everyone, there is no great advantage to be gained in seeking to treat them as a special case. Public policy must move in this direction. We cannot in the future continue to say that there must be special procedures and special tribunals for minority groups. At the time when the two Race Relations Acts were passed that special protection was needed, but here there is an alternative. If an immigrant worker feels that he has a grievance—and it can only be an unfair industrial practice under the Industrial Relations Bill—and says "I have been unfairly dismissed", and it is on grounds of colour, he can go to the industrial tribunal; he can argue his case in the same way as his mate who is objecting to an unfair industrial practice on some other grounds.
It is for that reason that I feel on grounds of principle that it is very much better to approach this in the way the Government suggest in this Bill, rather than forcing the immigrant worker hack to his own procedure under his own Act, and tell him that that is where he must pursue his remedy, while other members of society pursue theirs in a different way.
LORD BROCKWAY: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and the spirit in which he has said it. He has not dealt with one point; that is, to decide an issue of racial discrimination requires an extraordinarily sensitive person. They must be people who are selected for that purpose, and the members of the conciliation committees of the Race Relations Board have had experience which adds to their original capacity in this direction, and what I am suggesting is that the members of the industrial tribunal will not necessarily have that quality which is desirable when a person is judging cases of discrimination. It may be dismissal, it may be demotion in the job: they are unfair practices but they are based, if the complaint is on the ground of discrimination, on the fact that the complainant is of a particular colour or a particular race, and that judgment has to be made not by the kind of
370
membership which you have in industrial tribunals. Surely it is much better that that judgment should be made by men and women who have been selected for that purpose because of their qualities, and who have had long experience of it.
LORD CHAMPION: I am not quite sure that the noble Lord answered my point. Under the Race Relations Act 1968, Section 22, damages may be awarded to someone appearing before the court, and the court
"…if satisfied that the act was done and was unlawful, may award—

(a) special damages or, in Scotland, damages for any expenses reasonably incurred by him for the purpose of the transaction or activity out of which that act arose; and

(b) such damages as the court thinks just in all the circumstances for loss of opportunity, that is to say, loss of any benefit which that person might reasonably be expected to have had but for that act."

All I was asking at the very outset was to be sure that Clause 144 of the Bill is actually more generous to a person in the position visualised than Section 22 of the Race Relations Act. I want to be sure that the Bill is more generous than the Act to the person who might appear before the tribunal.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think the noble Lord will find that in practice it will be the same. The Race Relations Act talks about damages and the Bill about compensation, but the principles for estimating compensation and damages—I say this without taking counsel on it—would, I think, be the same. The common law principle behind the estimating of putting a financial sum on what somebody has suffered I would expect to be the same. But the noble Lord has put this detailed question to me and perhaps I should confirm in writing—and also to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—what the position is. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that we must not overlook, and he certainly would not, the importance of conciliation in this and other fields. The Race Relations Board have been most notable in the way that they have taken a tiny number of cases before the court; they have managed to settle by conciliation in almost every case. In our long discussion on this Bill—we had an Amendment on this point earlier this evening there is great emphasis on conciliation, and the noble

371
Lord will know from his own experience that the Department of Employment has a very high record in the conciliation field. These are the people we are talking about who would be engaged in conciliation where complaints have been made, and one would hope that in the majority of cases they would be able to settle the grievance before it ever went to the industrial tribunal.
Clause 144 agreed to.
Clause 145 [Redundancy payments.]:
12.48 a.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 282N:
Page 106, line 36, leave out from (" complaint") to ("is") in line 37, and insert (" relating to dismissal").
