Sitting of 16 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CO-OPERATIVE BANK BILL
    LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
    Bills considered; to be read the Third time.
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK (NORTH CENTRAL FINANCE & LOMBARD BANKING) BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Bill to be read a Second time tomorrow.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION (LOTTERIES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 20th April.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL

    CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
    Orders for Second Reading read.
    Bills to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Alcoholism
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what additional funds he is now making available to deal with the disease of alcoholism as the result of the increased incidence of the disease.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): As I announced in the House on 11th November, 1970, I am setting aside an extra £2 million over the next four years to improve facilities and counsel for alcoholics. Consultations are in progress with hospital boards, local authority associations and voluntary agencies to see how this money can best be used.—[Vol. 806, c. 391–8.]
    Mr. Eadie: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that it is wrong for us to be stilling our voices over a problem which is increasing rather than diminishing? Is it not strange that we should be continually advertising a product and spending so much money on it when it is causing so much human misery?
    Sir K. Joseph: A large majority of people are able to use this product in moderation with every benefit to themselves.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the implementation of Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): As I told the House on 23rd February, my right hon. Friend will shortly be introducing an Order to bring Section 1 of the Act into force on 1st October.
    Mr. Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is concern about the delay in implementing Section 1? Would he agree that it would be the

    1161
    merest academic exercise to find out numbers if we are not able to identify the severely disabled people who need help? Will he take that fully into account?
    Mr. Alison: Yes. Steps are being taken, as the hon. Gentleman knows, to find out numbers, but before identification of individuals takes place on a wide scale, we believe that the availability of services should be ensured as a preliminary step.
    Sir R. Thompson: Would my hon. Friend consider a really big publicity campaign in this connection? Does he realise that there is widespread misapprehension among many people as to what their entitlement may be under this legislation and that this ought to be remedied as soon as possible?
    Mr. Alison: Plans for publicity of the provisions made under the Act are now firmly in hand and will be measured to the local needs as assessed by the local authorities concerned.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities are worried about the cost of a 100 per cent. register, partly through the ill-advice which has been circulated, frightening them through wrongly informing them that it would be difficult and expensive, when no one knows how difficult and expensive it will be? Would he consider, perhaps in consultation with the Central Council for the Disabled, operating a pilot scheme in one area and compiling a 100 per cent. register to see how expensive and how difficult it is?
    Mr. Alison: A pilot scheme which took even a proportion of those, particularly the representatives of manpower, who should be available to provide services would, of itself, be disadvantageous to the disabled. I will weigh carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said and will write to him about that point.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he is giving to local authorities about the interpretation of Section 2(1)(h) of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970, and in deciding priorities in the provision of telephones to disabled people.
    Mr. Alison: None at present, but the local authority associations will this week be writing to their members making suggestions with which we are in general agreement.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Will he expedite this matter? Is he aware that in certain local authority areas which have a good record in this field delay is occurring because of difficulty in drawing up proper scales to make financial assessments of applicants for assistance of this type? Will he use the good offices of his Department to speed up the process by which they are given help in drawing up such scales?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will have noted that action in the shape of a letter from local authority associations is imminent.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give urgent attention to using the power in Section 28 of the Act to remove the anticipated difficulties in interpretation and of definition? Why has not this Section been used?
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that any criteria or conditions suggested by the local authority associations for installing telephones are not inflexible and can be developed as time goes on as we gain experience from the demand and the special categories who can benefit from telephones.

    Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a further statement on the provision of vehicles for the disabled.
    Mr. Alison: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 2nd February, 1971.—[Vol. 810, c. 299.]
    Mr. Morris: Does the hon. Member recall the Prime Minister's meeting at Bexley with the Haemophilia Society earlier this year? Can he say what progress has been made arising from that meeting? Will he agree to present the House with comparative figures of the costs of providing a four-wheeled vehicle for those disabled people who need it?
    Mr. Alison: I will certainly consider the latter point when the time comes to publish to the House our proposals for developing the service. As to the first part of the question, I recall the deputation from the Haemophilia Society to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Following that up, the deputation came to see me at the Department of Health last week, and we had a fruitful exchange.
    Sir R. Cary: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of disabled people cannot drive themselves and have no person in their own homes who can drive them? In those circumstances, could a plea be made to the Chancellor so that such a disabled person could be given a small grant or allowance with which to hire a motor car?
    Mr. Alison: That point is really beyond the scope of any reply that I can give. No doubt my right hon. Friend will note the suggestion.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman consider reliability trials of three-wheeled vehicles, as distinct from mass-produced four-wheeled vehicles? Would he not agree that the four-wheeled vehicle, which is reliable, allows a second person to ride in it, and the disabled person is then not left in such isolation?
    Mr. Alison: There have been reliability trials. The Which? report gave a very good rating to our Departmental three-wheelers. Hon. Gentlemen will know that if three-wheelers do break down during the course of repair a substitute three-wheeler is made available.
    Mr. Marten: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us on all sides of the House have been pressing the case of disabled drivers and disabled passengers for a long time? Is he further aware that we look forward with great interest and hope to his statement in the spring? In the meantime will he bear in mind that we also look forward, as some yardstick of what is to come, to the Budget and hope that there will be some relief for the disabled in that?
    Mr. Alison: While I am not able to comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's observations, I assure him that I am pursuing this review with enthusiasm and, I believe, with optimism.
    Mr. J. T. Price: When the hon. Gentleman is considering the statement that he
    1164
    hopes to make, will he pay special attention to the position of many married couples when both husband and wife are disabled, who, because of extremely narrow interpretations of the regulations, are prevented from having a four-wheeled vehicle? Is he aware that such people are put to great domestic hardship as a result of the restrictions imposed by a three-wheeled vehicle suitable for only one person?
    Mr. Alison: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that where a couple living in the same household each qualify for a three-wheeler they may together receive a four-wheeler. If he has a particular case where this has for some reason not been applied perhaps he would write to me.

    Retirement Pensions (Deaths)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many retirement pensions were given up from April to October, 1970, due to the death of such persons.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): About 200,000 in the period from the beginning of April to the end of October, 1970.
    Mr. Dempsey: Does this not suggest to the Minister that if he waits until the end of the year before increasing the retirement pension thousands of pensioners will die off without receiving any at all? Does he not realise that even those who are spared will be living in poverty by the end of the year because of galloping price inflation? Are these not valid reasons for increasing the pensions now?
    Mr. Dean: I cannot add to the clear commitment that my right hon. Friend has given the House that pensions will be increased this year. Perhaps I can remind that hon. Gentleman that there are well over 100,000 very old people now getting the over-80 pension which was refused by his Administration.

    National Disability Income
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has for the introduction of a national disability income; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has for the introduction of a comprehensive national disability pension.
    Sir K. Joseph: The Government have the position of the disabled under close review, but I have no statement to make.
    Mr. Ashley: Could the Minister assure the House that he accepts the principle that severely disabled people should be given some additional income to compensate for the lack of earning power? Could he also assure the House that some steps to implement this proposal will be taken in the next Parliamentary Session?
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot go further than I have said; namely, that the whole position of the disabled is under review by the Government.
    Mr. Meacher: May I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further and say that any plans he may form for a national disability pension will include the congenitally disabled and the disabled housewife at home, and confirm that in costing such a pension he will regard as offsets any calculations of the extra productivity the disabled may thus be enabled to achieve?
    Sir K. Joseph: The country must recognise that we have a great deal of leeway to make up with the disabled, and that it will not be possible to do everything we would like to do very quickly, just because there is so much that must be done. But I note the hon. Gentleman's points.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend give the utmost priority to the severely disabled, who need an extra modicum of income because they are finding life extremely difficult? They need extra warmth and extra food. I hope that in his review he will look very sympathetically at the severely handicapped.
    Sir K. Joseph: Certainly this is the first priority. On 1st December the constant attendance allowance for the very severely disabled, the first such payment for those other than the industrial or war disabled, will come into payment.
    Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the constant attendance allowance scheme to make more widely available the disability expense allowance to help disabled people
    1166
    meet the additional costs of both living and working in which they are involved?
    Sir K. Joseph: Already hon. Members have introduced three different criteria—the diminution of earnings, the cost of earning, and help for the severely disabled. The House will recognise that there is ample cause for a thorough review by the Government.

    Nurses (Pay)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the 12½ per cent, pay award to the nurses; how many will be affected; what these awards will mean in cash awards to each stated category; and when he intends to implement these payments.
    Sir K. Joseph: The settlement reached by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council covering about 330,000 nurses and midwives provides for an increase of 81 per cent. in basic pay and an increase in payment for night duty to time and a quarter. Both increases will operate from 1st April, 1971. Hours are to be reduced from 42 a week to 40 from 1st January, 1972. I will, if I may, circulate examples of the revised scales in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lewis: The whole House will welcome both that the increase has been given and that the settlement has been accepted. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny Press reports that all the nurses living-in will lose some of the amount because the cost of their keep will be put up by as much as 50 per cent. of the award? Most hon. Members would regret that if it is the case.
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's figure, which I should have thought was inaccurate. But certainly lodging charges and meal charges are going up at the same time. It is normal for the meal and lodging charges to be reviewed regularly, and, of course, costs have gone up.
    Dr. Summerskill: Then will the right hon. Gentleman admit that the salary increase is not nearly so impressive as it looks, and that not only nurses' cost of living but the general cost of living makes it a far from satisfactory position? Will he also bear in mind the unfair discrepancy

    1167
    between the salaries of agency nurses and of the rest of the nursing profession?
    Sir K. Joseph: I was not presenting this as a generous award. I think that in all the circumstances it is a thoroughly reasonable one. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] After all, all earnings increases have to be seen against the price increases which have occurred in the relevant period.
    Dame Irene Ward: Am I right in assuming that when the nurses want to make representations my right hon. Friend will always be willing to receive them and those who speak for them?
    Sir K. Joseph: I can think of no group from whom I would more gladly receive representations.
    Mr. Pavitt: Why the delay until January, 1972, before the award can be implemented? Does the decision preclude the possibility of danger money for those nurses in renal dialysis units and, therefore, subject to infective hepatitis?
    Sir K. Joseph: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question should be the subject of a different Question. On the first part, the only thing being delayed until the beginning of next year is the reduction in hours. The employing authorities must be given time to organise themselves to allow the nurses fewer hours a week.
    Following is the information:

    A. GENERAL HOSPITALS

    Grade

    Present Scales

    New Scales

    £

    £

    Student Nurse:

    Age 18

    525

    570

    Age 19

    588

    639

    Age 20

    624

    678

    Over 21:

    First Year

    714

    774

    Second Year

    744

    807

    Third Year

    774

    840

    Nursing Auxiliary (Adult)

    681–846

    738–918

    Enrolled Nurse

    801–969

    882–1,050

    Staff Nurse

    930–1,182

    1,008–1,281

    Ward Sister

    1,200–1,554

    1,302–1,686

    Chief Nursing Officer:

    Grade 10(c)

    2,550–3,105

    2,766–3,369

    Grade 10(b)

    2,814–3,414

    3,054–3,705

    Grade 10(a)

    3,102–3,702

    3,366–4,017

    Note: Nurses below the rank of Chief Nursing Officer in psychiatric hospitals and geriatric hospitals receive an additional "lead" of £99 per annum at all points. This was not changed by the present settlement.

    B. LOCAL AUTHORITIES

    Grade

    Present Scales

    New Scales

    £

    £

    District Nurse

    1,065–1,464

    1,203–1,635

    District Midwife

    1,200–1,524

    1,302–1,656

    Health Visitor

    1,245–1,599

    1,350–1,734

    Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will appoint the hon. Member for Rugby to the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board in place of Mrs. Theresa Stewart.
    Sir K. Joseph: The vacancy has already been filled.
    Mr. Price: The right hon. Gentleman's answer neither surprises nor offends me. Is he aware that the only people who are welcome on the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board are those who keep their mouths shut and cause no trouble, and that there is a widespread belief in the Midlands that Mrs. Theresa Stewart was sacked because she did her job too well?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman, for all his charm, will not persuade me to enter into the merits of any particular case.

    Hospital Laboratory Technicians (Tuberculosis Risk)
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he is taking to reduce the risk of tuberculosis among hospital laboratory technicians.
    Mr. Alison: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) on 1st December. Reports so far received from hospital authorities indicate that they have made good the deficiencies disclosed by the recent survey.—[Vol. 807, c. 323.]
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the incidence of tuberculosis among technicians working with tuberculosis cultures is three times the national level according to a trade union survey? Why have not the Government published a recent survey carried out by them into the incidence of tuberculosis and safety precautions?
    Mr. Alison: The number of cases was 34 in the three years ending 31st December, 1969. The only reason we have not

    1169
    published the survey is that there have been so many changes as a result of it that it would be out of date.

    Pensions
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his latest estimate of the percentage drop in the purchasing power of the National Insurance pension since it was last increased in 1969.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is 9·2 per cent., based on the last available information from the General Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is widely expected that the Government will announce a long-overdue increase in the pension in the Budget, and that in view of his answer to my Question and the likely increase in prices during the next year an increase for couples of less than £3 a week would be quite inadequate and an increase of less than £2 a week would be positively derisory?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to comment on his suggestion, but we are firmly pledged to putting increased pensions into payment this year.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Should not it be quite clear from what has been happening that the two worst enemies of the pensioners are Mr. Jack Jones and Mr. Scanlon? Will my right hon. Friend do all he can, nevertheless, to hurry forward the pension increase to pensioners, who are in grave need because of the cost inflation which has been caused?
    Sir K. Joseph: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's particular concern with the condition of the elderly, and confirm that what he says has a great deal of truth in it.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Government's withdrawal of subsidies on fares, rents and food has a very major effect on the position of old-age pensioners? I again ask him to return to his statement in the debate on 4th February that he was not bound to a two-year interval. I also ask him to consider the advice offered by the Sunday Times on Sunday to the effect that the review should be brought forward
    1170
    as rapidly as possible, and not later than June.
    Sir K. Joseph: I must ask the hon. Lady and the House to await the Government's decision when it is made.
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the number of people over 80 who will become eligible for pensions as of right in 1971.
    Mr. Dean: About 50,000 if our proposals to provide pensions for persons over 80 who do not come within the scope of the 1970 Act are approved.
    Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as a result of the latest regulations, every lady reaching her eightieth birthday will receive a pension as of right, unlike the situation under the last Government?
    Mr. Dean: I ask my hon. Friend to await the Bill for precise details but I am glad to be able to assure him that that is the intention of the Government.
    Mr. O'Malley: How many of the 50,000 are already receiving Government help through supplementary benefit? How many of the remainder would have been entitled to supplementary benefit had they applied for it?
    Mr. Dean: About 15,000 people are getting some help through supplementary benefit arrangements at the moment. It is not possible to say whether there are some others who might be entitled had they applied.

    Abortion Operations
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the mean marginal cost of carrying out an abortion in the National Health Service hospitals in London where this operation is undertaken.
    Sir K. Joseph: I cannot add to my reply to my hon. Friend on 23rd February.—[Vol. 812, c. 87–8.]
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing the figure and requiring the patient, or, better still, the father, to meet the charge in full where he or she can afford to do so?
    Sir K. Joseph: The information available on hospital costs does not allow this information to be given. It would cost a great deal extra in overheads to provide the sort of information for which my hon. Friend asks.

    Hospitals, Coventry Area (Waiting List)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people are awaiting admission to hospitals in the Coventry Hospital Management Committee area.
    Mr. Alison: The total was 7,881 on 31st December, 1970.
    Mr. Price: Those 8,000 or so people will be particularly interested in the illegal use of Health Service beds by consultants in the Coventry area, a scandal uncovered largely by Mrs. Theresa Stewart before she got the sack. Is the Minister aware that we are grateful that he has called for a report? But will he go one stage further and, instead of relying on people who have a vested interest, send in one of his own officials to do the job independently?
    Mr. Alison: I have no doubt at all about the capacity of the regional hospital board to carry out a full and fair investigation into the alleged irregularities. It would be improper for me or my right hon. Friend to make any comments upon a case which is in effect sub judice until we have received the report.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman please ask the regional hospital board to carry out a major public inquiry into the use of National Health Service beds for private patients in all the hospitals in its region? I am sure that he is aware that the figures of bed use are exceedingly disturbing. The figures he has just given of the waiting list suggesting the misuse—indeed, possible abuse—of National Health Service hospital beds in the region are a cause of grave alarm.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady knows that we have asked for the report, and we must reserve views upon what action should follow until we have had a chance to read exactly what it says. She will be reassured to know that the total waiting list has decreased by as many as 750,
    1172
    which is 10 per cent. of the figure I have given, in the year since the end of December, 1969.

    National Health Service (International Reciprocity)
    Mr. Normantonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take steps to end the situation which permits visitors to the United Kingdom to avail themselves of the free health service, without regard to reciprocal arrangements existing for British nationals in their countries.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to end the situation which permits visitors to the United Kingdom to avail themselves of a free health service, without regard to reciprocal arrangements for British nationals in their countries, by asking other Governments to bear the cost of providing such services to British nationals in their own countries.
    Mr. Alison: Free emergency treatment is given only to visitors who have an accident or fall ill while in this country, and we would not propose to alter this policy. The Government take every opportunity to extend the existing network of reciprocal agreements
    Mr. Normanton: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but may I at the same time express regret at what the country may well regard as its inadequacy? There is undoubtedly widespread concern on the extent to which the British taxpayer is paying for visitors' treatment. Will my hon. Friend, therefore, at least advise the House whether he has it in mind to plan for the integration of the British National Health Service with that of other countries, and give advice on when that will be implemented?
    Mr. Alison: There are some who abuse the Good Samaritan principle, but my information is that the number is so small that policing them would outweigh the savings to the service. We are actively pursuing the development of reciprocal agreements with a number of countries in addition to those with which we already have them.
    Mr. Allaun: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he consider the recent

    1173
    scandalous case of an English woman whose husband died in America and who subsequently received a bill for £5,000 for medical services? Will the hon. Gentleman do exactly the opposite to what is requested and grant visitors Health Service attention, not stop it, but ask Governments of other countries, even if they do not have a National Health Service, to grant reciprocal services to English people abroad?
    Mr. Alison: We have found it extremely difficult to make any arrangements for foreign countries which do not operate a national health service on the same basis as we do to make provision for our nationals overseas which they would not make for their own citizens.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: I agree whole-heartedly with the answer given by the hon. Gentleman. Will he, however, bear in mind that there is a country very close to our own—the Republic of Ireland—which has no reciprocal arrangements at all? Is he aware that last year a former Member of this House, now retired, had a sudden illness in Eire and that it cost him many hundreds of £s which he could ill afford? Is it not time that the Republic was brought into some reciprocal arrangements?
    Mr. Alison: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman has made, but I cannot, I am afraid, enter into any details about plans we have for developing reciprocal agreements with other countries at present.

    Welfare Social Services (Staffing)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what changes he envisages in the staffing of local authority welfare social service departments as a result of the Government's proposals for reorganisation of local government; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir K. Joseph: Such changes will be for the new authorities to determine, and the situation they have to meet will differ from one area to another. I would not expect the staffing of their main work—in residential and day centres and in social work teams—to be radically affected. The reduction in the number of responsible authorities, in England outside Greater London, from 124 to 72 will
    1174
    involve some amalgamation of head-quarters organisations.
    Mr. Worsley: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this will be the second major reorganisation for these people within two or three years? There are difficulties of personnel and staffing. Will he do his best to make this an easy transition?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I appreciate that we are asking local government and health authorities and their officers to undergo rapid changes, and I give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he has asked.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage increase in local authority expenditure on the personal social services he expects during the year 1971–72?
    Sir K. Joseph: That is a different question. I am tempted to give an answer, but it might not be accurate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question.

    Social Services (Voluntary Participation)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he will take to assist local authorities to organise voluntary participation in the social services.
    Mr. Alison: We shall continue to take suitable opportunities to draw the attention of authorities to services where organised voluntary effort can be helpful. We also propose in a few selected areas to join with the authority and voluntary bodies in the area in experimental projects from which further information about the effective organisation of resources can be drawn.
    Mr. Worsley: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a great area where voluntary people can help the full-time professional local authority services? Will he see that the Department gives a lead in this matter?
    Mr. Alison: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend suggests. I reiterate that we have taken the initiative in proposing this pilot scheme for developing the very aspect in which he is interested.
    Mr. Mayhew: To make the best use of volunteers for the mental welfare services, there is urgent need for more trained organisers. What is the Department doing to increase training in this area?
    Mr. Alison: The King's Fund, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, is active in promoting the use of paid organisers of voluntary help. These must have some proper social work training before they can enter hospitals. We are seeking to extend the application of such paid organisers of voluntary help to every hospital with over 200 beds.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Since the circular was sent out at the time of inception of the Young Volunteer Force Foundation, with the support of the Department, there has been general disappointment that it has not been taken up and that opportunities are not sufficiently sought by hospital authorities to create schemes to bring in young people on a voluntary basis. Many thousands of young people are anxious to give voluntary service but the lead must come from the authorities. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this and do all he can to increase the opportunities for the young people?
    Mr. Alison: To some extent the initiative is bound to be left to the local authorities, and their response will similarly depend on the impact of the Young Volunteer Force Foundation. In local authority areas where there are voluntary schemes going on, my right hon. Friend has announced that substantial extra central funds are to be made available for local voluntary bodies.

    Widows (Pensions)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the number of widows under 50 who will become eligible for benefit after 1st April.
    Mr. Dean: It is estimated that about 100,000 widows who were aged 40–49 when the husband died or when widowed mother's allowance ceased will become eligible for age-related widows' pensions from 5th April next.
    Mr. Baker: I welcome these very encouraging figures. Will my hon. Friend ensure that every effort is made by the
    1176
    Department to inform women who have been widowed between the ages of 40 and 50 in the last few years to claim and obtain this benefit, which would be very helpful to them?
    Mr. Dean: We intend a major take-up campaign which we hope will be as successful as the campaign for the old persons' pensions.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the hon. Gentleman point out to his hon. Friend that he in turn should point out to his constituents, as I point out to mine, that many thousands of these ladies have the Labour Government to thank for this benefit, which was taken over by the present Government?
    Mr. Dean: My right hon. Friend has conceded that point on a number of occasions. Equally, I am entitled to say that this Government are introducing the new pension at least 12 months earlier than the previous Government intended

    Means-tested Benefits
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals he has concerning means-tested benefits to modify the high rate of marginal levy in terms of benefit forgone for a low-paid worker who increases his wage by hard work.
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will initiate an inquiry into the effects upon lower-income families, in receipt of means-tested benefits, of increases in the earnings of the breadwinner.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett) on 12th January, 1971.—[Vol. 809, c. 44.]
    Mr. Meacher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a crisis of incentives for low-paid workers in view of the low tax threshold, the higher graduated insurance contributions and the proliferation of means tests? Will he confirm that the imposition of the means tests and the family income supplement on top will make an already unsatisfactory position into a ludicrously absurd one? Since the only answer to this problem is gradually to phase out all

    1177
    means tests, what plans has he for an alternative adequate system of benefits as of right?
    Sir K. Joseph: I will accept that objectively the aggregation of all the selective benefits of this Government on top of those of the last look as if they reduce incentives for the low-paid. What we do not know is how this works subjectively. The Government believe that help can be given most effectively to those who most need it on a selective basis.

    National Health Service (Finance)
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is his policy with regard to the future financing of capital and current expenditure of the National Health Service.
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what factors he is taking into account in deciding his policy for the future financing of capital of the National Health Service.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have nothing to add to the Government's proposals for capital and current expenditure in the health and personal social services referred to in the White Paper on Public Expenditure 1969–70 to 1974–75 (Cmnd. 4578). Alternative sources of revenue for the health services are constantly under consideration.
    Mr. Cronin: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that in future arrangements that he makes in changing the financing of the National Health Service a situation will not arise where some people get a distinctly inferior form of treatment to others?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have told the House that any changes we make will be subject to the guarantee that no one will thereby be deterred from getting proper health treatment.
    Mr. Dalyell: Under the heading of alternative sources of revenue, what extra charges are contemplated for the patients?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have told the House that, as I believe was true of the last Government, we are considering all manner of possible sources of revenue,
    1178
    but I assure the House that, as far as I can see, the National Health Service will remain overwhelmingly financed by taxation and contributions even when these have been brought about.

    War Memorial Hospital, Ongar
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further discussions his Department has held with the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board and the Essex County Council about the future of the Ongar War Memorial Hospital; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: Discussions are taking place with the North-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board about implementing the conditions which, as my hon. Friend is aware, need to be met before it makes a final recommendation for the closure of Ongar Hospital. The Essex County Council is prepared to take over the property to provide residential accommodation for elderly mentally infirm persons.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since these changes are proving much more difficult to bring into effect, would it not be better if this hospital, to which many of my constituents contributed out of their own pockets as a memorial to the dead, should carry on as it has done before, for that is what they would wish?
    Mr. Alison: If the conditions cannot be met, obviously the board and my right hon. Friend will have to reconsider the whole situation. But even if the projected change of use were to occur and the mentally infirm were to be taken into this hospital a continuing community use for the hospital upon its traditional lines would, I think, be ensured.

    National Health Service (Private Practice)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now introduce legislation to abolish private practice in the National Health Service.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Mr. Huckfield: But, in view of the growing evidence of abuse of National

    1179
    Health Service facilities by private consultants, which cannot rival the scandal recently admitted by the Birmingham Regional Hospital at Walsgrave, near Coventry, would the right hon. Gentleman take steps to separate completely private practice from the Health Service or at least go as far as preventing private consultants from being members of regional hospital boards and hospital management committees?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir, although I am always willing to look at allegations of abuse.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we on this side of the House feel that there is a continuing place in the Health Service for an increasing number of private beds and that we do not accept the wild allegations made by the Opposition?
    Sir K. Joseph: So do I.
    Mr. Molloy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that people who are well off, when they are ill, are getting an enormous advantage over ordinary people and that the situation will be exacerbated by the income tax benefit to be given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the wealthy? Is not this undermining and damaging the whole morale of Britain's National Health Service?
    Sir K. Joseph: For better or worse, nothing in this connection has changed since the Labour Party was in office. The number of private beds in the National Health Service is of the order of 1 per cent.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the continuing phenomenon that every year an increasing number of people are insuring their health privately with B.U.P.A., P.P.P. and similar organisations and that the total of such people is now almost 2 million? Is this a process which my right hon. Friend would wish to arrest?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what new legislation he proposes to prevent abuses of National Health Services facilities by private consultants.
    Sir K. Joseph: None, Sir.
    Mr. Huckfield: In view of the growing amount of evidence being offered by the Junior Hospital Doctors Association and even by the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, and since the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is interested in preventing abuse of the National Health Service, will he consider holding not only a full-scale public inquiry into the conduct of affairs at Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry, but a full-scale national inquiry into private practice in the National Health Service?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have no evidence on which to base any such thought.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: As the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for the National Health Service, will he look again at the low occupancy of private beds in certain hospitals and at charges made for the use of pathology laboratories, X-ray laboratories and other ancillary services by private consultants? Will he bear in mind that in this tax-financed service it is crucial to get the best throughput we can while many people are waiting for routine operations?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am willing to look at any points and details which the right hon. Lady sends me and which she thinks I should consider.
    Mr. Golding: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is also very great concern in North Staffordshire about the abuse of the Health Service by private consultants? Will he extend the proposed inquiry into private consultancy practice in Coventry to the North Staffordshire hospitals?
    Sir K. Joseph: Not just on the hon. Gentleman's allegations in the House today.

    SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS (DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions on 22nd February with representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent as a result of representations to him by the Scottish Trades Union Congress about Government economic policies.
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the official talks he held with the Scottish Trades Union Congress on Monday, 22nd February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I met representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress at their request on 22nd February. My right hon. Friends and I explained the Government's view of the causes of the unemployment about which they expressed concern and we discussed the rôle of Government, management and unions in promoting economic development in Scotland.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister say whether the T.U.C. was satisfied with the efficacy of the Government's regional policies? Did he convince the T.U.C. that Scottish unemployment would not exceed 150,000 or 200,000 in the next 12 months?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the secretary of the Scottish T.U.C. has expressed satisfaction with the value of the discussions we had. Obviously, we could not enter into discussions about specific unemployment figures, but we discussed various ways in which the Scottish economic situation from the regional point of view could be helped.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Prime Minister aware that the figure for unemployment in Scotland is rapidly reaching 136,000, which was a feature of previous Tory Administrations? What does he propose to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: I am fully aware of the unemployment position in Scotland and that it was on the upward trend when the hon. Gentleman's Government left office. The Scottish T.U.C. was far more realistic in its appreciation of the causes of unemployment than the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Sillars: Did the right hon. Gentleman discuss the unemployment situation in the construction industry, and, therefore, Scottish housing, with the Scottish T.U.C.? If so, did he give the T.U.C. the same information as was given to the House last Thursday—that the Government are encouraging housing in both the private sector and the public sector? May we take that as an assur-
    1182
    ance that the Conservative Government will build more houses than the Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: Employment in the construction industry in Scotland was one of the major questions we discussed with the Scottish T.U.C. I gave it a very clear undertaking, which it accepted, that we would investigate the proposals it made for dealing with the problems of the construction industry, and that we are doing.
    Mr. Grimond: Did the Prime Minister discuss depopulation as well as unemployment, and did he make any proposals for increasing investment in Scotland, because without a big increase in investment we shall stem neither depopulation nor unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: Depopulation was not one of the specific questions discussed or raised by either side, but we discussed in some detail means of improving investment. The Scottish T.U.C. fully appreciated—and it indicated this—the necessity of firms being able to finance some investment out of their own resources by having reasonable profitability.
    Captain W. Elliot: Would my right hon. Friend assure hon. Members opposite that if the politically-motivated strikes due to take place this week were called off it would greatly help to solve the unemployment problem?
    The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition has completely condemned strikes of a political nature against the Industrial Relations Bill, and I hope that he will have the support of all his party.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
    Mr. John D. Grantasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Altrincham on 19th February concerning inflation represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Friday, 19th February, in Altrincham and Sale

    1183
    on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at Altrincham on 19th February on wage inflation represents Her Majesty's Government's policy.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Grant: Is the Prime Minister aware that in that speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to inflation as
    "the greatest social evil of our time"—
    a description which some might feel aptly applies to the present Government? But could the Prime Minister, in view of his weekend speech in which he seemed to suggest that he was beginning to win the battle against inflation, give us some evidence of this, especially on the prices front? Can we have some examples of price reduction? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us, for example, where he does his shopping
    The Prime Minister: I said that there were the beginnings of indications of a de-escalation in wage awards. I should have thought that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would welcome this fact, because this is at the root at the moment of price inflation as well. As right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite themselves said at the end of their period in office that wage increases should be between 2½ and 4½ per cent., they should welcome our attempts to get them down to that level.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is not it clear that what is causing increasing concern at present is the level of investment Whether it be by Henry Ford or by any other company, is not it clear that they will not invest when it appears likely that sales of their products will not be made just because of the deflationary policies being adopted by the Government?
    The Prime Minister: It may be clear to the hon. Gentleman. It is not clear to anyone else. The fact is that for the motor industry in this country there is a home market to be satisfied and a demand which is not being met by British producers. That is clear because of the rate of increase in imports of foreign cars which are being sold on the British market. It is not a matter of too small
    1184
    a home market. The market is not being satisfied by home production.
    The point that Mr. Henry Ford and his colleagues made to us at lunch yesterday was that right across the world Ford agents are anxious to sell British-made cars but are unable to do so because of delays in deliveries resulting from industrial unrest.
    Mr. Barnett: Will the Prime Minister now answer my hon. Friend's Question? Whatever Henry Ford may have said to the right hon. Gentleman, is not it a fact that there is a depressing lack of confidence among British industrialists? They are not investing for the future, and the reason is the Government's deflationary policies?
    The Prime Minister: That is not the reason. It is because of the industrial unrest which is apparent to everyone. Let right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do all that they can to prevent it. Another reason is that companies have not a sufficient degree of profitability, as a result of excessive and inflationary wage claims, from which to invest. It is only when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite face those two points that they will be able to help British industry.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: The Prime Minister promised to end all these difficulties as soon as he got into power. All that he has done for nine months is to put the blame on the unions, on the Opposition, on anyone except himself. How many more months or years does he hope to remain in power and go on blaming everyone but his Government?
    The Prime Minister: We shall remain in power and deal with this inflation and with industrial relations, despite everything that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends do to try to prevent it.

    MINISTERIAL BROADCAST
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to make a Ministerial broadcast.
    The Prime Minister: When it is appropriate to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Ashley: I am deeply grateful for that comprehensive answer. Is the Prime Minister aware that an outstanding broadcast could be made about the

    1185
    Government's record since 18th June if he and his colleagues were prepared to illustrate their battle tactics in the fight against rising prices, and that the programme "Dad's Army" would be in serious danger of losing its audience? If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to launch a serious programme about his policies, is it not time that he stopped seeking scapegoats on this side of the House or elsewhere and, for a change, accepted liability for the failure to allow prosperity for any section of the community apart from the landlords and speculators who have done so well under his Government?
    The Prime Minister: I respect the hon. Gentleman's seriousness in these matters, as I do his point of view. Therefore, I will deal only with the second half of his question. If he consults his friends in the T.U.C. or the Scottish T.U.C., they will tell him that in our discussions I emphasised that these matters can be dealt with only by the combined action of employers and trade unionists, who, I understand, from both sides wish to carry on their arrangements in industry between themselves, and the Government in their economic policy. This must be a tripartite arrangement. That is our objective, and there is no question of our trying to find scapegoats. I am asking right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to face the facts of life for the first time.
    Mr. Thorpe: But is not it significant that Mr. Henry Ford is operating successfully in Germany where industrial relations give tremendous scope for participation by workers in works councils and give them the power to elect directors in whom they have confidence, all of which are absent from the present Industrial Relations Bill?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that this is one feature of the structure of German industry. Whether I put the same emphasis on it as he is prepared to do in achieving harmonious industrial relations, I doubt. The right hon. Gentleman's major point is that in a country in which there are good industrial relations the opportunities for both home and overseas markets are beter, and with that I agree.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is not it a contribution to the rising prices mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent,
    1186
    South (Mr. Ashley) to sell one's memoirs to two different newspapers?
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that the whole House will welcome his assurance about making a Ministerial broadcast when the time is ripe? If he has not done it before then, will he choose 16th June for that broadcast and do no more than read to the British people what he said on 16th June last year? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he said then what he intended to do about prices and unemployment, and how quickly—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It was very much too long, and the right hon. Gentleman is regretting it now. He will also recall his categorical statement that the balance of payments surplus for the year ending last April had reached its peak. In view of the increase in the balance of payments surplus since then, will he admit in his broadcast how wrong he was and how he misled the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition did not read the statement at the time. That was apparent from his remarks. As for his second point, I quoted the figures to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. As usual, the right hon. Gentleman has misquoted me. I said that the balance of payments trend was downwards. All the monthly figures indicate that, and the published figures for the first two quarters confirm it.

    SCOTTISH OFFICE (MINISTERS)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if, in view of the heavy legislative programme, he will now increase the number of Ministers at the Scottish Office.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Prime Minister if, in the interests of economy, he will reduce the number of Ministers at the Scottish Office.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister recognise that the Scottish Ministers are among the most hardest-worked in the Government and probably the most incompetent? In view of the fact that there is a considerable legislative programme in front of the Scottish Grand

    1187
    Committee, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider appointing a Minister at least for the night shift?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that my right hon. and hon. Friends are extremely hard working. They are also immensely able. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Scottish Education Bill—
    Mr. Hamilton: No, the Housing Bill which puts up the rents.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the problems of legislation, the problems arose over the Scottish Education Bill. The plain fact was that the Committee took 24 sittings and 76 hours as a result of the hon. Gentleman's filibuster. The Bill has only three Clauses. That compares with the Scottish Education Bill in 1969 which had 30 Clauses and which took only four sittings—10 fewer than the hon. Gentleman insisted upon.
    Mr. Lipton: Is it not quite ridiculous that a place with a population of 5·2 million should require five Ministers and two Law Officers to look after it, whereas London, with a population of 7·7 million, has not got a single Minister allocated to it to look after its interests? Does not this show a grotesque lack of proportion? Will the Prime Minister just get on with this?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, because I see that he was quoted in the Glasgow Herald today as saying that if London, with 8 million people, can manage without a Minister of its own, is it not ridiculous that this little enclave in Scotland should have this terrific Ministerial superstructure? I see that the Glasgow Herald also commented that the hon. Gentleman was not now confining his activities to Soho nightclubs and other dark places, but had turned his attention to Scotland. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will endear himself to his colleagues in Scotland or the Scottish people, and I do not share his views.
    Mr. Jennings: If, instead of accepting the advice of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), my hon. Friend appointed a Sassenach to guide the Scotsmen, would that not be much better?
    An Hon. Member: If you were appointed.
    Mr. Jennings: In view of experience on the Education (Scotland) Bill, is my right hon. Friend aware that that was no filibuster, that I should have been sacrificing my rights as Chairman if I had allowed it, that it was a highly skilful political exercise, all within the bounds of order, and that if he wishes to appoint a Sassenach to guide the Scots, in view of my experience on that Committee I am quite prepared to extend my activities at his invitation?
    The Prime Minister: I say to my hon. Friend that to describe a political action in our debating chambers as a filibuster is no reflection on the Chair; nor does it exclude a very capable political operation. In fact, if it succeeds, it usually combines skill with determination.
    Concerning my hon. Friend's offer as a Sassenach to go North of the Border, from the experience which both he and I have shared, I think that he is probably welcome to that appointment.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that when he spoke about the filibuster of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) the Chairman of the Committee assured him that it was no filibuster? Might I further point out that my hon. Friend was not a member of the Committee, and that may have had something to do with the fact that we got through the Bill in a very moderate time indeed.
    If the Prime Minister wants to get expedition on Scottish matters, first, will he try to get a majority of Scottish Members instead of being in such a complete minority? Secondly, will the Prime Minister try to show that his Ministers are not so incompetent as the one who was in charge of the Education (Scotland) Bill?
    The Prime Minister: I was going to say that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had been worn out by his hon. Friend, but I gather that it was the right hon. Gentleman who did the delaying, not his hon. Friend.
    In the Scottish Grand Committee we are following the perfectly normal drill in this House, and we shall succeed with it.

TOBACCO SMOKING (REPORT OF ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. CRONIN: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on his talks with the cigarette manufacturers; and what further steps he intends to take to reduce the deaths and ill-health arising from smoking.
Sir G. NABARRO: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now make a further statement on the Report of the Royal College of Physicians on Tobacco Smoking, having regard to the commencement of the Committee Stage of the Tobacco and Snuff (Health Hazards) Bill, scheduled for Wednesday, 17th March, 1971.
Mr. DEAKINS: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the annual expenditure by his Department on anti-tobacco smoking propaganda; and what plans he has to increase this amount.
Miss LESTOR: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) if he will enter into discussions with public transport concerns, with a view to the prohibition of cigarette smoking on buses, trains and aircraft;
(2) if he will enter into discussions with those concerned, with a view to the prohibiting of smoking in cinemas.
Sir G. NABARRO: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services (1) whether he will ask hospital authorities to discourage smoking in hospitals;
(2) whether he will request local authorities to arrange for more positive action to be taken to discourage cigarette smoking;
(3) whether he will ask National Health Service doctors to inform their patients of the health consequences of smoking;
(4) whether he will seek to enlist the help of television companies in discouraging cigarette smoking;
(5) what plans he has for dissuading young people from developing smoking habits;
1190
(6) whether he will request life insurance companies to consider offering lower premiums for non-smokers.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): With permission Mr. Speaker I will now answer Question Nos. *23, *30, *48, *53, *54 and unstarred Question Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 together.
I welcome this opportunity to make a statement to the House on the report of the Royal College of Physicians on Tobacco Smoking. I acknowledge widespread interest on both sides of the House and the particular concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 2nd February, inter-departmental discussions on all the implications of the report are being urgently pursued. I had already opened discussions with the tobacco industry before the report was published, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that these have reached a satisfactory conclusion.
The tobacco manufacturers have agreed voluntarily—and I would like to pay a tribute to the responsible and helpful way in which they have approached these discussions—to print in clear type a warning on each cigarette packet that, and I quote the words agreed, "Smoking can damage your health". According to the design of the packet, this will either be placed on both edge-sides of the packet, or, if on one side only, it will be presented with greater emphasis. In addition, each cigarette advertisement will carry a clear statement drawing attention to the warning notice on packets. A detailed code of practice is to be agreed with my Department. This agreement does not cover imported cigarettes which account for less than half of one per cent. of the cigarettes sold in this country.
The industry has agreed to the establishment of a standing scientific liaison committee, composed of some scientists appointed by it and others appointed by me. This committee will keep under review the search for less dangerous kinds of smoking and will devise satisfactory methods of determining for publication the tar and nicotine yield of the various brands of cigarette on the market. My Department will seek to assist the industry

1191
to identify acceptable methods of determining whether new smoking materials are in fact less dangerous.
I am suggesting to hospital and local health authorities ways in which they can discourage smoking, including setting aside certain areas in which there should be no smoking. The Chief Medical Officer is writing to all doctors on the subject. Perhaps the most important aspect is to dissuade the young from starting to smoke, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and I are considering how to tackle this very difficult problem.
In the next few days I shall be approaching those responsible for public transport, cinemas, theatres and the like to ask them to set aside more accommodation for non-smokers, and inviting the life insurance companies, in the light of the Royal College's report, to consider the possibility of lower premiums for non-smokers.
The Government wish the dangers of cigarette smoking to be widely understood. I hope, therefore, to enlist the help of those responsible for television programmes. I propose to supplement the work of the Health Education Council, which has spent £100,000 on smoking publicity in the current financial year, by providing it with additional money to mount a short but intensive television campaign to bring the risks involved in cigarette smoking to families in their homes.
The manufacturers are prepared to embark at once on printing the agreed notices provided that they can be assured that different requirements will not be imposed. On this assumption packets carrying the warning notice will begin to appear in the shops this summer. The television campaign will be timed to coincide with their appearance in quantity. On this assumption virtually all packets and advertisements will carry notices by the end of the year.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales are associated with the action I have outlined.
Mr. Cronin: While I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the progress that he has made so far is this important matter, may I ask whether he agrees that experience in the
1192
United States shows that these vague warnings are of somewhat limited value? Would it not be better if the warnings on the packets and advertisements referred to the specific diseases which are likely to be caused by cigarette tobacco?
Sir K. Joseph: I thought it right to have a short warning which would be easily taken in by the eye rather than to cover a larger range of warnings which would not be so visible on a relatively small surface.
Sir G. Nabarro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his arrangements have no contractual validity whatever, whereas the Private Member's Bill, backed by all parties in the House, has statutory implications?
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between us is very considerable in that his statement today relates only to cigarettes, whereas the Bill before the House covers tobacco and all tobacco products, including cigarettes?
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend mentioned one half of one per cent. Will he be absolutely implicit and say that that is a figure relating only to cigarettes? But if it is a matter of tobacco and tobacco products, including cigarettes, has my right hon. Friend, for example, reached a voluntary agreement on the hot line with Mr. Fidel Castro to conform to all the requirements which he proposes to impose on manufacturers in this country?
Sir K. Joseph: I have no doubt that the industry, which have together pledged its word to the Government, will fulfil its pledges. The agreement which I have entered into will be subject to a code, which will be published. My hon. Friend's Bill proposes to give the Minister considerable discretion. I have chosen to take discretion in reaching this agreement, which the Government think is a very proper first reaction to the report of the Royal College of Physicians. The Bill will delay the appearance of any warning notices in the shops, because the manufacturers cannot be expected to start on the very large printing process until they know what requirements are to be imposed upon them. Finally, it is the opinion of the Royal College, with which the Government agree, that pipe

1193
and cigar smoking present altogether smaller orders of danger than cigarette smoking. That is why, on the advice of the Royal College, this agreement concentrates on cigarette smoking.
Mr. Deakins: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assurance about more money being spent on anti-tobacco propaganda, but can he assure us that there will be money made available in each successive year, and that this will be the start of a sustained and continuous campaign, particularly among young people and school children, and that it will not be something which we do for a few months while tobacco packets have the advertisements put on them and not thereafter?
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is on to a very valid point, that the effective impact tends to diminish. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has inaugurated an inter-departmental study of all the implications of the Royal College's report. The first television campaign will be monitored. We shall have to wait for the result of that and the outcome of the inter-departmental study before we decide what further steps, if any, are needed.
Miss Lestor: Is the Secretary of State aware that the overtures which he is making regarding the prohibiting, perhaps, of smoking in many public places will be welcomed not only by people who are trying to give up smoking but by those of us who have never smoked? Has he considered the question of children obtaining cigarettes from slot machines? Is he prepared perhaps to consider the removal of slot machines because of the dangers to children?
Sir K. Joseph: I have no legislation in mind on the subject, but this is one of the topics which will be considered in the inter-departmental study.
Mr. J. H. Osborn: I welcome my right hon. Friend's general statement of the review of smoking in public places. Will he particularly extend this to public transport? Can he make it the custom to have compartments set aside where smoking is permitted, rather than nonsmoking?
Sir K. Joseph: It is this sort of possibility which I shall be discussing with the transport authorities.
Mrs. Shirley Williams: We welcome the Secretary of State's statement, but we would also like to pay credit to his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) for his adamant decision that this matter should be debated in Parliament, which seems a very proper thing to bring about.
I have three questions. First, will the right hon. Gentleman try to ensure that when the nicotine and tar content of cigarettes becomes known as a result of the standing committee which he is setting up it will be possible to put the nicotine and tar content on the cigarette packets themselves, thereby encouraging safer smoking? Second, he said nothing about advertising on hoardings and in other ways. I wonder whether he could say something about that. Third, does he intend, in reaching an agreement about smoking in public places, to try so far as possible to ensure that the major halls, such as cinemas and theatres, should not now be normally available to smokers, since this gives offence to non-smokers, who, in view of the danger, should perhaps be allowed to predominate?
Sir K. Joseph: In the light of the voluntary agreement which the industry has reached with the Government and which can be put into effect very quickly, the Government do not think that there is a case for legislation. I hope very much that, in the light of what I have said, my hon. Friend will see fit to withdraw his Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If hon. Members wish to suggest that he should continue with this Bill, which of course he is entirely free to do, then they must recognise that they are delaying the arrival of the warning packages and advertisements in the public eye—
Sir G. Nabarro Sir G. Nabarro indicated dissent.
Hon. Members: Why?
Sir K. Joseph: Because, as I have explained, the industry cannot be expected to embark upon a massive reprinting operation to fulfil its voluntary agreement when legislation may impose different requirements upon it.
Mrs. Williams Mrs. Williams rose—
Sir K. Joseph: I am dealing with these questions—
Mrs. Williams: Could I just pursue this? Surely we are entitled to ask, why not? It suggests that the right hon. Gentleman has reached some agreement with the industry of a kind which he has not revealed to the House.
Sir K. Joseph: No, it is a very big operation, with implications for the relative markets of the individual companies, to embark first upon one set of reprinting in conformity with one agreement, only in a few months to have to shift their ground altogether. I do not think that they can be expected voluntarily to submit to the first in the light of the second.
The right hon. Lady asked about printing the tar and nicotine contents on the packet. The Government's intention is, after suitably scientific definition of the dangerous ingredients, to arrange for a "league table" to be published so that the public can assess the tar and nicotine content of one particular brand against that of another. I told the House that advertising on hoardings and posters is covered by the agreement, and there will be a reference to the warning notice. Finally, I shall be discussing with the entertainment interests the possibility of a larger allocation of space for what I hope are now the majority—the nonsmokers.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before my right hon. Friend agrees to the type of propaganda which should go out, would he have careful consultations with the dental profession, not least because many people who give up smoking then take up sweets, which are very damaging to their health?
Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir, although I am a sweet-eater myself. We have to recognise that the graduation may be from cigarette addiction to pipe and perhaps cigar smoking, and even sweets—but they do not deal death.
Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having regard to human fallibility, the measures announced this afternoon, however welcome, will certainly fail to reduce the incidence of smoking? Does he not think that it will be much better to reduce death by going for the safer smoke? Therefore, how much money will he make available for further research into producing a safer smoke? Will he consider the official
1196
publication of a league table, showing the nicotine and tar content of all the brands, so as to encourage those manufacturers who have had some success in reducing the tar content?
Sir K. Joseph: I just said that a league table is the Government's intention. The industry, I am assured, is spending all the money which can practicably be spent on searching for a safer cigarette. If there were evidence that more money could usefully be spent, I would certainly consider it, but it is greatly in the interests of the industry, of course, to arrive at a safer smoke.
Sir B. Rhys Williams: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that the amount of research done into the relative hazard of smoking cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco is really conclusive and final? If not, will he make funds available so that this research can be completed?
Sir K. Joseph: I am naturally chary of pontificating about research, but I am told that American, Canadian and British research validates the conclusion which I gave, and that less wide-ranging research in Germany and Switzerland goes in the other direction.
Mr. Bagier: While welcoming the statement of the Secretary of State and also paying tribute to the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), I trust that the Secretary of State will also mention the long campaign which my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) also pursued prior to this. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about encouraging the young. Will he consider approaching toy manufacturers and importers to ask them to restrict the bringing in of toys which produce simulated cigarettes? Is he aware that, alongside a primary school, children can buy small things which look like cigarettes, filled with powdered chalk, which give the appearance of smoking? This should not be encouraged.
Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Member for Willesden, West had perhaps a less sympathetic Government to deal with. I think that there is a limit to the amount of avuncular help which any Government should go in for. We must watch that we do not go too far. But I will consider the hon. Member's point.
Mr. Adley: While recognising the desirable motives of those who are pressing for this legislation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that there is a danger that young people who are persuaded not to smoke might spend the money so saved in less desirable ways—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—particularly remembering that the tobacco industry is a legitimate employer of labour and a considerable provider of taxation revenue?
Sir K. Joseph: One cannot speculate on how the money so saved would be spent. I very much hope that the industry will find a safer form of cigarette, because I accept that there is widespread pleasure derived from smoking in moderation and that there is much employment involved.
Mr. Russell Kerr: While welcoming the Minister's general approach to this matter, may I counsel him against the publication of any form of league table? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is he aware that the commercial interests are so big in this instance that it would be open to possible bribery and similar undesirable practices?
Sir K. Joseph: I reject that allegation altogether. The industry has jumped eagerly at the idea of a committee based impartially upon its scientists and Government scientists to assess the scrupulous objectivity of any publication of the ingredients.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that another point of view is held by some of us and by many people outside—that there is a danger of the Government taking too grandmotherly an approach to this and other matters? If people do not already know that there are dangers inherent in smoking, they will never know. Many people believe there is a limit to which the Government should go in these matters, and I believe that my right hon. Friend has reached that limit this afternoon.
I urge him not to make representations to insurance companies, which have the right to assess for themselves what the risks are before they insure people. I urge him to stop at the point he has reached this afternoon; to go for the printing of slogans on cigarette packets but not to interfere in any other way.
Sir K. Joseph: The view which my hon. Friend has expressed is very respectable. The Government are limiting themselves largely to making sure that people understand what they are doing when they smoke cigarettes. The toll in terms of misery, illness and death is too large for the Government to ignore.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the obduracy of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is matched by mine? My Bill will come up for its Second Reading on 7th May. It is equally comprehensive and I certainly will not withdraw it. Did he discuss the whole question of gift coupons and the way in which £51 million is spent on persuading people to smoke while only £100,000, plus the extra which is now being given, is spent on dissuading them?
Is he aware that the problem of printing does not hold water because since 1964 the manufacturers have had to print warnings on all cigarette packets exported to the United States to comply with the law of America? Does he appreciate, therefore, that this idea of time being lost does not arise?
Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about coupons is "No."
Mr. Pavitt: What about the remainder of my question?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next business.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Vehicles (Excise) Act, 1971.

2. Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1971.

3. Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs & Excise) Act, 1971.

4. Buckinghamshire County Council Act, 1971.

5. Southampton Corporation Act, 1971.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended, further considered.

New Clause 2

  PRESSURE ON EMPLOYER TO INFRINGE RIGHTS OF WORKERS
  5

  (1) In determining, for the purposes of Part II of this Act, any question as to the reason, or principal reason, for which a worker was dismissed, penalised, or otherwise discriminated against, or any question whether the reason or principal reason for which a worker was dismissed was a good reason or whether the employer acted reasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing him,—

  (a) no account shall be taken of any pressure which, by means of any action to which this section applies, was exercised on the employer to dismiss, penalise or otherwise discriminate against the worker, and

  (b) any such question shall be determined as if no such pressure had been exercised.

  10

  (2) This section applies to action of any of the following descriptions, that is to say

  (a) calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike, or threatening to do so;

  (b) organising, procuring or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or threatening to do so.

  15

  (3) It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person (including any trade union or other organisation of workers or any official of a trade union or of such an organisation) to take any action to which this section applies, if the purpose or principal purpose for which that action is taken is—

  20

  (a) to induce an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, to take any action which (whether by virtue of subsection (1) of this section or otherwise) is 20 or would be an unfair industrial practice, in accordance with section 5(2) or section 20(1) of this Act, on the part of the employer or of the person acting on the employer's behalf, or

  25

  (b) to induce an employer to comply with any provision in an agreement in so far as that provision is void by virtue of subsection (1) of section 7 of this Act, or to induce an employer to enter into an agreement consisting of or including a provision which would be void by virtue of that subsection, or

  (c) to induce an employer or an employers' association to join in making an application under Part I of Schedule (Provisions as to certain closed shop agreements) to this Act.

  30

  (4) In this Act 'irregular industrial action short of a strike' means any concerted course of conduct (other than a strike) which, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute,—

  (a) is carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services, and

  35

  (b) in the case of some or all of them, is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or (where they are not employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service.—[The Solicitor-General.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.54 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members will see from my list of provisional selection that it will be in order to discuss at the same time the following:
  New Clause 4—"Contribution to compensation on complaint under s. 94"—
  1200
  and Government Amendments Nos. 10, 12, 13, 17, 77, 78, 84 and 103.
  The Solicitor-General: New Clauses 2 and 4 do not make any far-reaching changes in the structure of the Bill. They are, however, a logical and fair development of the proposals which the House has already accepted.
  Hon. Members have already accepted the proposition that an individual who is unfairly dismissed is entitled to a

  1201
  remedy. That is in Clause 20. Hon. Members have already accepted the proposition that an individual who is discriminated against because of his exercise of trade union rights is entitled to a remedy. That is in Clause 5. Hon. Members have accepted that an individual can be deprived of those rights or interfered with in the exercise of those rights not only by an employer but also by means of industrial pressure brought to bear on his employer. That proposition is implicit in Clauses 6 and 25.
  There is no doubt, in the light of those propositions, that a dismissal or discrimination that is induced by industrial pressure can be unfair and is something in respect of which a remedy is necessary. A discrimination of that kind could be procured by industrial pressure not only because of the individual's membership or non-membership of a trade union, about which there are differences between the two sides of the House, but on discriminatory grounds because of his sex, race or religion, and that is recognised under other legislation.
  In all these cases the individual needs a remedy against those responsible for the discrimination from which he suffers, and the employer who is being encouraged to discriminate in this sort of way by industrial pressure also needs a remedy to prevent unfair pressure of this kind.
  Those are the propositions which have already been recognised in Clauses 6 and 25, but those two Clauses do not, as drafted, entirely cover the field where it is necessary to provide a remedy. There is, first, a certain amount of overlap between the two Clauses, and, secondly, Clause 25 in particular puts it on the employee to prove an all-or-nothing situation. It is for him to get an order under that Clause, and he must show that the discrimination or dismissal was induced by industrial action in plain terms. If he fails to do so, he gets no remedy under the Clause. Under that Clause he would also have to bring proceedings in the National Industrial Relations Court, and that seems to place undue difficulties in the way of the employee.
  We intend by these new proposals to improve the position of the employee, and we also intend to make sure that, in conjunction with new Clause 3, an employer has two clear remedies in respect of
  1202
  discrimination of this kind; namely, that induced by industrial action or the threat of it. First—this is where new Clause 3 comes in—it makes it plain that the employer can apply for an order to restrain industrial action that is trying to get him to act unfairly. Secondly—this is where new Clause 4 takes effect—an order can enable an employer who has been ordered to pay compensation to an unfairly dismissed or discriminated against individual to secure contributions from those who induced him by industrial action to act unfairly in that way so far as that is a just and fair conclusion.
  These provisions recognise the reality of the situation—that although in some cases it is plainly the employer who acts unfairly and who is solely responsible for acting unfairly to secure the dismissal of or discrimination against an employee, there are other cases in which that sort of result is brought about by industrial action organised on such a scale and in such a way as to be unfair to the individual and to the employer, who finds himself placed between the individual and those who organised that sort of industrial action.
  4.0 p.m.
  I will explain the object of these two Clauses. The opportunity has been taken of drawing together the various provisions which apply to the inducing of unfair dismissal or unfair discrimination. To draw them to the attention of the House, Clause 6 of the Bill is to be repealed and that is the subject of Amendment 10. Clause 7(2) that is the Clause which makes it an unfair practice to organise industrial action to induce entry into a closed shop is also to be repealed and is the subject of Amendments 12 and 13. Clause 25 dealing with the question of it being unfair to organise industrial action to procure dismissal is also to be removed and is the subject of Amendment 70. Clauses 6, 7(2) and 25 will all reappear in a more compact form in the provisions of new Clause 2(2), (3) and (4) with a couple of additions which I will explain later.
  Subsection (2) identifies the kind of industrial action which can be unfair and in respect of which the new Clause can operate. It does so in a way familiar to the House from a number of other Clauses in the Bill, Clauses 6, 86 and 87.

  1203
  The Clause applies to the "calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike" or any irregular industrial action short of a strike or threatening to do so.
  Subsection (4) reuproduces the definition of "irregular industrial action short of a strike", which was in Clause 6(2) which is to be repealed. There is one addition to the definition of irregular industrial action short of a strike which appears at the very end of this new Clause. The words added are:
  "… or (where they are not employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service."
  so as to make it plain that collective action of that form can take place as a result of the activities of workers other than employees who are employed on terms and conditions of service rather than under contracts of employment.
  That brings it in line with the other parts of the Bill. There is a corresponding Amendment, Amendment 103, which simply replaces the reference in the definition Clause 149 to explain where irregular industrial action short of a strike is to be defined. Subsection (3) identifies the situations in which industrial action can be unfair. Subsection (3)(a) identifies Clauses 5 and 20 as situations in which industrial action could be unfair if the action is taken or threatened to induce an employer or a person acting on behalf of an employer to take any action which would be an unfair industrial practice, in accordance with Clause 5(2) as we have already discussed it, or under Clause 21 as we have already discussed it.
  Subsection (3)(b) reproduces the provision from Clause 7(2) about it being unfair to organise industrial action to enforce a closed shop. Subsection (3)(c) is the matter which the House discussed yesterday and which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to in his opening speech. It is also to be unfair to organise industrial action to induce an employer or employers' association to join in the making of a closed shop agreement. Those are the matters which draw together the two additions I have explained, the provisions which are being replaced.
  The effective provision of new Clause 2 is in subsection (1). That provides that
  1204
  when the question has to be considered as to whether a person has been unfairly dismissed, or discriminated against, where the employee is claiming or alleging unfair discrimination or unfair dismissal, in considering whether it is unfair, the tribunal will disregard any industrial action or threat of it. The tribunal will simply consider, on the merits, whether the dismissal or discrimination can be identified as fair or unfair. From the point of view of the employee bringing the claim in that situation it is all one to him whether the employer is acting unfairly against him, off his own bat, or because he is being induced or persuaded to do so.
  In the first instance, and this is the effect of subsection (1) it is made plain that the employee who brings a claim brings his claim against the employer and the question has to be answered: Can the employer establish a fair ground for dismissal quite apart from whether he is subject to any industrial pressure? There is a matching change in Clause 103 made by Amendment 84. This requires the same test to be applied in any case brought under Clause 103. The question as it arises, before we come to new Clause 4, is: Can the employee establish a claim either because of discrimination or unfair dismissal by the employer, whether or not the employer was persuaded or induced to act by industrial action?
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman say that we had discussed Clause 21?
  The Solicitor-General: No.
  Mr. Orme: I thought the Solicitor-General said that we had discussed it, but I cannot remember discussing it in Committee.
  The Solicitor-General: I did not say that. I said that the House had discussed Clause 6.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Member will find tomorrow that he said quite distinctly that we had discussed Clause 21. Let it be on the record now that we have had no opportunity of discussing that important Clause.
  The Solicitor-General: My right hon. Friend tells me I did say that. If I did

  1205
  say it it was an oversight. What we were discussing was the proposition contained in Clauses 5 and 20 corresponding to Clauses 6 and 21. If I implied or appeared to imply that we had discussed Clause 21 I withdraw that.
  The propositions I have referred to in Clauses 5, 6 and 7 have all been discussed and are reproduced here. The effective provision of the new Clause is that which I have explained under subsection (1). The fresh thought comes in in new Clause 4 dealing with the employers' right to obtain a contribution from any person or organisation who has induced him to act unfairly against an employee, if it is just and equitable that that should happen.
  I will explain this new Clause quite shortly. The circumstances in which new Clause 4 operates are defined in subsection (1). First of all, it is a situation where a tribunal is making an award to the individual because, from his point of view, he has been unfairly treated. Secondly it is the situation where the employer claims that his action has been procured by indusetrial action and thirdly it is a situation when it is established that industrial action was unfair as I have explained it under new Clause 2.
  In those circumstances subsection (2) of new Clause 4 makes it plain that the employer may join the person or organisation who was bringing pressure to hear upon him to get him to act in that unfair way, and in these circumstances the industrial tribunal or court may, if it considered that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order requiring that third party, the organiser or organisations responsible for the unfair industrial action, to contribute to the compensation payable to the individual. The extent of the contribution is set out in subsection (3) as such amount as is just and equitable, amounting, although this might be unusual, to a complete indemnity in certain circumstances.
  There are certain additional points to note about new Clause 4. First of all, subsection (4) protects the official of a registered union from any personal liability in the same way as is done by corresponding provisions elsewhere in the Bill, but leaves it open to the court or tribunal to order an organisation to pay such compensation in a way with which
  1206
  the House will be familiar from other provisions.
  Subsection (3) makes it plain, and this is an important part of the way in which the two Clauses are constructed, that the primary liability for unfair treatment of an individual, of whatever kind we are concerned with, is on the employer but, and this is where we part company from the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and her provisions in this respect, if that employer can show that some part of the responsibility for what has happened to the individual, who has won his case, so to speak, rests with an organisation or with other people who have promoted industrial action to bring about just that unfair result, that organisation or organiser of industrial action can be required to contribute to the compensation that is awarded to the individual.
  We believe that this is a central and sensible provision. It accords with the realities of industrial life. Just as employers can act unfairly, whether by dismissal or discrimination, so organisations can conceive unfair purposes and seek to strike or organise industrial action against employers as a means of producing an unfair result for an individual—
  Mr. John Mendelson: Unfair.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member interrupts by saying, "Unfair", but what has first to be established in this situation is that the individual has won his case against the employer and has established the proposition that he has been unfairly dismissed. That is the first premise. If the individual puts himself in a position where he can show that his employer has treated him unfairly the provisions of Clauses 20 and 22 apply, but when the employer can show that he was prompted and pressed by industrial action into acting like that we believe it to be entirely right that those who organised that industrial action with a view of producing that result should contribute to such extent as is fair to such compensation as the individual receives.
  That is nothing more than recognition of the realities of industrial life. It does not involve the proposition that trade unions or organisations of workers are generally unfair, any more than it involves the proposition that employers

  1207
  are generally unfair. But just as an individual employer, just as an employing corporation, can sometimes act unfairly, so we believe that organisations of workers and those who lead them can similarly act, and try to make other people act, unfairly, and we are closing our eyes to the facts of industrial life if we choose to ignore it.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: But is not the hon. and learned Gentleman closing his eyes to the effect of the Bill; namely, that in it the Government have taken their own entirely arbitrary definition of "unfair", and applied it to such natural, and certainly not contrary to natural law, situations as sympathetic action, or action by unionists who refuse to work next to non-unionists?
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady has made that point in other contexts before, but it has no validity in the context of this Clause, because for the provisions of new Clause 4 to come into play so as to entitle the employer to seek a contribution from the organisation of workers, the dismissed or discriminated against employee has to show as against his employer that he was unfairly treated. The only way in which hon. Members opposite can quarrel with that concept in this part of the Bill is on the grounds that by Clause 5 we give to an individual the right, subject to the qualifications contained in the agency shop provision, not to belong to a union. If that modest proposition—
  Mr. Orme: Modest—this is the centre of the whole thing.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General:—on which we spent so much time is to be regarded as invalidating this entirely sensible provision, I can only express astonishment. But the central purpose of the Clause is that if an individual is dismissed by an employer in circumstances which are unfair, as between him and the employer, someone else who causes that situation should, if it is right, be required to contribute to it.
  Mr. Orme: The Solicitor-General should recognise that people in industry are not dismissed for being trade unionists or for being activists. The employer finds some excuse for dismissing
  1208
  a trade unionist, and those working alongside decide whether or not he has been unfairly dismissed. Sometimes they take action and sometimes they do not. The hon. and learned Gentleman is denying them taking that basic action.
  The Solicitor-General: I am not denying them taking that action without providing any alternative remedy. We do not believe that we have to continue living in a world in which decisions as to the fairness or unfairness of dismissal have to be taken by resort to the crude and destructive methods of industrial action when alternative remedies are available. We are here providing a fair and sensible system whereby anyone who complains of unfair dismissal can go to the tribunal, and if he shows that he has been dismissed and there is any suggestion that he has been dismissed because of his participation in trade union activities, or anything of that sort, he is entitled to compensation from the employer and, indeed, entitled to be re-engaged to the same extent as under the provisions foreshadowed by Donovan.
  We are here providing a system to defend the rights of individuals, and we cannot believe that it is impossible or intolerable to ask the trade union movement as well as the country to accept that this is a sensible alternative, so that in the resolution of this kind of dispute the resort to industrial action becomes a weapon that is not a weapon of first resort but is replaced by a civilised code and a civilised framework for the resolution of these matters.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises an extremely important point. In the event of a blackleg in a strike being subsequently dismissed by an employer the allegation might be that because he was a blackleg in the strike the action had been induced by the trade union. But in normal industrial practice today there are sometimes mitigating circumstances, and workers, notwithstanding having to come back to work with former blacklegs, do in some circumstances forgive and forget. In other cases bitterness arises. The employer meets that situation, if he is a solid and sensible person, by perhaps finding the blackleg worker alternative employment elsewhere. But in such circumstances as the hon. and learned

  1209
  Gentleman is outlining; wholesale advantage could be taken of this provision by employers to saddle the union or union organiser with these responsibilities. The employer must always take the prime responsibility. He is the agent of dismissal and the agent of hiring and firing.
  The Solicitor-General: That is precisely why the Clause puts the primary responsibility on the employer, and the third party, the organiser of industrial action, comes into play only when the individual has established his right of remedy against the employer, and the organiser of industrial action comes into play only to the extent that it is right and fair for him to be brought in to share the liability. The hon. Gentleman suggests that the resolution of disputes that can arise after the settlement of a strike, the redeployment of a labour force in order to accommodate friction between those who take part in a strike and those who do not take part in a strike—"blacklegs" as the hon. Gentleman chooses to call them—is something for tranquil and reasonable action between reasonable men.
  If that were so, and if the House and the country were satisfied that that was what always happened, there would be scarcely any need for these provisions. Unhappily, however, the House and the country know very well that in this kind of situation cases do arise of wholly unfair and intolerable discrimination against individuals who are doing no more than assert reasonable, sensible and loyal positions. It is only right for those individuals to have access to this kind of remedy within the framework which we are proposing. If it be a sledgehammer to crack a nut, the hon. Gentleman need not be worried about it. In fact, it is an important and legitimate provision to secure fair play for the individual.
  Anyone who believes that the whole of our industrial life is conducted without unfairnesses ever being inflicted or attempted upon the individual by a trade union or by organisations of workers—which is the position adopted by hon. Members opposite, while they believe, at the same time, that our industrial life is so unfair that individuals need to be provided with remedies against their employers—is looking at the world with a totally blinkered view.
  1210
  Organisations, be they organisations of employers or organisations of workers, can be unfair. One has only to read the newspapers day after day at this time to see the way in which unfairnesses can be inflicted upon individuals by organisations of this kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the newspapers?"] I hear one hon. Member opposite mutter, "The newspapers". One has only to read the letters one receives—I know that this is true of the mail received by my right hon. and hon. Friends—to find case after case in which people are identifying situations in which they are being treated unfairly. All we are saying is that the justice which is to be provided by the Bill should be justice available against anyone who can be shown in fact to have acted unfairly, with responsibility being properly apportioned.
  I come back again to the point that there can be liability upon the inducing organisation only if, in the first case, the dismissal by the employer was unfair. If there is no liability on the employer, if he has good cause for the dismissal or the discrimination, that is an end of the matter, and in that situation still less is there any possibility of the organisers of industrial action being under any liability at all.
  I return to a theme which was, understandably, mentioned by hon. Members opposite in our earlier debates. It was suggested then that in some cases an individual may behave unsafely, dangerously or incompetently, and in those circumstances, it was said, it is perfectly right and natural for those who are working with him, and those who organise them, to go to the employer and say in plain terms, "That man is a menace. If you allow him to remain on this site any longer, we will not stand for it." We had a graphic illustration put to us by one hon. Gentleman opposite in our earlier debates.
  In those circumstances, if the employer chooses, as one expects he would, to dismiss the person who had been identified as incompetent, dangerous or unsafe, there can be no question of that dismissal being regarded as unfair on the part of the employer. It would be a perfectly good case of dismissing someone whom the employer could establish—no

  1211
  doubt, with the support of the union—was incompetent, unsafe or dangerous, and, if it is fair for the employer to dismiss such a person, again there can be no question of industrial action to secure his dismissal being identified as unfair.
  I come back to the point that it is only when the dismissal or discrimination by the employer is capable of being established as itself unfair to the individual that these two Clauses provide for a contribution by those who organise industrial action to produce that unfair result, to such extent as makes sense. This is doing no more than provide for a fair and reasonable distribution of liability towards the individual victim of unfair discrimination; liability, that is, for the compensation to which he would certainly be entitled.
  Mr. Harold Walker: I begin by congratulating the Solicitor-General on the admirable and deft manner in which he weaved his way from Clause to Clause and subsection to subsection, particularly in the opening part of his speech. I could not help looking at the faces of some of his hon. and learned Friends, distinguished lawyers in their own right. Their blank looks were testimony to the difficulty under which I was labouring at the same time.
  The Solicitor-General is not only a distinguished lawyer but he is, I understand, the architect of the Bill, and it would be astonishing if he did not know his own Bill as he has demonstrated this afternoon, but I wonder how the trade union officials and shop stewards to whom the Bill applies will have the slightest hope of starting to understand its complications if we in the House labour under such difficulties in trying to understand the complexities of this Measure. With every new Clause, Schedule and Amendment, and with every new cross-reference, this complex fabric becomes tattier. It is beginning to look distinctly ragged at the edges.
  The Solicitor-General has repeatedly referred to the realities of industry. If I may say so—I say it without in any way wishing to be deprecatory or derogatory to him—some of us can claim to have somewhat more authentic knowledge when we speak on the realities of industry than the Solicitor-General can. He
  1212
  really does not understand the realities of industry.
  I am at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he talks about his desire, indeed, our desire—I am sure that I can speak for hon. Members on both sides here—to establish remedies against flagrant injustice. If these two new Clauses were designed to do just that, he would find a not unsympathetic response from the Opposition. But they do not do that. They go far beyond that.
  It is right to stress at the outset that all of us, while we abhor injustice, have come across situations in which to remedy one injustice can only create another and greater injustice. This is part of the reality of industrial relations. We find in industry the truth of the old adage that a chain is as strong as its weakest link.
  Very often, the weak link in the chain is the non-unionist, the blackleg. For that reason, unless all the workers in a particular establishment are to be exposed to injustice, injustice against which they can defend themselves only by having good trade union organisation, they have to put pressure on an individual to join a union. This is part of the reality which the right hon. Gentleman does not see. I apologise to the Solicitor-General and the House for miscalling him. He is not a right hon. Gentleman, he is not a Privy Councillor—he is neither a privy nor a councillor—he is an honourable and learned Gentleman.
  What I am putting accords more closely with the reality of industry, with which I am familiar, than it does with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been describing as the reality. I am sure that he will agree that both these new Clauses set out to diminish the power of trade unions and trade unionists to put pressure on employers. Indeed, he said so, and that is how both Clauses are styled. But trade unions are nothing if they are not pressure groups. It is not their only function, but it is their main function to be a pressure group.
  The principal object of the pressure which trade unions apply is the employer. Pressurising employers is one of the main functions of a trade union. By and large, their effectiveness is a reflection

  1213
  of their ability to pressurise, and in so far as this or any other parts of the Bill are designed to reduce that ability to pressurise, they are aimed at weakening the trade unions. That cannot be denied.
  It may be argued, though I have serious doubts about the strength of the argument, that subsection (1) of new Clause No. 2 might possibly be construed as conceding something to the unions' side of the argument. It might be said that by compelling the employer to stand on his own, depriving him of the opportunity to find a scapegoat when he is seeking a reason for having dismissed a worker, it could to that extent deter an employer from acting hastily or without sound and just reason. This also falls into the pattern of the Government's general philosophy of compelling people to stand on their own feet and thus to harden their attitude and position in particular situations.
  4.30 p.m.
  As the Solicitor-General, by implication, conceded, if I understood his speech, this exemption from, "Do not blame me", only applies to the determination of the reason for the dismissal. It seems that that is much more than offset by the provisions of new Clause 4, which the Solicitor-General described, whereby the employer, as outlined to us, can have the union dragged before the Industrial Court or before the tribunal not only to carry the can but also to foot the bill.
  The Solicitor-General joins his right hon. Friend in consistently reiterating his belief, no doubt sincerely held, that people in industry should be members of their trade unions. They equally repeatedly insist that they do not want to detract from or diminish the role or function of trade unions. But we heard the Solicitor-General condemning the crude and destructive methods used by unions, and presumably this is what the Government are tilting at. They prefer peaceful persuasion as a method of carrying out their functions. So do we all. When does peaceful persuasion cross that hazy frontier and become inducement? When does it cease to be legitimate and become illegitimate? It seems that it is extremely difficult for lawyers, let alone laymen like us, to distinguish between the two.
  1214
  We see again resurrected in the new Clause this minefield of
  "irregular industrial action short of a strike."
  In our earlier debates we did not have an adequate explanation of some of the examples that were put before the House. One of my hon. Friends has referred to the difficulties arising from, for example, the refusal of people in a factory to cooperate with the non-unionist. I am not talking of the "down tools if he comes in" attitude, but of the situation which will arise on the assumption that there is an acceptance of the provisions of the Bill, where the trade unions in an establishment, confronted with the man exercising his new-found right under Clause 5 and saying, "I shall not be a trade uninist", accept this but say, "All right, we will just not co-operate with him. We will not deliberately send him to Coventry, but you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink."
  Life in a factory is essentially a social business. It is only tolerable when people can work effectively and efficiently in association and co-operation with each other, with the ordinary give and take of industrial life, where mate helps mate, where they swap tools, help each other out, and so on. The reality of the industrial situation is that it is intolerable for an individual to try to work alongside people who do not want anything to do with him. I ask the Solicitor-General to say whether that irregular industrial action short of a strike may constitute an unfair industrial action under the provisions of new Clause 2.
  There are other new weapons in the trade unionist's armoury these days. I am not merely talking about working to rule, although my understanding of "working to rule", which presumably is construed as one of the irregular actions short of an actual strike, is that this was a decision to do what one ought to do anyhow in the first place, to observe the rules of working. It is a sad commentary that it becomes an effective industrial weapon, because so often in our industrial life generally, in the interests of efficiency and production, or perhaps under the coercion of piecework prices, people go beyond what the rules require them to do and often expose themselves to risks of all kinds. I am thinking of the new weapon used recently by

  1215
  draughtsmen up and down the country, that it, working without enthusiasm. I confess that this was a fairly common feature of my industrial life when I worked in a factory, but I never dreamed of it being used as an industrial bargaining weapon. Apparently it has some potency. In that situation, how can one define "lack of enthusiasm"? The Government are getting themselves into what seems a hopeless quagmire because of their inability to recognise the new answers to the industrial situation.
  Exactly what does new Clause 2(3)(c) mean? That contains the provision that it shall be an unfair industrial practice
  "to induce an employer or an employer's association to join in making an application"
  to establish an approved closed shop. Surely the Government cannot mean that it can be an unfair industrial action, exposed to action in the Industrial Court or before the tribunal, for shop stewards or trade union officials to say to an employer, "We have here all the conditions for a closed shop, post-entry. Will you join with us in making an application to have this ratified and formalised?" It seems that that is exactly what the new Clause says. I shall not pursue that point because there is an Amendment on the Order Paper which no doubt will be moved later.
  On new Clause 4, I remind the House that the same hazards which I have been describing arising in new Clause 2 exist in new Clause 4, but in a new kind of situation, because now there is being written into the Bill an open invitation to employers seeking to dismiss a worker to use the trade union or the shop steward as a scapegoat. It seems to go even beyond that. As I understand it, even a shop steward who is carrying out his normal union recruiting functions can land himself in trouble with the combined provisions of new Clauses 2 and 4.
  The shop steward is the principal recruitment agent for the union. The rulebook of my own union, the A.E.F., imposes such an obligation on the shop steward. The requirement is that he shall ensure that all persons working in the particular workplace where he functions shall be the members of the trade union. It seems that he is running the risk of landing himself before the National Industrial Relations Court or the tribunal
  1216
  if he carries out his responsibility and seeks to peacefully persuade the worker to become a member of the trade union. But more than that, and perhaps most offensive of all, is that the Clause deliberately reproduces—
  The Solicitor-General: To suggest that a shop steward or anybody else could have any liability for seeking peacefully to persuade somebody to be a member of the trade union is a grotesque misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill, because the provisions of this Clause and new Clause 4 apply only in respect of
  "calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike, or threatening to do so"
  in order to bring about the dismissal of someone because he will not belong to a union. But any kind of persuasion directed or addressed to the employer or to the individual to belong to a union is entirely fair, and, indeed, persuasion by the employer of the individual to join a union, and there is no foundation to the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman puts forward.
  Mr. Walker: If the Solicitor-General says that I have misunderstood the Bill and that the situation to which I have referred could not arise, I am happy. I said that I was taking new Clauses 2 and 4 together for the purpose of making this point. New Clause 2(3) provides:
  "(3) It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person to take any action to which this section applies, if the purpose or principal purpose for which that action is taken is—

  (a) to induce an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, to take any action which is or would be an unfair industrial practice, in accordance with section 5(2)…"

  Clause 5(2) provides:
  "It shall accordingly be an unfair industrial practice for any employer, or for any person acting on behalf of an employer,—

  (a) to prevent or deter a worker from exercising any of the rights conferred on him by subsection (1) of this section".

  Clause 5(1) gives a person a statutory right not to belong to a trade union.
  I may be wrong as the Solicitor-General says, but I believe that the cold black and white print says that anybody who is held by the courts to be seeking to interfere with an individual's right not to belong to a union is guilty of an unfair industrial action.
  The Solicitor-General: There is a misunderstanding on the hon. Gentleman's part. This arises on new Clause 2 (3), and this is common to the Bill:
  "It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person … to take any action to which this section applies"
  for the purpose of inducing an employer to disregard a man's right not to belong to a union, as the hon. Gentleman put it. It is only
  "to take any action to which this section applies".
  Subsection (2) says:
  "This section applies to action of any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

  (a) calling, organising, procuring … a strike".