The noble Baroness said: If it is convenient to the Committee, perhaps we might also discuss, because it covers the same point, Amendment No. 284C which is to Clause 146. The purpose of these two Amendments is akin to similar Amendments which have already been agreed by the Committee to Clauses 102 and 111. What they were designed to do, and what these Amendments are designed to do, is to give the same treatment to complaints about dismissal whether they are under Clause 5 or Clause 20, which is covered by Clause 102, which is referred to in subsection (1) of this clause. At the present time Clause 145 and Clause 146 only covers the provisions of unfair dismissal under Clause 20. Therefore, the first Amendment will ensure that when the Secretary of State is making regulations to deal with overlapping claims for redundancy payment under the Redundancy Payments Act and unfair dismissal complaints under this Bill, he will be able to apply them to dismissal complaints under both Clause 5 and Clause 20.
The second Amendment will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations in connection with the preservation of continuity of employment of a dismissed employee who has been re-engaged following a complaint about dismissal to a tribunal under either Clause 5 or Clause 20. I trust that noble Lords will agree that dismissal complaints arising under these two clauses should receive the same treat-
372
ment. I therefore commend these Amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
12.51 a.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 107, line 17, at end insert—
(" (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 284. Its object is to provide that regulations made under Clause 145, which can have the effect of altering an existing statutory provision, should be made only after they have been affirmatively approved by Parliament. I hope that I need not argue this particular provision at length, because a similar Amendment was proposed at an earlier stage of this Bill, I think at Clause 109, and the Government then accepted it in principle as being appropriate. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will be able to say that the principle of the Amendment is equally applicable to Clause 145. and that the Government are prepared to accept it.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will be glad to hear that I am delighted to accept the Amendment, because I think that it does improve the Bill. We are glad that he has been able to put it forward.
LORD STOW HILL: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 145, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I seek only one short explanation. Under subsection (2), any such regulations—the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State—may make such modifications of the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, including,
" (a) provisions excluding the right to a redundancy payment or equivalent payment,…"
This seems to me to be fairly Draconian, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness could explain what is in the Government's mind.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I do not think that it is at all Draconian, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not think so when I try to explain what is in the Government's mind. The protection provided by the Redundancy Payments Act 1965, and that provided by these provisions, are alternative safeguards for the employee. Therefore the employee entitled to compensation under the Redundancy Payments Act should not be entitled to the remedy provided by unfair dismissal provisions, or vice versa. The clause therefore enables the Secretary of State to provide, by regulations, for the recovery of redundancy payments that have been made in respect of a dismissal that is found to be unfair, and where no redundancy payment has been made in respect of an unfair dismissal none should be made. The same provision can be made for the recovery of rebates, which is referred to in the Redundancy Payments Act, in respect of dismissals that are subsequently declared unfair by the tribunal.
I should explain that we feel it would not be right to debar any worker from appealing against unfair dismissal just because he had received a redundancy payment in respect of that dismissal, as it is possible that an employer trying to dismiss unfairly might find it a less costly dismissal if his view of its being redundancy could not be challenged. It might result in a smaller payment to the employee, and the employer would receive a rebate in respect of it from the redundancy fund. It is for these reasons, in order to ensure that you cannot have it both ways under unfair dismissal and under the redundancy payment provisions, that this clause is inserted, and I suggest that it is not Draconian.
LORD DIAMOND: I am always gladly prepared to be persuaded by the noble Baroness, but not immediately. I can well understand that the noble Baroness's principle that you cannot have it both ways is one which would meet with approval, and by, "You cannot have it both ways" I take it that she means that you can have it one way or the other. Therefore, if you are going to get damages for unfair dismissal and you would otherwise be entitled to a large sum by way of redundancy payment, then the amount you get by way
374
of compensation should be deducted from the amount you get for redundancy, so that you receive the same amount all over. Perhaps that is in her mind.