  It is only the organisation of industrial action that is taken to induce an employer to discriminate that can be unfair. Peaceful persuasion by the employer, by a shop steward, by people of each other, persuasion by the employer because he has entered into an agency shop agreement—all that is entirely fair. The only restraint is upon the organisation of industrial action designed to infringe a worker's right either to belong or not to belong, subject to the agency shop provision. It must go as far as the organisation of industrial action as defined before there can be any shadow of suspicion of its being unfair.
  Mr. Walker: The Solicitor-General suggests that I have it wrong. I was about to go on to describe what would happen in the normal course of industrial practice where the shop steward seeks to carry the obligation imposed on him by the rules of his union and where the trade unionists in the factory say to him, "We are unhappy about this situation", as a result of which the steward must go and inform the employer. If the Solicitor-General tells me that I have it wrong and that the shop steward's seeking to persuade the employer that he ought to have the man in and say to him, "It would be good sense if you fell in line" would not the inducing the employer to commit the offence or the unfair industrial practice, I am prepared to accept the Solicitor-General's word.
  As I said at the outset, we are dealing with an extremely complex matter. If the Solicitor-General says that its com-
  1218
  plexity has beaten my understanding, I will accept his word. No doubt in the course of the debate we shall examine this carefully and when we sum up from this side we shall be able to determine whether the Solicitor-General's words are reconcilable with the provisions of the new Clauses.
  4.45 p.m.
  The most fundamental characteristic of new Clause 4 is that it deliberately reverses Parliament's decision in 1965 when, in the Trade Disputes Act of that year, it sought to protect unions from the situation which had arisen from the Rookes v. Barnard decision. The Government are now writing into a Bill the situation which was responsible for the Rookes v. Barnard decision. All the arguments in favour of protecting unions against a recurrence of Rookes v. Barnard were presented to and accepted by the House in 1965. The Government are deliberately reversing that situation.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Walker: Apparently I have it absolutely right and hon. Members opposite think that the decision of Parliament taken in 1965 should he reversed. Parliament took the trouble to take that decision then because it realised the great risk to which trade unions were exposed and realised that the threat to unions represented by the Rookes v. Barnard decision was likely to put trade unions back into the Taff Vale decision era. Presumably the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), judging by his warm "Hear, hear", wants to create that situation and wants to see trade union strength diminished to the very dramatic extent to which it was diminished by the Rookes v. Barnard decision.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I wish to see trade unions weakened. I hope that he will accept it from me that I said, "Hear, hear" because of the prospect of the taking out of the Statute Book that disgraceful and disreputable piece of legislation of 1965 which permitted a union to use intimidation to gain membership.
  Mr. Walker: The object of the 1965 Act was to protect trade unions from the vulnerability to which they had become exposed, a vulnerability which

  1219
  threatened to emasculate them and deprive them of their real bargaining power. The hon. Gentleman said "Hear, hear" to the prospect of a return to that situation.
  As I said at the outset, whilst deploring injustices against individuals we must recognise that the redressing of injustices can sometimes create a much greater injustice.
  These Clauses are designed deliberately to place severe restrictions on long established and wholly legitimate industrial relations practices. They are designed to diminish the pressurising power of trade unions and to that extent are designed deliberately to weaken them. For that reason, at the end of the day we on this side will feel compelled to divide the House against them.
  Mr. David Mitchell: In an effort to re-establish an accord across the Chamber with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), may I immediately join him in regretting the complexities of the draftsman's work in this Part of the Bill and, indeed, in much of the Bill. I publicly urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to repeat the assurances which I believe were given earlier that this part of the Bill, too, will figure in simple explanatory leaflets about the operation of the Bill when enacted which the Government can at that time issue to trade unions, unionists and management so that they can all see in practical, simple, straightforward, workshop language how the thing will work, what they are able to do, and what they are not able to do. I was a little disturbed to see the Opposition spokesman rubbing his hands and smiling in an anticipatory way as he spoke of the new weapon the trade unions have discovered of working without enthusiasm.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: It is not a new weapon. In Scotland we call it the "Ca'canny", and we have been working it for years.
  Mr. Mitchell: That only goes to prove that what is old in Scotland is often new in England a little while later.
  When unemployment is giving cause for concern, when one of the major international motor manufacturing giants talks so depressingly about how unattractive is
  1220
  investment in British industry, and when there is desperate need to increase investment for the prosperity of British workers, it is not the appropriate moment for Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to rub their hands over new weapons of working without enthusiasm.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Let us be frank. We are talking about Mr. Henry Ford. There is a Ford factory in my constituency, and I am prepared to wager with Henry Ford or the hon. Gentleman that the average time lost by my Ford workers in Doncaster compares very favourably with the average time lost by Henry Ford's boys in the United States. The Secretary of State shakes his head in disagreement. I am prepared to have the same wager with him, if he likes.
  Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will make the wager about lost production, then I will take it on. In the United States there are virtually three years of peace while a contract runs. There may be a bad strike at the end, but the factory knows that it is coming and works overtime so that production is not lost. The wholesalers stock up with models before it starts. Therefore, the real damage to the company and the lost production is far less than that caused by constantly recurring disputes holding up production during the term of the contract, as happens in this country.
  Mr. Tom King: My hon. Friend is being a little less than fair. Is it not the case that when the U.A.W. strikes it does not strike across the whole industry in the United States? There is not even the certainty of a strike every three years. On the last occasion the union struck only against General Motors and not Ford's.
  Mr. Mitchell: I was referring to the Ford Motor Company and the situation which may or may not arise in relation to its American activities.
  Mr. Orme: What has this to do with the new Clause?
  Mr. Mitchell: My point is perfectly valid, that it is very unfortunate when members of the Opposition show such obvious satisfaction at new methods of disrupting production at a time when this country faces the economic consequences

  1221
  of too much of that sort of activity already.
  The purpose of the Clause—
  Mr. Orme: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the enthusiasm with which he has greeted my dealing with his hon. Friend and his remarks.
  We are dealing with a situation in which a union forces a man's dismissal and the dismissed man sues the employer for compensation, which is awarded because he has been wrongfully dismissed. It is suggested that the union which caused the dismissal should pay or contribute to the compensation. I cannot see anything unreasonable in that.
  Mr. Orme: Absolutely irrational.
  Mr. Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to defend a situation in which a union forces an employer to dismiss someone, and then the employer has to pay compensation to the man? Is he deliberately seeking a way to bring ruin to employers? That is what is sought, to judge by the tenor of remarks being made across the Chamber.
  The Clause simply reverses the unfortunate situation created by the 1965 Act. The hon. Member for Doncaster defended that Act. I would perhaps have found some common ground with him had I not sat on the Committee considering that Measure and moved Amendments seeking to limit the Act's scope, so that the union did not have a right to use intimidation to secure recruiting. The then Minister of Labour rejected those Amendments, and the Act specifically permits intimidation to be used as a means to put pressure on employers to dismiss workers if they do not join a union. It must be incompatible with the Bill and with any sense of justice and fairness that intimidation should be used as a legitimate weapon to try to increase trade union recruitment.
  In this day and age, with the millions of members that the trade unions have, surely they do not need to sink to intimidation to secure additional membership? I hope that the House will pass the Clause.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Almost inevitably we revert to what are
  1222
  really Second Reading points of general principle, both in our debates in Committee and now. The real question in the matter we are debating is jurisprudence, a problem of what is an injustice. If we take the view point of the hon. Member for Salford, East—
  Mr. Orme: Salford, West.
  Mr. Hooson: I apologise for getting the hon. Gentleman geographically wrong. I think that I have him emotionally and politically in the right category.
  Mr. Orme: Do not say that.
  Mr. Hooson: That is not a smear but a compliment. The hon. Gentleman has always maintained that he regards industry as inevitably a struggle between labour and management, which, by the very nature of the relationship, however good-willed people may be, will persist. I understand that he argues from that that therefore injustice to the individual may be necessary to balance the force between labour and management, with the tools of trade at their disposal—capital and otherwise. He feels that the greatest injustice is to blunt in any way the group's ability to enforce its will against the management. I am always obliged to the hon. Gentleman for deepening my understanding of his view point. Having listened to many debates on industrial relations, I think that what I have just said basically represents his view.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. and learned Gentleman has put it very fairly. What he is saying, as I have said many times, is that in some instances group freedom is more important than individual freedom in this situation.
  Mr. Hooson: I am glad that I have understood the hon. Gentleman.
  The real question on the Clauses we are discussing is one of balance. They undoubtedly elevate individual freedom at the expense of group freedom. I do not think that in industrial relations it is possible to ensure total group freedom, or total individual freedom. In any situation of strife there is bound to be injustice, sometimes to a group and sometimes to an individual. The Government's avowed purpose has been to try to redress the balance.

  1223
  5.0 p.m.
  The longer I have listened to the debates on the Bill at all stages, the more I have returned to my original view, expressed on Second Reading, that we have started at the wrong end of the scale in discussing industrial relations. It would have been far better to follow the model of Germany and to have required works councils on the factory floor, where the trouble so often starts. That was the right place to start, but that is not the Government's approach.
  I think that the Rookes v. Barnard decision was right. I voted against the 1965 Act, which I thought was unjustified because the right to group freedom was being taken too far. That is my view point, which is substantially different from that of the hon. Member for Salford, West.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. and learned Gentleman has an impeccable reactionary record.
  Mr. Hooson: Coming from the hon. Gentleman, that is to be regarded as a compliment, because in his view anything slightly to the right of Left wing is reactionary.
  The question arises of whether the new Clauses set out fairly the right balance. Much of the trouble with them is caused by the use of the word "induced" in new Clause 2. That is a highly emotive word. I find it very difficult to interpret exactly what it means. What is the difference between "induced" and "persuaded"? A far better word in this context, which might make the Clause much more acceptable, if ever it could be acceptable to hon. Members around me, would be "compel". New Clause 2(3) says:
  "It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person … to take any action to which this section applies, if the purpose or principal purpose for which that action is taken is—

  (a) to induce an employer, …"

  The word "induce" follows with regularity thereafter. Everybody knows what "compel" means. We are talking not of the result but of the intention. If the intention is to "compel", the use of that word should meet the situation. To leave "induce" here creates a considerable area for disagreement and uncertainty. As we are dealing with an intention, the
  1224
  words "compel" or "force" would meet some of the doubts I have about whether the Clause fairly balances between group freedom and justice and individual freedom and justice.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggested use of "compel", but it might not accurately describe what sometimes happens. I think that he will agree that in some cases action would amount to intolerable persuasion; in other words, the pressure on the employer would be such that he could not resist it. In such cases it would not be compulsion but action bringing the employer under intolerable pressure.
  Mr. Hooson: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The word "induced" is qualified by
  "if the purpose or principal purpose …"
  Therefore, we are looking at the intention of the person trying to persuade the employer. If the intention is to compel, the matter is quite simple.
  Mr. Gower: I still think that "compel", while conveying something of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, would be inaccurate in this context. Is my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General satisfied that the new Clause will wholly embrace the sort of case which seems to annoy and distress so many members of the general public outside the normal interplay of employer and employed in factories? It is the sort of case where a trade union is opposed to a strike but local unofficial action is taken. Certain individuals obey their union rather than those who call for unofficial action. Those individuals are subsequently subjected to this kind of pressure through the employer and are given notice and have to leave the firm or even the industry basically for obeying their union. That is the sort of case which seems to many people to be completely without justification.
  Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Gentleman says that the public have been concerned about these cases. Will he give concrete examples of what he has in mind?
  Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman has seen in the Bible the phrase, "Their name

  1225
  is legion". There have been many cases of this kind in recent years. Several cases have been published. I do not think that it is necessary to know their names. They are truly legion. There are many cases in which individuals have obeyed the wishes of their union but local action has been taken in defiance of those wishes. Would the new Clause embrace such cases? I think that it would.
  The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General rose—
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Rescue.
  The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) asks whether, on the facts he has put, the new Clause will apply. The facts as I understand them are that someone has been dismissed, in a situation which cannot be justified as fair, as a result of local unofficial industrial action or threatened industrial action. In that situation, the employer could not justify the dismissal. It would be regarded as being unfair and those who had induced the dismissal by threatening the unfair action would be liable.
  Mr. Gower: That is the sort of case I have in mind. I am glad to have that assurance.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) suggested that it was undesirable in some way that any machinery should prevent this kind of pressure upon an employer. He said that people could not be made to work with others with whom they disagreed. We must not put into law something we believe to be manifestly unjust. Convenience or what is easy should not determine what we put into a Bill. Sometimes one must choose. My hon. Friends have shown that they reject the idea of this kind of compulsion. It is disgraceful when an employer is put under this pressure so that a person who has done nothing wrong is drummed not only out of his employment but, in some cases, out of the industry. This could be the consequence.
  Mr. Tom King: One of the difficulties here is that very often these cases are brought in confidence and people do not want them publicised. I had a case in my constituency about four months ago.
  1226
  It was not a closed shop but there was one of those nasty understandings between the employer and the union. Nothing was in writing. In fact, the rules of employment that the person received did not indicate that he was required to be a member of the union. Subsequently, he was asked to join. When he said that he would rather not, he was asked more forcibly. He said that he was grateful for the offer but would still rather not. It was put to him even more forcibly and the management was told that it must choose between him and the group. He was sacked.
  Mr. Gower: That bears out what many of us know to be the case. We understand and sympathise with the views of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about the group, but I do not think that the best interests of the group will ultimately be served by intolerance towards the individual. The best interests of the group will be served by justice. There is no such thing as half-justice. A thing is either just or unjust. We cannot put into this Bill something we believe will lead to injustice.
  Mr. Orme: Those of us who have faced this problem on the factory floor have bent over backwards to accommodate the sort of person the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Workers have gone out of their way to accommodate such a man by allowing him to contribute to another fund. They say to him, "The group is in your interests", but they do not look to chasing people out of their work. The hon. Member is contradicting the facts. I would like to hear concrete examples of the sort of cases he claims exists.
  Mr. Gower: The best interests of the group, about which the hon. Gentleman is justly concerned, will best be served by ensuring justice, and I still say that there can be no half-measures here. There is either right or wrong. There are cases where there are half-measures, but in justice there cannot be half-measures, and I support the new Clause.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) graced us with his presence and addressed us, but I cannot see him at present. He showed considerable delight in the fact that the Government

  1227
  are reversing the legislation which the Labour Government introduced in 1965. He also introduced the interesting person of Mr. Henry Ford II, referring to him as a super-authority, and almost seemed to make him an equal with the Prime Minister. I rather deprecate acceptance of what Mr. Ford says as holy doctrine. I deprecate the eager putting out of the red carpet for Mr. Ford immediately after he had denounced the working people of this country at large. He did not even limit himself to what might be thought to be his proper business—the administration of his own firm—but spoke about British workers at large. The Prime Minister should have told him where to get off.
  Mr. Orme: So should the Secretary of State have done—he especially.
  Mr. Mendelson: As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says, the Secretary of State himself should also have told Mr. Ford where to get off. After all, the Secretary of State has a special responsibility in these matters. But we had none of that. I thought it extraordinary to see the Government fawning on an employer who had just denounced Britain as a country in decline. One must search the pages of history for a long time to find any previous Prime Minister or Minister of Labour who has acted in this degrading fashion.
  The hon. Member for Basingstoke did his side a disservice in introducing this matter into the debate. He was delighted with the reversal of the decision which the last Government took over the Rookes v. Barnard case. As he often does, he blurted out the real anti-trade union purpose behind the Bill. He has some position on one of the back-bench committees opposite, and I think that he takes part in the discussions. But he has not yet learned the discernment of the Solicitor-General, who normally uses guarded language. The hon. Gentleman does not.
  But occasionally the Solicitor-General also drops his guard a little when he has been made a little angry by an intervention from this side. He did so today when he used the term, "crude and destructive action". Normally, he and
  1228
  the Secretary of State parade themselves as defenders of the right to strike and to take industrial action. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not normally use the term "crude and destructive action", but he was betrayed into that language today, as he was betrayed into an earlier slip.
  5.15 p.m.
  At the beginning of his speech, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the new Clause was based upon and closely related to Clause 21 which we had discussed. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West and I were keen to force him to admit that we had done no such thing. We wanted to put on record the absurdity of what the Government are doing today. The Government are introducing a new Clause which is without meaning if it is not read against the background of Clauses 5 and 21. Clause 1 deals with the important matter of the meaning of dismissal, yet the House has never discussed it because of the deliberate introduction of the guillotine. The guillotine made discussion of Clause 21 and its implications completely impossible. Those who will have to work the provisions of the Bill will not even have the benefit of detailed parliamentary discussion about what is in the Government's mind and in the mind of the House, which has on both sides employers and trade union representatives with a great deal of industrial experience. None of that experience has been brought to bear on the vital Clause 21.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about "crude and destructive action" when he normally talks about "industrial action". He did so because he was angry. I think that he was angry because he saw that his hon. Friends are using language which he does not use normally when he is trying to hide the true purpose of the Bill—that is, to weaken seriously the power of the trade union movement. That is what leaks out every time we get down to this discussion.
  All this talk by hon. Members opposite about individual freedom and the protection of the individual is only a fraud and a facade for their real purpose. Let us, however, examine the industrial situation. People do not go around the factory floor having academic

  1229
  discussions about the meaning of the terms which are thrown about by hon. Members opposite. I do not even accept the rigid distinction made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). What happens is not as clear as that. One does not have, in big factories with 4,000 or 5,000 employees, groups of men going around saying, "We must make a careful distinction between individual freedom and group freedom". That happens in the seminars of the London School of Economics. It does not happen in factories.
  The plain fact of industrial life is that people go about their daily task in the course of their normal work, and in doing so enter into certain relationships with their foreman, the floor manager, the shop manager, the shift manager and so on. They arrange the work between them and multifarious situations can arise. Where there are individual people with a conscientious reason—of a religious kind, for example—for not wishing to belong to a certain association, their views are universally respected. Everyone with experience of industrial life knows that to be true.
  It is only necessary to research a little into the composition of the local leadership of trade unions. Many of these people have built their ethical foundations upon the Nonconformist faith, for instance. There could not have been the kind of history that the trade union movement has without that one great inspiration. Other sentiments have come from other religious persuasions. Most of these people in their own upbringing have learned to accept the importance of a religious persuasion which might induce a man to wish not to be associated with a particular association.
  The Government have been giving a completely misleading impression, and that has been getting into the American newspapers. I dare say that Mr. Henry Ford, when he does read, has read some of these reports and has accumulated some of the misinformation which produced this blurred and misleading picture of what goes on in British industry every day. No doubt he has been titillated by the horror stories put into the papers by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. How can we serve the national interest by creating an atmosphere about the attitude of the ordinary British working man
  1230
  in his day-to-day tasks that is completely divorced from reality, from what goes on in factories?
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Member has come back to Henry Ford and is discussing what he reads. Whatever he does or does not read about reports of British activities, I am sure that he reads the production records and productivity sheets from his own plants. It is significant that the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), who has now left the Chamber, did not meet the challenge to compare the productivity outputs from the various factories. Is there really any sense in not listening to someone who has an important part to play in the British economy?
  Mr. Mendelson: There are two answers to this. The first deals with the rest of the British motor car industry. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows this, but the Government must do; Lord Stokes and his firm and the British motor industry in general over the 12 months preceding January last have exported 50 per cent. of their total production. Profits have been considerable—and for the Henry Ford company. The average level of wages paid as a total proportion of income is higher in West Germany than in this country.
  The total record of the British motor car industry in the 12 months preceding January, 1971, is a good one and this is what we want to hear before anything else from the Treasury Bench. I want to put on record that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench are partly responsible for the completely misguided picture that has grown in the minds of Americans, and leading Americans too, about the industrial position of this country. I say this as a regular reader, every day, of some of the most important American newspapers. I know the people quoted and on another occasion I will give chapter and verse.
  Returning to the main issue, the drafting of these Clauses, it is against this real background of British industry, which the Secretary of State knows to be true, that the proportions of this problem have to be seen. There are no large numbers of persecuted people in British industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said earlier. They do not exist. Tolerance is being exercised. When we

  1231
  come to the Rookes v. Barnard situation difficulties can occasionally arise. That is when there are difficult industrial situations in a firm and when the trade union is engaged in a struggle.
  I have always held that it was a bond of honour that when a man's colleagues or mates are engaged in a struggle, he is with them. There are bad employers who, as the history of industrial relations in this country has proved, have tried to use individuals, to put pressure upon them so that they should stand out and say, "We do not want to take part in the decision of our union." They have been made heroes the next day and their pictures have been splashed all over the front pages to help create an atmosphere.
  Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite accept this kind of conduct I am speaking of in many other spheres. I have never known a Conservative in my Army life who did not immediately agree that when the regiment was in trouble the honourable thing was to stand by it. If we transfer that to the industrial scene, where people have spent years building up resources by contributing shillings and sixpences—while they accept that kind of solidarity elsewhere—they jeer at it. This is what we call solidarity and that is the real background to this debate.
  They know that this is so. I do not give hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench the excuse that because of their different experience they do not understand this. I should be offending their intelligence if I argued that. They know very well but they pretend not to do so when putting forward these shabby Clauses.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend was referring to the action of the Press with regard to shop stewards. Is he aware that this morning on B.B.C. News a shop steward was referred to as a "splendid" shop steward because he had refused to carry out the instructions of his union? Is he aware that this is the only occasion on which the B.B.C. has ever referred to a shop steward as "splendid"?
  Mr. Mendelson: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and continue at the point I had reached which concerns the drafting of the Clauses. Line 32 of new Clause 4 says:
  1232
  "nothing in the preceding paragraph shall affect the power of the tribunal or Court to order a contribution to be paid by the trade union."
  The trade union is the one whose third party liability is to be hit.
  Then the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) cheered the reversal of our legislation of 1965 because this is what he and his Committee had in mind. This has been discussed in the most reactionary employer circles and in the most reactionary quarters of the Conservative Party for many years. They are arguing that they should weaken the trade unions and one way of doing that is to intimidate them so that they fear that their funds will be taken away from them if they do not act in an intimidated manner.
  It is no use the right hon. Gentleman making speeches in the country saying that a false impression is being created by trade union leaders and others who seek to give the impression that what the Government want to do is to impress upon working people "You work and shut up "This is precisely the impression that the Government try to create. This solves the mystery that we have met with in many debates, with people on the one hand saying that some of these Clauses will not work and others on the other hand saying that they were pernicious Clauses. The Government for their purposes do not mind in the slightest. That is what they want. Of course they know that some of the Clauses are wholly unworkable but they want to create an impression of intimidation among working people.
  Let us not assume that we are dealing all the time with the biggest factories where there is 100 per cent. trade unionism. There are other cases where organisation is not so strong and where intimidation will play a part. One of the reasons for the bitterness in all these debates is because we on this side understand the real purpose of the Government in making all these regulations in spite of the protestations of the right hon. Gentleman that he wants to support responsible trade union leaders.
  How he can maintain this position after the way in which the General-Secretary of the T.U.C. and the unanimous vote of the General Council has rejected his claim and will reject it again on Thursday

  1233
  in no uncertain terms, beats believing. The bitterness is there.
  What the Government have introduced is something which is wholly unnecessary, born in propaganda, conceived in that misleading picture of British industrial life and the attitude of ordinary British trade unionists which the Government have painted. When there is a problem the movement deals with it and people are respected for a dissenting opinion. What the Government want to do is to build up the blackleg, the man who wants to have nothing to do with his mates in certain situations, and make him into a hero. They want to give him the legal right to say, "I do not want to have anything to do with my workmates". The problem is not to allow individuals to have individual rights and the right of dissent. It is a complete travesty of the truth for the Government to advance that as the purpose. They want to reverse the historic position of the trade unions which has been built up because solidarity is the be-all and end-all of their effectiveness, because of the big contrast between employers and employees, and because the employers own the means of production, as the early founders of the trade movement knew. One has only to look at the records of the 1875 Trades Union Congress to realise that. There is nothing new about this.
  Because of the imbalance between work-people and employers the history of industrial relations has been to allow the trade union movement to express this solidarity in action. That is what the Secretary of State and his Government and supporters seek to reverse. I am therefore glad that it has been announced that we shall vote against the two Clauses.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), in his closing remarks, talked about solidarity. I agree that solidarity is what trade unionism is about. However, until recently, I thought that trade unionism was also about solidarity based on constitutional authority. What is constitutional about a situation in which 95 per cent. of all the industrial action is unofficial? What is constitutional about the political strike which will be called on Thursday?
  Mr. Orme: It is an industrial strike.
  Mr. Carr: I ask hon. Members opposite to go about the country and to talk to the workers in industrial factories and then try tell us that people are freely going on strike on Thursday on the basis of constitutional authority.
  Mr. Orme: What does the right hon. Gentleman say about the doctors?
  Mr. Carr: I ask hon. Members opposite to go about the country, as I did in Carlisle over the weekend, and they will find that shop steward after shop steward and ordinary worker after ordinary worker going to their managers and saying, "We do not want a strike", and, if they do so, being threatened with disciplinary action in district committees, and so on.
  Mr. Orme: The exception proves the rule.
  Mr. Ron Lewis Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle) rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Will the hon. Member resume his seat?
  Mr. Carr: If hon. Members go about the country and visit the factories they will find that the great majority—
  Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order. The Secretary of State made certain allegations about shop stewards in Carlisle over the weekend during his speech when he addressed mostly 500 old ladies—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to raise a point of order or to get at the Minister?
  Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister name the shop stewards so that we know who they are?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Carr: Of course I shall not name them because the hon. Gentleman knows that if I were to do so they would be at risk. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is not disgraceful. It may be rare, but it does happen. That is one of the things which the Clause is about. All of us have had cases brought to our attention—certainly most of us on this side of the House have—but they are rare. On the whole, the occasions on which employers act with gross unfairness are also rare.

  1235
  But this is one of the things which justice and proper machinery for justice is about—to deal with the rare cases.
  Hon. Members opposite ask for examples. Was not Mr. Rookes an example? He was sacked by B.O.A.C. because of union pressure. I shall deal later with other aspects of the Rookes v. Barnard case which gave the trade union movement cause for genuine fear. But the sacking of Mr. Rookes, by intimidation, on the basis of union membership was, in the view of at least all hon. Members on this side of the House, unfair, and we believe that people should be protected from that sort of intimidation.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman talks as if the trade union was a monolithic block on one side and Mr. Rookes was a small poor individual on the other side. Will he tell us who financed Mr. Rookes' appeal right through to the House of Lords?
  Mr. Carr: I imagine—and I believe it to be true—that it was financed by legal aid.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: The employers backed him.
  Mr. Carr: Is it wrong that someone should be backed in order to get justice? It is wrong that he should have to be backed in that way. When the Bill is on the Statute Book people will not need backing in that way. They will have access to courts which are cheap and informal and where they can get justice on the rare occasions when it is needed. That surely is right.
  The hon. Member for Penistone talked about Fords. His charges about what members of the Treasury Bench are saying are grossly untrue.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Wholly true.
  Mr. Carr: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can substantiate them in any way. Industrial dislocation in the motor industry and in its supplying industries has been very severe for some years. The Labour Party knew that when it was in power. Dislocation was very bad last year, and it is very bad this year. Because of strikes and threats of strikes in the factories of the motor car manufacturers and in the supplying industries, the motor industry lost many
  1236
  tens of millions of pounds worth of production last year. This is extremely bad. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the exports?"] The exports were good, but how much better would they have been without the strikes? How much smaller would have been the amount of motor car imports last year had the situation been better?
  Let us consider what has happened at Fords this year. On 29th January, a full month before the current Ford agreement was due to run out, the management made an offer in the proper way to the negotiating committee. It was not accepted. But instead of negotiating about the offer, instead of waiting to see whether it could be improved by negotiation, the instantaneous and unofficial reaction was a complete walk-out at all Ford factories.
  Mr. Orme: Without any encouragment.
  Mr. Carr: It was not backed by official union action. However, no attempt was made by the official union leadership to say, "Go back to work while we negotiate. If we negotiate and fail to get an offer which, in our view, is satisfactory, we will have official strike action". Surely that is the sort of solidarity and constitutional action on which British trade unionism has been based, and it is the exact opposite of what has happened at Fords in the last few weeks. What has happened there is total unconstitutional action—
  Mr. Orme: Made constitutional.
  Mr. Carr: Made constitutional afterwards, precisely. That is irresponsibility writ large, and people are paying a very heavy price for it.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Will that situation be ruled out after the Bill becomes law? Will it be made an unfair industrial action or illegal by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill?
  Mr. Carr: That depends entirely on whether the Ford Company has a binding procedure agreement. The Bill provides opportunities for that to happen.
  Mr. Orme: That agreement is at an end now, anyway.
  Mr. Carr: The Bill will deal with it if and when the Ford Company has a

  1237
  binding agreement, as it has in other countries. It has not one here, and that may be why the British company is tending to fall behind Ford Companies in other countries.
  What is also true about the situation is that Mr. Ford has said seriously and publicly that the company finds increasingly that more and more of its customers throughout the world—the agents who sell motor cars to the public—prefer not to take supplies from this country because they feel that, if they become dependent on British supplies, there is not the same degree of reliability as from other countries, and that is true. If on compares the production figures of the Ford Company in West Germany with those of the Ford Company in this country—
  Mr. Orme: They have higher labour costs in West Germany.
  Mr. Carr: This, too, is a point—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State must be allowed to make his speech. Hon. Members on the Opposition benches excel in the cut and thrust of debate. They must enjoy it when it comes to them and take it in reasonable silence. They will always have a chance to reply.
  Mr. Carr: What is also true is that, when Mr. Ford talked about bad quality, he was not making any charge about the carelessness or lack of skill of the British worker—
  Mr. Orme: That is interesting.
  Mr. Carr: He was saying that, when there are constant interruptions of production, with half-finished cars having to be parked in a field because, perhaps, there are no brake shoes or windscreens and having to be brought back to be finished afterwards, the inevitable result is variable quality and a degree of poor quality. It is because of that loss of quality, caused by interruptions and not by bad or careless work by individual British workmen, that the quality of Ford's output has also deteriorated in the last few years relative to the quality of output of other countries.
  It is this combination of uncertainty of delivery and uncertainty of quality
  1238
  stemming from it that is beginning—Mr. Ford did not exaggerate, and I do not want to—to cause customers who have an opportunity to take delivery of the same or almost similar models made in Britain, Germany or some other places, to say that they would prefer the supply not to come from Britain.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman rush in and accept the statements that an American employer makes about British working people? How does he reconcile the statement about people not wanting Ford cars produced in Britain with the excellent export performances of other motor firms which we had to drag from him earlier today? Is not it the right hon. Gentleman's duty to begin any talks with Mr. Ford by stressing the company's export record? Does not he realise that there are many firms abroad who do not agree with Mr. Ford and who are eager to see British Ford taken into their countries?
  Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman studied the available figures, he would see that there is substance in what I say—
  Mr. Orme: Has your master gone back yet?
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) can very easily make remarks of that kind. If he spent a little more time facing facts instead of putting his head in the sand, members of his union and all other industrial workers in the country might be further along the road to increased prosperity. There is no need to exaggerate the position, and I am not exaggerating it. I am saying that there is a trend, and it is a very serious matter if we merely turn it aside and say that that sort of trend—
  Mr. Orme: Did the right hon. Gentleman ask Mr. Ford why Ford of Britain pay lower wages for higher productivity than any other British car firm?
  Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman should look at the statistics—[An HON. MEMBER: "This is a diversion from the Bill."] The hon. Member accuses me of trying to create a diversion from the Bill. I remind him that the Ford Company was not mentioned from this side of the

  1239
  House. It was referred to by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Henry Ford's name was introduced deliberately by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), and I replied to him.
  Mr. Carr: I fully accept that. I had forgotten that. However, the hon. Gentleman followed my hon. Friend in full measure, and I suspect that a reference to HANSARD will reveal that he devoted more column inches to the Ford Company than did my hon. Friend.
  These are matters that the country cannot disregard. They must be taken seriously. They are not all that irrelevant to the Bill because only if we achieve some greater degree of stability, confidence and good order in the conduct of our industrial relations shall we be able to win the prosperity which our natural skills and opportunities deserve and which is available for the taking.
  I want now to say a word about the Rookes v. Barnard case and the 1965 Trade Disputes Act to which reference has been made. It is true that this legislation will repeal that Act. There was a substantial and important point in the Rookes v. Barnard case which worried the trade union movement. As I understand it, the case raised doubts about whether it was lawful for a trade union to threaten a strike, whatever the objective of that strike, be it good or bad, fair or unfair.
  We are saying that it is definitely legitimate to threaten a strike. We are, therefore—if hon. Members look at, I think it is, Clause 119, they will see this—clearing up what was that legitimate area of doubt relating to the trade unions. We are also removing the possibiltity of what we at least, and I believe the great majority in this country, think was the unfair and wrong aspect of the Rookes v. Barnard case—namely, that Rookes was sacked in the way that he was under the pressures which gave rise to it. We are saying that it is not unfair for a union to threaten a strike provided that the objective is fair, but it is an unfair practice to threaten a strike to achieve one of the limited number of what we define as unfair industrial actions. Amongst those, and particularly germane to the debate today, is the unfair
  1240
  action of obtaining a dismissal on wrong grounds. That is the position about Rookes v. Barnard.
  I should now like to turn to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about the word "induce". As a non-lawyer, I have over the years had considerable difficulty about the word "induce". Therefore, I start with some initial sympathy for the hon. and learned Gentleman. But the more I study the alternatives, the more difficult it becomes. I think that words such as "compel" or "force" are almost too simple, too unsubtle, for the needs which we have in mind. What is more important is not the word in subsection (3) which expresses the intention, but the methods used to put that intention into practice; in other words, to induce by using any of the methods described in subsection (2). We attempt to define there what inducing would mean in an unfair sense. It would be inducing only by the methods described in subsection (2).
  This brings me to the answers to the two questions asked by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker): what is fair or unfair. What is reasonable or unreasonable; and when does persuasion spill over to compulsion? I shall come to those later.
  The hon. Gentleman asked: what does subsection (3)(c) mean? Indeed, he asked what all subsection (3) meant. The hon. Gentleman said that all this could get a person into trouble merely by peacefully trying to persuade people to do the various things listed. I can only reaffirm the answer given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, which I gave a moment ago to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, namely, that peaceful persuasion is perfectly legitimate.
  The only things which are not legitimate are the methods laid down in subsection (2), which states:
  "This section applies to action of any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

  (a) calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike, or threatening to do so;

  (b) organising, procuring or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or threatening to do so."

  That does not stop peaceful persuasion by trade union officials, district organisers,

  1241
  propaganda leaflets, discussion or persuasion by shop stewards. All these things are in order and are in no way threatened by anything in the Clause or in the Bill.
  Whilst I must admit that there may be some complexity about the structure—this, along with other sections of the Bill, will be properly covered in the explanatory booklets and leaflets which will be prepared when the Bill is on the Statute Book—in this case at least the meaning is clear. Nobody reading this Clause could say that it is not in plain English. The key part is subsection (2) which
  "applies to action of any of the following descriptions",
  and I have just read the following descriptions. That is in plain English. Anybody who does not do any of those things will not be covered by the Clause.
  Mr. Orme: That is everything.
  Mr. Carr: I do not believe that persuading is the same as
  "calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike".
  I believe that large measures of peaceful persuasion come long before one reaches the threshold of anything described in subsection (2).
  I must say to the hon. Member for Doncaster, although I am sure that it is unintentional in his case, that this whipping up of fear about the Clause, without taking the trouble to read what is in pretty clear English, is an example of the misrepresentation or distortion of which we are complaining. It is not right to say that the Clause threatens a shop steward or anyone else with any kind of dire action because he actively goes about the place trying to persuade people to join a union or to join in any other proper union aim.
  The Government have put down Amendment No. 8, on page 2479, to which I cannot refer because it is on another Clause, specifically to make clear that it is not an unfair practice even for an employer, or a person acting on his behalf, actively to persuade his employees to join a union. That surely is saying categorically that if an employer goes about trying to persuade employees to join a union that is not unfair.
  I turn now to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Doncaster: when
  1242
  does fair spill over into the unfair, when does reasonable become unreasonable, and when does persuasion degenerate into compulsion? These are difficult questions. That is why we are setting up machinery. We believe that this is the kind of matter which, in the end, is best settled in a court.
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Carr: Yes indeed, in a properly constituted court. That is the basic system under which this country lives and has lived for many centuries.
  Mr. Orme: In a court?
  Mr. Carr: It is something of which we are proud. In the end, we have a reasonably peaceful and orderly and, at the same time, free society, because in the last resort when people cannot solve their problems, when they cannot decide these matters, they go to a British court so to do.
  Mr. Orme: As the last resort.
  Mr. Carr: There is, after all, some historical reason for a magistrate being known as a justice of the peace. There is a long history behind this matter which shows that the courts are there to deal with the grievances of the individual citizen and to solve them in a peaceful manner when no other manner is available.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned the magistrates' court. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the most difficult case for a magistrate to adjudicate upon concerns differences between neighbours when it is almost impossible to elicit the facts. If there is a ruckus in a machine shop during a morning or afternoon and all kinds of industrial difficulties arise, how, at a subsequent date, can a court of law adjudicate upon it?
  Mr. Carr: It is a difficult question. I do not suggest that the solution will always be perfect. But we are providing courts, as well adapted as can be, because, as well as a lawyer, there will be two people with real life experience of these matters to try to deal with them. They may not always succeed perfectly, but the answer is not to do nothing. Although a magistrate may find it very

  1243
  difficult to sort out the differences between two quarrelling neighbours, at least we do not leave them to fight it out.
  6.0 p.m.
  This brings me to the phrase which the hon. Member for Penistone used, when he referred to the Solicitor-General using the words "crude and destructive action". Precisely—crude and destructive as a method in relation to the objective being sought. We are saying, and we are not ashamed of saying, that, in the 1970s, strike action or the threat of it to solve very difficult personal questions about unfair dismissal or an individual's rights against his employer or in relation to his fellow workers are very difficult and may not ever be capable of complete and perfect solution, but at least we should provide machinery for their solution less crude and destructive than strike action.
  We are, in effect, saying that at least these less crude and destructive and more peaceful methods of resolution should be tried first. That, I believe, is right and sound and is the overwhelming wish of those who work in industry, as much as the rest of the country. That is what these new Clauses are about. They provide machinery for dealing with this sort of grievance in court, rather than by industrial war. I believe that peaceful methods in court should at least take precedence over industrial warfare and that industrial warfare should be outlawed, at least until the peaceful methods have been tried.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery was right to say that one of the basic principles of the Bill—perhaps the basic one, although the one which I just mentioned is pretty basic, too—is that we are to some extent altering the balance between personal freedom and group freedom, not from one extreme to the other, but we believe that the time has come in our economy and our society when it is both possible and right to make some shift in that balance towards more personal freedom vis-à-vis group freedom.
  Therefore, the Clause says that, when there is a right of appeal for unfair dismissal—surely this is common ground—it should first, rightly, be the employer who has to face the responsibility for that charge and to meet it, and if it is found
  1244
  that he has unfairly dismissed an employee, he should take first responsibility for the compensation, or whatever the penalty may be for that action. But we are also saying that, if an employer has been driven to take that unfair action by the unfair pressure put on him by other people and organisations, it is in turn fair that he should have some remedy against those other persons and organisations. I believe that that is unexceptionable, and that is the principle which we are sticking to.
  Mr. Heffer: Last night, I referred to the Secretary of State as being irresponsible. I meant at that time that he was irresponsible because he was introducing a Bill of this kind. I had not realised exactly how irresponsible the right hon. Gentleman is, but he has completely proved his irresponsibility today. The mask slipped and the reality behind his thinking came out in the course of his publicity-seeking remarks about Ford, and, of course, in his attitude towards the shop stewards at Carlisle and elsewhere.
  If the right hon. Gentleman genuinely believes that we should have good industrial relations, he should stop making statements of that kind. He used emotive language throughout. He even talked in terms of the degeneration into compulsion, when a shop steward is trying to get 100 per cent. trade union organisation into a factory.
  Let me explain to the right hon. Gentleman exactly why it is essential that the trade unionists must have the right to use their strength to get 100 per cent. organisation. It is almost unknown to meet the employer who says, off his own bat, "From tomorrow, I will peacefully persuade all the workers in my factory to join the union." In practice, that does not happen. That is why the strength of the organisation has to be used, to urge the employer to use his methods of persuasion to get workers into the union. But the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are trying to take that strength away from the unions: that is what this Clause is all about.
  Yesterday, a minor concession was made. The concept of the approved closed shop is given, but the conditions are laid down in this new Clause which will make it almost impossible for a union to bring it into operation. Under new Clause

  1245
  2(3)(c), it is not right to induce an employer or an employers' association to join in making an application under Part I of the Schedule which is concerned with the concept of the approved closed shop.
  So it becomes quite wrong for a union legitimately to apply pressure to an employer to ask that there should be a joint application for the approved closed shop. If they should threaten to take any action merely to get a joint application, they will be acting contrary to the Clause and that will be an unfair industrial practice. I said yesterday that this meant that the unions were fighting this battle with one hand tied behind their backs. And that is what this is all about.
  Right hon. Gentlemen opposite always give the impression that they are so fair and so amenable, so decent, but then the mask slips and the reality comes out, and we see precisely what is behind their thinking.
  Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman may recall that, in our earlier debates on the Clause, in support of their case, the Opposition cited the number of employers who wanted a closed shop. Now the argument is stood on its head, and we are told that it would be impossible to get any employers to agree to a joint application.
  Mr. Heffer: In the first place, the application for the proposal for a closed shop, 99 times out of 100, comes from the workers on the shop floor. But having got a closed shop in existence, one then finds that some of the very employers who opposed the idea of a closed shop realise its benefits. That is why those employers then become advocates for the closed shop.
  I do not want to get involved in the diversionary argument about Ford's raised by the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell). The case of the Joint Negotiating Committee at Ford was presented by Mr. Moss Evans on 27th November, 1970. The negotiations were going on from that time. I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the evidence of Mr. Moss Evans. He should also examine the facts which Mr. Peter Wilsher put in the Sunday Times.
  Mr. Orme: The Minister made the Ford issue the central feature of his case
  1246
  today. Is it not extraordinary that this strike has been in progress for six or seven weeks but the right hon. Gentleman has taken no action, has made no representations to Parliament, and has done nothing to bring about a settlement in an industry which is vital to our exports?
  Mr. Heffer: It is absolutely extraordinary. We had almost continuous statements about the Post Office dispute, but we have had nothing about the Ford dispute. The reason for the right hon. Gentleman's shyness is simple. He is here not dealing with a trade union which has never before conducted an official strike. My hon. Friend raises a valuable point because it demonstrates the inactivity of the Government to deal with real issues of this kind.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper Mr. A. E. Cooper (Ilford, South): rose—
  Mr. Heffer: I do not want to lengthen my speech by giving way further.
  Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman said that I had not mentioned figures put forward by Mr. Moss Evans. That was not the point I was making. My point—the House and the country would be interested to have the hon. Gentleman's comments on it—was that those figures might have been the basis, from the trade union point of view, of hard and serious negotiating and bargaining. Instead of negotiating with the employers, everybody walked out on the announcement of the first offer, although that offer was made a full month before the agreement was due to end; and the union leadership, instead of trying to get its members back to work to allow negotiations to take place, legitimised the unofficial action 10 days later by issuing strike pay.
  Mr. Heffer: First of all, the employers rejected the claim put forward by the trade unions. Secondly, it was perfectly understandable that they were nearing the position when there would have been a complete walk-out in any case, the workers deciding that they had had enough of the lengthy negotiating procedure. They decided to walk out and, in my opinion, they acted perfectly legitimately.
  In any event, if the right hon. Gentleman felt so strongly about it, why did he

  1247
  not make a statement in the House? I do not want to become involved in this sort of diversionary argument, which the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately introduced to try to avoid a serious discussion of the new Clause.
  The Solicitor-General described new Clause 4 as providing some fresh thinking. This provision is concerned with a contribution being made not by a trade unionist or a trade union official but by a trade union in compensation cases where there has supposedly been an attempt to get 100 per cent. trade unionism by, for example, the dismissal of non-unionists.
  The Government obviously came to the conclusion that the trade unions were not being caught sufficiently under the
  Bill. In other words, wherever the Government find a slight loophole, however small, through which the unions might scud, they block it up. Previously it was the question of an unfair industrial practice to have a joint application under pressure from a trade union. This is not good enough and I advise my hon. Friends to vote against the new Clause.
  Mr. Cooper Mr. Cooper rose—
  Mr. Robert Mellish Mr. Robert Mellish (Bermondsey) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 245.

  Division No. 240.]

  AYES

  [6.16 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Coombs, Derek

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cordle, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Astor, John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Costain, A. P.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Critchley, Julian

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Crouch, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Curran, Charles

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Balniel, Lord

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Batsford, Brian

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hasethurst, Alan

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Dean, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hay, John

  Benyon, W.

  Dixon, Piers

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Heseltine, Michael

  Biffen, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hicks, Robert

  Biggs-Davison, John

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Blaker, Peter

  Eden, Sir John

  Hiley, Joseph

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Body, Richard

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Bowden, Andrew

  Farr, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Braine, Bernard

  Fell, Anthony

  Hornby, Richard

  Bray, Ronald

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Brewis, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Finsherg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Bryan, Paul

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

  Fortescue, Tim

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Buck, Antony

  Fowler, Norman

  James, David

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Fox, Marcus

  Jessel, Toby

  Burden, F. A.

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

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fry, Peter

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Galbraith, Hn T. G.

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gardner, Edward

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Channon, Paul

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Kimball, Marcus

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Goodhart, Philip

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gorst, John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Kirk, Peter

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Clegg, Walter

  Gray, Hamish

  Knox, David

  Cockeram, Eric

  Green, Alan

  Lane, David

  Cooke, Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Steel, David

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Osborn, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

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

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stokes, John

  Loveridge, John

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Peel, John

  Sutcliffe, John

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Percival, Ian

  Tapsell, Peter

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  McLaren, Martin

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Pounder, Rafton

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Temple, John M.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

  Maddan, Martin

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Madel, David

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tilney, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Marten, Neil

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Trew, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Maude, Angus

  Rees Davies, W. R.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Mawby, Ray

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Waddington, David

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

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

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Wall, Patrick

  Moate, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Walters, Dennis

  Molyneaux, James

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Money, Ernie

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  More, Jasper

  Sharples, Richard

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mudd, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Murton, Oscar

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Neave, Airey

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

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Soref, Harold

  Worsley, Marcus

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Speed, Keith

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Normanton, Tom

  Spence, John

  Nott, John

  Sproat, Iain

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stainton, Keith

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Eadie, Alex

  Albu, Austen

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Cohen, Stanley

  English, Michael

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Coleman, Donald

  Evans, Fred

  Ashley, Jack

  Concannon, J. D.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Ashton, Joe

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Barnes, Michael

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Barnett, Joel

  Cronin, John

  Foot, Michael

  Beaney, Alan

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Forrester, John

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. G.

  Booth, Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Deakins, Eric

  Grant, George (Morpath)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  do Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Bradley, Tom

  Delargy, H. J.

  Griffiths, Eddle (Brightside)

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Dempsey, James

  Hamiton, William (Fife, W.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Doig, Peter

  Hamling, William

  Buchan, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Cant, R. B.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunn, James A.

  Healey, Rt. Hn, Denis

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Heffer, Eric S.

  1250

  1251

  Horam, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Bt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marquand, David

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Sillars, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Hunter, Adam

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

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

  Mendelson, John

  Small, William

  Janner, Greville

  Millan, Bruce

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

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

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Molloy, William

  Stallard, A. W.

  John, Brynmor

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

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

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Moyle, Roland

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  Ogden, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Judd, Frank

  Oram, Bert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Kelley, Richard

  Orme, Stanley

  Tinn, James

  Kerr, Russell

  Oswald, Thomas

  Tomney, Frank

  Kinnock, Neil

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Lamond, James

  Palmer, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Latham, Arthur

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lawson, George

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  wainwright, Edwin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Leonard, Dick

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, George

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, David

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Prescott, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Loughlin, Charles

  Probert, Arthur

  Whitlock, William

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rankin, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Reed, D. (Sadgefield

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McBride, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  McElhone, Frank

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Woof, Robert

  McGuire, Michael

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mackie, John

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roper, John

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Rose, Paul B.

  Clause accordingly read a Second time.
  Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment (w) to the proposed Clause, in line 4, after 'reason' insert:
  'as defined in subsection (1) of section 22'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following:
  Amendment (x), in line 8, at end insert:
  'where the question is one to be determined between the worker and his employer it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the employee was unfairly dismissed where that is the issue and'.
  Amendment (y), leave out lines 27 to 29.
  I understand that the Opposition would like a Division on Amendment (w) when we reach that stage.
  Mr. Fraser: The handling of this Bill resembles the handling of a dangerous
  1252
  radioactive substance, which can never be done safely without a leaden barrier. It is through the leaden barrier of the Government's foolish guillotine that we have to probe a Clause which we have never discussed, which we never will discuss, but which ought to be discussed. I refer to Clause 22, which deals with fair and unfair dismissal. Subsection (1) of the Clause sets out four reasons which justify a dismissal, and it states that dismissals shall be regarded as fair if any of those reasons are satisfied. The important paragraphs are (a), which relates to capability, and (b), which relates to conduct.
  The first thing to notice is that the Clause states that a dismissal shall be fair if it relates to a person's capability or conduct; it does not put it the other way round and say that a dismissal shall be unfair unless it relates to his lack of capability or to his misconduct. That

  1253
  being so, the Clause gives no clear protection to the employee against the employer who tells the tribunal, "This is the reason, and therefore it is fair that the burden of proof should shift to the worker." The lack of protection arises from the positive wording of subsection (1), and the risk is that a bald statement of reason will constitute justification for dismissal. The position would have been much better if the reference had been to lack of capability or to misconduct.
  Much worse is subsection (4), which allows dismissal for what it calls "a good reason", and there is no connection between the four reasons set out in subsection (1) and the good reason referred to in subsection (4), Therefore, the employer may dismiss a man even if the reason for dismissal does not relate to his capability, to his conduct or to his redundancy; he may still dismiss him if he gives a "good reason" to the tribunal. We say that those words ought not to appear in Clause 22 unless their meaning has been clearly defined in the Bill and has been approved by the House.
  6.30 p.m.
  Here are some comparable examples showing where such a definition has been given. In Table A of the Companies Act, the reasons for being able to dismiss a director are clearly set out. For instance, if he has missed a number of meetings, if he becomes bankrupt, or if he commits a serious offence, a director may be removed from office. But the Companies Act does not go on to say in respect of directors of large public companies, "or if the company has some other good reason". Indeed, the Solicitor-General knows that, if a director is dismissed without good reason, he has ample compensation.
  I take further examples from the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). My right hon. Friend not only spelled out the fair reasons for dismissal, related to capability and conduct but phrased the other way, but in Clause 36 she set out a number of reasons for dismissal which were stated to be disqualified reasons. There was no reference to "good reason" and the other vaguenesses which we find in Clause 22 of the present Bill. She put it the other way, setting out a number of disqualified reasons, for example, that the employee has re-
  1254
  fused to become a member of a house union, or that the employee
  "professed or practised, or did not profess or practise, a particular religion or religious doctrine".
  She said that it was a disqualified reason if a man were dismissed because he was
  "of a particular colour, race or ethnic or national origin".
  Further, it was a disqualified reason
  "that the employee is a man, or that the employee is a woman, as the case may be".
  There were other disqualified reasons relating to whether a person was married, unmarried, a widower, and so on.
  The matter was clearly spelled out in my right hon. Friend's Bill, whereas "good reason" is not defined in Clause 22 of the present Bill. Because it is not defined, an employer might go to a tribunal and give as his "good reason"—especially if it happened in Northern Ireland—that the man was a Catholic and he did not want him working with Protestants, or vice versa. Or, because the Race Relations Act does not apply in Northern Ireland, it could relate to a man's ethnic origin. Because the definitions in my right hon. Friend's Bill are omitted here, an employer could give such reasons as that and try to convince the tribunal.
  Mr. Gower: I am following the hon. Member's argument with interest. Is it not a possible shortcoming of that sort of procedure that, by naming a certain number of valid reasons, one could, as a result of failing to include one or two others which are equally valid, necessitate amendment of the Act later? I put that as a question.
  Mr. Fraser: I shall come to that. When we come to the words "unfair industrial practice", the ingenuity of the Solicitor-General knows no limits. There is no precedent or dictionary into which he will not quarry and burrow in order to define, with inordinate prolixity, what is meant by an "unfair industrial practice". Here, on the other hand, with notable brevity, we have "good reason" and nothing else. We cannot leave it like that. The reasons why a man may be dismissed must be defined with a good deal more clarity than we find at present.
  A further difficulty arises under Clause 22(4). It appears that, if an employer

  1255
  states a "good reason", the burden of proving that the man was unfairly dismissed shifts to the employee. I shall come to that on the next Amendment.
  What kind of good reasons would an employer advance? He could say—I recognise this—that the man had committed a serious crime and that, because of the place in which he worked, he should be dismissed. Obviously, that would be a good reason. Why not spell it out in the Bill? He could say that a man in a position of trust had been convicted of dishonesty. Again, like a director in such circumstances, he could be dismissed.
  But what of other reasons? It could be because of a man's political views. In my right hon. Friend's Bill, political views were a disqualified reason. In this Bill, on the other hand, they could be a qualified or good reason because nothing is spelled out. It could be that an employee disagreed with the policy of the company. I have come across cases of dismissal like that. An employee may conscientiously believe that the company is not properly serving the public interest and disagree with its policy. It might be a "shark" company, and he was dismissed for that reason.
  Mr. Gower: Will the hon. Gentleman consider this case, ridiculous though it may seem at first sight? A person working for a local Labour Party turns out to be a keen Conservative. In such circumstances, no doubt, the local Labour Party would wish to dispense with his services. That is an extreme example, but it is none the less valid, is it not?
  Mr. Fraser: As I recall it, that point was dealt with in my right hon. Friend's Bill.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: Yes.
  Mr. Fraser: That is a perfectly reasonable case, and it ought to be spelled out in the circumstances.
  Here are other "good reasons". Salesmen are frequently dismissed because they will not accept transfer—this is the euphemism adopted when the company wants to get rid of a man—from one section to another, perhaps a section in which he will be unhappy, in which
  1256
  he will not work with people whom he understands or in which he will earn less money in the long run.
  Unless these things are spelled out, the protection which Clause 22 is supposed to give to an employee may be lost.
  A man is further disadvantaged under this Bill, in comparison with my right hon. Friend's Bill, because he does not have the right of reinstatement. Even when it has considered the matter, the tribunal will not be able to reinstate him even if the reason for dismissal is proved to be unfair. One cannot allow this to pass without challenge.
  If the Solicitor-General wants to find someone to sit down and think of some definitions and reasons, I suggest that there is someone available in the Department of Employment, the Minister of State himself, our "country salesman" who never appears on the Front Bench when we are discussing these matters but who makes the odd statement to the newspapers on Saturdays and Sundays. He could set to work—we do not see a great deal of him here—while the Solicitor-General is kept busy.
  The purpose of Amendment (x) is the ensure that in all cases the burden of proving that a man was not unfairly dismissed lies on the employer. This is by no means clear from Clause 22(1). If the employer states a reason which is specified in the Bill, the tribunal may accept that the burden has shifted to the employee. Under subsection (4), if the employer states a "good reason", again, so it appears from the wording, the burden of proof shifts to the employee.
  The matter is made even worse by Clause 24, which deals with the dismissal of a person who has taken part in a strike. As I read it, the burden of proving that a person was unfairly dismissed lies upon the employee. Under subsection (2),
  "the dismissal shall not be regarded as unfair unless it is shown"
  —those words, "it is shown", seem to indicate that the showing must be done by the employee, and the following words confirm that view—
  "unless it is shown … that one or more employees of the same employer … were not dismissed for taking part"

  1257
  —in a strike—
  "or that one or more such employees … were offered re-engagement.".
  That is fair enough; that is easy to prove even if one is the worker having to discharge the burden of proof. But it is the next one which gives the difficulty,
  "and that the reason … for which the claimant was selected for dismissal … was his having taken action to which the next following subsection applies.".
  Under subsection (3), he has to prove that the reason he was dismissed was not that he was exercising his trade union rights under Clause 1(5). If the burden of proof lies on the employee, it is difficult to prove that the employer did not dismiss him because he was exercising his trade union rights but he was selected for some other reason.
  But even worse, one comes to the proviso and sees that
  "… this subsection does not apply to any such action on the part of the claimant in so far as it consisted …"
  —I am paraphrasing it—of his exercising his rights as a trade unionist by taking part in trade union activities after the strike had commenced.
  Therefore it seems that under Clause 24 not only is the burden of proof throughout the proceedings firmly placed upon the employee but, what is worse, if he has been a member of the strike committee and taken part in union activities before the strike broke out—perhaps the principal reason for the employer wanting to get rid of him—then he can be dismissed.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt bear in mind that the provisions of Clause 24 of the Bill follow almost precisely in line with the provisions of Clause 47 of the right hon. Lady's Bill, where exactly the same words appear:
  "… the tribunal shall dismiss the claim unless it is shown …".
  The burden of proof is upon the employee there, and it is he who has to show that he was selected for a disqualified reason, and if it were a reason relating to trade union activities, that it related to matters which occurred before the strike began. Precisely the same formulation is adopted in a slightly different way, but the reason which has to be shown by the employee
  1258
  in Clause 47(1)(b) of the right hon. Lady's Bill was that the reason selected related to matters which occurred before the strike began. Had it not been for the precedent of Clause 47 of the right hon. Lady's Bill, Clause 24 would not have been in our Bill.
  Mr. Fraser: The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have admitted to the House that the burden of proof, in Clause 24 of his Bill, lies upon the employee. His right hon. Friend was fond of saying that the Bill had been misrepresented because we on this side of the House had said that that was so. The burden lies with the worker, and that seems to be wrong. First, the worker has no legal aid at the tribunal. The Solicitor-General has not given that away. Second, he is fighting against the might of a large organisation. Third, the Solicitor-General, as a lawyer, knows that it is extremely difficult to prove a negative proposition. That is what the employee will have to do.
  It seems quite extraordinary that the Solicitor-General justifies Clause 24, which we have not discussed in full—we shall never have a chance to discuss it in full—by reference to a Bill which did not even have a Second Reading. If that is the standard of justification which the Solicitor-General produces, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
  The Solicitor-General: I do not suggest that this provision lacks justification in this way. I am saying that in that provision of Clause 24 of the Bill, as in the provision of Clause 47 of the right hon. Lady's Bill, and only in the corresponding Clause, the burden of proof is upon the dismissed employee. It is not so anywhere else, and to suggest that it is disreputable for us to follow the precedent of Clause 47 of the right hon. Lady's Bill only because it had not had its Second Reading, and to imply that it would have been torn limb from limb by the right hon. Lady's hon. Friends when it came before the House, is a disingenuous suggestion. The House is entitled to take into account the parallel between the two.
  Mr. Fraser: The Solicitor-General was praying that in aid. The burden of proof ought to be on the employer. The Solicitor-General says that the proviso in the Bill about taking part in trade

  1259
  union activity after a strike had commenced is not taken from my right hon. Friend's Bill. But he has to look at this Clause again to honour the impression—not an undertaking—given to the country that in these cases the burden of proof would lie with the employer, and unless he does so one would certainly have to bring these matters to a vote and try to challenge them on some other occasion, and to discuss very important issues later on in the Bill, to which only a scant amount of time will be given.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I wish to address myself in the main to Amendment (y), being discussed in association with Amendment (w). Amendment (y) seeks to remove lines 27 to 29 from new Clause 2. The effect of those lines is to make it an offence or an unfair industrial practice, which is much the same thing
  "to induce an employer or an employer's association to join in making an application under Part I of Schedule (Provisions as to certain closed shop agreements) to this Act."
  In other words, it makes it an offence for a trade union to induce an employer to do something which presumably the employer does not want to do.
  In explaining this Clause on Second Reading, the Solicitor-General and his right hon. Friend tried to suggest that it was all very simple. But when one notices that the question of inducement is qualified, as the Solicitor-General rightly says, by subsection (2), in order to discover what "induce" means, as mentioned in subsection (3)(c), one has to revert to subsection (2) to discover that the words existing in subsection (3),
  "… to which this section applies …"
  import subsection (2) to apply to subsection (3)(c).
  I have hardly even seen anything more complex than this piece of legal drafting within a Clause, one subsection relying upon another, which the right hon. Gentleman had the impertinence to suggest was the most simple English and could be easily understood by any shop steward. I thought that that was most extraordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) gave an extremely convincing explanation of how it would be impossible for the ordinary person to grasp the meaning of the Clause. The explanation from the
  1260
  other side of the House, that this was a piece of simple English which could be understood by anybody, was extremely unconvincing. It seems that one has only to look at the Clause to see that it is extremely complex, and the idea that it is easily comprehensible without very close reading is a complete nonsense.
  It seems that in the event of the Bill becoming law in its present form, in practice all existing closed shops would become invalid in law, or at least challengeable in law. Therefore, trade unions would be forced to the choice of enforcing the continuation of their closed shops by extra-legal means. They will do this, because many of them will not go through the procedure of registration without which they cannot even try to maintain the law as laid down in the Bill.
  Therefore, what will be forced upon the trade unions is either the maintenance of their existing position, by means which the hon. and learned Gentleman would regard as unconstitutional, or an application will have to be made by the unions for a fresh closed shop with any employer who can be found ready to agree without having to be induced, as stated in the Bill.
  The limitations and complicated procedure placed upon the union in order to try to achieve that are so great that it is made virtually impossible for any union to jump over all these stiles and finally to arrive at a closed shop through the four or five different stages. If the unions do not fall down on one stage, they are bound to fall on another. I cannot see any situation arising in which it would be possible for a trade union to achieve a closed shop. The pretence has been put forward that the new Clause, and new Clause 1 moved yesterday, are Clauses designed to assist unions who will be in special difficulty in this area. They in no way succeed in doing that.
  It is time that we dropped the absurd pretence that hon. Members on both sides are seeking a way in which to assist unions to achieve their objectives. There is no such intention on the part of hon. Members opposite. For this reason, I am delighted to have the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Amendment (y), which makes it absolutely clear that it is only hon. Members on this side who are concerned to strengthen the unions and that hon. Members opposite

  1261
  are concerned only to weaken the unions, although they constantly pretend that they want to strengthen them. Their pretence does not stand up to serious examination.
  Perhaps some employers recognise the benefit of the closed shop. As soon as the Bill is enacted, if it is enacted in its present form, other employers will begin to find that they can employ non-union labour if they wish. In the area which I know best, an employer could set up a company of students, perhaps, or of models, together with one or two dissident Equity members, perhaps with somebody who has been prevented from performing in South Africa because of Equity's rules about racial matters. Such an employer could employ them without going through the complex procedures which, as I said yesterday, a former Conservative Government established to provide the reality of trade union authority in this area.
  Once that has happened in a single company in a single place, all other managements will complain of unfair competition, because they will say that the conditions imposed upon them by the London Theatre Council procedure and by the standard Esher contracts are being eroded. The trade union will be unable to do anything to impose, as it does at present, the union shop upon that employer; because that employer will be the last employer who will go with the trade union to the C.I.R., to fix up a closed shop. The object of such an employer is to break the closed shop.
  Let there be no misunderstanding about this. If the Bill is enacted, there will be employers all over the country in all sorts of occupations who will set themselves the specific task of breaking closed shops. That will be their object. It will be extremely difficult by any legal means to prevent them from succeeding.
  If the power which the union now has to enforce compliance with minimum standards is removed, managers will see it as their duty to their shareholders to secure the minimum conditions, which will be much lower than the minimum conditions previously provided under the closed shop agreement. In the sphere which I know best, within weeks of the first non-Equity company being formed and of the association proving powerless to prevent it, the Esher standard contracts could become so much waste paper
  1262
  and the Theatre Councils and the other protective institutions unable to function effectively.
  I have with me a copy of an Esher standard contract. I shall refer to this, because yesterday the Solicitor-General referred to the Theatre Council procedure. I thought that the confusion of what the Solicitor-General said and his complete lack of knowledge of the subject were exceeded only by the convincing manner in which he presented it. I have seldom heard balderdash presented in such a convincing way. I should not have known that it was balderdash but for the fact that I recognised, having some knowledge of the subject, that the Solicitor-General was confusing a casting agreement with an Esher standard contract.
  The truth of the situation is quite different. The truth is that one of the predecessors of the Secretary of State—Oliver Stanley, when he was Minister of Labour—set up the Theatre Councils. In every contract which is issued under a Theatre Council there appears this clause:
  "Neither the British Actors' Equity Association nor any of its members shall take any action to impede or endanger the production or run of the play, provided that all Artists engaged are registered as approved Artists at the time of making the engagement …"
  Strictly, it is a pre-entry closed shop. An "approved artist" is a member of Equity. If he is not a member of Equity, he is not an approved artist. This gives the Theatre Council the power to enforce a closed shop in London theatres, and it is also operated throughout the business.
  So this was an ingenious means whereby the substance of a closed shop was conceded without the appearance of it. A successor to the Government who conceded that situation because they recognised its necessity are proceeding to do the exact opposite. By this Clause the Government are proceeding to give the appearance of a closed shop without conceding the substance of it. It is the complete opposite.
  I ask the Secretary of State to consider what happened at that time, to look again at new Clause 2 and to see whether it would not be better, if he is serious in recognising that there are areas in which

  1263
  the existence of the closed shop is necessary—the area to which I am referring is by no means the only one—to import some such wording as is provided here—in other words, to provide that the union has the power of enforcement, a power exercised by the trade union and not made dependent upon the consent of the employer.
  If the Secretary of State is serious about what he is doing and wishes to give the trade union the power to enforce the conditions and standards which it has hitherto enjoyed, he will accept this wording and will not rely upon the wording which he at present has, which is of no value but which would be improved if we were to take out the provision which makes it an offence
  "to induce an employer or an employers' association to join in"
  a closed shop agreement.
  So the balance of the law will have been changed. Despite all the hypocritical smooth talk we heard yesterday, the situation will be grave indeed. I speak mainly for a union which has a proud boast that no member of it has ever broken a contractual agreement with the consent of the union. People have asked: why was it that during the Equity television strike people with long-term contracts to make a series continued to perform? The answer is that they continued by the direct instruction of the union, because they were under contract Therefore, they continued to perform, against the interests of the union, and the strike probably continued for two or three weeks longer as a result of that.
  I forecast that a consequence of the passing of the Bill will be a rash of unofficial strikes throughout the industry. It will be the only way in which Equity will be able to protect its interests. Although hon. Members opposite hold out the Bill as a means of securing industrial peace, it will actually be the cause of industrial war. What we shall have during the forthcoming years in the way of industrial disputes and industrial strife will be very much greater than what has been happening, even in the last six months, and that has been enough since this lot have been in power.
  My advice to Equity must be that the law, unless these Amendments are
  1264
  accepted, will no longer help it and it must safeguard its funds in one or two ways which I shall have pleasure in recommending. Equity must see whether there are ways other than legal methods of enforcing the Equity shop. It will have to consider what other sanctions are open. It will have to have its own lawyers ready to see what loopholes can be burrowed in the legislation. There will be a great deal of legalistic activity as a result of the Bill. Equity must be ready, if necessary to strike and strike again in the preservation of the union shop which is essential to the maintenance of its members' livelihood.
  There will be no industrial peace until Labour returns to cast out this iniquitous Measure and all the horrors of corruption and, perhaps in some areas even physical enforcement which must follow the loss of the natural and legal rights of trade unionists which are to be stolen from them by the stupidity and the viciousness of the party opposite.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Tom King: I find it extremely difficult to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who usually makes a rational and serious contribution to these discussions. In the middle of his speech, he was dealing with serious matters, but there then followed an unfortunate lapse from his usual standards, and he indulged in some unnecessary and unjustified accusations against my right hon. Friends and their intentions, and he made some regrettable comments about the possible implications of the Bill. He is not the only Member concerned with the problems of Equity and he is not the only person concerned with some of the difficulties which exist in this respect. His speech would have been more appreciated if he had concentrated on the real difficulties.
  Amendment (y) proposes to omit the provision dealing with inducing. The closed shop is recognised in industry as having advantages. I have worked with the pre-entry closed shop and I recognise its advantages, and I know that the companies with which I have worked and other companies will not forswear those advantages within five minutes of the Bill's becoming law. They will wish to appear to be progressive in their negotiations with the unions, but there are also

  1265
  advantages for the employers in certain situations.
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman says that employers will not readily forgo the advantages of the closed shop. Is he not aware that under new Clause 1, for which he voted yesterday, they will be forced to forgo those advantages, unless they can become approved under the narrow definition which the Government said they intended to enforce under that Clause?
  Mr. King: They may be forced to forgo the advantages of the closed shop, but they will not be forced to forgo the advantages of the 100 per cent. union shop, because that depends entirely on the attitude of the employees.
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misunderstanding about his own Government's Bill. We have been attacked by the Secretary of State this afternoon for misrepresenting the Bill, but it is the Government who are misrepresenting the Bill to their own supporters. What the hon. Gentleman does not realise is that there cannot be a 100 per cent. union shop, except within the narrow definitions of new Clause 1, which was passed yesterday, and with the approval of the Industrial Court.
  Mr. King: By referring to the 100 per cent. union shop, I mean simply that all the employees are members of the union. In what sense could that be lost? If at the moment there is a closed shop and all the employees are members of the union, if none of the employees applies to leave the union when the Bill is passed, will there not continue to be a 100 per cent. union shop?
  Mrs. Castle: The definition of a 100 per cent. union shop when membership is made a condition of employment means that that condition can no longer apply.
  Mr. King: I accept what the right hon. Lady says, but she will accept my contention. The right hon. Lady may believe that there will be a wholesale desire to leave the unions, a desire which I should regret, but where there are good relations and responsible trade unionism and good shop floor representation, I do not expect wholesale resignations.
  An impression is fostered by some misleading propaganda that people will be
  1266
  encouraged to leave the unions. In future, they will have the right to do so, but it is a right which may or may not be exercised. If, in the example which I have given, the employees choose not to exercise it, there will be a 100 per cent. union shop. But it will be on the best basis, because it will be a voluntary union shop composed of people who have freely chosen to be members of the union, recognising the benefits which that can bring.
  I hope that hon. Members will stress to union leaders that they have to start changing their rôle and to recognise that they now have to sell the benefits of their unions. There is tremendous scope, particularly with the agency shop contribution, for selling the benefits and advantages of union membership, for pension entitlement, sickness benefits, strike benefits. That will make it a calculated act of disadvantage in an individual if he pays the agency shop contribution but is not a member of the union.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman would not want to misrepresent the position. It may be true, and I concede this, that an employer sees the advantages of 100 per cent. trade unionism, through the operation of the closed shop, or voluntarily; but under the Bill he will not be able to give any instruction to a newcomer. The great difficulty will be in the maintenance of a 100 per cent. union shop.
  Mr. King: The new Clause provides that an employer will be able to make it clear that he encourages union membership. I agree that the balance will be slightly changed and that it will be up to the union, instead of telling an employee that he is obliged to join, to sell the benefits of joining. If employers recognise that there are benefits in having the closed shop, and I believe that they do, it is hardly necessary to have a provision to make it an unfair practice to induce.
  The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) made an interesting speech, but it was totally irrelevant. The preamble to the Clause merely sets the scene for what is the point of the Clause, which is that no account shall be taken of pressure. To try to enlarge subsection (1) when the main attack has been that the Bill is too long and too complicated, for the Opposition now to seek to add

  1267
  yet another sentence or another insertion adding nothing to the sense of the Clause and making no contribution when the matter is covered elsewhere, is merely over-egging the pudding.
  The much more serious issue concerns Amendment (x). If the hon. Member is right about this, we should be genuinely concerned. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconcile the point about Clause 24 with the clear statement in Clause 22(4), which establishes the very important principle that the onus will be on the employer. It is a fair point that there must always be a problem for the employee facing such tribunals, even with all the safeguards with which we have tried to surround him. I hone that Clause 22(4) will be the over-riding condition, making it clear that the onus of proof is on the employer, and that the Amendments will be rejected.
  Mr. Loughlin: It is very difficult for hon. Members on either side fully to comprehend the Clauses of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) made a snide remark, but I will not repeat it about him. I can understand his not being too clear about the full implications.
  It is true that, broadly, we deal with two types of employer. Some are good and will want to see full trade unionism in the shop because they recognise that by having it, and having a high degree of co-operation between the two sides in the establishment, they are more likely to obtain higher productivity than if they have antagonisms on the shop floor. Those good employers will be sorely disappointed by the Government's performance. They will not now be able to continue the policy of having 100 per cent. voluntary trade unionism in their establishments. That is a pity, because the Bill is supposed to be about industrial relations.
  Mr. Adam Butler: When the hon. Gentleman talks about 100 per cent. voluntary unionism, is he referring to the voluntary agreement between the union and the employer or voluntary action on the part of the member who can work at the factory only if he belongs to the union?
  Mr. Loughlin: I am dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for
  1268
  Bridgwater. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when his hon. Friend made the point.
  This is not a question of a formal agreement for 100 per cent. trade unionism or of a written closed shop agreement. When I was a trade union official a number of employers saw the advantages of full co-operation with the trade unions. Whilst we had no formal agreement with them, they took every step possible to persuade employees coming to the factory for the first time to join the union, including the distribution of a trade union application form. The personnel department would try to persuade the worker to fill it in then, so that it could be passed to the shop steward. That is the kind of employer I am talking about.
  As long as his work force is static, he can continue to maintain a 100 per cent. voluntary trade union shop, presumably. But unfortunately people die, and there is a wastage of labour. In many industries the annual wastage even in good firms is about 30 per cent., and it is much higher in some of the bad firms. When this happens it enables 20 per cent. of the workers to challenge the operation of even an approved closed shop in the first year. That is what we were talking about last night. There is no provision in the Bill which will encourage or in any way assist the good employer to maintain a 100 per cent. trade unionism even on a voluntarly basis, because it is not physically possible.
  Mr. Tom King: No compulsion.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am not talking about compulsion. Perhaps I am expressing myself badly. I am saying that there is no longer an opportunity for an employer even to persuade the work people to be in the trade union. If there is a wastage rate of 30 per cent., in the first year 20 per cent. of the employees could object to any approved application for a closed shop.
  We are not dealing with good employers only. I had a very mixed bag. Most of the employers with whom I dealt were good, but some I could not trust further than outside the shop door. They are the people who will take full advantage of the provisions of the Clause and the Clauses to which it relates.

  1269
  Amendment (w) seeks to insert after "reason" in line 4 the words:
  "as defined in subsection (1) of Section 22"
  Strangely enough, this would be an improvement in the Bill. I said last night that while Clause 22 might constrain employers in some way I did not believe that it gave any protection to employees against unfair dismissal. Even though I am advocating the inclusion of those provisions, because they might be better than nothing, we see how futile the four items in Clause 22(1) are. The first two speak of reasons for dismissal

  "(a) related to the capability or qualifications of the employee for performing work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to do, or

  (b) related to the conduct of the employee, …"

  I know what some of the bad employers are like.
  7.15 p.m.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) talked about the possibility of transfer. Many employees are subject to transfer from one area to another. Accommodation is often let to the employee in connection with his employment. He could be dismissed under these provisions for refusing to be transferred. There is no definition of "conduct". It would depend entirely on those hearing the case, who are not associated with the industry. Where accommodation was let, a worker would lose not only his job but his house because there is no protection in regard to accommodation let in connection with his employment.
  The trade union movement has had some very bitter struggles over the capability of the individual. We have often had to tell an employer who has argued that he should dismiss someone for inability to do his job, even though he might have been there ten years, "If you dismiss him we shall take the lads out." That was the only possible way in which we could compel the employer to toe the line. I do not think that any trade union could take a risk to secure the retention of an employee when "capability" is defined as it is in the Bill:
  " 'capability' means capability assessed by reference to skill, aptitude, health or any other physical or mental quality;"
  I know scores of employers who could get away with that one.
  Mr. E. Fernyhough: God help you if you wear glasses or have dentures.
  Mr. Loughlin: If the worker has glasses like mine and is doing a job that is relatively fine work, the employer could argue that his physical condition does not allow him to do the job.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Get a better pair of glasses.
  An Hon. Member: They are too expensive.
  Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to be sidetracked on to the prescription charges being introduced in April.
  The employer could well argue that even with the glasses the worker still could not do the job. The burden of proof is on the employee, not on the employer.
  What about mental qualities? If I were a militant trade unionist, it could be argued that my mental quality was the determining factor in my actions, and on the basis of that definition—
  The Solicitor-General: Before the hon. Gentleman goes any further in his interesting definition of capability, he might like to be reminded that it is taken gratefully from the corresponding definition in Clause 35 of the right hon. Lady's Bill. It is exactly the same definition.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and learned Gentleman has got into the habit of floating up to the Box like the Holy Ghost. He frightens me. I never know what he is going to do. He does not even put his hand up in the customary practice of the House. He just stands up and in his usual snail's gallop says, "Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it relates to a Clause of the Bill that the right hon. Lady introduced?" I do not give two hoots who was to present the other Bill. It is not before the House. I am dealing with this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to know that we are dealing with this Bill and that, even if there were defects in the Bill presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) that is no excuse for him to say, "This might be defective but we shall put it in".
  The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General rose—
  Mr. Loughlin: No. Sit down. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will request me to give way, I will willingly do so.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is not easy for him to ride off and denounce the right hon. Lady's Bill as irrelevant in that way. That Bill was produced after a very long period of trial and tribulation and its provisions were said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to be warmly supported by the entire Labour Party. Surely on these terms we are entitled to look with some respect at provisions in the right hon. Lady's Bill.
  Mr. Loughlin: What the hon. and learned Gentleman forgets is that there was tremendous discussion on that Bill inside the Labour Party in this House and outside. After that discussion had taken place, the decision, rightly or wrongly, was that we would not proceed with the Bill. There is no question but that, if the Labour Party has a full discussion on an issue of that kind and then the Bill is not proceeded with, there can be no criticism.
  The Solicitor-General: I am grateful again to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Bill to which I am referring, and to which we have been referring throughout, is not the interim Bill that was never produced but the Bill tabled on 29th April, 1970, with the entire support of the Government of which he was a member. It was the declared intention to put it on the Statute Book by the following autumn. It is that Bill to which we are referring.
  Mrs. Castle: Perhaps I may step in to help settle this. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is making an entirely valid point. The Solicitor-General keeps quoting from the Bill which I presented to the House and the principles of which were, as my hon. Friend says, endorsed by the trade union movement and the Parliamentary Labour Party. But the hon. and learned Gentleman is constantly quoting out of context a Bill which was never examined by the House. The House never had a chance of weighing the relative merits of my proposals in their context. My hon. Friend is right. What we are concerned with now are the Government's proposals.
  Mr. Loughlin: I never dreamed that the hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about the Bill that we were going to present to the House. I should have thought that it would have been elementary of him to know that a Bill is subject to discussion in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading, as this Bill is. I thought that he was pursuing his usual political tactic of criticising us for "In Place of Strife". I never dreamed that he was so impudent as to argue the case that, apparently, he was arguing.
  If he thinks that his interventions are going to lead me down a side path, I can tell him that he will not succeed. I am going to return now to the point I was arguing—about the definitions to which I have referred creating a hole in the Bill through which one could drive a train and not just a coach and horses. The Bill and the new Clause mean that it will be relatively easy for an employer with the slightest antagonism towards trade unionism to get rid of any active trade unionist. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows it, and so does the Secretary of State.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Gower: I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said. There are indeed great opportunities ahead for effective trade unions to enlarge their voluntary strength, and to do so they will have to give ever better services. There should be a healthy competition among them.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has just left the Chamber. I hope that the excellent members of Equity will not follow the advice in his peroration. It was misguided. He referred to all sorts of unconstitutional steps he might recommend to the members of Equity after the passing of the Bill. I hope that they will reject such counsel, which is not in their best interests.
  As the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) herself pointed out, we have amended the Bill to permit a relatively small exception which might enable a closed shop arrangement in the activity covered by Equity and which might also permit a similar arrangement in the mercantile marine. We did not do it with wild enthusiasm. I am glad that the hon. Member for Putney has now returned because I am commenting on his remarks

  1273
  in relation to the closed shop and the new Clause. Yesterday, on new Clause 1, we permitted the exceptions which might be made in the activities covered by Equity and also in the mercantile marine, where there is an analogous situation. I was telling the House that we did not make the exception with wild enthusiasm.
  In an engaging passage in the Daily Telegraph today, its parliamentary correspondent states, quite rightly, that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) and the hon. Member for Putney appear to regard the closed shop arrangement in Equity as a bastion of our constitution. May be it is, but I do not think so. We feel, however, that there may be a special case here. It appears to us that this is a special situation. But the unions and managements concerned will still have to satisfy the conditions laid down in new Clause 1.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The point I was making was that the concessions did not exist—that they were completely bogus.
  Mr. Gower: That is a comment with which I do not agree. If the case is put fairly, it may well be, on the evidence adduced to us, that such an arrangement will be deemed proper by the Commission. The hon. Gentleman is asking that we should include in the new Clause, by excluding subsection (3)(c), the possibility that such a closed shop should be introduced by compulsion on the employer, through the threat of a strike or by a strike. I hope that we shall entirely reject such a proposal. The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, made out a reasonable case for a closed shop in this context, and we hope that it will be established on its merits, but the hon. Gentleman has made out no case for it to be imposed by brute force. I hope that his utterly irresponsible suggestion will be rejected by the Government.
  I turn to Amendment (x). The remarkable thing about the speech of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) was that he appeared to want to include in the wording of the new Clause the wording at the beginning of Clause 22, yet spent most of his time demolishing that wording, as did the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin).
  Mr. Loughlin Mr. Loughlin indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gower: They both criticised it.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that one. I said clearly that it was preferable to nothing. I said that, poor though it was, I should like to see it included. Then I proceeded to show why it was poor.
  Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Norwood went further and criticised the wording because it was in the affirmative rather than the negative. I am not misrepresenting him, I am sure. He said that the wording should have been "lack of capability or qualifications" rather than simply "capability or qualifications". I think that he laboured the point. I think that the present wording adequately covers the main point. It would be difficult to introduce a complete category to cover every possible exigency. It has to suffice to put in about five separate categories which would satisfy the case as being fair.
  Similarly, the hon. Gentleman dealt in some detail with the phrase "sufficient reason" later in Clause 22. He wanted to add an exhaustive list of categories, including one which he himself seemed to regard as an absurdity—that the person has a particular religious belief or persuasion. I pointed out to him that it might be legitimate for a local Labour Party to wish to dismiss an employee who happens to be a keen Conservative. No matter how exhaustive one made a list, something would be left out that would be basically fair or sufficient reason. The present wording is the best in the circumstances and we must remember that a responsible body will be considering this. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will agree that this matter will be considered responsibly in judicial considerations. The words "sufficient reason" will be capable of definition by a body which will have an accumulated experience over the years ahead. The Amendments should be rejected.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) is one of the most forceful speakers in the House. He said that we had had no chance of discussing the unfair dismissal provisions in the Bill. Of course it is true that the guillotine does

  1275
  bear some responsibility, but that responsibility does not lie entirely on this side. We have had many detailed debates in these weary, long days and nights on the Bill, and I think that even some of his hon. Friends would agree that the time has not always been best spent on some of the items discussed. It has been in some respects a matter of selection by the Opposition of what we should discuss.
  I agree that the unfair dismissal provisions are very important, and this has been emphasised by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). We tend to overlook the fact that, at present, there are no safeguards for the individual who is unfairly dismissed, over and above the question of being able to sue in the civil courts for breach of contract. These provisions spell out the rights of the individual in this situation. With all humility, I say to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that, while he may think that some employers will try to use these provisions as a weapon to get rid of some employees, the Bill gives protection to the individual.
  These four important points in Clause 22 are open to interpretation, to judgment on the part of the employer who may be seeking to dismiss his employee. They are open to judgment by the industrial tribunal. Every decision in the land is a legal decision, presided over in the High Court by a judge. The very word means that judgment is being used. We know that quite often judgment is improperly used but in this industrial framework I would say that the individual has a very good chance of getting proper justice. These four provisions are relevant because they relate to capability, qualifications, conduct and redundancy.
  The hon. Member for Norwood took us to task about Clause 22(4). He does not like the subsection (4(a) and (b) which said:

  "(a) the dismissal of an employee shall be regarded as having been unfair if no good reason for it is shown, and

  (b) where a good reason for the dismissal is shown (whether it is a good reason falling within subsection (1) of this section or not), the dismissal shall nevertheless be regarded as unfair if in the circumstances the employer acted unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee."