But the clause does not prevent the following circumstances from arising; namely, that an employee who is aged 61, and who has been for 40 years in a particular firm and suffers an unfair dismissal, would by way of redundancy payment be entitled to a very substantial sum. Let us suppose that he has been a foreman for a long time and his average wage is very high. Whichever court it is decides that he has been unfairly dismissed and is entitled to compensation, may say, "He is 61 and is not very well now, and could look forward to perhaps two years further engagement." It may assess damages on that basis, so the amount of damages will be very small. Under this clause, as I see it, there is nothing to prevent regulations from being made, the result of which, because the foreman in question has been given compensation for unfair dismissal, is that he loses the whole of his redundancy payment. He might get a very small sum and lose a very large sum. Is that the intention of the Government and, if not, where in this clause is that prevented from happening?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is certainly not the intention of the Government. It is the tribunal which would have to decide and, as the noble Lord knows very well, there are certain very clear regulations laid down about assessment in which age, years of service and weekly pay, for example, are taken into account. That is all assessed. The point of this clause is that in some cases where there has been a dismissal the employee may be in doubt as to whether he has been unfairly dismissed or has become redundant, and he may want to make a claim on both counts. This clause enables the Secretary of State to provide for the tribunal to make an award in respect of one of the claims to the exclusion of the other It is left to the tribunal to do this, and as they have definite criteria—I believe, for instance, that after the age of 41 the multiplier is one and a half times—I think it would be a fair award.
LORD DIAMOND: I think I must press the noble Baroness to say that she will be kind enough to look at these words,

375
"such modifications as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate", because the Secretary of State may consider appropriate modifications which the worker in question and which we on this side of the Committee might not consider appropriate, and we do not know what they are at the moment. If it is merely a matter of exchanging one for the other then I can see that that is a possible argument. Whether one agrees or not does not arise immediately, but I can see that it is a possible argument. But any arrangement under which a worker could suffer by these regulations is something which we should probably not agree to, and for which we should certainly want to know the full justification. So although the noble Baroness has explained what is in the Government's mind, I am not happy that the wording of subsection (2) gives effect to it. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the noble Baroness will say that she will consider further whether any variation in the wording is necessary to give effect to the Government's intention.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I do not want to detain the Committee by constantly speaking, but on the other hand I wish to try to allay the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. He realises that redundancy and unfair dismissal are mutually exclusive. Under Clause 22, for instance, redundancy is a justified reason for dismissal, subject to some qualifications, and we have just accepted on this clause an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that these regulations should be subject to the Affirmative Resolution of the House. Naturally I cannot give the exact and precise details of these regulations now, but they will be debatable and they will be subject to Affirmative Resolution because we have accepted that Amendment. I hope that that will allay the anxieties of the noble Lord.
LORD DIAMOND: Regrettably, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the noble Lord's anxieties are not allayed, because, as I. understand the position, if a person is dismissed the remedy which he cannot seek is reinstatement. He may get reinstatement, but he cannot require reinstatement. He can require damages if he is unfairly dismissed, but
376
not reinstatement. If I am right about that, it is not the case that these are alternatives, in the sense that, the man having been dismissed and it is found that he is unfairly dismissed, he is therefore reinstated and is entitled to redundancy; his rights are restored in full. That is not the case. If he is dismissed and not reinstated, he may get a sum of money which is much less than he would otherwise have had if it had been dealt with as a simple redundancy. Therefore I think I am not unfair, while having regard to the lateness of the hour, in asking the noble Baroness to consider further whether the words in the clause are such as to permit the Government to carry out their intentions. I recognise that the regulations will be put before the House, but regulations are under the powers of the Bill, or of the Act as it will then be, and I want the way in which a Minister of the present Government or of any future Government acting under this Act should conduct himself with regard to regulations to be made clear, if possible, in the Act. Therefore I want to deal with the matter at source. The noble Baroness is in charge of it, and she is one of the most reasonable Ministers to whom anybody could possibly address an argument. I have addressed my argument to her, and I shall be grateful if she will say that she will be good enough to consider whether the words of subsection (2) are sufficient to give effect to the Government's intention.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I think that the words are quite sufficient, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord to confirm this. Perhaps—if I could finally allay his anxiety so that he does not have a sleepless night—I should say that the provisions in this particular clause are almost exactly similar to those which were in the previous Government's Bill.