  1276
  The hon. Gentleman asked why "any other good reason"? I would say because there may be other good reasons beyond conduct and capability and it is quite impossible in such a Bill to provide a fully comprehensive list of reasons. We can all think of examples and there is one very important one, incompatibility. This could well be something open to interpretation by the industrial tribunal.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: And mental cruelty?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman jokes about mental cruelty but if force is being used on an individual it does not have to be physical force. If he is being treated very unfairly I should have thought that this was a reason, for making out a case that he was being unfairly dismissed.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has used the word "in-compatibility" and I hope that it will be scrubbed from the record. Frankly any employer could say this about any employee and if incompatibility is a good reason under the Bill, then it is even worse than I thought.
  Mr. Smith: Under the Bill the employer would have to show that there was sufficient reason for making the allegation. This is the whole basis for the provision. The case would have to be proved before the industrial tribunal. We can all think of examples where there is incompatibility.
  It can be unfair, I agree, it can be a trumped-up charge but it could be a perfectly genuine situation where there is incompatibility because of the abtuseness of the individual or because he is not harmonising with his colleagues or the company employing him. I would submit that it is impossible to provide a comprehensive list to be written into the Bill.
  The Bill does not necessarily restrict unfair dismissal to those grounds I have mentioned. The hon. Member for Norwood said that the employer might say that the four provisions did not suit his book very well and that he would get rid of someone on the grounds of colour, sex—if it is a woman—or religion—[Interruption.]—perhaps that was an unfortunate remark. Hon. Gentlemen

  1277
  know what I mean about well-known discriminatory points such as racial discrimination, religious discrimination or sex discrimination. No industrial tribunal would begin to consider such a thing if that sort of case was brought before it. These provisions are not therefore starters, they are not relevant provisions in the debate. No one before an industrial tribunal defending discrimination against an employee on those grounds would have any chance of succeeding.
  We have given consideration to the provisions of I.L.O. recommendation 119 and to the recommendations of the Donovan Commission. They recommended that in addition to trade union membership and activities certain other reasons should be specifically declared to be unfair with respect to dismissal. They listed these as race, colour, sex, marital status, religious or political opinion, national extraction or social origin. The Bill does not include these because we do not believe that the list could ever be really comprehensive and anyway those items would never stand the test if they were brought before the industrial tribunal.
  7.45 p.m.
  The Bill is right as it is drafted on these questions of unfair dismissal. The hon. Member said there were good reasons, spelled out in his party's Bill—which was not discussed and which people do not even like being mentioned. I believe that there are something like eight reasons for dismissal spelled out in the Bill of the right hon. Lady and four of these were subsequently disqualified. I am sure that she is not pretending that there could not be more than those actually included in the Bill.
  It is important that we should be able to leave the door open for other examples to be brought before the industrial tribunal. The hon. Member for Norwood dealt with the question of reinstatement. I know that reinstatement was mentioned in the right hon. Lady's Bill, but as far as I can remember, although it in some ways went a little further than ours, there was no machinery for carrying through the reinstatement, and this is surely the most important point. I agree that there is, ideally, a good case to be made out for reinstatement of the unfairly dismissed man but in many
  1278
  respects it is not practical, it does not work out and often it is hard to police and supervise.
  In the circumstances, it is sensible to allow this recommendation to be made and to try to persuade the employer to take back an employee who has been unfairly dismissed and not to provide an official sanction although we are allowing that to be taken into consideration when damages are assessed.
  Mr. Orme: It is because it is impossible to quantify this sort of problem that when workers take action to get reinstatement by stopping work they do it only when there is justification. That is the only way in which reinstatement can be achieved and trade union organisation maintained.
  Mr. Smith: That is the sort of thing we have not sought to describe as an unfair industrial practice. We have been urged to do so but we have not. The hon. Member for Norwood raised the question of the burden of proof. If we are fair about this Bill and what it seeks to do, it is inappropriate to spell out precisely where the burden of proof lies at each stage. I would refer him to the passage he has quoted in Clause 22(4) where there is a good deal of the onus of proof placed on the employer who appears before an industrial tribunal. It will have to be for the industrial tribunal to work out the onus of proof in dealing with cases. We will make them as informal as possible and it is in the interests of both parties that there should not necessarily always be a situation where the burden of proof must be placed on the employer.
  I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) who has been such a frequent contributor to these debates, not least on the subject of Equity. I do not want to raise the temperature in what has been a fairly equable debate, but I have heard the hon. Gentleman many times and I think that his rather intemperate language was uncharacteristic. He usually makes a good argument, even if we do not agree with him, but I felt he was a little out of character today. Maybe he did feel rather strongly about it.
  The hon. Gentleman saddened me because my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend have gone to a

  1279
  great deal of trouble to try to meet the case of Equity and the National Union of Seamen. They have laboured for long hours, not only in the Chamber but outside, to try to find a solution for Equity. They produced the new Clause which we debated yesterday. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his view that it does not meet the case, but I should have thought that it was the best compromise in a difficult situation. The hon. Gentleman gives us very little credit by indicating that this is merely a pretence and that we have brought this proposal forward purely for political reasons. It was introduced because of the very good and well-argued speeches which he and some of his colleagues and some of my hon. Friends have advanced in favour of it. The hon. Gentleman is being unduly pessimistic when he says that he cannot see anybody getting a closed shop—
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My point is that hon. Members opposite have made it clear that they will not allow the Government Front Bench to make any real concession. As soon as they thought that there was even the possibility of a concession being made, hon. Members opposite have started to rebel. The Government have put forward a bogus proposition because they knew that if it was a real proposition their hon. Friends would not support them.
  Mr. Smith: That is entirely untrue, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. His right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) yesterday seemed to think that we had made a complete volte face. She said that we had gone away from the agency shop provision and had now accepted the closed shop principle. We have made no secret of the fact that the Clause has been tightly drawn and that it is not an open door for the introduction of the closed shop.
  There is a clash of philosophy between the two sides of the House. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is in favour of the closed shop. I respect his view. I am not in favour of it. This is not an open door; it is a narrow gateway.
  The hon. Member for Putney says that he does not believe that any trade union
  1280
  will be able to get the qualification. I do not agree. I think that they will be able to do so. But admittedly the provision is very narrow and has been drawn with the special cases in mind. Others who might seek to create a closed shop, even if there is a joint approach between employers and employees, will not be able to establish their case. The provision has been drawn to deal with the specially difficult cases, like the Equity case, for which there has been general sympathy on both sides of the House.
  I know the great interest of the hon. Member for Putney in Equity and his advocacy of its case, but it is only a tiny part of the general trade union complex, and we must not get our eyes so fixed on Equity that we forget other sections. It is not the Government's wish or desire to introduce the closed shop principle for trade unions as a whole. In those circumstances, we cannot possibly accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stressed many times, we believe that the right of the individual is fundamental and that there should be a shift of emphasis towards the individual. This is very important, even allowing for the special cases about which there are admitted difficulties.
  We think that the drafting of the Bill is right on the question of unfair dismissal and that it gives a fairer chance to the individual than the Bill of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, which would have become law if her party had remained in power because it had a majority. We believe that the question of judging the onus of proof should be left to the industrial tribunals. We think that if we were to accept the Amendment we would throw open the door for all trade unions. Yesterday the House accepted new Clause No. 1, which allows special cases to be registered.
  For these reasons, I must advise my hon. Friends to reject all three Amendments.
  Mrs. Castle: The speech of the Under-Secretary of State has confirmed all our worst anxieties about the Bill's proposals for dealing with unfair dismissals. We have had about the sloppiest explanation of a vital part of the Bill that has ever

  1281
  been given from the Government Front Bench.
  Let me take only one phrase in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that the onus of proof would lie with the tribunals. That showed that he did not know, and certainly did not care, what he was talking about. I do not like to be offensive to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very nice chap, but the fact that he was put up to answer this debate is proof of how little importance the Government attach to this matter. The hon. Gentleman has been allowed to participate three times on minor issues in our debates. It is clear that the Government thought that this was a minor issue and that the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State could take a little rest.
  This short debate shows what a tragedy it is that we have had no opportunity, either in Committee or effectively on Report, to discuss Clauses 20 to 32, to say nothing of the enforcement Clauses, which are supposed to embody for the first time in law in this country what the I.L.O. convention defined as a basic human right. I know that the Government have put it in only as a fig leaf. That is the reason for the sloppy wording in the Bill and why we have had a sloppy explanation from the Under-Secretary of State. But it is not just a fig leaf to us. It is an important development of people's rights as workers and citizens.
  The Under-Secretary of State says, "But we could have had a longer debate if only the time had been better spent". That comes very badly from a member of a Government which last night deliberately organised a filibuster to waste time so that hon. Members opposite could get back from their dinner engagements by 10 o'clock. May we please have no more of that nonsense from the benches opposite?
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Mrs. Castle: We want to divide on the Amendment soon and to move on to another debate. Therefore, I shall not give way on an established point.
  The avidity with which the Solicitor-General has floated to the Despatch Box from time to time to say, "What are you complaining about? It was all in her Bill" emphasises what a pity it is that we did not have the chance in Committee
  1282
  to examine Clauses 20 to 32 to see how they hung together and, if the Government wished, to see how they compared with my Clauses—although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) that it is impudent of the chief legal spokesman for the Government on the Bill to base his case, as he has done so many times, on quotations made in connection with a Bill which did not even receive a Second Reading, let alone go to Committee.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that, in the business scheduled for the week before Parliament was dissolved, her Bill was down for Second Reading on the Monday to which we did not come back because the General Election was declared in the interim?
  Mrs. Castle: Of course. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of our genuine intention to legislate on the lines of my Bill. I do not retract anything from my Bill or from the fact that the previous Government seriously intended to go ahead with that legislation had the General Election not intervened.
  We intended to legislate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) worked very hard on the drafting of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is extremely difficult to get matters right at the first attempt. We did not pretend that we had discovered the ultimate truth in every line or found the perfect wording in every case. That is what a Committee stage is for. It enables hon. Members to examine a Bill in detail. Unlike the present Government, we should have been prepared to listen and we should have taken seriously any argument from any side of the House which was able to demonstrate that the wording which we had chosen would not fulfil the purpose of our Bill. That is in contrast with what we had this evening, when my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) pointed out in great detail what we believe to be only one of a number of flaws in this group of Clauses. However, we cannot deal with all of our criticism in this debate because we are bound by the limits of the new Clause. We have to concentrate on one flaw, but

  1283
  it is a serious one. It occurs in Clause 22, and it represents a flaw in the Government's approach to this unfair dismissal point.
  My hon. Friend gave a number of hon. Members opposite grounds for anxiety as a result of his carefully constructed arguments. We believe that, taking Clause 22(1) and (4) together, one faces a situation in which an employer can drive a coach and horses through a worker's right to protection against unfair dismissal. As my hon. Friend said, Clause 22 does not spell out the reasons which would be unfair, which was the way in which I tackled it in my Bill, thus putting the onus of proof clearly and inescapably on the employer. This Clause stands my approach on its head. It says that the dismissal would be fair for one of the reasons given in subsection (1). Then we are given a formula in subsection (4) whereby a dismissal could be held not to be unfair if a good reason were shown by the employer. In terms, that good reason need not be one of the reasons listed in subsection (1). Therefore, the Clause enables an employer to plead a whole range of unspecified reasons, and the Government do not deny that, in this situation, the onus of proof clearly shifts to the worker.
  The Under-Secretary seemed to dismiss that as being unimportant. He said that there will be a "good deal of onus of proof". Those are meaningless words. Then he said that the onus of proof will be a matter for the tribunal. The whole question is who has to prove what. That is what matters in these cases, and that is what the I.L.O. Convention says. The hon. Gentleman at least paid me the courtesy of recognising that, in building into my proposals a list of disqualified reasons, I was adhering to the I.L.O. Convention in a way that the Government's formula does not. Therefore we say that we have proof that these Clauses on unfair dismissal are so weak as to be practically meaningless in the view of many independent legal observers.
  We have proof, too, that the Government do not care about it and are not prepared to consider improving their wording. They have not even said that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood may have a point, that they will look at it and that, if he is right, they will
  1284
  seek to introduce an Amendment in another place. The Under-Secretary says that the Government think that it is right to be at large about what is a good reason because "anything might crop up". Incompatibility might crop up. What else might crop up? As one hon. Member said, mental cruelty, or what? I can imagine no better reason for incompatibility between an employer and his employee than that the employee is very active in his trade union. That is a very good basis for incompatibility.
  Mr. Tom King: The right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends have taken exception to the word "incompatibility". In earlier debates we discussed group interests as against individual interests, and it was the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) who made the point about the incompatibility of a union member to justify the action of his union in expelling him.
  Mrs. Castle: I agree. We cannot get right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to realise that, when we talk about trade union rights, we are talking about the existence of groups in our society which we think contribute to the democratic life and vitality of the society, and the group interest must be preserved.
  These Clauses are concerned with the rights of an individual worker, and they are the kind of rights that, years ago, the I.L.O. said should be embodied in the law of every civilised land. In this case, the I.L.O. Convention is incompatible with the legislation in the form brought forward by this Government. There is no list of disqualified reasons. Clause 22 contains a circular argument that an employer can say that he is not unreasonable because he has a good reason which need not be a reason spelt out in Clause 22(1). There was nothing like that in my Bill, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  We say that this provision makes a farce of the Bill, and it is only one of our objections to this group of Clauses. The other great safeguard lies in the right to reinstatement and, here again, we have had only confused waffle from the Under-Secretary. We have had no chance to examine the Clauses and, if necessary, to compare them with mine. My Bill said that the tribunal could

  1285
  issue an order to reinstate. The Government's Bill says that it will issue a recommendation. But what if the employer defies that recommendation? It is an easy way out for an employer to get rid of militants and, if we are talking about industrial realities, certainly that is a reality of industrial life. It will be cheap for many employers to pay the compensaton—
  The Solicitor-General The Solicitor-General rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I see that we have at last brought the hon. and learned Gentleman to his feet to help his hon. Friend.
  The Solicitor-General: There is some provocation which I can endure and some which goes beyond endurance. Does not the right hon. Lady acknowledge that in her Bill, as a matter of sequence, the tribunal could make an order for reinstatement, but that Clause 52 went on to deal with the situation in which the employer did not comply with such an order? It was the same at the end of the day as our provisions for recommendations. In the right hon. Lady's Bill, as in ours, the only sanction that one can have against an employer who declines to accept a recommendation or order for reinstatement is that of additional compensation. It is fruitless for the right hon. Lady to pretend that her Bill could secure reinstatement. In her Bill and in ours an employer could buy off someone who was unfairly dismissed. In Clause 52 of her Bill there is no alternative to accepting that proposition.
  Mrs. Castle: The hon. and learned Gentleman is proving my point about how tragic it is that we have not had the opportunity of examining these Clauses. If what the Solicitor-General says is true, no doubt he would have accepted our Amendment to substitute "order" for "recommendation". If the hon. and learned Gentleman says that there is no difference, will he undertake to make that substitution in another place and thus prove his point? If not, the hon. and learned Gentleman is proving my point. We shall watch what happens in another place.
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Lady must understand that one does not advance the argument at all by describing as an order something which cannot
  1286
  in fact be enforced as an order. The reality of the situation is that one cannot make anything beyond a recommendation. The order for reinstatement in the right hon. Lady's Bill was in the end unenforceable and amounted to no more than a recommendation. It could be enforced only to the extent of providing for additional compensation. It would not have helped in the right hon. Lady's Bill, nor in ours, to describe something as an order which has not the force of an order.
  Mrs. Castle: This proves how grossly unfair it is that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I should be having this argument not in the context of the Clauses concerned. We cannot, because of the guillotine. My answer is that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not use the word "order" because he did not intend it in the last resort to be enforceable. But what my hon. Friend and I provided in my Bill was that the tribunal must have some freedom at the end to decide in a particular situation whether reinstatement would be unworkable. That is very different from saying that the employer shall decide whether it is unworkable. My hon. Friend and I argued this for hours. Our purpose was to safeguard the right to reinstatement without which this is meaningless. I repeat, an employer in a particular situation will gladly buy himself out of having to go on employing a person whom he calls incompatible or, in brackets, a troublemaker.
  It is essential to have some reality behind reinstatement. Equally, being practical people, we have to imganie how this might apply in a particular situation where the right to reinstatement would, in the opinion of the tribunal, be unworkable. That was the difference between us.
  I repeat, it is a tragedy. Because I am not in a position to move Amendments tonight on "reinstatement" or to move the word "order" instead of "recommendation"—
  Sir Harmar Nicholls Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough) rose—
  Mrs. Castle: I do not want to give way or to protract the debate. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite that in Amendment (w) there is a perfectly reasonable proposition. It is not a debating or party

  1287
  political point about which we are talking. It merely asks the Government to say that in this new Clause after the words "good reason" there should be inserted the words
  'as defined in subsection (1) of section 22'.
  That is the Government's subsection in their Bill.
  What is the objection to making the position clear by putting it in here after "good reason"? I will tell hon. Gentlemen the objection. It was given to us by the Under-Secretary of State when he said, "Because there may be other good reasons like incompatibility." I therefore ask hon. Gentlemen to do a bit of practical Committese Amendment work tonight. We have had none so far.
  If this had been my Bill and I had been on that side of the House I should
  have had a whole pack of critics behind me rightly saying, "Barbara, alter this. Do you realise what that means, do you realise what this means? "On every Bill which I introduced—Equal Pay, Transport, and the rest—I listened to my hon. Friends, because they were there to improve my Bills. My hon. Friends and I never believed that just because we were stuck in No. 8 St. James's Square we had a monopoly of good sense, knowledge and experience. We were ready to listen and to learn. I suggest that instead of being rubber stamps for this reactionary Government some hon. Gentlemen opposite tonight become men, independent men, and vote for the Amendment.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
  The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes, 285.

  Division No. 241.]

  AYES

  [8.15 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Houghton, Rt Hn. Douglas

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Deakins, Eric

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ashley, Jack

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Doig, Peter

  Hunter, Adam

  Barnes, Michael

  Dormand, J. D.

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

  Barnett, Joel

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Janner, Greville

  Beaney, Alan

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Driberg, Tom

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunn, James A.

  John, Brynmor

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dunnett, Jack

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  English, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Evans, Fred

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

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Fernyhough, E,

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Bradley, Tom

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

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Judd, Frank

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kelley, Richard

  Buchan, Norman

  Foot, Michael

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Forrester, John

  Kinnock, Neil

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lamond, James

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Latham, Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lawson, George

  Cant, R. B.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Carmichael, Neil

  Ginsburg, David

  Lee, Rt Hn. Frederick

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Golding, John

  Leonard, Dick

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cohen, Stanley

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Coleman, Donald

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hamling, William

  McBride, Neil

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hardy, Peter

  McElhone, Frank

  Cronin, John

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McGuire, Michael

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mackie, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Heffer, Eric S.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Horam, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taverne, Dick

  Marquand, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mason, Rt. Hn, Roy

  Rankin, John

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

  Meacher, Michael

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Tinn, James

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Tomney, Frank

  Mendelson, John

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Torney, Tom

  Millan, Bruce

  Richard, Ivor

  Tuck, Raphael

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Molloy, William

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Roper, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wallace, George

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, David

  Moyle, Roland

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Weitzman, David

  Murray, R. K.

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Sillars, James

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Oram, Bert

  Silverman, Julius

  Whitlock, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orme, Stanley

  Small, William

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Steel, David

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Pardoe, John

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Woof, Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  Strang, Gavin

  Pentland, Norman

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Prescott, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Clegg, Walter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Gorst, John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Cooke, Robert

  Gower, Raymond

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Coombs, Derek

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Astor, John

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gray, Hamish

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Cormack, Patrick

  Green, Alan

  Awdry, Daniel

  Costain, A. P.

  Grieve, Percy

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Critchley, Julian

  Grylls, Michael

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Crouch, David

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Balniel, Lord

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Curran, Charles

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Batsford, Brian

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Benyon, w.

  Dean, Paul

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Maselhurst, Alan

  Biffen, John

  Dixon, Piers

  Hay, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Blaker, Peter

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Heseltine, Michael

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Hicks, Robert

  Body, Richard

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Boscawen, Robert

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Emery, Peter

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

  Bowden, Andrew

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Farr, John

  Holland, Philip

  Braine, Bernard

  Fell, Anthony

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Bray, Ronald

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Hornby, Richard

  Brewis, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Hordern, Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Rolgate)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bryan, Paul

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Howell, Ralph (Norfok, N.)

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

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hunt, John

  Buck, Antony

  Foster, Sir John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bullus, Sir Erie

  Fowler, Norman

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Burden, F. A.

  Fox, Marcus

  James, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

  Fry, Peter

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Mark

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gardner, Edward

  Jopling, Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Churchill, W. S.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Kimball, Marcus

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  1290

  1291

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Neave, Airey

  Spence, John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Sproat, Iain

  Kirk, Peter

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Stainton, Keith

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Normanton, Tom

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Knox, David

  Nott, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Lambton, Antony

  Onslow, Cranley

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Lane, David

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Stokes, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Osborn, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Tapsell, Peter

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

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Loveridge, John

  Peel, John

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Percival, Ian

  Tebbit, Norman

  MacArthur, Ian

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Temple, John M.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  McLaren, Martin

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  McMaster, Stanley

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

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tilney, John

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Maddan, Martin

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Trew, Peter

  Madel, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Maginnis, John E.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Rawlison, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Marten, Neil

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mather, Carol

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Maude, Angus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Waddington, David

  Mawby, Ray

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Walters, Dennis

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Weatherill, Bernard

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

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Moate, Roger

  Rost, Peter

  Whitelaw, William

  Molyneaux, James

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Money, Ernie

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Monro, Hector

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Montgomery, Fergus

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

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  More, Jasper

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Simeons, Charles

  Worsley, Marcus

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Mudd, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Murton, Oscar

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Soref, Harold

  Mr. Paul Hawkins and

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Question, put That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes, 243.

  Division No. 242.]

  AYES

  [8.25 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Boytl-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Cormack, Patrick

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Braine, Bernard

  Costain, A. P.

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Bray, Ronald

  Critchley, Julian

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Brewis, John

  Crouch, David

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Crowder, F. P.

  Astor, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Curran, Charles

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Awdry, Daniel

  Bryan, Paul

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Baiter, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Buck, Antony

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Balniel, Lord

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Dean, Paul

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Burden, F. A.

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Batsford, Brian

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Dixon, Piers

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Carlisle, Mark

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Benyon, W.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

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

  Biffen, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Emery, Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Churchill, W. S.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Blaker, Peter

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Farr, John

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fell, Anthony

  Body, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Boscawen, Robert

  Cooke, Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Cooper, A. E.

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Fookes, Miss Janet

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

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Foster, Sir John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Fowler Norman

  Loveridge, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Fox, Marcus

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Fry, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McCrindle, R, A.

  Rost, Peter

  Gardner, Edward

  McLaren, Martin

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  St. John-stevas, Norman

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Scott, Nicholas

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maddan, Martin

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Madel, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maginnis, John E.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gorst, John

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Gower, Raymond

  Marten, Neil

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

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mather, Carol

  Soref, Harold

  Cray, Hamish

  Maude, Angus

  Speed, Keith

  Green, Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Spence, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sproat, Iain

  Grylls, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Stainton, Keith

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  steel, David

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Moate, Roger

  Stokes, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Molyneaux, James

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Money, Ernie

  Sutcliffe, John

  Haselhust, Alan

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monro, Hector

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hay, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss side)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Hicks, Robert

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Temple, John M.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hiley, Joseph

  Murton, Oscar

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

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

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Neave, Airey

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Holland, Philip

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Tilney, John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Normanton, Tom

  Trew, Peter

  Hordern, Peter

  Nott, John

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Howell, Denis (Guildford)

  Osborn, John

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Waddington, David

  Hunt, John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hunt, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pardoe, John

  walker-smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Wall, Patrick

  James, David

  Peel, John

  Walters, Dennis

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Percival, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Jesse, Toby

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wilkinson, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Kirk, Peter

  Raison, Timothy

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Knox, David

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Worsley, Marcus

  Lambton, Antony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Lane, David

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Marry

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Beaney, Alan

  Bradley, Tom

  Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Ashley, Jack

  Bishop, E. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Ashton, Jack

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Booth, Albert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Barnes, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Cant, R. B.

  1294

  1295

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Norlhfield)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Pendry, Tom

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Greville

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Prescott, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  John, Brynmor

  Probert, Arthur

  Cox, Thomas (Wandworth, C.)

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

  Rankin, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Johnson, Waiter (Derby, S.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Judd, Frank

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Keffey, Richard

  Roper, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Rose, Paul B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Lamond, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Latham, Arthur

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lawson, George

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Doig, Peter

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Sillars, James

  Dormand, J. D.

  Leonard, Dick

  Silverman, Julius

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Small, William

  Driberg, Tom

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dunn, James A.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Strang, Gavin

  English, Michael

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Evans, Fred

  McBride, Neil

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fernyhough, E.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Swain, Thomas

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

  McElhone, Frank

  Taverne, Dick

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McGuire, Michael

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

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mackie, John

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

  Foot, Michael

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Forrester, John

  McNamara, J, Kevin

  Tomney, Frank

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Torney, Tom

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Garrett, W. E.

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

  Urwin, T. W.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marquand, David

  Varley, Eric G.

  Ginsburg, David

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Golding, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wallace, George

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mendelson, John

  Watkins, David

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Weitzman, David

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Molloy, William

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Whitlock, William

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Murray, Ronald King

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Horam, John

  Oram, Bert

  Woof, Robert

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orbach, Maurice

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orme, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  Clause accordingly added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

  SPECIAL PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN COMPLAINTS TO INDUSTRIAL COURT
  5

  (1) For the purposes of the application of section 90(1)(c) of this Act to a complaint that action specified in the complaint constituted an unfair industrial practice in accordance with section (Pressure on employer to infringe rights of worker) (3)(a) of this Act, the reference in section 90(1)(c) to the person against whom the action was taken shall be construed as a reference to the employer and not to the worker.

  10

  (2) For the purposes of the application of section 90(1)(c) of this Act to a complaint that action specified in the complaint constituted an unfair industrial practice in accordance with section 87 of this Act, the reference in section 90(1)(c) to the person against whom the action was taken shall be construed as a reference to either of the following, that is to say—

  (a) the person who was induced to break the contract to which the complaint relates or who was prevented from performing that contract, and

  (b) the party to the industrial dispute in question with whom that contract was made.

  15

  (3) Where the action specified in a complaint presented under section 90 of this Act consists of a threat made by the respondent, or consists of action carried out by means of a threat, the remedies available to the Industrial Court under subsection (3) of that section shall (instead of that specified in paragraph (c) of that subsection) include either or both of the following, that is to say—

  20

  (a) an order directing the respondent to refrain from making or continuing to make that threat or any other threat of a like nature against the complainant;

  (b) an order directing the respondent to refrain from taking or continuing to take action in accordance with the threat and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant.

  25

  (4) In relation to a complaint falling within subsection (3) of this section, section 90(5)(a) of this Act shall apply as if, for the words 'paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of this section' there were substituted the words 'subsection (3)(b) of this section or section (Special provisions as to certain complaints to Industrial Court) (3) of this Act'.

  30

  (5) Where, on a complaint under section 90 of this Act, the complainant is a trade union or a joint negotiating panel of trade unions, and the complaint relates to action constituting an unfair industrial practice by virtue of section 51(2)(b) of this Act, the remedies specified in subsection (3) of section 90 of this Act shall not be available to the Industrial Court, but the Court may, if it considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order—

  35

  (a) authorising the presentation of a claim to the Industrial Arbitration Board under section 112 of this Act, and

  (b) specifying the date on which, in accordance with the finding of the Court, the action constituting the unfair industrial practice first occurred.

  —[The Solicitor-General.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With the new Clause it will be convenient to discuss Amendment (nnnn), in line 28, leave out subsection 5.
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it may also be convenient to say something about the following:
  Amendment No. 77, in page 65, line 10 [Clause 90], leave out from 'is' to end of line 12 and insert:
  'the person against whom the action was taken'.
  Amendment No. 78, in line 31, leave out subsection (4).
  1298
  Amendment No. 79, in page 68, line 14 [Clause 94], leave out paragraph (c) and insert:
  (c) where the complaint relates to dismissal, the complainant is the person who was dismissed, or, in any other case, the complainant is the person who was prevented or deterred from exercising his rights, or was penalised or otherwise discriminated against, or was refused engagement, as the case may be.
  Perhaps I may also remind the House that this new Clause is in some ways linked with new Clauses 2 and 4 which we have already discussed.
  The structure of the Bill as it now stands is that Clause 94 ensures to the individual a means of asserting his right of making a complaint of unfair dismissal against his employer. New Clauses 2 and 4 ensure in such case the employer's right to a contribution, if his

  1299
  claim is established, from those who have procured an unfair dismissal or discrimination.
  The new Clause deals in the first place with making clear the employer's remedy against the organisers of industrial action organised with a view to procuring an unfair dismissal or discrimination. In addition, it makes two other qualifications to the remedies available under Clause 90; first of all, to the remedies available under Clause 87, which the House discussed at some length arid, secondly, to the remedies available to a trade union under Clause 51 where it complains, and the complaint has been established, that an employer has failed to recognise that trade union.
  To Clause 90 (1) (c) as it stands there are Opposition Amendments attracting attention to the phraseology that,
  "the complainant is a person against whom, or to whose detriment, the action was taken or who has suffered or who is likely to suffer loss in consequence of it."
  The Opposition seek to replace the first two words "or" by "and", on the basis that the remedy would be too widely available under the Clause as it stands.
  My right hon. Friend has tabled Amendment No. 77 to Clause 90, making a corresponding change with a corresponding intention, because the complainant, in the light of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, has to be
  "the person against whom the action was taken",
  and there is no question of putting in the alternatives relating to people who suffer or are likely to suffer loss in consequence. I draw attention to that because it underlies what new Clause 3 does in relation to Clause 90.
  Similarly, Amendment No. 79 makes a corresponding Amendment to Clause 94, because Clause 94 (1) (c) also could be said to go too wide. Accordingly, Amendment No. 79 would limit the qualified complainants who may complain under Clause 94.
  The House will have those changes in mind. They both effect a limitation on the kind of person who can claim under Clauses 90 and 94.
  Against that background, I now invite the House to look back to new Clause 3 itself. Subsection (1) makes
  1300
  plain that only an employer, not an employee or a worker, is able to claim under these provisions for an order to restrain industrial action intended to produce unfair dismissal or discrimination. It confines that right in that way as part of the package which the House has just been discussing.
  The dismissed or discriminated-against individual secures his remedy from the employer, who may then either seek a contribution under the provision we have just discussed or have the possibility under this subsection of presenting a complaint and seeking an order against those seeking to induce the wrongful discrimination or wrongful dismissal.
  Mr. Orme: May we try to put this in non-lawyer's language? Is the Solicitor-General, in other words, trying to redress the damage which the Bill does by abolishing Section 3 of the 1906 Act, and trying to prevent a Taff Vale judgment if, for example, a person tried to sue an air transport company because there was a strike, or something like that? Is that the reality of it? Is that what the Solicitor-General is trying to circumscribe?
  The Solicitor-General: I am trying not to go too far into the discussion on the Amendments to Clause 90. I have pointed out that Clause 90(1)(c) and Clause 94(1)(c) both identify too widely the people entitled to claim in consequence of unfair industrial action and, as the hon. Gentleman put it, would have left it open, on one view at least, for someone incidentally suffering loss, for example, as a result of the non-appearance of an aircraft because of an industrial dispute, to be entitled to claim under Clause 90.
  For that reason, the Opposition have put down their Amendments to change "or" to "and", which are directed to the same end, but my right hon. Friend's Amendment is intended to make plain that it is only the person against whom the action is taken who can seek a remedy under Clause 90—and with variations similarly under Clause 94.
  I do not want the House to think that that narrows it unduly. It still remains possible for the person who suffers loss as a result of unfair industrial practice, if it is aimed at him, to claim under the various provisions, but not the incidental

  1301
  sufferer of the sort about whom the hon. Gentleman was concerned.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Orme: I thank the Solicitor-General for that explanation, but even with the rewording proposed—and he has said that there is a chance that some action may be taken—will not then the final adjudicator in this matter be the Industrial Court?
  The Solicitor-General: The final adjudicator as to the person against whom the action is directed will be the industrial court. But one would then have to see whether he was or was not entitled to claim under that provision. But it is intended to exclude the person incidentally injured or who could establish that in consequence of industrial action he had suffered damage. Again, some people have urged us that we should have gone that far. Within the narrow category, the Clause is effective for our purpose, which the hon. Gentleman would still regard as a poor one, but at least it is a clearly defined one.
  I have dealt with subsection (1) of new Clause 3. Subsection (2) is for the purpose of defining the remedies available and the persons to whom they would be available in respect of a secondary boycott, to use the phrase used in earlier debates, where an unfair industrial action is being committed under Clause 87. Again, the House will have seen the competing Amendments on the Order Paper in respect of Clause 87. There are some from the Opposition, and there are Amendments 75 and 76 in the name of my right hon. Friend which are designed to narrow the originally too wide provisions of Clause 87, not in the same way as those tabled by the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, but as they are set out. I shall not trouble the House by dealing with them. It may be that I should be out of order if I did. However, I draw the House's attention to them.
  Against that background, the purpose of subsection (2) of new Clause 3 is to give a remedy in respect of an unfair industrial practice under Clause 87 to one of two parties.
  Paragraph (a) refers to:
  "the person who was induced to break the contract to which the complaint relates …"
  1302
  and paragraph (b) refers to:
  'the party to the industrial dispute in question with whom that contract was made …'.
  The effect of those provisions is to enable either the primary employer, who is indirectly threatened or harmed by industrial action directed against a third party—he is dealt with by paragraph (b)—or that third party who is extraneous to the dispute and who is threatened or damaged, as a means of putting pressure on the primary employer, to bring a complaint under Clause 90 and to seek a remedy against an unfair practice under Clause 87. Each of those people is entitled to bring a complaint by virtue of this subsection. Those are the objectives.
  Mr. Loughlin: I want to be sure of what the hon. and learned Gentleman means. He referred to the person in paragraph (a) and then said "or" the person in paragraph (b). As I read the wording, surely it says "(a) and (b)". I take it that "each", and not "either", has the right to claim.
  The Solicitor-General: That is right. I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's distinction between "each" and "either". It means one or other or both.
  Mr. Loughlin: Yes.
  The Solicitor-General: That is right—one or other or both. It depends upon which of them chooses to or seeks to, and both might. There is no doubt about its meaning.
  The two people about whom we are talking are, first, the man against whom the primary strike or industrial action has been called and who is then being threatened or damaged by an attempt to cut off supplies from a secondary supplier who is not supporting the action, and, second, that external supplier who is not supporting and who is extraneous to it. Those are the people who are identified. That is no doubt one of the reasons why the other Amendment to the Clause deals with the definition of "associated employer".
  Subsection (3) is designed to make clear and to extend the remedies available under Clause 90(3) in the following situation. Where the unfair practice being complained of is a threat to procure

  1303
  industrial action for an unfair objective, under the Bill as drafted the Industrial Court could only make an order restraining the threat and not its implementation. Again, hon. Members opposite may not accept with enthusiasm the idea that such an order may be made, but they can see that there is little logic in giving power to make an order to restrain repetition of the threat if the Court cannot at the same time restrain fulfilment of the threat. The effect of the subsection is to enable the Court either to restrain repetition of the threat or to restrain implementation of the threat so as to make both halves of the package hang sensibly together.
  Mr. Sillars: Is the Solicitor-General saying that a court could order people who had withdrawn their labour to return to their work?
  The Solicitor-General: The underlying principle running right the way through these provisions is that there is nothing in any place or in any way that can enable a court to order people to return to work. There is no provision for a court order directing people who have left work and gone on strike to return to work. The provisions as they stand enable the court to say to somebody or some organisation that is threatening to call industrial action for an unfair objective, "Do not go on threatening to do that and do not in fact organise that action".
  Mr. Orme: If they do?
  The Solicitor-General: An order can be made against that organisation or the people responsible telling them not to do it.
  Mr. Sillars: It was stated earlier today that the Ford workers came out spontaneously. What would happen if a court order was made against those workers who had come out spontaneously?
  The Solicitor-General: It cannot be emphasised too often that the Bill does not contain any provisions whereby those people can be ordered or required to return to work. This is the distinction between this kind of approach and the one I might call the Betteshanger Colliery approach; because we have never asserted or believed that it is possible,
  1304
  sensible or wise for a court or any other institution to try to make orders requiring individuals as such to return to work.
  Mr. Paul B. Rose: Does the Solicitor-General agree that this is a distinction so fine as not to be capable of being understood by a trade unionist? What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that the attitude will be, "We will not order you back to work, but unless you return to work you are in contempt of court and the inevitable consequences will follow", because there is a labour injunction against a person striking or threatening to strike.
  The Solicitor-General: This is the point. I am astonished that at this stage in the day the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that this is the point. The labour injunction, as he chooses to call it, would not be capable of being made against someone taking part in a strike. This is a fundamental asserted in the Consultative Document. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to explain, because this is an important aspect, what remedies are available. They are available only against either people or organisations calling, organizing—
  Mr. Rose: Hear, hear.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman must be patient if he wants me to explain the matter more fully. What is made absolutely clear is that participation in a strike, withdrawal of labour, the mere taking part in a strike, does not give rise to any kind of remedy. The remedy is available against those who are seeking or threatening to organise, finance—
  Mr. Rose: The same people.
  The Solicitor-General: The distinction is clear.
  Mr. Heffer: They are the same.
  The Solicitor-General: I was coming to the other aspect which is set out in subsection (4).
  No such order could be made against a trade union official acting within the scope of his authority, so that if a strike is organised, called, or threatened and it is in pursuit of an unfair objective, an order can be made against the organisation

  1305
  whose officials are procuring that and it can be made against someone who is acting wholly outside the scope of his authority, not on behalf of any organisation, but it cannot be made against the people who are merely participating in the strike. This is the essential distinction and the effect is to expose the organisation, and not its officers acting within the scope of its authority, to remedies against it if the strike is called or organised for an unfair purpose.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: The person promoting and encouraging the strike may be the person who is on strike.
  The Solicitor-General: That may be so, but he would not be in any jeopardy of any kind merely for taking part in the strike. This is a principle which runs through the Bill. It is only organisations or people who organise or promote strikes, and then only those seeking to promote a strike in pursuit of an unfair objective. This is the very core of the Bill.
  Mr. John Prescott Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) rose—
  The Solicitor-General: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He is assiduous and I tend to succumb to his charms from time to time.
  It could be argued by some harsh people—not the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), to whose charms I succumb from time to time—that a set of legislative proposals designed to prevent undue industrial strife and undue industrial action which did not enable orders to be made against individuals was not likely to be as effective as those harsh folk would like. We have not succumbed to that argument. We do not contemplate the possibility or desirability of pursuing remedies against people who are merely taking part in a strike. It would be wrong to try; it would be ineffective to try. We have limited our proposals to orders against those who organise and only those who organise unfair strikes, and to the organisations on behalf of which they act if they are acting in the course of their authority from those organisations.
  Mr. Prescott: I thank the Solicitor-General for giving way. He is attempting to explain the distinction between what he
  1306
  is now proposing and the Betteshanger case. He is saying that those who participate in a dispute will not have an action against them, but that those who encourage a strike will be liable to prosecution in certain circumstances, and this has been the theme all the way through the argument. In the Betteshanger case they all committed an offence and all could be brought before the courts. In this case, only one or two people would actually be committing the offence, inducing or encouraging them to take that action. In practice it is likely that only one or two would go to gaol, as in the Bettershanger case, where only about 10 went to gaol and the rest of the workers involved refused to co-operate or to work. There will be exactly the same effect, and the practical distinction becomes meaningless.
  9.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: We are going back over ancient history. The distinction goes a great deal further. There is no question of men being sent to gaol. We have all moved a very long way since the Disputes Order of 1940. We are not in that kind of situation. The remedy would be sought from the Industrial Court. If the right to it was established and it was claimed that the industrial action was being organised in pursuit of an unfair objective, then, subject to all the rest of the defence, an order could be made against the organisation whose officials were procuring or organising the unfair industrial action. It could be enforced against that organisation in the last resort as a result of contempt of court. The remedies against any individual would arise only if he was acting outside the scope of a registered organisation or of his authority from that organisation.
  It is that provision that is repeated in subsection (4) of the new Clause. I commend the whole of that package to the House as a reasonable balance, with the remedies being directed against organisations which are and can be held responsible in respect of unfair industrial actions.
  Subsection (5) is to be read together with Amendment 78, which removes the existing Clause 90(4). Subsection (5) takes its place. This set of provisions is designed to provide a remedy for the

  1307
  trade union which has secured a recognition order against an employer and which the employer is failing to recognise and to negotiate with. It is an order that can be made under Clause 51. Clause 51(2) deals with the situation where an employer is required to recognise a trade union or joint panel of trade unions. It provides for two different unfair practices by the employer. It is unfair for him then to begin negotiating with any other organisation of workers, and not to take all such action by way of bargaining with the recognised union as should be taken by a ready and willing employer. That is the kind of situation for which a remedy was provided in the right hon. Lady's Bill, and for which a remedy was recommended by Donovan and "Fair Deal at Work It is one of the unusual points at which all three of those source documents combine. All three suggested that where an employer declines to recognise a union that he has been required to recognise the effective remedy and sanction against him is that he should be taken before what is still known as the Industrial Court but will hereafter be known as the Industrial Arbitration Board, and that that body should be entitled to lay down the terms and conditions of employment which should be regarded as reasonable by the employer. So the employer is exposed to the risk of unilateral arbitration if he declines to bargain properly and effectively with the trade union, as he is required to do under Clause 51.
  Subsection (5) of the new Clause makes a drafting change to Clause 90(4) to make it clear that the order for reference to the Industrial Arbitration Board is available only when the employer is failing to bargain seriously with the union which he must recognise under Clause 51(2)(b). The second is to require the Court, when it is referring a claim in that way, to specify the date on which the action constituting the unfair industrial practice first occurred. In other words, after the Industrial Court is confronted with a claim that the employer is not bargaining seriously with the union which he is required to recognise it can refer the claim to the Industrial Arbitration Board, and shall specify the date on which the employer failed to negotiate with the union which he had to recognise. When
  1308
  the matter goes to the Board under Clause 112, the Board will be able to make an order against the employer laying down terms and conditions which he will have to observe, and which will then be incorporated, as under the 1959 Act, with the terms and conditions of employment of all the employees. The Board will have power to back-date that unilaterally arbitrated award against the employer in favour of all the employees to the date on which he first failed to recognise and bargain seriously with the union.
  This is a tidying-up provision to make plain how the union can get that effective remedy and the date to which the award can be back-dated. I am sure that the House will agree that this is the only effective compensation for a union which has won the right to be recognised and which the employer still declines to recognise. This remedy enables each employee covered by the union to receive effective compensation for the employer's failure to bargain with it. That effective compensation can be written into the terms and conditions of each member of the union that has not been recognised, and can be back-dated to produce an effective remedy for those members whom the employer had been failing to bargain with as he ought to have done.
  On that basis, I commend the new Clause to the House and invite it to say that there is no case for accepting Amendment (nnnn). That Amendment would seem to remove the remedy that is intended to be available for the non-recognised union under the provisions of this Bill.
  Mr. Loughlin: May I come back to the point which I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he said that both parties referred to in subsection (2)(a) and (b) can seek redress against the union or organisation involved in the dispute or which is inducing people to be involved in the dispute? I take it that if a contract is broken by A, then B has redress against A. Does that mean that B has got the normal rights of civil recovery and at the same time has additional rights against the organisation?
  The Solicitor-General: If the contract is broken as a result of an inducing by

  1309
  means of industrial action of an unfair kind, then the party who suffers damage as a result would have the right against either the party who broke it with him or the organisatoin which induced it.
  Mr. Loughlin: Or both.
  The Solicitor-General: Not both, because he could not recover both. He could not establish that he had suffered loss to the extent of both. In either case he would be entitled to recover his loss, but if he recovered his loss from B he could not then establish loss from the other organisation. In other words, he could not have his remedy twice.
  Mr. Rose: This is undoubtedly the most complex of the new Clauses, and the greater part of it, with the Amendments to it, are the result of bad draftsmanship. We are discussing the practical consequences which are arising from many of the deficiencies pointed out by my hon. Friends at earlier stages of the Bill. There is perhaps a lesson here with regard to the operation of the guillotine. A great deal more might have come to light had we had an opportunity of debating the three-quarters of the Bill which we were not allowed to debate.
  It is not surprising, for example, that new Clause 3(1) and the Amendments to it seek to qualify Clause 90(1)(c), because the latter was so widely drawn originally, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman now sees, that any member of the public in certain cases could take action when inconvenienced by an industrial dispute. Where an industrial dispute was held to constitute an unfair industrial practice, any person inconvenienced would have had the right to sue. Our earlier proposal, with its simple expedient of substituting "and" for "or", would have avoided all the paraphernalia we now see in subsection (1) of the new Clause.
  We understand that certain consequences must flow from outlawing pressure upon employers of a nature which has hitherto always been accepted as a perfectly reasonable practice and which we have been debating on other Clauses. That is, of course, pressure with regard to the closed shop. I cite again what Mr. Justice Sargent said in Reynolds and the
  1310
  Supply Federation 47 years ago. He said:
  "For many years past no one has questioned the right of a Trade Union to insist, if they are strong enough so to do, under penalty of a strike, that an employer or group of employers shall employ none but members of the Trade Union."
  For many years no one had questioned the right. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman outlaws it and has to redraft this provision to give effect to it.
  One consequence is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has to decide whether the employee affected should have the right to sue. It is perhaps logical according to the Government's thinking that they place the onus not upon the employee to sue but upon the employer. What is unacceptable to us is the principle itself, which allows the employer entirely to reverse the Trade Disputes Act, 1965, in the teeth of Donovan. Apparently the Government seem to have been undecided on this point or, as is usual, were split as to who should have the right to sue. "Fair Deal at Work" said:
  "The individual employee has virtually no legal redress if he loses his job or is otherwise victimised because he is a non-unionist."
  It asserted:
  "Any individual should have the right to appeal to the Industrial Court against coercive action from any quarter."
  This new Clause does not fulfil the promise given in "Fair Deal at Work". Apparently the Government have decided in their wisdom that the right should be given to the employer rather than to the employee. There is little value in talking about theology to non-believers, but I draw attention to this inconsistency since it seems to me that it is the employer rather than the individual non-unionist whom the Government seek to protect by reason of subsection (1).
  9.15 p.m.
  I do not believe they are interested in the freedom of the non-unionist; they are interested in weighting the scales in favour of the employer. The redrafting here illustrates this because often the unions will go before a tribunal with no legal aid, when the financial scales will be weighted against individual trade unionists, who will be the defendants, in favour of the employer suing because of the so-called unfair pressure.