LORD DIAMOND: I shall now have a nightmare.
Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 146 [Period of continuous employment]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 284C.
Moved—
Page 107, line 35, leave out (" of unfair") and insert ("relating to").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 146, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
1.5 a.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee at this late hour, but this clause is important from one point of view. The Committee has previously debated Clause 26 which is the clause which provides that before anybody can bring a claim under Clause 20 in respect of an alleged unfair dismissal lie must be able to show that he has been in employment continuously for 104 weeks. Amendments were put down to try to deal with the situation in which there might have been some sort of interruption—perhaps because of illness; or there might have been various reasons which would prevent an employee who had been in employment for a considerable time saying that it had been continuous for 104 weeks. When the Committee debated that matter, it was the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, who pointed out that it would be difficult in practice to abbreviate that period, at the moment at any rate, because it was anticipated that there might be a consider— able number of claims and the industrial tribunals might find themselves rather overloaded unless a fairly long qualifying period was prescribed.
I have studied Clause 146 in order to ascertain whether any relief for an applicant for compensation under Clause 20 is contained in its terms. It seems to me that there is not. If I am mistaken perhaps the noble Baroness will correct me. If one looks at the successive subsections one finds that subsection (1) seems not to remedy the position. It relates to the total length of employment. Subsections (3) and (4) clearly do not do so on their terms. Subsection (2), when one considers its real effect, does not, I think, modify the position. It provides that the presumption that employment has been continuous is to apply for the purposes of the Bill. I do not think that that can have any practical effect. A worker who makes a claim under Clause 20 either is or is not in a position to assert that he has been in continuous employment for
378
104 weeks. I do not find it easy to envisage in practice any cases where the presumption could have any effect. One might have a case. theoretically, in which a worker suffered from an attack of amnesia as to a fortnight during the two years he was working for a particular employer; but in the nature of things that is most unlikely.
I do not want to prolong the discussion; I would simply put this question to the noble Baroness. Can she point to any provision in Clause 146 which makes it possible for the courts to hold in favour of a workman who applies under Clause 20 in respect of an alleged unfair dismissal but who for some reason cannot quite bring himself up to the required margin of 104 weeks?—a worker who, for example, must concede that at some time during that two years there was a break, a break which is insignificant but which would, as the Bill is at present drawn, disentitle him. I am sure the Government do not want him to be disentitled, and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would point out to me that in some way this clause would assist; or alternatively, that she would give consideration to it in the hope that it may be changed into a form which would give assistance in this sort of case.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: If the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will look at subsection (1) of Clause 146 he will see that it refers to Schedule 1 of the Contracts of Employment Act. If he looks at subsection (5) of that Act he will discover that all the matters troubling him are covered under this particular provision. Also. he will know from experience that there is considerable case law on this matter. The noble Lord read out various subsections to Clause 146 but one he did not refer to, and which is a very important one, is subsection (2). This provides that the presumption is that the employment is continuous. If that is read together with Schedule I of the Contracts of Employment Act, I think the noble Lord will find that these matters are covered.
LORD STOW HILL: I really mean to keep my promise not to prolong this debate, but I did study Clause 1. I looked up the 1963 Act and it did not seem to me to produce the result I had hoped for. I referred specifically to subsection (2) and

379
I gave reasons, which obviously carried no conviction, for the view which I expressed, that it would have no useful application whatsoever. But if the noble Baroness will kindly say that she will give further thought to it, I shall be content.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am always willing to give further thought but not necessarily to amend.
On Question, Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 147 [Claims under Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, s.8]:
On Question, Whether Clause 147 shall stand part of the Bill?
1.13 a.m.
LORD CHAMPION: Clause 147 amends Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959 in such a way as to preclude the reporting of a claim under that section to the Secretary of State by anyone other than a trade union or an employers' association as defined in the Bill. That seems to be perfectly clear. But when I turn to Part II of Schedule 7 setting out the Amendments in heavy type, 1 read in subsection (2):
" For the purposes of this section a claim, to be duly reported, must be reported to the Secretary of State in writing by an organisation or association which is registered as a trade union or an employers' association under the industrial Relations Act 1971, and is, or is represented by, one of the parties mentioned in paragraph (b)…"
When I turn to paragraph (b) of subsection (8)(1) I read:
" that the parties to the agreement, or to the proceedings in which the award was made, are or represent organisations of employers and organisations of workers or associations of such organizations…"
If I read that correctly in conjunction with subsection (2), it means that not only registered trade unions or employers' associations under the Bill but also one of the parties to the existing agreement may make a claim intending to change that agreement. If I am right about that, it does not seem to me that the Schedule carries out the intention of Clause 147. If I am wrong, it appears to me to create a serious situation in
380
which the parties to the original agreement might, if they are not registered under this Bill, be precluded from pursuing a claim under a wages council created by Act of Parliament in 1959.
I think that this is a matter on which we ought to spend some little time, even at this late hour, because it refers to a body of employees who have to be protected by wages councils. I am hoping that the reply I shall get will indicate that people who are really parties to the original agreement will be able to submit a claim to the Secretary of State, even if they do not happen to be registered under this Bill.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, was quite correct in the way in which he interpreted this clause and the part of the Schedule to which he referred, because subsections (3) and (4) of the clause authorise the consequential amendments to the 1959 Act, and he read out to us the parts in heavy type. The position is that subsection (1) provides that no action shall be taken on a claim under Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959 unless it has been reported by a registered trade union or employers' association. On the other hand, subsection (2)—the noble Lord was concerned about wages councils—removes what is now an embargo on claims concerning workers who are covered by wages councils. The 1959 Act at the present time excludes workers in wages council industries from the claims procedure. Subsection (2) removes this exclusion and restores the position to that which existed before 1959 under the old industrial disputes order. It requires employers to observe voluntarily recognised agreements and to widen the scope of voluntary collective bargaining arrangements so far as wages council industries are concerned.
LORD CHAMPION: I do not think I have made myself perfectly clear. When I was talking about subsection (2), I was not thinking about the Schedule to which this clause refers. I read out the words of the subsection and the words which particularly struck me as being extraordinary, having regard to subsection (1) of the clause, were the words:
" or is registered by one of the parties mentioned in paragraph (b)."

381
I went back to paragraph (b) and found that in the Schedule it relates to those organisations or persons who were parties to the original agreement. It seemed to me that the Schedule does not give effect to Clause 147. But if it does and if the intention is to cut out those words, which are still there according to the amended Schedule which we have before us, the position will be that the parties mentioned in paragraph (b), the parties to the original settlement, will be completely cut out unless they are registered organisations. That is my point. I was not so anxious about Clause 147 as about its application to the Schedule.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, is correct once again. I thought I had said that he was, and I thought I had made it clear that Section 8(2) of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act 1959, as at present worded, enables organisations of employers and workers to report claims to the Secretary of State in certain circumstances.
LORD CHAMPION: Yes.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: What he wanted to know was whether it referred to registered trade unions or not. It does refer to registered trade unions and to registered employers' associations, and this clause is referred to in the Schedule as read out. For the moment I thought that he also referred to wages councils. It is a slightly different matter, referred to in subsection (2) of Clause 147. Here we are restoring the right which existed before 1959 and which, for some extraordinary reason, was removed in the 1959 Act.
LORD CHAMPION: The fault must be entirely mine, but I am not absolutely clear. I will study very carefully what the noble Baroness has said and perhaps return to it later on Report.
Clause 147 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
House resumed.

  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  NEWMARKET BYPASS AND A.45 IMPROVEMENTS
  NEWMARKET BYPASS AND A.45 IMPROVEMENTS
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES' STAFF PENSIONS
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES' STAFF PENSIONS