  1311
  We come to subsection (2) and the associated Government Amendment. It is right that Clause 87 will be more tightly drawn as a result of Amendment No. 76. This is a minor concession but it is one of the few tangible examples of the Solicitor-General actually honouring one of his undertakings given earlier. We have to be thankful, on this Bill, for small mercies. He realised, after the discussions, that incidental to any strike action must be the risk of a breach of contract with a third party by the employer involved in the dispute.
  I suspect that the Clause has now been redrawn to the state in which the Solicitor-General intended it to be originally, before his attention was called to the fact that as it was drawn it destroyed almost entirely the right to strike in virtually every conceivable set of circumstances.
  Committee stages can be educational even for the most arrogant of governments, like this one. Occasionally they learn and on this occasion we have the right to say that the Solicitor-General has here embodied what was suggested by some of my hon. Friends, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). I remember when he quoted Lord Reid's dictum in Stratford and Lindley and the Solicitor-General then acknowledged the force of the argument by tabling the Amendment.
  At the second attempt the Solicitor-General has been able to limit the right of redress, formerly under Clause 90(1,c) given virtually to all and sundry. It is now given to those directly affected under Clause 70. Yet we are denied the opportunity of debating Clause 90 in its entirety. The only way in which we have been able to amend the Clause has been through the existence of the new Clause and the Amendments. We are denied the opportunity of debating Clause 90 as it stands, and I believe that the Government will regret this later.
  I come to subsection (3), which certainly extends certain remedies. The Solicitor-General, as usual—and we expect this from him now—told us that no one is forced to go to work and that we are not penalising the strikers, but what he fails to recognise is that the
  1312
  very people who induce the strike may well be strikers and, more often than not, are strikers. The shop steward who induces the strike which the Solicitor-General describes as an unfair industrial action will probably be on strike himself, so it is wrong to suggest that striker will not be penalised.
  If he is penalised, then someone else will plug the gap, and march into the breach—and he will be penalised. We may not have a Betteshanger but we shall have a series of picking-off actions which will ultimately be no different, except in degree.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman is less than fair when he denies that what this subsection does is to allow for labour injunctions to restrain action which is threatened or indeed the implementation of the threatened action and also, therefore, to prevent the party concerned from even uttering a threat. We debated fairly thoroughly in Committee the whole question of contempt, and it is pertinent to ask the Solicitor-General what happens to the employee or shop steward who induces the strike, against whom an injunction is made and who still utters remarks which the employer may regard as a threat?
  Surely the only remedy is to commit him for contempt and he will ultimately go to prison. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain if this is correct and that he would resort to what can only be termed a labour injunction. What happens when, after an injunction, employees continue to picket an extraneous party under Clause 87? What happens to the union funds if the individuals are not at risk?
  It would seem that both union members and officials could be held in contempt in certain circumstances if they were thought not to be acting with authority and might well be eligible for imprisonment. Much of what we have been told about the protection of individuals from imprisonment, if it had not evaporated in Committee, is fast evaporating now.
  I come, in stark contrast, to subsection (5). The Solicitor-General says that it is mainly a question of drafting. The principle is that, instead of adding remedies, as in subsection (3), which is directed against the employee, we are

  1313
  refusing to give remedies when the defendant is the employer, the paymaster of the Government, and when the employer refuses to bargain in good faith. Far from being a concession to the Opposition, it is a capitulation to the interests of employers and the remedies in Clause 90(3) for compensation, orders concerning rights and mandatory injunctions are stripped away when the employer is at the wrong end of the Industrial Court. Now he is no longer at the wrong end of the Industrial Court. He is before a different body altogether. It seems that employers are sacrosanct. There is greater leniency for them in the Clause but greater harshness for the workers and unions.
  The Clause is a genuflexion to the deity of draftsmanship and practicability, because even the Solicitor-General, with all his legal sleight of hand and the addition of new labour injunctions for threatened action by employers, cannot legislate for something which is not capable of being legislated for. He knows that certain things are impracticable. That was pointed out in Committee, and he has frankly recognised it in the first two subsections. These are not improvements but rectifications of errors presented to the Committee. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to oppose the new Clause and to support the Amendment.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I understood what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said much better than the new Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) that the new Clause is extremely complex, although I have no doubt that it will be understood by those who have to understand it and by the courts.
  We are used to being given very little credit by the Opposition for what we provide and to being beaten with a stick somewhat unfairly for what is in the Bill, but the hon. Member for Blackley was extremely slanted in his criticism of my right hon. Friend. He said that the new Clause would help the employers much more than it would help workers. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend say that if an employer refuses to bargain with a trade union or group in, presumably, an agency shop, the award can be backdated. This is a salutary concession. It has not occurred
  1314
  before. The trade union movement has constantly complained that in wage negotiations there is a slowing up in order to delay the eventual wage award and that therefore workers lose. We have had a lot of sympathy for this in the past, although recently wage awards have been coming too quickly, certainly in the last year or two. But there is no doubt that there have been times when there has been a certain slowing up in order to cut down the amounts which have to be paid by employers at the end of the day.
  By virtue of this Clause, an employer can be told by the Court that he has to back-date the award. Surely this is a great advantage. We should be given credit for it. We have not been given it. I hope that the trade unions will make this clear to the general public when they discuss the Bill, though I fear that that is a vain hope.
  The Clause has been criticised because of its effect upon individual employees, whether or not they be leaders of trade unions. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite criticise the Clause because it would create a situation in which the employee found himself before the court being directed one way or the other, and, if he did not obey that direction, there would be an injunction and, at the end of the day, he might be subject to civil proceedings.
  The fact is that there is no leader of any trade union, at a high or low level, who is likely to be in that situation if he acts within the authority of his union. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite support the wild boys who do not accept the authority of their unions or those in unions who from time to time disobey their own rules, they are on the side of anarchy. When one listens to some of their speeches, that is precisely the position in which they put themselves.
  Frequently we hear the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friend attacking us for daring to bring the courts into industrial relations. They say very little about their own courts in the trade union movement. Have they read tonight's newspapers? Have they seen how the Amalgamated Engineering and Firemen's Union—[Interruption.]—or whatever it is called now, run by Mr. Hugh Scanlon—
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: The hon. Member does not even know the name.
  Mr. Lewis: It is not surprising. Amalgamations are taking place so fast nowadays. That union has caned a strike for 18th March and we have heard about it today in the House. However, arising out of the strike on 1st March, 60 men employed at Hucknall have been each fined £5 for refusing to go on strike. They work for Rolls-Royce—
  Mr. Orme: What has this to do with it?
  Mr. Lewis: Hon. Gentlemen opposite, apparently, can go as wide as they like in expressing their extreme views—
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman has been brought in to filibuster. What has this to do with the Clause?
  Mr. Lewis: I will show the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  Mr. Orme: They were fined for breaking the rules.
  Mr. Lewis: Each of them was fined £5 because he refused to join a strike which was said to be against this Bill. They work for Rolls-Royce. They believe that the company, the country and their jobs are more important than going on strike.
  Mr. Orme: Where is this in the Bill?
  Mr. Lewis: I will tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
  Mr. Harold Walker: Whatever the merits of the decision of the A.E.U. or the A.E.F.—and I think that this is hardly the time to discuss them—does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the strike was not called by Mr. Scanlon but by the properly constituted and authorised policy-making body of the union, the national committee? Is not that doing precisely that which has been demanded from the Government benches throughout our proceedings on the Bill? Is not the union taking action to compel its members to adhere to the policy of the union?
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis: There is considerable doubt whether the leader of that union, Mr. Hugh Scanlon, acted within the rules. He acted outside the rules of the union. The
  1316
  rules of that union lay down that he should have had a ballot to call this strike.
  Mr. Orme: What has this to do with the new Clause?
  Mr. Lewis: When Mr. Hugh Scanlon does not have a ballot, he has a private court and fines people.
  Mr. Orme: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Chair has wisely been fairly tolerant throughout the debate. The hon. Gentleman must bring his argument within the terms of the new Clause.
  Mr. Lewis: I respect your restraint, Mr. Speaker. However, we are talking about industrial courts and I am simply pointing out that hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining about a court which is not a private court but a public court where people can put their cases. Furthermore, it is a court which bites only against those who are acting unconstitutionally. It deals only with people who seek to disrupt industry against the rules of their own union. Times out of number we hear hon. Gentlemen opposite give support to those who are prepared to disrupt industry in this way. The strike which is to take place on 18th March is disruptive.
  Mr. Orme: What has this to do with the new Clause?
  Mr. Lewis: It is a strike which, according to the Bill, is outlawed.
  Mr. Rose: On a point of order. I have listened with rapt attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I think that you, Mr. Speaker, ought perhaps to ask him to which subsection of the new Clause, which sentence, or even which word his speech relates.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I should also add that there are many hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate on the new Clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, come fairly closely to the terms of the new Clause and get on.
  Mr. Lewis: This is an attempt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I am going outside the terms of the

  1317
  new Clause because they do not like the argument.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether hon. Gentlemen like it or not is irrelevant. This is a question of order.
  Mr. Lewis: I was not referring to you, Mr. Speaker. I said that hon. Members opposite were making a fuss because they do not like my argument.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Lewis: I repeat, it is obvious that they do not like it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no question of referring to the Industrial Court the comments of hon. Gentlemen. I ask the hon. Member to keep to the terms of the new Clause.
  Mr. Lewis: The fact is that the Industiral Court, to which the new Clause refers, seeks to determine order in industry as against disorder. There is too much disorder in industry today. One can see it all around. No one could suggest that it is industrial order when a union calls a political strike against the wishes of the T.U.C., the members of the union and the people of the country as a whole. We are introducing the Bill—
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: On a point of order. Will it be in order for hon. Members on this side of the House to refer to the dispute on Thursday? If these accusations are to be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we shall expect the same tolerance from you, Mr. Speaker, when we speak from this side.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that it would be unwise to widen the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) either to come very close to the terms of the new Clause or to draw his remarks to an end.
  Mr. Lewis: I should have thought it reasonable to mention the context in which the Bill and the Clause are being debated in this House. The Bill and the Clause are being debated in a context of disruption of industry. We believe that the Bill and the Clause will help to bring order into industry. That is what the people voted for and what many union members support, despite the protestations of hon. Members opposite, who con-
  1318
  sistently talk as if the Bill would be to the disadvantage of industrial relations. We would not bring it in if we thought that.
  The Industrial Court will be able to discipline those who go against the unions and who stir up trouble for employers who are carrying out their proper functions. But no one who is seeking to improve industrial relations or to maintain peaceful conditions in a factory can be brought before the court. Hon. Members know this, but they are arguing the opposite. That is why it is in keeping with the situation outside for hon. Members opposite to know that there are some unions led by moderate men and others which are not led by moderate men—
  Mr. Orme: Mr. Speaker, what has this to do with the Clause?
  Mr. Lewis: The Jones-Scanlon axis—
  Mr. Orme: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need this help from sedentary positions. I have told the hon. Member that he must bring his remarks close to the Clause or resume his seat.
  Mr. James Tinn: How long, oh Lord, how long?
  Mr. Lewis: I have listened to most of these debates and I have been in the Chamber for long periods and have contributed to them. Whenever there is a slight widening of the debate—the Bill is being debated in the context of what is happening outside—there is a complaint from hon. Members opposite—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the Report stage, and this kind of general Second Reading speech is not in order. The question is whether this new Clause be read a Second time. That is much more restricted than a debate on Second Reading. The hon. Member has been speaking for 15 minutes. I must ask him to bring his remarks to a conclusion.
  Mr. Lewis: I will conclude. I have probably said as much as I want to say on this subject. The hon. Member for Blackley admitted that this Clause had been pressed for by hon. Members opposite, just as the Clause yesterday was pressed for—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating the Clause which was debated yesterday.
  Mr. Lewis: In both cases, hon. Members opposite can at least take comfort from the fact that the Government made a concession to their point of view. I should have hoped for more evidence of gratitude for that. I believe that the Clause is a good one and I hope that my hon. Friends will support it.
  Mr. Orme: Whatever difficulties we have encountered in debating this issue, my hon. Friends have not tried to be obstructive or restrictive. Certainly we have not wandered into the Chamber merely to make an explosive speech.
  Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. On what grounds does the hon. Gentleman say that I wandered in simply to make an explosive speech?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman wandered in and whether or not his speech was explosive are not matters for the Chair.
  Mr. Orme: I leave hon. Members to judge whether what I said about the hon. Gentleman's contribution was fair.
  When I intervened earlier to try to get some clarity about the Clause the Solicitor-General indicated that subsection (1)(c) completely abolished the law arising out of the Taff Vale judgment, by which it was possible to sue for loss of goods or production. The hon. and learned Gentleman described this as a complicated legal provision. If he finds it difficult to describe to the House of Commons, how much more difficult will it be for the nation's 185,000 shop stewards to comprehend?
  What will be the position if there is a dispute in, say, the motor car industry and, because of a strike at a subsidiary company supplying parts to a major car firm, the latter must stop production? If the Industrial Court deems the action of the subsidiary company to have been an unfair industrial practice or involving the breaking of a contract, will it be possible for the firm to sue the union or members of it for loss of production?
  Although the Solicitor-General said that subsection (1)(c) had been narrowed, the Clause is so complex that we cannot
  1320
  envisage its final outcome. The same can be said of subsection (3)(a) and (3)(b). Indeed, the same comments can be made about Clauses 87 to 91.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As the Solicitor-General spoke I wondered whether he had thought of a situation in which, although a majority of the workers—as a result, perhaps, of a sudden dangerous condition or contingency—favoured a walk-out against which shop stewards counsel, such action would qualify as unfair industrial action. How could a court of law interpret the shop stewards' counsel as constituting the organisation of that walk-out? Yet those men would be strikers.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the Government are not disposed to empower the court to order workers, either individually or collectively, to go to work. In a society such as ours that is not possible, as it would be tantamount to putting the workers in absolute and complete bondage. But although not completely removing the right of workers to take the type of action I have described, the Solicitor-General has made it almost legally impossible for them to exercise it. The 185,000 shop stewards, the cream of the trade union movement, the men who are often responsible for order in industry and not disorder, the men to whom workers go for advice, are the kind of people whom the Solicitor-General by this Clause seems to be after. He seems to think that most of them are irresponsible and the kind of people for whom, at the drop of a hat, the rest of the workers walk out unthinkingly on the spur of the moment. That is an absolutely false picture, and one over which the Government will come unstuck.
  The new Clause raises more questions than it answers. As the Bill proceeds the unions will continue to get the utmost legal advice and will meet these provisions with all the guile, ingenuity, skill and know-how that they have acquired over many years. Many unions will accord to the stewards the right to take industrial action—some unions do so already.
  If it is thought to be the best way to proceed, the central authority can be devolved. A union may decide that action taken by the stewards is at once constitutional under its rules so that there is

  1321
  no need for a long wait for district and then national recognition. The unions can easily meet the point by not tightening up on central authority but, instead, spreading that authority to those in their lower ranks—the shop stewards. I want the Solicitor-General to turn his mind to that possibility.
  If workers are hardly able to move legally in the sort of situation which I mentioned a moment or two ago, that is, where dangerous working conditions arise, what will they do? Let us not forget that industrial disputes and industrial action do not always stem from the thought that one is not getting enough wages from the employer. A large proportion, probably 95 per cent., of the disputes alluded to earlier by the Secretary of State arise out of what the workers consider to be adverse working conditions.
  As a Member of Parliament, I am not exposed to these dangers, but I understand very well that, if workers feel that they have no normal or legal room for movement because of restrictions of this kind, they may think in terms—I put it as no more than a speculation—of going back to the ideas of the Luddites. If they fear that they are seriously exposing their elected shop steward or other comrades in whom they have faith, they may end up taking not strike action but other measures to make their point, especially when their dispute arises out of dangerous working conditions.
  The House of Commons and the British people are beginning to understand more about this Bill and Clauses of this kind. They are entitled to an answer to that genuine fear which exists now among the working class.
  Mr. Loughlin: I think that the Solicitor-General genuinely tried to give the fullest possible explanation of the implications of each subsection of the new Clause, but I am not sure that his explanation was adequate. I do not criticise him for that because the more one looks at the new Clause together with Clauses 87 and 90 and the other related provisions, the more one finds oneself in a tangled web out of which it is almost impossible to fight one's way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) spoke of the possibility of unions transferring their power from
  1322
  the centre outwards to the areas and branches. But he seems to forget that a union's rules will be subject to scrutiny and amendment by the Registrar. If it were as easy as that for a union to avoid responsibility under the Bill, that would be all very well, but it is not as easy as that. Indeed, this new Clause, like several other parts of the Bill, imposes an almost impossible task upon the central office of any trade union, because compensation can be claimed against a union for the actions of one of its officials.
  A union's branch secretary in Aberystwyth or Towyn may take unconstitutional action, but, as I understand the Bill, the union itself, that is, the central officials, would be responsible for the action of the official in some remote part of the country. Taking into account the number of officials from branch secretary, branch chairman and shop steward level—my union, for example, has about 2,000 branches—one can see the impossible task facing the central officials of any union and the extent to which the union will be exposed in the matter of compensation. But many of us have been criticised for alleging that people can go to gaol under the Bill.
  The Solicitor-General attempted very deftly to dodge that issue. I do not mean that he deliberately tried to be dishonest with the House, but he wanted to dodge it because it is implicit in the Clause. Under subsection (3), the Industrial Court will be able to impose upon individuals

  (a) an order directing the respondent to refrain from making or continuing to make that threat or any other threat of a like nature against the complainant;

  (b) an order directing the respondent to refrain from taking or continuing to take action in accordance with the threat and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant.

  In the main, when we talk in terms of people who are on strike, it will be an unofficial strike that will be affected by the Clause. I would draw the House's attention to the words
  "… from taking any other action of a like nature …".
  That can be pretty widely drawn in an industrial dispute. But let us even assume that these people are unofficially strikers and that the conditions have been imposed upon them and that they decide, "All right, we shall carry on doing what

  1323
  we have been doing." The Solicitor-General has not yet convinced me that in a contempt of that kind certain persons have no sanctions against them. There must certainly be some sanctions, even if it is a matter of compensation for the action that they have already taken. If it is a question of an injunction against them, there is no point in having an injunction unless it can be enforced. The only way to enforce an injunction would be for a prison sentence to be imposed on the striker. Given those circumstances, I assure the Solicitor-General that, whether the strike be unofficial or official, there would be no solution to that industrial dispute until the lads came out of prison, in the same way as they had to be brought out of prison in the Betteshanger dispute.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look at this problem again. He is imposing a very onerous burden upon the responsible officials of the union, and he is exposing people who are engaged in any industrial dispute to the possibility of imprisonment. In so doing, he will not obtain a solution to any industrial problems.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Ted Fletcher: This is a highly complex Clause. It appears on our agenda during Report stage because the Government have had to think again in two directions. First, it is now obvious to the Government that a horse and cart could have been driven through the previous Clause, which, in effect, would have meant that anyone who conceivably had any action against a trade union, could bring that action through the civil courts. Consequently, the new Clause attempts to tighten matters so that only aggrieved parties—employers—have the right to seek compensation against trade unions.
  The Government have also learned lessons from the Betteshanger Colliery dispute during the war, when under Order No. 1305 the Government were able to regard every man who came out on strike as subject to penalty. Most hon. Members have read the delightful appendix to the Donovan Report which sets out the Permanent Secretary's report on the strike of the Kent miners. He pointed out that the Kent Miners' Association was kind enough to agree that only its officials should be taken to court: the
  1324
  country would have been in a devil of a mess had it decided that all those who were at fault should opt to go to prison, because there was not sufficient prisons in Kent to hold all those who were out on strike.
  So the Government have decided to restrict the penal provisions of the Clause to those who instigate strikes and those who are responsible for leading strikes. Those who will be regarded as instigating strikes which are regarded as unfair industrial practices will be those who are at risk.
  We can see how this will apply if we forget the legal jargon and consider the effects of one or two cases. Clause 87 makes sympathetic strikes illegal. Let us assume that there is a strike in the London Docks. The London dockers recognise that for their strike to be successful they must get dockers at other ports to come out, otherwise ships would be sent from London to unload at Bristol, Liverpool, Hull and elsewhere. If a dispute that concerned only the London Docks were followed by a sympathetic strike at Liverpool and elsewhere, anyone who threatened to bring out the dockers in support of their London colleagues—members of the same union—would be at risk under this Clause, because they would be regarded as leading a strike in what is regarded as an unfair industrial practice.
  For 150 years the sympathetic strike has been part of the unions' armoury. The Bill for the first time imposes restrictions on such activities. What will happen if workers disobey Clause 87 and sympathetic strikes and unofficial stoppages arise spontaneously on the factory floor? Who is to discover the culprits? How are the employers to notify the Industrial Court of where responsibility lies? If it is by means of the stool-pigeon or company spy who informs the management, "I have heard the shop steward threatening to take unfair industrial action. In confidence, I give you his name so that you can report him to the Industrial Court", that will create such an atmosphere in workplaces that it will be impossible for people to work together as mates and comrades.
  This is a particularly dangerous Clause which offers nothing to the unions. The Solicitor-General keeps on saying that in the last analysis no one will be sent to

  1325
  prison, but that is untrue. The Solicitor-General is bound to admit that at the end of the day if people disregard the orders of the Industrial Court, they may be held to be in contempt of court and sent to prison. He has frequently said that no one would be sent to prison, but I hope that he will now publicly admit that if people defy the Court, they may be sent to prison. If we could end this debate by getting that admission from the Solicitor-General, instead of his constantly evading the issue, I should be very pleased.
  Mr. Harold Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has summed up a substantial part of our main concern about the new Clause. If I had cause earlier to complain about the complexity of the Bill, I now have double and even treble reason. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the complexity. I have so far counted at least nine cross-references to other Clauses which the new Clause involves. It refers to Clauses 90, 51, 112 and 87 directly and, by implication, to Clauses 85 and 86.
  May I give an example to illustrate our concern? If the members of the A.E.F. at establishment A are involved in a dispute with their employer and, in order to fulfil an urgent contract, the work is sub-contracted to establishment B, where there are also members of the A.E.F., and the shop steward at the latter recognises the work as "black" and directs his members not to do it, those members would be caught by the new Clause. The Industrial Court would be empowered to make an order directing that shop steward and his fellow workers to refrain from refusing to do the work. In other words, they would be ordered by the court to do blacked work whether they liked it or not, and thus to betray the first principles of trade union solidarity. To add insult to injury, their fellow union members, their brothers, at establishment A, might be getting strike benefit for which workers at establishment B would be paying contributions.
  The Solicitor-General again insists that the only people who would be exposed to action would be those responsible for organising the strike, not those participating in it. The right to strike, he says,
  1326
  would proceed unimpaired. However, as my hon. Friends pointed out, in the kind of situation which I have instanced they are almost invariably the same people.
  I return to one of our debates in Committee, when the Solicitor-General failed to give us an adequate reply, in the hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give an adequate reply tonight. I draw his attention again to the hypothetical shop steward caught by the provisions of Clause 85 in this kind of situation. The Solicitor-General says that if he is acting within the scope of the authority bestowed on him by the union, he is all right. But the rules of the union which bestow authority on him, in this example, the A.E.F., say that the shop steward shall not, without the prior approval of the district committee, sanction any change of practice by the employer in the establishment.
  Here we have a change of practice. The members are being compelled to do new work which is black. The shop steward, in accordance with his mandate under the union rules, is presumably acting within the authority bestowed on him in telling the chaps not to work on it. But the same rule also says that he shall not sanction any stoppage of work until he has secured approval from the district committee, so he is in a dilemma. Let us assume that he holds a meeting, the democratic thing which is usually done—
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Oh!
  Mr. Walker: I must say to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that if we want to talk about contradictions we should refer to his speech. He demanded that unions should discipline their members, to make them more subservient to their policy, and said that the Clause sought to achieve that object—God knows where he got that from—and that therefore he welcomed it, at the conclusion of a speech which started with denunciations of a union for doing precisely what he asked it to do.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Mr. Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished the point with which I am dealing. I want to follow it through to its

  1327
  conclusion in the hope that at last we shall have a reply from the Solicitor-General.
  If the shop steward whom I have described sanctions a stoppage on behalf of the lads, he has committed an unfair industrial action and can be ordered to withdraw under the Clause. But suppose that the district committee subsequently approves his action. Are the committee and the union aiding and abetting unfair action under Clause 86, or have they bestowed sanctity on what was originally a sin and washed it clean?
  The final absurdity results from the fact that my union, to meet the kind of requirement the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would like it to meet, requires the district committee to submit its minute book every week to the executive council for approval or disapproval. It is not unusual in the A.E.F. for the executive council to reverse the district committee's decision. So the poor old shop steward sins on Monday, has his sin washed away on Wednesday and by the next week is back in the dog house, all under the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain the shop steward's position and that of the union in such a situation. He may choose to evade the question by saying, "You had better alter the rule book."
  I am sorry to have kept the hon. Gentleman waiting so long. If he wants to intervene now, I give way.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I have almost forgotten what I was going to say. The hon. Gentleman said that when there was a call for a strike there was usually a democratic vote, and I expressed surprise, because many strikes take place without a vote. One is taking place now without a vote.
  The hon. Gentleman finished by saying that sometimes the national committee reversed the district committee decision. A factory in the Midlands has voted by 46 to about six not to go on strike on 18th March. It has been reversed by the national committee of the A.E.F.
  Mr. Walker: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, because you have several times ruled that line of discussion out of order.
  1328
  I speak as an ex-chairman and ex-convener of shop stewards. For the best part of my adult life I have been a shop steward. The invariable situation in which a shop steward finds himself is not one in which he brings the men out by sheer force of personality. I have never met the wonderful people who can lead thousands of men by the nose with a few magic words. Almost invariably the position is the other way round, with the shop steward swept up from below by men saying, "Stand aside. We are out". The shop steward is vainly trying to hold them back. Conservative hon. Members shake their heads in disagreement, but both the Pilkington and Sankey strikes, two particularly serious strikes within the past 12 months, occurred as a result of a spontaneous upsurge from the shop floor in defiance of the shop stewards and the trade union officials.
  The Solicitor-General tried to make a point of subsection (5), saying that it pursued the same approach to the problem of recognition as was embodied in my right hon. Friend's Bill. Perhaps the light is getting through at last. I only regret that instead of pinching a part and presenting it as a policy he had adopted the whole. It might then have attracted a little more sympathy from this side. But he has pinched only one part of my right hon. Friend's proposals, and in an entirely different context.
  As a brief example of the difference of approach between the two Front Benches, we started off on this recognition point with admittedly a lengthy and elaborate procedure which imposed an obligation on the Government to consult the T.U.C. and C.B.I. It is a matter of reproach of the Government that throughout our debates on the Bill they have made no acknowledgment of the positive role which the T.U.C. and C.B.I. could and do play in industrial relations.
  But perhaps the more important point is that our proposals were presented in an entirely different context and, unlike the Bill, did not rest on a broad legal armoury that in the main is turned against and will be turned against the trade unions.
  When we see that the change here is one that withdraws from the unions recourse to orders, we cannot help noting

  1329
  the contrast between the readiness with which the Government dish out orders in the Bill to be applied against unions and the very different treatment for the employers. The Government have now clearly defined in the new Clause those to whom the provisions of Clause 67 apply, and in that way perhaps they have improved the Bill. But this cannot in any way diminish the fundamental opposition we have always expressed to the policy and the principle on which it rests, and we must, therefore, oppose it in the Lobby.
  The Solicitor-General: By leave of the House, I will reply to the debate. It is odd that both the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) seek to point out that the Government have had to come back to the House and make changes in the Bill. They suggest that that indicates incompetence. Yet the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in the previous debate made a positive virtue of saying how frequently she was assailed by denunciations from all sides and constantly responded to representations.
  We have been listening and responding to the debate. I resent the innuendo in the remarks of the hon. Member when he said that this was one of the few examples of the Solicitor-General keeping an undertaking. I repudiate entirely any suggestion of neglect in any undertakings I have given to the House. Every undertaking that has been given has resulted in the closest possible reconsideration by me. I acknowledge that not all these reconsiderations have led to the conclusion that we were wrong. It would have been odd if they had. But there have been a large number of changes as a result of our undertakings and our responses to debates.
  The approach of the Opposition to the new Clause was astonishingly exemplified, not for the first time, by the hon. Gentleman when he quoted again what Mr. Justice Sargent said 47 years ago. That exemplified the immobility of the attitude of the Opposition—their suggestion that a position once arrived at in this sector of our society and of our law but in no other should be maintained until kingdom come. It is that attitude that we reject.
  1330
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), suggested that I had not fully expounded the position about liability of people in respect of contempt proceedings when an order was made against them. Again, I suspect that he could not have been here during some previous debates when that matter was dealt with. The position is clear. Where action is taken or authorised by a union, the order can only be made against the union. The official acting under that umbrella is protected. A person taking part in a strike but taking no part in calling or organising it is under no liability. Of course, in the case of any person calling or organising a strike which is unfair in pursuit of any unfair objective, be he a union official outside the scope of his authority or with no official standing at all—a wildcat strike leader—an order can be made against that person because he is promoting or provoking an unfair industrial action.
  As we have made plain time and again, at the end of the day, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said, in that situation, as in a thousand others in this country, the order is something which the court is able to enforce, and in the last resort no doubt a committal order can be made as a means of enforcing it. There has never been any concealment of that. My right hon. Friend has said it time and again.
  We have also made plain the other provisions, which I repeat. A trade union official acting within the scope of his authority from his union faces no such risk and an individual who is taking part in a strike faces no kind of penalty or sanction whatever. But in a narrow sector, as has been made plain, the ordinary remedies are available at the end of the day.
  Mr. Orme: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for outlining the method by which finally a person could be sent to prison. If that is so, why did the Secretary of State at the weekend say that the trade unions were distorting this issue by claiming that members could be sent to prison?
  The Solicitor-General: I do not want to go back again over the whole ground but my right hon. Friend was entirely

  1331
  right in what he said. There is the world of difference between the presentation I have just made of the limited scope involved and the presentation that is being made in a number of quarters about the effects of the Bill and the impression that is being created that almost every worker will walk and speak at the peril of the policeman's boot as part of the legislation, and that he will have all his basic freedoms taken away. Nothing could be more fanciful or grotesque as a description of the principles of the Bill.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: The hon. and learned Gentleman said that an individual simply participating in the strike would not be at risk, but would not an individual be likely to try to incite his workmates to come out on strike with him and would he not then be liable if he was inciting others?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has not been here earlier. I have been over the ground before in this debate and I do not want to go back over it. But the distinction is quite clear. Participation in a strike involves no risk of remedy at all but the organisation and calling of a strike outside the scope and the authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—of a registered trade union does. This is the part of the package we have explained time and time again. It is part of an approach to restore reasonable rules within industry.
  I think that the House accepts that the provisions in subsection (5) are an effective way of securing that a union which has gained an order that it shall be recognised obtains a genuine and effective remedy on behalf of all its members in the form of backdated unilateral arbitration by the Industrial Arbitration Board. We acknowledge that that appeared in the Bill which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) was responsible.
  Since he has from time to time thought fit to question the length and complexity of some of these provisions perhaps I may point out that it took his Bill about four steps and nine Clauses to get from the original recognition order, through the Commission back to the complaints tribunal, back to the Commission and finally for a reference by the Secretary of State, I think, to the Industrial Court.
  1332
  Under his provisions of great complexity and length numerous hoops had to be gone through. We have arrived at a simple remedy, and one which, as has been pointed out, is all the more effective because it can be backdated.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked me about the situation which would arise if there was a strike at a subsidiary company and as a result loss is suffered at an associated company in the group, specifically I think the parent company which has a contract for goods to be supplied by the subsidiary company. Does that, he asked, give rise to a remedy under Clause 87 or any other provision of the Bill?
  The answer is to be found not only in the Amendments to Clause 90 but in the Amendments to Clause 87, too, Amendment 76 specifically. This is one designed to limit the scope of a remedy in respect of a secondary strike. It follows from Amendment No. 76 that the associated company suffering loss as a result of the strike at the subsidiary would only have a remedy, even under this Clause, if it could show that the strike at the subsidiary was being called with the principal purpose of causing a breach of contract with the parent company. It is much more narrow than it was and there would be no liability on the part of the shop stewards in such a contract in any event if they were acting on behalf of the union.
  Mr. Orme: I make no apology for the matter being complicated. Anyone who has followed the Clauses knows how difficult it is. Let us forget that the company is a subsidiary, let us take a small firm supplying parts as an individual firm, in no way connected with that major firm other than through the supply of goods. Does the same situation apply?
  10.30 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: It could be a practice which could be complained of under Clause 87 only if the complainant company, be it associated or independent, could show that the unfair action had been called in the knowledge of a contract of which the people calling the strike had wanted to secure a breach. It makes no difference whether the companies are associated or not. If they are supporting each other and cease to be extraneous a different situation arises.

  1333
  I come back to the example given by the hon. Member for Doncaster of a shop steward who organises a strike because he observes blacked goods being processed in the company or plant where he is at work. If the goods being processed that he seeks to black are ones which would ordinarily be processed or manufactured by the other employer against whom the primary strike has been called and the goods are being diverted to the plant where the shop steward calls the strike, that plant will not be extraneous. His own employers are supporting the company which originally manufactured the goods, and it will not be open to them to complain that they are being unfairly struck. If they act in support of the primary employers, they make themselves party to the original dispute, so that will not give rise to liability.
  The hon. Gentleman also came back several times to an example which, I think, springs from the complexity of the rules of his own union. He almost acknowledged this. He described the situation of a shop steward who calls a strike within the scope of his authority at that moment. It is then countermanded by a local or divisional executive of some kind, so that the strike ceases to be one which can be called by the shop steward in the rules of the union. Then it is counter-countermanded by the national executive—
  Mr. Harold Walker: In the first place, he calls a meeting which results in a strike where the rules of the union prohibit him to do so until that strike has been approved by the district committee, in which case it seems to me that he commits an unfair industrial action under Clause 85. We follow it then with the position that he and the district committee are in, where -they condone it under Clause 86.
  The Solicitor-General: That is a different example. The central point is that, if the steward himself is acting at each point in accordance with the rules of the union and the authority conferred upon him, however that may vary—even if the rules provide for order, counter-order, disorder, as it were—as long as he sticks to his rules, he is under no liability. Nevertheless, the union may be. If the shop steward, outside his rules,
  1334
  calls an unofficial, unconstitutional strike which is unfair under Clause 85, he would be himself liable in respect of that. But if the union then made it official, it would not be under liability under Clause 86 because it would not be aiding and abetting the initial strike which would already have been called and would be in effect. The shop steward himself, of course, would have been liable originally under Clause 85, and he would not be able to escape that at that point.
  Mr. Harold Walker: His liability would continue, even though the district committee had approved his action?
  The Solicitor-General: It would continue for so long as his liability continued. But if the strike was at an end so far as he was concerned and became official, his liability would be no longer effective.
  I am torn between the desire to answer the questions of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the apparent impatience of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). He cannot expect his hon. Friends to have it both ways, and a number of questions have been put to me.
  Perhaps I might come back to the central, simple point put to me by the hon. Member for Southall. It is an important one. If shop stewards advise against a strike and, nevertheless, the strike happens because their advice is rejected by the group of people at the work place, they themselves are under no liability, because they cannot be regarded as having organised or procured the strike. If the leadership of the strike is taken over by unofficial leaders who reject the official shop stewards, then those unofficial leaders may be under liability, but not the shop stewards.
  On the other hand, if within the rules of the union the branch, by a majority vote, rejects the shop stewards' advice and decides to have a strike and the shop stewards do no more than transmit that which they are told to do by their members by saying to the person against whom they are directing the strike, "Look, we advised against the strike, but we have been overruled by the vote of the branch and, accordingly, by our rules we must tell you that there will be this strike", the shop stewards will face no difficulty, because they are doing no

  1335
  more than transmitting what they have been told to do by their branch. But if the strike is unfair, then liability would attach to the union.
  Mr. Bidwell: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard of the round robin which arose when workers started things and, in order not to disclose who the leaders were, put their signatures in a circle. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is highly desirable to go back to this page of history, which is what we might be going back to?
  The Solicitor-General: I am not suggesting that we are going back to it, because this is not the pattern in which modern industrial relations are likely to be conducted.
  Perhaps I may now deal with some of the other examples given by the hon. Member for Southall. It is not right to suggest that any of these changes prevent or impede the opportunity of trade unions, their officials, and, indeed, workers, whether organised or not, to take or threaten industrial action to challenge unsafe or dangerous working conditions.
  I have said in this House on a number of occasions that the Bill provides no way out for the employer who creates dangerous or unsafe conditions or tolerates a dangerous or unfair system of work. No strike against that kind of thing will be in any danger. I was glad to see a restatement of this in The Times today:
  "A management will have to do its job properly, in accordance with the law, to have any redress from its workers' representatives. The Solicitor-General made this point so frequently during the committee stage in the House of Commons that it is surprising that so many managements have not taken the implied responsibilities seriously."
  So there need be no fear along the lines expressed by the hon. Member for Southall that a strike induced against adverse working conditions will be unfair.
  The last and perhaps most important point was raised both by the hon. Member for Southall and by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West. They asked what happens if the authority to take strike action is decentralised to the grass roots, the lowest level, of the union structure. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West sought to suggest that this
  1336
  could not happen because the Registrar would not allow it to happen. That is quite wrong. All that paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 says is that the rules of the union must say who in the union has got authority to give instructions for industrial action. It does not attempt to say, nor does it attempt to give the registrar the authority to say, that that authority must be kept at any given level in the union. The union may decide for itself, and the rules must simply say to whom that authority can be given. But—this is important—if the authority to call industrial action has been delegated to the lowest level, and if they act with that authority and call for industrial action, with the full authority and within the rules of the union, in pursuit of an unfair objective, they are under no liability, but the union can be under liability.
  Mr. Loughlin: It is a double-headed penny.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a double-headed penny, but he is trying to have it both ways. If the union chooses to organise itself in that way, at least it makes certain that the officials who act with this generally delegated authority do so in the general protection of the Bill and cannot be liable, but the union itself then accepts liability if an unfair industrial action is taken or threatened. If the union thinks that that is exposing it to greater risk of liability, it can limit the authority it delegates, or—this is perhaps the most important thing of all—it can do what almost everyone who has considered the structure of British industrial relations has said should happen, and improve communication between its headuarters and its officials and between its officials and the men whom it is meant to represent.
  This is one of the most important objectives of this legislation and why my right hon. Friend has said so often that it is designed to make for stronger and more responsible trade unionism. They will know where they stand and for what they will have to accept responsibility and they will have every incentive so to organise themselves as to put themselves in closer touch with their members.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am getting tired of being waved down by my own Front Bench. They should recognise that it is a breach of privilege to try to intimidate

  1337
  a Member of Parliament. It is no good the Solicitor-General talking about improving communications, when about 5,000 or 6,000 people spread over the length and breadth of Great Britain are involved.
  The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the hon. Member's difficulties, particularly with his own union, which is a much more difficult one to organise than others, which have compact work groups in compact work places. He has a valid distinction, but, as a result of the Bill, operat
  ing by rules which they make for themselves in accordance with Schedule 3, there will be increased reason for unions so to organise themselves that they are in closer touch upwards and downwards with their members. If that is one of the by-products of the Clause, I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 248.

  Division No. 243.]

  AYES

  [10.43 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Holland, Philip

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Dean, Paul

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Astor, John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hordern, Peter

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hornby, Richard

  Awdry, Daniel

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffery (Reigate)

  Balniel, Lord

  Eden, Sir John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Batsford, Brian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hunt, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tuffon

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Emery, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Eyre, Reginald

  James, David

  Benyon, W.

  Farr, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jessel, Toby

  Biffen, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Jopling, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Body, Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Foster, Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fowler, Norman

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fox, Marcus

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Braine, Bernard

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bray, Ronald

  Fry, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Brewis, John

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kirk, Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gardner, Edward

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Knox, David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Lambton, Antony

  Bryan, Paul

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Lane, David

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

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Buck, Antony

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Goodhart, Philip

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gorst, John

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

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Longden, Gilbert

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Loveridge, John

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Gray, Hamish

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Channon, Paul

  Green, Alan

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grieve, Percy

  McLaren, Martin

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  McMaster, Stanley

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gurden, Harold

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maddan, Martin

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Madel, David

  Cooke, Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Coombs, Derek

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Cooper, A. E.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Marten, Neil

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maude, Angus

  Costain, A. P.

  Hay, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Critchley, Julian

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Crouch, David

  Heseltine, Michael

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hicks, Robert

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Curran, Charles

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Hiley, Joseph

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

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

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

  d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Moate, Roger

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Molyneaux, James

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Temple, John M.

  Money, Ernie D.

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

  More, Jasper

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Tilney, John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Mudd, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Trew, Peter

  Murton, Oscar

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Rost, Peter

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Neave, Airey

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Scott, Nicholas

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Normanton, Tom

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Waddington, David

  Nott, John

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

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Simeons, Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wall, Patrick

  Osborn, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, M.)

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Soref, Harold

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Speed, Keith

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Pardoe, John

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Spence, John

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Peel, John

  Sproat, Iain

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Percival, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Wilkinson, John

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Pounder, Rafton

  Steel, David

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stewart-Smith, D. G.(Belper)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Stokes, John

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Raison, Timothy

  Sutcliffe, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Albu, Austen

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hamling, William

  Ashley, Jack

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hardy, Peter

  Atkinson, Norman

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Deakins, Eric

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Barnes, Michael

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Hattersley, Roy

  Barnett, Joel

  Delargy, H. J.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Dennis

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dempsey, James

  Horam, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Doig, Peter

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Booth, Albert

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Bradley, Tom

  Dunnett, Jack

  Hunter, Adam

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

  Eadie, Alex

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

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Janner, Greville

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, Tom

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

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

  English, Michael

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Evans, Fred

  John, Brynmor

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Carter, Ray(Birmingham, Northfield)

  Foot, Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Forrester, John

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

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Judd, Frank

  Cohen, Stanley

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Coleman, Donald

  Ginsburg, David

  Kelley, Richard

  Concannon, J. D.

  Golding, John

  Kerr, Russell

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Corbet Mrs. Freda

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lamond, James

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Latham, Arthur

  1340

  1341

  Lawson, George

  Oram, Bert

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Orbach, Maurice

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orme, Stanley

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Leonard, Diek

  Oswald, Thomas

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lipton, Marcus

  Palmer, Arthur

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Loughlin, Charles

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Swain, Thomas

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Taverne, Dick

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  McBride, Neil

  Pentland, Norman

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

  McCartney, Hugh

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Tinn, James

  McElhone, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Tomney, Frank

  McGuire, Michael

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Torney, Tom

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mackie, John

  Probert, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rankin, John

  Varley, Eric G.

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Marquand, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wallace, George

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)

  Watkins, David

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Weitzman, David

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mendelson, John

  Roper, John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Millan, Bruce

  Rose, Paul B.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Whitlock, William

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Molloy, William

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Morris, Alford (Wythenshawe)

  Sillars, James

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Silverman, Julius

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Moyle, Roland

  Small, William

  Wilson, William (Conventry, S.)

  Murray, R. K.

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Woof, Robert

  Ogden, Eric

  Spearing, Nigel

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Spriggs, Leslie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  O'Malley, Brian

  Stallard, A. W.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Clause accordingly read a Second time.
  Mr. Rose: I beg to move Amendment (mmmm) to the proposed Clause, in line 11, after '(a)', insert
  'unless that person is an associated employer in relation to an employer who is a party to the industrial dispute or is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member, except where he has contributed to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief in respect of losses incurred or to be incurred in consequence of the dispute where the fund was established and his contribution was paid with or without specific reference to that industrial dispute'.
  Before I proceed further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House for me to say that the Government Front Bench and the Speaker's Office were informed before the commencement of this debate—and I must say that the Government Front Bench accepted very graciously—that due to a printing error the words "except where he" at the end of the third line were wrongly included. It will be seen that if the word "or" is substituted, the Amendment gives full effect to the intention to exclude the so-called "extraneous party" of the type defined in Clause 87(3) from taking action under the new Clause. In our submision, that extraneous party may be far from uninvolved in an industrial dispute.
  The Solicitor-General acknowledged that Clause 87 was intended to deal with
  "a strike designed and intended to procure breach by an innocent extraneous third party to a commercial contract … when it can be shown that somebody has intentionally set about securing or organising industrial action in order to induce a breach by another to produce the non-performance of a commercial contract".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1934.]
  But the innocent party, as the Solicitor-General termed him, may be an associated employer, he may be a member of an employers' federation to which the employer in dispute also belongs, and he may be a person financing the employer through payments to a fund which is being drawn upon during a dispute by the employer in dispute.
  These employers, therefore, will be given the same kind of right as exists under Taft-Hartley, as amended by Landrum-Griffin, in the United States. Although the new subsection corrects the Government's former mistake and now
  1344
  rules out the possibility of a multitude of outside people taking action, it still permits an extraneous third party, as he is termed, though a person closely involved in the dispute, to take action against employees.
  The use of the word "innocent" by the Solicitor-General in that context is astonishing. It is culled from American terminology, no doubt. The word "extraneous" is used in the Bill, not "innocent". There is a great difference between the words which the Solicitor-General uses at that Box and the words which he puts in the Bill. This is another example of those intellectual expedients and legal sleights-of-hand—we saw examples earlier today—for which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now well known and which to a large extent, unfortunately, have destroyed his credibility with many of my hon. Friends.
  The concept of the extraneous party has caused a great deal of litigation in the United States. What is innocent about the employer who is a sub-contractor, say, deliberately and knowingly helping to break a strike by accepting sub-contract work? What is innocent or extraneous about the firm which is associated with the employer in the dispute? What is innocent about the employer who pours money into a fund which may well be depleted in order to allow an employer to go on fighting trade unionists who are out on strike—remembering all the time that a sympathy strike is outlawed under the Bill?
  All these, the Government say, are innocent. They are termed extraneous. Action against them will be unfair, yet they may take action under the Clause. Once again, the tilting of the balance is exposed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) so clearly pointed out in the debate on Clause 87.
  If new Clause 3 is not amended, it will give to the so-called extraneous party of the kind defined in Clause 87(3) the right to restrict what has been an accepted trade union right for many years. A company which controls a corporation with which employees are in dispute will now have a right to prevent its premises from being picketed by employees of that corporation so as to interrupt supplies. This has been a commonplace, a necessary

  1345
  weapon in a free society for workers in dispute. Now employers may stand united but workers must remain divided. Every time there is a breach a fine of £100,000 is to be imposed, not once but on each occasion, if the size of the union allows a fine of that size.
  11.0 p.m.
  So now we have an outlawing of the secondary boycott where the primary intention was to effect such a boycott and it is not merely consequential. Here I acknowledge that the Solicitor-General has met a point made by one of my hon. Friends in Committee. But he has merely put this into language which expresses his original intention of outlawing the secondary boycott, even though it is taken against employers who are associated with the employer in dispute. This is an incitement, perhaps more now than before, for corporate entities under common control carefully to ensure that a union lawfully can strike at one time against only one section of what may be a conglomerate empire. We are all aware from reading the book reviews last weekend of what are now termed the juggernauts. We are living in the age of the juggernaut.
  The new Clause does nothing to meet the points made by this side on the problem. All it does is to clarify the Solicitor-General's earlier expressed intention to outlaw the use of the secondary boycott, but to do it now in precise terms instead of the imprecise terms before. Even though the extraneous party is helping to fight a strike through for example the E.E.F. indemnity fund, it may now take action against an employee or a union. This is a charter for strike-breaking in the engineering industry.
  Profits in the industry are now to be set aside not to increase wages and not to increase investments, although we have been told why there cannot be increased wages in certain sections of the engineering industry and why we cannot have more investment in it, but into a strike fund to bolster up employers fighting their own employees and their unions. Therefore, it is strange that these are to he regarded as innocent, extraneous parties and given the right of action under the subsection.
  Only those employers affected can sue under the subsection when action is taken,
  1346
  and there is only that difference in principle between the Clause as we see it and the position we faced in Committee. A strike for a secondary boycott is not protected. The worker who seeks to induce such a strike is in breach of his obligations. It is not difficult to see how a contract can be so framed as to make a deliberate strike-breaker a regular supplier of a company.
  Perhaps in the light of the new subsection the Solicitor-General will now answer the question I put to him late in the evening in Committee about the case of Thompson v. Deakin. Is it his view that as a result of Clause 87 as amended and in the light of the new Clause the decision would stand or be reversed? Are we seeing a change in the law by preventing associated employers, those assisting the employer in dispute, and those financing him, from taking action under subsection (2)? Our Amendment seeks to mitigate some of the harmful effects of Clause 87 upon what hitherto have been normal pressures exerted by trade unions in a free society.
  That is why I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment—to recognise that an extraneous party cannot be taken to include those parties in Clause 87(3) who are far from being innocent and extraneous but are directly involved in the outcome of a dispute, who are therefore wrongly termed and given a right of action. I am sure that my hon. Friends will give many examples from their experience in industry where people have legitimately sought to take action for a secondary boycott which will be unlawful under the Bill and, in particular, under the Government's new Clause.
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has acknowledged that Clause 87, as proposed to be amended, meets the objectives which the Government had in mind and that new Clause No. 3 is in line with the modified objectives. The intention of Clause 87 and of the new Clause is as the hon. Gentleman has outlined it—to protect the innocent employer who is unwillingly drawn into and made the victim of an industrial dispute to which he is not a party.
  Some of the examples which the hon. Gentleman gave were not accurate. He

  1347
  suggested that a sub-contractor who deliberately accepted work to break a strike would be regarded as innocent and was not entitled to be struck.
  Mr. Rose: The Solicitor-General has misunderstood me. I said, not that a person carrying out his normal duties, but a person accepting additional work, would be so defined. My point was that a contract could be so framed as to allow him to do that additional work and that he would therefore obtain the protection, although he might well be strikebreaking.
  The Solicitor-General: It would not follow, because if the contract was so formulated as to make it possible for such a sub-contractor to take supporting action but it was nevertheless plain that the action taken was supporting the original employer against whom the strike was called, he would cease to be extraneous and would become involved. It could not be concealed or achieved by any formulation of the contract. If the employer who is seeking a remedy from the court can be shown to have taken supporting action, he would no longer be external.
  Mr. Keith Stainton: I am not altogether with the Solicitor-General. Contracts can be made variable for all kinds of imprecise and different reasons. I wish that my hon. and learned Friend would be more specific.
  The Solicitor-General: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for talking to some extent in shorthand because we have dealt with this Clause and its implications on many days at many different stages. The person would be entitled to bring proceedings under Clause 87, as amended, and under Clause 90 if he was an extraneous party and by subsection (2) he would be extraneous if he were not a party to the original dispute and he had not in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute taken action in material support of a party to it. The contract could be infinitely variable. He might be under an open obligation to do any order which came along, but if it was shown that he had taken action in contemplation of the dispute to support the
  1348
  primary employer he would no longer qualify for relief under the provision.
  Mr. Stainton: It is the infinite variability which must be faced.
  The Solicitor-General: Certainly. But one cannot, in the complex territory where parties take industrial action against each other, so define the matter as to be able to identify with crystal clarity which person is external and which person is not external to the dispute. It is the infinite variability and the factors which can affect that variability to which the Amendment is directed.
  The Opposition seek to suggest, if one follows the Amendment, that a company which is associated with the primary employer is, by reason of that association, as defined in the Bill, to be regarded as supporting and therefore fair game to be struck. Clause 87(3) merely says that an employer who is an associated employer—that is, part of the same conglomerate group—should not for that reason alone be regarded as giving support and as being open to industrial attack when he is, in reality, quite innocent of the original dispute.
  It is for the same reason that we say that an employer who is a member of an organisation, or contributing to a strike fund, should not for that reason alone be regarded as involved in the original dispute.
  The hon. Member for Blackley seems not to have accepted that the principles applied are exactly the same. An employer is legitimately open to industrial pressure and can bring no claim under Clause 87 if he takes any action or does anything to support a party to the dispute. But if he remains free from that, he remains innocent.
  Employees, organisations of employees and unions, have a greater freedom to support industrial action without themselves being under any liability. The sympathy strike remains a fair strike if it is taken in support of a fair objective, and so long as it is not a deliberate attempt to involve an innocent extraneous party.
  So the scales remain tilted in favour of organised labour. It is right that they should, to that extent, remain so. The sympathetic strike becomes unfair only if

  1349
  it is supporting the primary strike that is unfair, or if it is a deliberate attempt to involve an innocent outside employer, whereas the employer becomes liable to industrial pressure if he does anything at all to support a party to another dispute.
  It is upon that basis that I commend the Clause as it stands and invite the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. David Stoddart: I support the Amendment in spite of the Solicitor-General's explanations. It still seems that the scales are weighted against employees and are definitely in favour of employers. Nothing that the Government say to the trade unions will convince them otherwise.
  Members of Parliament and trade union members will have great difficulty in understanding exactly what they can and cannot do, and when they would be in accordance with the law and when they would be outside the law.
  The Clause and many parts of the Bill are sheer gobbledygook. The man on the shop floor, who is at risk under the Bill, will be in extreme difficulty and will certainly want to resort to other kinds of action, than perhaps are described as being legal and justifiable action under the Bill.
  11.15 p.m.
  There are many occasions when action by one body of workers in support of another body of workers would be legitimate, particularly as other Clauses equate the right of a person not to belong to a union with the right of a person to belong to a union and engage in collective action. It has been pointed out that, because of the right given to a non-unionist not to belong to a union, a situation could well arise in which ordinary workers who were striking in support of their legitimate demands were being under-mined by non-unionists in another firm, but the striking workers would be precluded by the provisions of the Bill from taking any action. This is why I hope that the House will support the Amendment.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: The Solicitor-General, in indicating that the fault with the Amendment is that the exclusion from the category of people who can take the remedy involved in the new Clause—as defined in Clause
  1350
  87(3)—is not a reasonable exclusion, reflected an incoherence which the drafting of Clause 87(3) itself displays. Our objection is not that being an associated employer means taking any action of any kind, nor that being a
  "member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member"
  means taking any action of any kind. Our complaint is that his being an associated employer virtually makes him a party.
  Clause 149(5) contains the definition of "associated employer". It clearly means a subsidiary or a unit which is part of a larger body. The definition is as follows:
  "For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control; and in this Act 'associated employer' shall be construed accordingly."
  That provides that "associated employer" means a connection so intimate—for instance, that both are subsidiaries of one company or that one is of another—that the two are virtually the same person and, therefore, if one is a party the other must be. That is the criticism which we express in the Amendment.
  Clause 87(3)b) says:
  "is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member".
  Our complaint is that for a man to be associated in an organisation of workers which is doing something unfair is sufficient to taint a man. To be attached to a union which is conducting an unfair industrial practice may be sufficient to bring a man into disrepute under the provisions of the Bill and render him liable to a penalty thereunder. On the workers' side it is guilt by association. On the employers' side the obvious examples of guilt by association are excluded. That is our complaint about Clause 87(3). We seek by the Amendment to exclude such people from having the remedy which the new Clause would give them.
  I point the incoherence one stage further. There seems to have been a drafting error in Clause 87. It is only fair to point out that the Government propose an Amendment to the Clause

  1351
  which would greatly improve its effect. It narrows the provision in a way which we can only regard as satisfactory. This kind of provision is not satisfactory at all, of course, but, granted that it must be included in the Bill and that the secondary boycott is being struck at, the Government Amendment narrows the provision satisfactorily.
  Clause 87 has a direct bearing on this new Clause and on the Amendments to it. Subsection (2) says:
  "For the purpose of this section a person shal be regarded as an extraneous party in relation to an industrial dispute if (a) he is not a party to that dispute, and (b) he has not, in contemplation of furtherance of that dispute taken any action in material support of a party to it."
  Paragraph (a) goes more naturally with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3). What subsection (2) contemplates is somebody not being a party to the dispute and excluded from the category of party, in order words, an extraneous person who is not a party to the dispute, someone who would otherwise be regarded as so closely related to that person as to be a party. That is the first exception under paragraph (3)(a). That provision is concerned with people who might otherwise be regarded as parties to the dispute. Therefore, the reference is to subsection (2)(a) and not to subsection (2)(b), because the latter deals with the positive action of associating oneself, so that that is guilt by participation and not by mere association.
  Subsection (3)(a) is concerned with directly contributing to funds which may be available in a dispute. That takes one back to subsection (2)(b)—
  "he has not, in contemplation of furtherance of that dispute, taken any action in material support of a party to it."
  The Solicitor-General is continuing the incoherence already exposed in Clause 87 and if the Amendment does nothing else, it will have served to bring that out. Perhaps something will be done to remedy it.
  I support the Amendment because anything we can do to remedy the obvious unfairness of putting those mentioned in Clause 87(3) into a specially favoured category in contrast with the treatment of workers in an association or trade union organisation who may be engaged in unfair industrial practices
  1352
  should be done. The contrast must be countered in some way and the Amendment would help to redress the balance.
  Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) is making a great commotion about nothing. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that associated employers will be favoured. Does anybody seriously suggest that in a conglomerate in industry, with a holding company with firms in many diverse trades under its umbrella, there should be the right to strike against another of the firms in the group merely because it happens to be under the same financial umbrella? That is taking the dispute right out of the trade and right out of the locality and allowing the right to call a sympathetic strike in a firm with no practical relation to the original dispute. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot expect to carry the House with him in that contention.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) accused my hon. and learned Friend of sleight of hand. That is a gross distortion considering how hon. Members opposite have been indulging in misrepresentation of the Bill.
  Mr. Rose: The hon Gentleman has made a statement. Will he now substantiate it by telling us any single instance in which I have misled the public about the Bill? Will he give chapter and verse?
  Mr. Mitchell: I was referring to spokesmen on the Opposition side but I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's speeches have not been reported where I have managed to read them in the national Press, and for that reason I cannot give chapter and verse. But I assure him that there are repeated occasions, both in my constituency and in reports in the national Press and in interviews on television, when hon. Members opposite and trade union leaders, who must know better if they are able to read, write and listen to my right hon. Friends, know that they are peddling gross distortions of the Bill.
  Mr. Tom King: Have any hon. Members opposite attacked the statements by the T.U.C. and certain trade unions that the Bill outlaws sympathy strikes although it has been clearly stated again

  1353
  by my right hon. Friend that this is yet another distortion?
  Mr. Mitchell: Hon. Members opposite talk about a member of an employers' association giving financial assistance to another member of the association by contributing to a fund which may be used to resist a strike and strengthen the employer's ability to stand up to strikes. Do they want to have one law for the employers' associations and another for the trade unions? In the Post Office dispute, substantial sums of money were given by other unions to the Union of Post Office Workers.
  I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), who spoke of "gobbledygook". I do not go as far as that, but it is true that the parliamentary draftsmen have excelled themselves in making it difficult for ordinary laymen like ourselves to understand what is meant. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is to issue a simple explanation as soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book so that ordinary trade unionists, shop stewards and others involved in industry can understand what it is all about.
  The hon. and learned Member for Leith referred to the Bill as equating the right to belong with the right not to belong. I do not think it does, because Amendment No. 151 will provide the right for an employer to encourage people to join a union. One cannot write that into the Bill and at the same time claim that it is an equal right to belong and not to belong. Much of the case put by the Opposition and the case put by myself and some of my hon. Friends on this matter is being met by that Amendment.
  To suggest that non-unionists in another firm could use this provision to strike break is extraordinary. There is no difference between the circumstances under the Bill and the circumstances which exist now, in that men who object to a strike and do not want to take part in it, or non-unionists working for a nonunion firm, may have their activities and production used to thwart a strike. My hon. and learned Friend has persuaded us that there is no strength in that case.
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Heffer: One thing we can always be assured of is that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell)
  1354
  will provide a certain amount of provocation, if not to this side of the House then to his hon. Friends. One or two of his points ought not to be allowed to go unanswered. He said that in this Amendment we are suggesting that employers' associations ought not to be allowed to give financial aid to other employers who have been involved in a dispute. We are not saying that.
  We are saying that if an associated employer gives financial aid to other members in that association who may be involved in a trade dispute then he cannot be regarded as an innocent extraneous party. It is not a question of us proposing, to use the hon. Member's words, to outlaw these associations. All we are saying is that if there are employers who are members of an associated organisation and they make a contribution, as, for example, the engineering employers do, to an indemnity fund, then it is not fair—and hon. Members opposite are always saying how fair they are—for the employers to assist one another and then to say that workers cannot do the same.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting—he mentioned the engineering industry—that when a strike breaks out in one firm, throughout the whole of that industry there should be an automatic right for sympathetic strikes?
  Mr. Heffer: The first point is: why have this fund? If it is there to assist it is clear that if one of the members of the association gets involved in a dispute and is then supported by fellow members of that association then they are obviously not extraneous, innocent parties. To that extent they are supporting each other through sympathetic action, in the same way as trade unions support each other. What is happening is that the balance is being tilted in favour of the employer. It is apparently all right for the employers to assist one another but not all right for the trade unions to do so.
  It was said that it was not true that the sympathetic strike was being outlawed and that the T.U.C. was wrong in issuing material to this effect. The Solicitor-General made it absolutely clear that the sympathetic strike certainly could be used, provided the primary strike was a fair one. If the

  1355
  primary strike was unfair then any sympathetic action would be unfair and outlawed. This comes back to a point raised by several of my hon. Friends. What is regarded as fair on that side of the House may not be regarded as fair on this side, or by the trade union movement.
  Mr. John Page: It is in the Bill.
  Mr. Heffer: I am not interested in what it is in the Bill, because, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, it is made up in the main of legal gobbledygook. It will take more than a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it, and a lot more than the average trade unionist, who will be blundering from one unfair industrial practice to another. He will be like hon. Members were during the recent dispute of the electricity workers. He will be going round with a candle and, if it is blown out from time to time, he will be in real trouble.
  This Amendment is a fair one, and I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot see the fairness of it. They talk constantly about their fairness and how amenable they are. Here is an opportunity for them to be genuinely fair. This is a fair Amendment. All that it says is:
  "… unless that person is an associated employer in relation to an employer who is a party to the industrial dispute or is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member, except where he has contributed to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief. …"
  and so on. What is wrong with that? It says clearly that if an employer is being assisted by another employer through a fund which is there because he is a member of an employers' organisation and he is involved in a trade dispute with a trade union or organisation of workers, obviously he cannot be regarded as the innocent party and therefore he cannot be extraneous to that dispute. That is what we say in the Amendment, and I think that is reasonable.
  If hon. Gentlemen opposite reject the Amendment, they reveal that they are totally unreasonable and that their motives are, as we have always said, to
  1356
  tilt the balance against the trade union movement and in favour of employers. They have told us that we cannot have it both ways. Neither can they. They cannot put their hands on their hearts and say that they are in favour of a strong and responsible trade union movement and at the same time reject Amendments of this kind. If they do, they expose the hollowness of their arguments.
  Mr. Tom King: It is difficult to resist the blandishments of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. We have had one appeal to our virility. We have been invited to act like men and go into the Division Lobby with the Opposition. Now we have an appeal to our fairness. To put the record straight, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell)?
  Mr. Concannon: Which one?
  Mr. Heffer: Certainly I have never questioned the virility of hon. Members opposite. I do not question whether they are men. That has been proved time and time again by the fact that none of them has shown the ability to act contrary to the wishes of their Front Bench, no matter how strongly they feel about issues. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been a pillar of individual conscience in this House, and it is about time that some hon. Members opposite were prepared to make a stand on an issue about which they feel strongly, and try to convince their Front Bench that there is another case than the one put forward by the Government.
  Mr. David Mitchell: Answer the question.
  Mr. Heffer: I am not sure to which question the hon. Gentleman is referring.
  Mr. Mitchell: It was the simple question whether, because an employer in the engineering industry was involved in a dispute, as all the employers in the engineering industry contributed to this insurance fund which the hon. Gentleman has described, the Amendment would permit the whole of the industry to be brought to a halt on a sympathetic strike.
  Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to reply to that question. I have already replied to it. The answer

  1357
  is clear. If there is an indemnity fund and all the employers are contributing to it, they cannot be extraneous parties when there is a dispute in the engineering industry. The answer is clear: yes, in the same way that the hon. Gentleman would regard the trade unions when they assist each other by sympathetic action in a trade dispute. Let us have no dubiety about it. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be thanked for making the position clear. We want to
  make it crystal clear and we do that in the Amendment.
  I hope that, having heard the case for this reasonable and fair Amendment, hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept it. If not, then I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it in the Lobbies.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
  The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 287.

  Division No. 244.]

  AYES

  [11.42 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Dunn, James A.

  Kerr, Russell

  Albu, Austen

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kinnock, Neil

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lamond, James

  Allen, Scholefield

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Latham, Arthur

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lawson, George

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Ellis, Tom

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Ashton, Joe

  English, Michael

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Atkinson, Norman

  Evans, Fred

  Leonard, Dick

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Barnes, Michael

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Barnett, Joel

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Beaney, Alan

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Foot, Michael

  Loughlin, Charles

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Forrester, John

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Garrett, W. E.

  McBride, Neil

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Booth, Albert

  Ginsburg, David

  McElhone, Frank

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McGuire, Michael

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Courlay, Harry

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Bradley, Tom

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackie, John

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

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Maclennan, Robert

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hamling, William

  Marquand, David

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Cant, R. B.

  Harper, Joseph

  Meacher, Michael

  Carmichael, Neil

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mendelson, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Millan, Bruce

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Molly, William

  Cohen, Stanley

  Horam, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Coleman, Donald

  Houghton Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Concannon, J, D.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Moyle, Roland

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Murray, R. K.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hunter, Adam

  Oram, Bert

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

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Dalyell, Tam

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Davidson, Arthur

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

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, c.)

  John, Brynmor

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Deakins, Eric

  Johnson, Carol (Lcwisham, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Delargy, H, J.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Doig, eter

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Driberg, Tom

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Probert, Arthur

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kelley, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Steet, David

  Wallace, George

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Watkins, David

  Richard, Ivor

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wertzman, David

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Strang, Gavin

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  White, James (Gasgow, Pollok)

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

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Whitehead, Philip

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Swain, Thomas

  Whittock, William

  Roper, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Rose, Paul B.

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Shone, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Tinn, James

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Sillars, James

  Torney, Tom

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Silverman, Julius

  Tuck, Raphael

  Woof, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Urwin, T. W.

  Small, William

  Varley, Eric G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mr. John Golding and

  Spearing, Nigel

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

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

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

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ, Gen.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Dean, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hordern, Peter

  Astor, John

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hornby, Richard

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Awdry, Daniel

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Eden, Sir John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Balniel, Lord

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Batsford, Brian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hunt, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Emery, Peter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Eyre, Reginald

  James, David

  Benyon, W.

  Farr, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jessel, Toby

  Bitten, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Jopling, Michael

  Blaker, Peter

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Body, Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Foster, Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fowler, Norman

  Kimball, Marcus

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fox, Marcus

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Braine, Bernard

  Fry, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bray, Ronald

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Brewis, John

  Gardner, Edward

  Kirk, Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Knox, David

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Lambton, Antony

  Bryan, Paul

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Lane, David

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

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Buck, Antony

  Goodhart, Philip

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Burden, F. A.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Gorst, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Gower, Raymond

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Channon, Paul

  Gray, Hamish

  Loveridge, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  Green, Alan

  MacArthur, Ian

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Grieve, Percy

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Grylls, Michacel

  McLaren, Martin

  Churchill, W. S.

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Gurden, Harold

  McMaster, Stanley

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McNair- Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maddan, Martin

  Coombs, Derek

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Madel, David

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Marten, Neil

  Costain, A. P.

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Critchley, Julian

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maude, Angus

  Crouch, David

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Crowder, F. P.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Mawby, Ray

  Curran, Charles

  Hicks, Robert

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  1360

  1361

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tebbit, Norman

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

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Temple, John M.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Moate, Roger

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Molyneaux, James

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

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

  Money, Ernle

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Titney, John

  Monro, Hector

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Trew, Peter

  More, Jasper

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Mudd, David

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Vaughan, Dr. Cerard

  Murton, Oscar

  Rest, Peter

  Viekers, Dame Joan

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Waddington, David

  Neave, Alrey

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Walder, David (Chitheroe)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Wall, Patrick

  Normanton, Tom

  Sharpies, Richard

  Walters, Dennis

  Nott, John

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Onslow, Cranley

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Simeons, Charles

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Osborn, John

  Sheet, T. H. H.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Soref, Harold

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Spentce, John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Peel, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Percival, Ian

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Betper)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Stokes, John

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

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Suteliffe, John

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Amendment (nnnn) proposed to the proposed Clause, in line 28, out subsection 5.—[Mrs. Castle.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
  The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 292.

  Division No. 245.]

  AYES

  [11.54 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Albu, Austen

  Clark, David (Ceine Valley)

  Ellis, Tom

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  English, Michael

  Allen, Scholefield

  Cohen, Stanley

  Evans, Fred

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Coleman, Donald

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Conlan, Bernard

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Foot, Michael

  Barnes, Michael

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ford, Ben

  Barnett, Joel

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Bcaney, Alan

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Calpern, Sir Myer

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

  Garrett, W. E.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Davidson, Arthur

  Ginsburg, David

  Bishop, E. S.

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Colding, John

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Booth, Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Deakins, Eric

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Bradley, Tom

  Delargy, H. J.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

  Dempsey, James

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Doig, Peter

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hardy, Peter

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Driberg, Tom

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Cant, R. B.

  Dunn, James A.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Carmichael, Neil

  Dunnett, Jack

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Eadie, Alex

  Horam, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Edwards, Robert (Bitston)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Marquand, David

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mason, Rt Hn. Roy

  Sillars, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Silverman, Julius

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hunter, Adam

  Mendelson, John

  Small, William

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

  Millan, Bruce

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Janner, Creville

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Spriggs, Leslie

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

  Molloy, William

  Stallard, A. W.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  John, Brynmor

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshow)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Morris, Rt Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Strang, Gavin

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

  Moyle, Roland

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Murray, R. K.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Ogden, Eric

  Swain, Thomas

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

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

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Oram, Bert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Orbach, Maurice

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

  Judd, Frank

  Orme, Stanley

  Tinn, James

  Kaufman, Cerald

  Oswald, Thomas

  Torney, Tom

  Kelley, Richard

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Kerr, Russell

  Palmer, Arthur

  Urwin, T. W.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lamond, James

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Latham, Arthur

  Pavitt, Laurie

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

  Lawson, George

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Pendry, Tom

  Wallace, George

  Leonard, Dick

  Pentland, Norman

  Watkins, David

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman, David

  Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle)

  Prescott, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Lipton, Marcus

  Price J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Price William (Rugby)

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Probert, Arthur

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Rankin, John

  Whitlock, William

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Roes, Mertyn (Leeds, S.)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  McBride, Neil

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Richard, Ivor

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  McElhone, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  McGuire, Michael

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mackie, John

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

  Woof, Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Roper, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rose, Paul B.

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Mr. William Hamling.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Allason, James (Hemet Hempstead)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen,

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bryan, Paul

  Dean, Paul

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Ashley, Jack

  Buck, Antony

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Astor, John

  Burden, F. A.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Awdry, Daniel

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

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Eden, Sir John

  Balnied, Lord

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Batsford, Brian

  Channon, Paul

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Emery, Peter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Benyon, W.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Farr, John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Clark, Wiliam (Surrey, E.)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Biffen, John

  Carke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fidler, Michael

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Cockeram, Eric

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Blaker, Peter

  Cooke, Robert

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Body, Richard

  Cooper, A. E.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Boscawen, Robert

  corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Fortescue, Tim

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  costain, A. P.

  Foster, Sir John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Cormack, Patrick

  Fowler, Norman

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Critchley, Julian

  Fox, Marcus

  Braine, Bernard

  Crouch, David

  Fry, Peter

  Bray, Reginald

  Crowder, F. P.

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Brewis, John

  Curran, Charles

  Gardner, Edward

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gibson-Watt, David

  1364

  1365

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  McLaren, Martin

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevettoakt)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Goodhart, Philip

  McMaster, Stanley

  Rost, Peter

  Coodhew, Victor

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Gorst, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Gower, Raymond

  McNair Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gray, Hamish

  Madel, David

  Sharpies, Richard

  Green, Alan

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Grieve, Percy

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Grylls, Michael

  Marten, Neil

  Simeons, Charles

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mather, Carol

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Gurden, Harold

  Maude, Angus

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Maudting, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mawby, Ray

  Soref, Harold

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Spence, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sproat, Iain

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Stainton, Keith

  Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Miscampbeil, Norman

  Steel, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

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

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Moate, Roger

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Molyncaux, James

  Stokes, John

  Heseiltine, Michael

  Money, Ernie

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hicks, Robert

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Sutcliffe, John

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Monro, Hector

  Tapsell, Peter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

  More, Jasper

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Holland, Philip

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Temple, John M.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Mudd, David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Murton, Oscar

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Hordern, Peter

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

  Hornby, Richard

  Neave, Airey

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Noble, Rt Hn. Michael

  Tilney, John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Normanton, Tom

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Nott, John

  Trew, Peter

  Hunt, John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Bremonger, T. L.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  James, David

  Osbom, John

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Jessel, Toby

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Waddington, David

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grimtead)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Jopling, Michael

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Peel, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Percival, Ian

  Walters, Dennis

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Pounder, Rafton

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Kilfedder, James

  Powell, fit. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Wilkinson, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Knight, Mrs. Jilt

  Raison, Timothy

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Knox, David

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Lambton, Anthony

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Lane, David

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Mr. Walter Clegg and

  Longden, Gilbert

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Loveridge, John

  It being after twelve o'clock Mr. SPEAKER processed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and 15th
  1366
  March], to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the proceedings on the new Clause (Special provisions as to certain complaints to Industrial Court).
  Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 246.

  Division No. 246.]

  AYES

  [12.6 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

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

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Allason, James (Heme! Hempstead)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Loveridge, John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  MacArthur, Ian

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fortescue, Tim

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Astor, John

  Foster, Sir John

  McLaren, Martin

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fowler, Norman

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fox, Marcus

  McMaster, Stanley

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fry, Peter

  Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

  Balniel, Lord

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Batsford, Brian

  Gardner, Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Madel, David

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Benyon, W.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Berry, Hu, Anthony

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Marten, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Goodhart Philip

  Mather, carol

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gorst, John

  Maude, angus

  Blaker, Peter

  Gower, Raymend

  Maudling, Rt. Hu. Reginald

  Boardmen, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Gray, Hamish

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Body, Richard

  Green, Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Boscawen, Robert

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gurden, Harold

  Mitchell,Lt.-Co1.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)

  Braine, Bernard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bray, Ronald

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Moate, Roger

  Brewis, John

  Hail-Davis, A. G. F.

  Molyneaux, James

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Money, Ernie

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Harnnam, John (Exeter)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bryan, Paul

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  More., Jasper

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Buck, Antony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mudd, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Murtom, Oscar

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

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hicks, Robert

  Neave, Airey

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Nicholls, Sir Warmar

  Channon, Paul

  Hiley, Joseph

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

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

  Normanton, Tom

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Nott, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Holland, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Churchill, W. S.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hordem, Peter

  Osbom, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Hornby, Richard

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Homeby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Cooke, Robert

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Howel, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Peel, John

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hunt. John

  Percival, Ian

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R, Bonner

  Costam, A. P.

  Iremenger, T. L.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Critchley, Julian

  James, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Crouch, David

  Jenkim, Patrick (Woodford)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jessel, Toby

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

  Curran, Charles

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Jopling, Michael

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Quennel, Miss J. M.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Knox, David

  Raison, Timothy

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ. Gen.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Dean, Paul

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kilfedder, James

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Eden, Sir John

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kirk, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshatton)

  Knight, Mrs, Jill

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

  Lambton, Antony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Emery, Peter

  Lane, David

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

  Farr, John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rost, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Fidler, Michael

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Scott, Nicholas

  Sutcliffe, John

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wall, Patrick

  Sharples, Richard

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Walters, Dennis

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

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Simeons, Charles

  Temple, John M.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thatcher Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Sheet, T. H. H.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

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

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Soref, Harold

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Wilkinson, John

  Speed, Keith

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Worrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Spence, John

  Tilney, John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Trafford Dr. Anthony

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Stainton, Keith

  Trew, Peter

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Worsley, Marcus

  Steel, David

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Helper)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M,

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Stokes, John

  Waddington, David

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dormand, J. D.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Albu, Austen

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

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

  Allen, Scholefield

  Driberg, Tom

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Armstrong, Arnest

  Dunn, James A.

  Judd, Frank

  Ashton, Joe

  Dunnett, Jack

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Atkinson, Norman

  Eadie, Alex

  Kelley, Richard

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Kerr, Russell

  Barnes, Michael

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Barnett, Joel

  Ellis, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Beaney, Alan

  English, Michael

  Latham, Arthur

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Evans, Fred

  Lawson, George

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Leonard, Dick

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Foot, Michael

  Lipton, Marcus

  Booth, Albert

  Forrester, John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Gatpern, Sir Myer

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Bradley, Tom

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson

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

  Cinsburg, David

  MoBride, Neil

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Golding, John

  McCartney, Hugh

  Buchan, Norman

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  McEIhone, Frank

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

  Gourlay, Harry

  McGuire, Michael

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Mackie, John

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightsde)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Cant, R. B.

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  McNamara, J, Kevin

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

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

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hardy, Peter

  Marquand, David

  Clark, David (Coine Valley)

  Harper, Joseph

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mason, fit. Hn. Roy

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Meacher, Michael

  Coleman, Donald

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Concannon, J. D.

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mendelson, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  MiMan, Bruce

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Horam, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Molloy, William

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Morgan, Etystan (Cardiganshire)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hughes, Rt Hit. Cledwyn 'Anglesey)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Morris, fit. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Moyle, Roland

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hunter, Adam

  Murray, Ronald King

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Irvine,RtHn.SirArthw(Edge Hill)

  Ogden, Eric

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Janner, Greviile

  G'Halloran, Michael

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

  O'Malley, Brian

  Deakins, Eric

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

  Oram, Bert

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Orbach, Maurice

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Orme, Stanley

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  John, Brynmor

  Oswald, Thomas

  Dempsey, James

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Doig, Peter

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

  Palmer, Arthur

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  1370

  1371

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Vartey, Eric G.

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Peart, At. Hn. Fred

  Sillars, Jame

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Silverman, Julius

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Pentland, Norman

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wallace, George

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Small, William

  Watkins, David

  Prescott, John

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Weitzman, David

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wellbeloved, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Wells, William (Walsal, N.)

  Probert, Arthur

  Stallard, A. W.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Rankin, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Whitehead, Philip

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Whitlock, William

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hon. John

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Strang, Gavin

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Richard, Ivor

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Swain, Thomas

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Woof, Robert

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Roper, John

  Tinn, James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Rose, Paul B.

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.

New Clause 4

  CONTRIBUTION TO COMPENSATION ON COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 94
  (1) The provisions of this section shall have effect where, in any proceedings on a complaint under section 94 of this Act, an industrial tribunal or the Industrial Court makes an award of compensation to be paid by an employer in consequence of action taken by the employer or by a person acting on his behalf, and the employer claims—

  (a) that the action so taken by him or on his behalf was induced by pressure exercised on him by another person (in this section referred to as 'the third party') by means of action to which section (Pressure on employer to infringe rights of workers) of this Act applies, and

  (b) that by virtue of subsection (3) of that section the action taken by the third party, whereby pressure was so exercised on the employer, constituted an unfair industrial practice.

  (2) In the circumstances specified in the preceding subsection the employer may, in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations or Industrial Court rules, as the case may be, require the third party to be joined as a party to the proceedings; and if in the proceedings the industrial tribunal or the Industrial Court finds that the claim of the employer (as speci-
  fled in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the preceding subsection) is well-founded, then, subject to subsection (4) of this section, the tribunal or Court may, if it considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order requiring the third party to pay to the employer a contribution in respect of the compensation awarded against him.
  (3) The amount of any contribution ordered to be paid under this section in respect of any compensation—

  (a) shall be such amount as the industrial tribunal or the Industrial Court, as the case may be, considers to he just and equitable in the circumstances, and

  (b) may, if the tribunal or Court so determines, be such as to constitute a complete indemnity.

  (4) Where the third party is an official of a trade union, and it is shown that, in taking the action in question, he was acting in his capacity as such an official and within the scope of his authority on behalf of the trade union—

  (a) the industrial tribunal or the Industrial Court, as the case may be, shall not order him to pay any contribution to the employer under this section, but

  (b) nothing in the preceding paragraph shall affect the power of the tribunal or Court to order a contribution to be paid by the trade union.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

  Brought up, and read.
  Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 244.

  Division No. 247.]

  AYES

  [12.17 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Awdry, Daniel

  Benyon, W.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Balniel, Lord

  Biffen, John

  Amery, Bt. Hn. Julian

  Batsford, Brian

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Blaker, Peter

  Astor, John

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Body, Richard

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mudd, David

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Murton, Oscar

  Bowden, Andrew

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Boyd-Carpenter, Bt. Hn. John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Neave, Airey

  Braine, Bernard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Bray, Ronald

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Brewis, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Normanton, Tom

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nott, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Heseltine, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hicks, Robert

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Bryan, Paul

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborn, John

  Buck, Antony

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

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Holland, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Peel, John

  Carr, Bt. Hn. Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Percival, Ian

  Channon, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Pounder, Rafton

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hunt, John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Clegg, Walter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M,

  Cockeram, Eric

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Cooke, Robert

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Coombs, Oerek

  Jessel, Toby

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Cooper, A. E.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jopling, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Costain, A. P.

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Critchley, Julian

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Crouch, David

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Crowder, F. P.

  Killedder, James

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Curran, Charles

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

  Kirk, Peter

  Rost, Peter

  Dean, Paul

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Knox, David

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Lambton, Antony

  Scott, Nicholas

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Lane, David

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. sir Alec

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sharpies, Richard

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

  Eden, Sir John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Simeons, Charles

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Sinclair, Sir George

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

  Longden, Gilbert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Emery, Peter

  Loveridge, John

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  MacArthur, Ian

  Soref, Harold

  Farr, John

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Speed, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  McLaren, Martin

  Spence, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Sproat, Iain

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampsteatl)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Stainton, Keith

  Fisher, Nigel Surbiton)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Steel, David

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)'

  Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maddan, Martin

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Foster, Sir John

  Madel, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fowler, Norman

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stokes, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Fry, Peter

  Marten, Neil

  Sutolife, John

  Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Mather, Carol

  Tapsell, Peter

  Gardner, Edward

  Maude, Angus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gifmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Mawby, Ray

  Tebbit, Norman

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Temple, John M.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thatcher, Bt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Gorst, John

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gower, Raymond

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

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Tilney, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Green, Alan

  Molyneaux, James

  Trew, Peter

  Grieve, Percy

  Money, Ernie

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Cummer, Selwyn

  Montgomery, Fergus

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gurden, Harold

  More, Jasper

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Waddington, David

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  1374

  1375

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Worsley, Marcus

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Wall, Patrick

  Wilkinson, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Walters, Dennis

  Worige-Gordon, Patrick

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mr. Victor Goodhew

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Albu, Austen

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mackie, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Alien, Scholefield

  Foot, Michael

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Forrester, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Ashton, Joe

  Galpern, Sir Mycr

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

  Atkinson, Norman

  Garrett, W. E.

  Marquand, David

  Bagier, Cordon A. T.

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Barnes, Michael

  Ginshurg, David

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Barnett, Joel

  Golding, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Beaney, Alan

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mendelson, John

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Milne, Edward (Biyth)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Molloy, William

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Booth, Albert

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Bradley, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Moyle, Roland

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Ogden, Eric

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hattersfey, Roy

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Buchan, Norman

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  O'Malley, Brian

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Oram, Bert

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Horam, John

  Orbach, Maurice

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Cant, R. B.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carter, Ray (Bimningh'm, Northfield)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecctes)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hunter, Adam

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Pendry, Tom

  Cohen, Stanley

  Janner, Creville

  Pentland, Norman

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Conlan, Bernard

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

  Prescott, John

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Rcy (Stechford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  John, Brynmor

  Probert, Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davidson, Arthur

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Richard, Ivor

  Davies, Denzil (Lfanelly)

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

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Judd, Frank

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

  Deakins, Eric

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Kelley, Richard

  Roper, John

  Delargy, H. J.

  Kerr, Russell

  Rose, Paul B.

  Del!, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Doig, Peter

  Latham, Arthur

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dormand, J. D,

  Lawson, George

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sillars, James

  Douglas-Marm, Bruce

  Leonard, Dick

  Silverman, Julius

  Driberg, Tom

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smalt, William

  Dunn, James A.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Eadie, Alex

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Ellis, Tom

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  English, Michael

  McBride, Neil

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Evans, Fred

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strang, Gavin

  Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McElhone, Frank

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Fisher,Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Lady wood)

  McGuire, Michael

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirlev

  1376

  1377

  Swain, Thomas

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

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Wallace, George

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Tinn, James

  Weitzman, David

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Torney, Tom

  Wellbeloved, James

  Woof, Robert

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Varley, Eric G.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Whitlock, William

  Mr. William Handing.

  Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered this day.

GLASGOW AIRPORT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
12.27 a.m.
Mr. John Rankin: I wish to call attention to the future of Glasgow Airport. To mention Glasgow, situated at the western end of the new Edinburgh road, is of course to bring to mind Edinburgh Airport, situated at the eastern end of the motorway, and to some extent the fortunes of the two airports are so closely identified that I am sure that I shall be forgiven if I make some mention of the two in my speech.
For many years now, the business of Glasgow Airport has been remarkable. Every day for five days in the week—the weekends are not so busy—at four o'clock, five o'clock, six o'clock, seven o'clock and half past seven and nine o'clock, well packed aircraft leave London for Glasgow, and a similar stream at corresponding times leave Glasgow for London.
The siting of Glasgow Airport helps this traffic. It may be reached easily and in comfort by rail, by road, by sea and, of course, by air. It also serves the largest conurbation in Scotland. It has rivals and, I am sure, friends, and we in Glasgow are flattered by that.
Lately, Edinburgh Airport passed into the hands of the British Airports Authority, well hanselled by a Government dowry of £9 million and the promise of a new runway of adequate length. We in Glasgow welcome this and assume that Glasgow, if necessary, can expect similarity of terms, so that operating conditions and financial terms will be on a scale alike for both airports. I trust
1378
that the President of the Board of Trade, whom I welcome here tonight, will soon see fit to meet members and officials of Glasgow Corporation Airports Committee to discuss the problem of parity of treatment for the two airports.
It must be remembered that it is now almost three years since Glasgow Corporation took the first step towards lengthening the main runway. That was when it applied for permission to infill part of the ground which would carry a runway extension in due course of 1,400 ft. All the procedure involved in that operation is now concluded, I believe, and we in Glasgow are hopefully awaiting the outcome. The changes at both airports will, of course, raise the issue of noise.
It is clear that a need has arisen for a less emotional representation of the question of the overall relationship between the benefit to be derived from the economics and convenience of aircraft operations, and thus airport locations in the correct geographical position to serve various towns and conurbations, and the disadvantages created by aircraft noise in populated areas. Both these problems are acute in the central belt of Scotland.
The total effect of these matters upon the economic and environmental aspects of the sections of the population concerned should be the ultimate factor in deciding upon the location and development of airports. The present treatment by the popular Press and other news media creates the impression that the majority of the population of the United Kingdom is either adversely affected or gravely concerned by the operation of jet flights into airports adjacent to large conurbations. The implications go further and suggest that, in some way, the wishes and welfare of a great proportion of the population are being overridden, for the benefit of a small minority of air travellers, by airlines and airport authorities which are mainly concerned with and probably motivated by profit

1379
motives only, and are wholly unconcerned with the effect on the environment. It is clearly desirable that a less emotional examination of the position is undertaken, if only to ensure that the unthinking, equally selfish and ultimately restrictive activities of the dedicated preservationists do not cause irreparable harm to the proper pattern of future airport and air transport growth in the central belt of Scotland, which in its way makes a vital contribution to the maintenance of a healthy economy.
If one considers the problem of the total benefit as a simple equation which demonstrates how many people benefit from the correct location of airports in relation to those who suffer interference, then a wider perspective of the problem can be seen. Assuming that the population of the United Kingdom totals about 55 million people, it is highly improbable that more than about four million or five million people are in any way affected by the noise of aircraft arriving at or departing from airports.
Many complaints about noise at Glasgow and Edinburgh come from that section of that community. This total includes those affected at military and small civil airports where operations are confined to a limited number of movements, in the case of the military airfield mainly during normal working hours. In fact the noise from aircraft at airports is likely to be seriously detrimental only to a very small proportion of that section of the population affected overall. In the United Kingdom there are probably less than 10 airports where the present level of jet operations constitutes any serious interference with the activities of residents in or adjacent to the approach paths of the planes. At some of these 10 the effect is seasonal depending upon the level of inclusive tour operations in the summer. For the major part of the year, approximately seven months, the level of aircraft operations is at present well below that which could reasonably be said to be seriously intrusive and increases in movement levels are likely to be low at most airports particularly the two to which I am specially referring and those outside London.
It is difficult to be specific about numbers seriously affected since this is a subjective term in any event. Each airport
1380
has particular and unique problems in relation to its surrounding residential districts and there can be no national solution applicable to all of them. In the main, house-owners, particularly those in salubrious areas, resent the activities of aircraft more strongly and react in a more organised way than the tenants of rented property, although undoubtedly the physical as distinct from the psychological effect is likely to be the same on both types of occupants. On the other hand, those same house-owners are more likely to be regular users of airport services, primarily because their income levels permit them to use air travel as a convenient and economic form of transport.
It is probable, therefore, that while many of these residents may be active against the operation of the airports as members of residents' or ratepayers' associations, they would, on the other hand, be more seriously affected if airports were to be restricted in operation or remotely located as some part of an ultimate solution. It is ironically probable that some will also be representative of consumer organisations complaining about the lack of air transport facilities.
It is even more difficult to be specific about overall figures but if we consider an average provincial airport located probably on an ex-wartime airfield adjacent to a city—and it should be remembered that this location has been chosen mainly to meet the convenience and needs of the particular population group concerned—then it is probable that about 60,000 dwellings or so are likely to be within sound of aircraft activities at such a level that it could constitute some impingement, however slight, upon the normal activities of the residents in the area, for example Edinburgh or Glasgow.
Assuming an average occupation of three persons per dwellinghouse, it is likely that the number of people affected will be of the order of 180,000. Of these 180,000 people, it is quite probable that the larger proportion will live to one side or the other of the runway or its extended centreline and will therefore not be seriously affected by the noise of aircraft approaching or taking off, where the worst interference usually occurs. In this average situation, it is reasonable to

1381
assume that of the total of 180,000, probably 100,000 or even 120,000 live either side of the centreline. Assuming the lesser figure, the remaining 80,000 will live in the area affected by aircraft passing overhead within a mile. These will be located on or adjacent to the extended centreline at varying distances out from the runway end. Those living more than seven miles out are unlikely to be regularly subjected to the more intrusive noise levels and, while they may nowadays be more aware of aircraft noise than of other activities, it is probable that other ambient noises such as railway trains, street traffic and so on can create at least the equivalent in noise value to that of the aircraft flying overhead.
People living within the seven mile limit are, of course, affected to a most serious degree. But it is now well known that the effect on individual persons varies enormously. It is probable that different persons living in the same house react quite differently to aircraft noise.
It is safe to assume in our hypothetical case of 180,000 people that, of the 80,000 living under the approaches, probably fewer than 60,000 live within seven miles from the runway and within a mile of the extended centreline at one end or the other. From past experience of noise complaints—and I have had a good many—of these 60,000, 30,000 will accept the aircraft activities without resentment as part of an everyday occurrence and, sadly, a general deterioration of modern life. In some cases, their acceptance may he based on the fact that they derive, directly or indirectly, some benefit from the airport. They may either work on it themselves or have a relative in the house working there. They may own, operate or be connected with a business which derives some benefit from the airport, or they may have selected the location because of its convenience to the airport, probably in connection with their own business activities. A large number will have moved into their houses since the beginning of jet operations at the airport concerned.
The remaining 30,000 people are likely to be subjected to noise levels which can affect day to day activities such as making telephone calls, watching television—one of the greatest sources of irritation and complaint, I may say—and normal conversation; and
1382
have no reason to endure the noise without complaint. The seriousness of the interference is of course dependent upon the level of activity and frequency of movement from the airport.
These 30,000 people have genuine cause for complaint, but, in practice, they are not always the people who complain most bitterly and vociferously. Due to their location, they will be subjected to petition-bearing friends, neighbours and protest organisations, and they may append their names to petitions against aircraft noise as much to placate a neighbouring friend and retain an otherwise satisfactory friendship as to object to airport activity.
Many of the more vociferous complainers come from outside the areas most seriously affected, and they frequently express their objections against what they call "the establishment" and bureaucratic life in general, rather than specifically against airport activities. These people see the operation of an aircraft overhead as a visible manifestation of the many modern infringements upon their individual liberties and seize the opportunity to object, form and join protest associations mainly as a means of providing an outlet for their otherwise frustrated energies.
It is the activities of this particular section of the protesting public which are currently being given the disproportionate publicity. They are quite vocal, particularly in Glasgow at times, though not always. No one can deny that there are genuine sufferers and complainants, and that aircraft noise is a substantial environmental problem must be readily admitted. However, the extreme suggestions now being actively canvassed to seriously restricting airport activities in terms of times, of operation, size of aircraft, and the ultimately unreasonable and costly proposals to locate large airports at sites remote from population centres must be viewed in the context of the true problem.
If the figures of people "seriously" affected and concerned are examined and it is appreciated that "seriously'' is an objective term, then it can be seen that, of the 10 major airports outside Heathrow, the present problem probably concerns a total of some 300,000 people—at a generous estimate not more than 350,000. If one adds, say, a further 250,000 for the people affected around Heathrow and

1383
other airports of a somewhat similar nature, it is likely that the total United Kingdom problem concerns 650,000—certainly less than 1 million. Allowing a generous growth factor in terms of increased movements from the other 10 airports, then in five years or so the number could reach 2 million.
One must now consider the total number of terminal air passengers from the 10 major United Kingdom airports, particularly keeping in mind Glasgow and Prestwick in Scotland which are bound to grow steadily, excluding those in transit or inter-lining at the airports, as they are presumably indifferent to the airport at which they make a change. This total, including passengers using Heathrow, in 1969 was almost 25 million. Of these it is probable that 70 per cent., or 17½ million, were residents of the United Kingdom, most of whom gain economic advantage from the proximity of the airport to population centres when they are travelling. It can be appreciated, therefore, that the numbers of people who are seriously inconvenienced by the present location of airports and the growth of traffic are in a small minority compared to the growing numbers of people who are likely to be adversely affected by remote and inconvenient location restrictions, and so on, of normal commercial aviation activities.
These arguments present the problem in a somewhat less emotional light than those currently circulated, but do not provide a solution. An effective solution can only be long term and, except at those airports where the saturation point has already been reached either in terms of aircraft movements or passenger totals, the present day problem must get worse before it gets better.
The Roskill Commission examined in some detail, as a solution, evidence about the cost of ground transport between remote airports and city centres. Its evidence has been hotly challenged, but any reasonable consideration of these factors must lead one to conclude that, when airports are developed to their full potential, the transportation of more than 50 million people a year for distances of up to 50 or more miles by surface transport becomes a most costly proposition, not likely to be mild in its overall econo-
1384
mic effect on total air transportation costs, nor in its ultimate effect upon the national economy.
It is desirable, therefore, that the ultimate solution be found by other means, and the most sensible and practical place to start to resolve the problem is at its origin—that is, the aircraft jet engine—and it is there, I hope, that the right hon. Gentleman will look for his solution.
12.51 a.m.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): The House knows the long interest which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) has taken in all matters of civil aviation in general, and in particular his special interest in Glasgow airport, so we are very glad that he has talked about these subjects tonight. In the comparatively few moments which are left to me, I should like to assure him that my responsibilities here lie in maintaining a proper balance among Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Prestwick, and seeing that all of these develop for the future good and benefit of Scotland, and that there should be no special bias.
While giving me a title to which I am no longer entitled, the hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be a good thing if I visited Glasgow and talked to the people there. I am only too delighted to do that and I am certain that it will be done in the fairly near future. I can understand the anxiety of Glasgow, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, waiting for permission to start its new runway and get on with the job, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this is in the direct responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Obviously, I must not anticipate anything which he may wish to say, because I know that the reporter's recommendation has not yet come to him.
I was interested in the way in which the hon. Gentleman put forward his plea that the problem of noise should be treated less emotionally. To be fair, it is a little easier for those of us who live near and use Glasgow and Edinburgh and those airports to be a little more relaxed about it than those who live in the noise shadow of Gatwick and Heathrow, where, I admit—although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some of the arguments are exaggerated—there is a

1385
real problem and one which affects people's lives much more than those in the north perhaps realise.
While there is not time, and I would not wish, to go into the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave about those affected, I have no doubt that, if we are to get the right sort of development in Scotland, both Abbotsinch and Turnhouse will, I think we both hope, grow fast and become important transport centres as aviation increases.
The noise problems which are now comparatively minor must be looked at carefully therefore before they become serious and before we have the sort of protests which the hon. Gentleman described. Naturally people's reactions vary considerably. For example some are a little more deaf than others some sleep with their windows open while others prefer them closed. These differences make a considerable variation in the way in which people are affected.
I accept the hon. Gentleman's obvious knowledge of the way in which these protests are mounted and people sign them. We all have experience perhaps in other spheres of protests being made. Nevertheless in planning for the development of our airports in the north we should
1386
take other problems into account such as the growing towns in the area and try to plan them so that they cause the minimum difficulty for our children and grandchildren.
The hon. Gentleman said that at the weekends these airports are not very busy. Generally speaking I fly on Sunday evenings. My experience is that unless one books a flight two or three weeks in advance one may not get a seat. Thus from my experience Sunday nights can be very busy.
We are, as he said, handing over the airport at Turnhouse in a few weeks' time and I hope that it will be possible to develop there an airport which is parallel to Glasgow though not of course dominating it because Glasgow being the centre will probably always carry a great deal more traffic. We want to see both airports develop—
The Question having been proposed after Twelve o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at three minutes to One o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Glaucoma
  Glaucoma
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Additional Funds)
  National Health Service (Additional Funds)
  Hospital Casualty Departments (Medical Assistants)
  Hospital Casualty Departments (Medical Assistants)
  Medicines (Comparative Costs)
  Medicines (Comparative Costs)
  Motor Vehicle Fumes (Dangers to Health)
  Motor Vehicle Fumes (Dangers to Health)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Rehabilitation Services
  Rehabilitation Services
  Social Security and Welfare Entitlements (Publicity)
  Social Security and Welfare Entitlements (Publicity)
  Social Security Benefits (Members of Local Authorities)
  Social Security Benefits (Members of Local Authorities)
  Standards of Living (Effect of Price Changes)
  Standards of Living (Effect of Price Changes)
  Dentists (Fees)
  Dentists (Fees)
  Industrial Disputes (Welfare Payments)
  Industrial Disputes (Welfare Payments)
  Disabled Persons (Attendance Allowance)
  Disabled Persons (Attendance Allowance)
  Disabled Persons (Equipment)
  Disabled Persons (Equipment)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Hospitals, Plymouth (Waiting List)
  Hospitals, Plymouth (Waiting List)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Tobacco (Health Hazard)
  Tobacco (Health Hazard)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Dental Intravenous Anaesthesia (Deaths)
  Dental Intravenous Anaesthesia (Deaths)
  Medicine Commission (Drug Companies)
  Medicine Commission (Drug Companies)
  Hospitals, Sheffield
  Hospitals, Sheffield
  Amphetamines
  Amphetamines
  Invalid Cars
  Invalid Cars
  Adolescent Psychiatric Patients
  Adolescent Psychiatric Patients
  Mentally-disordered Persons (Community Services)
  Mentally-disordered Persons (Community Services)
  National Health Service (Part-time Consultants)
  National Health Service (Part-time Consultants)
  Homeless Persons (West Midlands)
  Homeless Persons (West Midlands)
  Hospital Patients (Community Care Homes)
  Hospital Patients (Community Care Homes)
  Chiropody Services
  Chiropody Services
  Geriatric Hospitals, Leeds
  Geriatric Hospitals, Leeds
  Rehabilitation Services (Tunbridge Committee)
  Rehabilitation Services (Tunbridge Committee)
  Institute for Hearing Research
  Institute for Hearing Research
  Hospital Craftsmen (Pay)
  Hospital Craftsmen (Pay)
  Non-offenders in Approved Schools
  Non-offenders in Approved Schools
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Allowance)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicle Allowance)
  Prescription and Dental Charges
  Prescription and Dental Charges
  Over-80s, Ince (Pensions)
  Over-80s, Ince (Pensions)
  Hospitals, Ince (Beds)
  Hospitals, Ince (Beds)
  Children's Officers
  Children's Officers
  Samaritans (Grant)
  Samaritans (Grant)
  Supplementary Benefit Payments (Shiremooe)
  Supplementary Benefit Payments (Shiremooe)
  Old-age Pensioners (Clothing)
  Old-age Pensioners (Clothing)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Hospitals, Birmingham (Beds)
  Hospitals, Birmingham (Beds)
  Terminal Patients (Leicester)
  Terminal Patients (Leicester)
  Cancer
  Cancer
  Psychologists
  Psychologists
  Hospital Doctors
  Hospital Doctors
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Broadmoor Hospital
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Private Patients (N.H.S. Facilities)
  Private Patients (N.H.S. Facilities)
  Supplementary Benefits (Additional Payments in London)
  Supplementary Benefits (Additional Payments in London)
  Hackney (Official Visit)
  Hackney (Official Visit)
  Television Licences
  Television Licences
  Ford Motor Company (Dispute)
  Ford Motor Company (Dispute)
  Drugs (Prescription to N.H.S. Patients)
  Drugs (Prescription to N.H.S. Patients)
  Cigarettes (Sale)
  Cigarettes (Sale)
  Contraception (Research)
  Contraception (Research)
  Welfare Food Regulations (Explanatory Leaflet)
  Welfare Food Regulations (Explanatory Leaflet)
  Member's Letter
  Member's Letter
  Statements to the Press and B.B.C.
  Statements to the Press and B.B.C.
  Deaf Children, Birmingham
  Deaf Children, Birmingham
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Industrial Death Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit (Retired Occupational Pensioners)
  Unemployment Benefit (Retired Occupational Pensioners)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Gold Coins
  Gold Coins
  Decimal Coins
  Decimal Coins
  Road Safety Aids (Purchase Tax)
  Road Safety Aids (Purchase Tax)
  Family Allowances (Income Tax)
  Family Allowances (Income Tax)
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Luncheon Vouchers
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
HOME DEPARTMENT
  National Lottery
  National Lottery
  Data Banks (Privacy)
  Data Banks (Privacy)
  Bail
  Bail
  Coroners' Courts (Committals for Trial)
  Coroners' Courts (Committals for Trial)
  Remands in Custody
  Remands in Custody
  Voting Rights
  Voting Rights
  British Subjects without Citizenship
  British Subjects without Citizenship
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  International Convention on Human Rights
  International Convention on Human Rights
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (DEPARTMENTAL MINISTERS)
  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (DEPARTMENTAL MINISTERS)
  PENSIONERS' LETTERS
  PENSIONERS' LETTERS
  BIRMINGHAM
  BIRMINGHAM
  NIGERIA
  NIGERIA
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE A ND INDUSTRY (RE- SPONSIBILITIES)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRADE A ND INDUSTRY (RE- SPONSIBILITIES)
  WESTERN ISLES
  WESTERN ISLES
  SCOTTISH T.U.C. (DISCUSSIONS)
  SCOTTISH T.U.C. (DISCUSSIONS)
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  YORKSHIRE AND HUMBERSIDE
  T.U.C. AND C.B.I. (DISCUSSIONS)
  T.U.C. AND C.B.I. (DISCUSSIONS)
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
  NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
  PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS
  CANCER RESEARCH
  CANCER RESEARCH
  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO MOSCOW)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO MOSCOW)
AGRICULTURE
  "Stresnil"
  "Stresnil"
  County Agriculture and Environment Groups
  County Agriculture and Environment Groups
  FORD WORKERS, HALEWOOD
  FORD WORKERS, HALEWOOD
  SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENT
  SIMONSTOWN AGREEMENT
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Students (Grants)
  Students (Grants)
  Cancer Research
  Cancer Research
  Schools, Ince
  Schools, Ince
  Works of Art (Exports)
  Works of Art (Exports)
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployed Persons (Scotland)
  Unemployed Persons (Scotland)
  Redundant Persons (Scotland)
  Redundant Persons (Scotland)
  Earned Incomes
  Earned Incomes
  Skelmersdale New Town
  Skelmersdale New Town
  Northern Region (Low-paid Workers)
  Northern Region (Low-paid Workers)
  Veterinary Accident Victims (Rehabilitation)
  Veterinary Accident Victims (Rehabilitation)
ENVIRONMENT
  Prices and Costs
  Prices and Costs
  Untreated Sewage, Cornwall
  Untreated Sewage, Cornwall
  Pollution
  Pollution
  Kendal-Levens Road
  Kendal-Levens Road
  Barrow, Arnside Road
  Barrow, Arnside Road
  S.E. Lancashire and N.E. Cheshire Conurbation
  S.E. Lancashire and N.E. Cheshire Conurbation
  R.D.C. Offices, Sheffield (Kiveton Park)
  R.D.C. Offices, Sheffield (Kiveton Park)
  M62 and A56 (Land Acquisition)
  M62 and A56 (Land Acquisition)
  Baulborough
  Baulborough
  Local Government Offices and Buildings (South Yorkshire)
  Local Government Offices and Buildings (South Yorkshire)
  Local Government Boundaries (Development Areas)
  Local Government Boundaries (Development Areas)
  System-Built Dwellings
  System-Built Dwellings
  Public Record Office
  Public Record Office
  Housing Acts (Grants)
  Housing Acts (Grants)
  Industrialised Building
  Industrialised Building
  Council Houses (Sales)
  Council Houses (Sales)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Salaries (Review Body)
  Members' Salaries (Review Body)
  Security
  Security
  European Economic Community (Select Committee)
  European Economic Community (Select Committee)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  New Steel Works
  New Steel Works
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Wales (Industrial Development)
  Wales (Industrial Development)
  Third London Airport (Site)
  Third London Airport (Site)
  Cauliflowers (Import Levy)
  Cauliflowers (Import Levy)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Telephones
  Telephones
  Prices and Costs
  Prices and Costs
WALES
  Air Passenger and Freight Services
  Air Passenger and Freight Services
  Agriculture (Five-Year Plan)
  Agriculture (Five-Year Plan)
  Road Links (South Wales— Midlands)
  Road Links (South Wales— Midlands)

Preamble
The House met at halt past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Vehicles (Excise) Act,
Atomic Energy Authority Act,
Hydrocarbon Oil (Customs & Excise) Act,
Buckinghamshire County Council Act,
Southampton Corporation Act.

NAPALM WEAPONS: GENEVA CONFERENCE
2.32 p.m.
LORD REA: 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 take steps to seek international co-operation in the outlawing of napalm as an anti-personnel weapon.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the question of the use of napalm in armed conflict was among a number of subjects considered recently by the United Nations Secretary-General in his two reports, Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts. It was suggested in particular that the Secretary-General might be asked to prepare, with the assistance of qualified experts, a study on napalm weapons and the effects of their possible use. The Secretary-General's two reports will be discussed by a conference
310
of Governmental experts to be held in Geneva this spring under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Her Majesty's Government have accepted an invitation to participate in the conference.
LORD REA: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which I must say gives me much more pleasure than I feared I should get. May I assure him that any move in this direction which Her Majesty's Government take will be very much supported by members of all Parties throughout the country?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that many of us, in all parts of the House and throughout the country, can see no difference whatsoever between napalm being dropped upon poor, underprivileged people and mediæval stories of people being burned at the stake? Nay, it is worse; and I hope that when our Party go forward in Government they will have the courage to speak out vociferously against this weapon, which I consider one of the greatest evils of modern times.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I realise that the view which the noble Lord has expressed is widely held. I would only say that, as a weapon, napalm is not in itself necessarily considered bad; but the method by which it is used is.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that in this House on a previous occasion there was very considerable feeling about the whole business of chemical and biological warfare, of which napalm is a part; and would he make certain that the Government take every action to discontinue its use, and encourage other countries to do the same?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it would be fair to say that it is not always accepted that napalm comes under the category of chemical and biological weapons. But it would be premature for the Government to make any statement such as the noble Lord suggests until they have seen the report of the United Nations which is being discussed, as I said originally, by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, napalm is almost certainly a chemical.
EARL FERRERS: But it does not necessarily come within the strict definition of chemical and biological warfare.

M.I.D.A. STUDY
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the terms of reference of the MIDA study announced to the Press on February 22 and to Parliament on March 2, which Department of State will provide the study's chairman and services and which Departments will be represented on it.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the study announced on February 22 will form an integral part of the Government's location of industry research, and the terms of reference are:
"to assess the likely long-term needs of bulk processing industries for coastal sites adjacent to deep water".
Because the study is essentially concerned with industrial matters, the Department of Trade and Industry is taking the lead. The other Government Departments represented on the Working Group are the Treasury, the Department of Employment, the Scottish Office, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. The Northern Ireland Government and the National Ports Council are also represented.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for that reply, may I first of all congratulate him on the Government's decision to relate this study to the location of industry policy? May I ask him whether the study now proposed is not going to be rather cumbersome to the extent of delaying work; and could be tell us, since he assured us a fortnight back that work would start immediately, how many times the Study Group has met since the Government's decision was announced three weeks ago?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend is right in saying that the study will be cumbersome. The whole object of it is that it will be a
312
quicker study than would otherwise have been used, and it will be more directly related to the Government's statutory responsibilities. I cannot give my noble friend the answer to his second supplementary question, but I will obtain the information and let him know.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is not aware that it is widely supposed that this Study Group has not yet met, and that some people are getting impatient to see work begun?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but I will pass on to my right honourable friend the views of the noble Earl, and will let him know what the situation is.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, will the noble Earl speed this matter up a little, as this has quite an important bearing on what happens in relation to our next major airport? That the Port of London is slowly dying is clear from the fact that it is silting up and is becoming too small for modern ships. It is evident that if we are to have a major port in the South it must be something on these lines. Will the noble Earl consider speeding up this study so that it can be assessed in the matter of the Port of London and Foulness?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that this study is being carried out with a degree of speed. The whole purpose of it is that it should be quicker than the previous study.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, how can the noble Earl assure the House that it is being done with great speed when he was unable to answer his noble friend's question as to how often this particular committee had met?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the answer was relative. I do not think that speed can necessarily be judged by the number of times the committee has sat specifically in the last three weeks.

ACNCER: INCIDENCE, TREATMENT AND RESEARCH
2.38 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 issue a short White Paper or similar document, at a conveniently early date, dealing with the increasing incidence of cancer, and including—in laymen's terms—such information as:—

(a) the yearly number of deaths from this cause during the last thirty years;

(b) the number of fresh cases known to come under medical super vision each year;

(c) an analysis of the foregoing figures to show the various types of cancer, or the parts of the body affected;

(d) a short summary of the methods of treatment employed in various forms of cancer, together with an indication of the degree of success achieved;

and whether they will say whether extra money for research in British institutions and in collaboration with other countries (in addition to that already provided by the Government and by charities) could hold out hope of improved results; and if so, whether, by grants from the Exchequer or by means of a special cancer stamp to be affixed half-yearly to the National Insurance card, they will arrange for this money to be provided.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the Registrar General for England and Wales publishes figures of cancer deaths in his Annual Statistical Review, and the supplementary volumes give numbers and rates for registration and survival. So far as the complexity of the subject permits, all the statistics and analyses are set out as simply as possible. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services does not believe that this complex sub
314
ject could be adequately treated in a single publication of the type the noble Lord has suggested.
With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's Question, the whole field of medical research, including cancer research, is kept under continuous review by the Medical Research Council to ensure that funds are distributed to the best advantage among scientists who are working in areas of particular promise. Cancer research is regarded by the Medical Research Council as being relatively generously supported at the present time in relation to other areas of research. I will write to the noble Lord more fully, if I may, on some aspects of his Question.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, and will await his letter before pursuing the matter further. But perhaps I may ask him whether he does not think that the general tone of his reply was in the nature of indicating that sufficient is being done at the present. May I ask him whether he considers that sufficient is being done at the present; whether he does not think that there may be a shortage of men, and that this can be overcome by creating a number of fellowships and professorships? Further, does he not think that if more money is made available more work can be done?
LORD ABERDARE: My Loris, this is an almost impossible question to answer. More money could indeed be used in certain areas. For example, one project which is under consideration is the rebuilding of the Institute for Cancer Research. That is a large capital project which would be of use. So far as immediate research is concerned, the Medical Research Council feel that cancer is already getting more generous treatment than some of the other fields of research. If more funds are developed for cancer research it may well mean that skilled manpower is diverted from other fields. There may in the future be need for more money in particulary hopeful lines of research in cancer.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I will await his letter before taking the matter further. But I must say that his reply did not seem to be as satisfactory as I had expected.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord let us know how accurate are the diagnoses of the causes of death, and whether they are accurate enough to compile the kind of statistics that my noble friend requires?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should have thought that the diagnoses for deaths from cancer were, on the whole, very accurate.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the complexity of this subject. Has he observed the contradictory nature of some of the propaganda that comes out in connection with smoking and lung cancer? Is he aware that for some time it was said that cigarette smoking is the most harmful, whereas in the last few weeks in the Press statements have come out to the effect that this is quite wrong and that cigar smoking or pipe smoking is even more dangerous? Is it not necessary to look at the propaganda coming out, in case it should fall into disrepute?
Loan ABERDARE: My Lords, my information is that cigarette smoking is more dangerous than pipe smoking or cigar smoking. But perhaps my noble friend would like to take part in the debate to-morrow.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that, apart from what the Government are doing in this field, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and, I believe, the British Empire Cancer Campaign for Research are doing most valuable work, and are spending large sums of money provided by the public?
Loan ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That is quite true. The Cancer Campaign for Research and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund are both devoting considerable sums of money to cancer research; and the encouraging thing is that these two bodies have got together with the Medical Research Council and have recently set up a joint co-ordinating committee to co-ordinate research into cancer.

HAVERHILL TRANSPORT SERVICES
2.44 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 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 consider the public transport services at Haverhill, West Suffolk, provide adequate lines of communication with other centres of population and, if not, what proposals they have for improvement.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the provision of public transport for Haverhill is in the first place a matter for the local operators, and for the local authorities who have powers to assist essential services by rural bus grant. The Government will normally reimburse half the local authorities' expenditure. My right honourable friend is also conducting a pilot study in West Suffolk, including the Haverhill area, of local needs.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer; but it does not really give much information. May I ask whether he considers that one bus a week in winter and two buses a week in summer to the county town of Bury St. Edmunds is providing anything approaching an adequate service?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my information is that to Bury St. Edmunds there is a bus on Wednesday and Saturday, which is two a week each way. But this is really a matter for the local authorities. If they wish their people to have more buses they are in a position to implement that wish.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister whether he is aware that owing to the unbalanced development as between industry and housing in Haverhill the domestic rate is already extremely high? Have the Government no interest at all in assisting this town to expand to the figure of 12,000—which was the figure indicated by his noble friend a few weeks ago as being roughly the target aimed at?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not accept that the increase in population is going to depend on the local rail and bus services. There are already over 11,000 people in this town and Haverhill Urban District Council at the moment are spending about £1,178 on grant, half of which my right honourable friend meets. The West Suffolk County Council also subsidise the Haverhill bus services, so half the cost again is met.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he considers that the inadequate transport services may account, partly at least, for the considerable number of people who leave Haverhill, finding it unsatisfactory?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, this is another matter that I think the transport studies which are going on at the moment will show up. We hope to have these studies completed in April or May this year—that is, in the next eight weeks—after which we shall be in a much better position to see what recommendations are made to the Government which will be a guideline for the country as a whole.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I finally ask whether the noble Lord would draw the attention of the study group to the fact that to travel the 15 miles to Bury St. Edmunds by taxi costs nearly £3?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure they will be aware of that.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that it is Government policy that as the population expands, more people should walk?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords.

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved. That the Bill be read 3a.— (The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill, some of us were a little disturbed about the question of the amount of mud that would be exposed around Bassenthwaite Lake when the level was drawn down. The Promoters at that time were not able to tell the House the number of days on which the water in Bassenthwaite Lake would, under the scheme promoted by the Bill, he drawn down to the maximum extent, but only the number of days on which it was drawn down at all. It was obvious that some of those would be minute depressions of only a few inches which would make no difference to the borders. Since then I have been able to obtain from the consulting engineers employed by the Promoters an estimate of the number of days on which one would get a material draw-down which would expose mud on the shores, and I think the House may be interested to know this.
During the ten years that the scheme is to be in operation, the water will be drawn down from its maximum level on about 120 days—that is, drawl down at all, by however little. It will be drawn down to its maximum extent, about two feet, for only two or three days in the ten years. It will be drawn down to a middle distance, about one foot below the proper high level on only about twenty days during the ten years. These strike me as being very favourable figures, about which the amenity interests should not be bothered at all. It might have been to the advantage of the House if we had had these figures earlier, but I am glad that we have them now.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for this information.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, I beg to moved that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be received—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
2.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drunzalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Extension of power to compensate electricity generating boards for using coal instead of another fuel
".—(1) The Secretary of State may make payments to the Central Electricity Generating Board, the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board or the South of Scotland Electricity Board reimbursing the amount by which the costs incurred between 31st March 1971 and 1st April 1974 by that board in using, in pursuance of an arrangement with the Secretary of State, coal for the purpose of generating electricity exceed the costs which would have been so incurred if that board had used another fuel for that purpose.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, the amount of any costs which have, or would in the circumstances there mentioned have been, incurred by a board shall be determined in such manner as may be agreed between the Secretary of State and that board, with the approval of the Treasury, and shall be certified by that board's auditors.
(3) The aggregate amount of the payments made under this section shall not exceed £30 million."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith. The purpose of this new clause is described in the side-note. It is to extend the power to compensate the electricity generating boards for using coal instead of another fuel. This is not a request to the Government to exercise a power, but rather to take upon themselves the power to do something. This power has been used in the past and exists in the legislation which is current
320
and which will be continued by the Bill now before us. The power would have been renewed had we had before us the Labour Government's Bill upon which the Bill that we are now discussing is framed. It is a power which, I am suggesting to your Lordships, is a wise power. Although your Lordships may say that there is not a great deal of point in having a power appropriate to a coal surplus situation when we are in fact in a coal shortage situation, I would remind your Lordships that it is very difficult to forecast how long a period either of surplus or of shortage will continue.
It was but two or three years ago that everyone was satisfied that the coal surplus situation would continue; now we are in the reverse situation, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told us on Second Reading that the current situation of shortage is likely to continue for two years. About that I have two things to say. First, not even the noble Lord would claim all knowledge in forecasting when a situation will change, because Ministers have attempted to do that and have been wrong. The other point I would make is that even if the power is taken, it does not need to be used. But it will be an assurance to all those in the coal industry, all the miners who are being asked to work ever more efficiently to get ever more coal, that by doing their national duty they will not be working themselves out of their jobs. That is very important from the point of view of those who have suffered for years and years from the effects of working in a contracting industry. It is a problem which has been regular and permanent in their daily lives and thinking.
I suggest, therefore, to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that he should be willing to accept the Amendment. Perhaps the words are not right, but I think that this clause is precisely the one which appeared in the Labour Government's proposed Bill. I suggest that the noble Lord should be willing to take this power, or, at all events, to give us a satisfactory assurance about the matter. I say "satisfactory assurance" because I realise that there is a slight technical difficulty involving a sum of £30 million, and no one could be more aware of such a little local problem involving £30 million than I have been trained to be. So I say to the noble Lord that, given

321
the little assistance that I require from him, we could so easily get out of this little technical difficulty. All he has to do is give me a satisfactory assurance in relation to the Government's future action about including a clause of this kind in the Bill at an appropriate time. I would then, of course, resolve the problem by seeking leave to withdraw the proposed new clause.
I have put the matter shortly because I have already made a speech about this matter on Second Reading, and I do not wish to delay your Lordships unduly, especially as I know that many of my noble friends feel as intensely as I do on this topic and no doubt would wish to address your Lordships upon it.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: When we debated this matter on Second Reading the question of coal-burn was much to the fore. We said then that we would return to the matter on Committee stage. In supporting my noble friend Lord Diamond, the first thing I wish to say is that in no way does this proposed new clause establish a new principle. It was included in the Labour Government's Bill of 1967, and also in the 1970 Bill. The clause is omitted from this Bill, and there must be a reason for that. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said on Second Reading that this was one of the "sins of omission" regarding this Bill. I have read the arguments advanced by the Minister in another place to justify the omission, and I have also refreshed my mind about the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who had something to say about this matter during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord opposite said he could understand the disappointment of noble Lords on this side of the House, and the reluctance of some of us to accept the omission from the Bill. He went on to say that the view of the Government was that the risk was not sufficient to make it worthwhile to include the clause. He gave an assurance—it was also given in another place—that if the Government felt it desirable or necessary, they would reconsider the matter. That, briefly, is the history of the events relating to this proposed new clause.
If the circumstances which operated after the 1967 Bill did not occur again,
322
and the Government are of opinion that they are not likely to do so in the foreseeable future (that, of course is speculation; because no one knows how it might turn out) putting this clause in the Bill would imply no risk at all, and no harm would be done. As was explained on Second Reading, although this; is referred to as an insurance scheme against certain things happening, no expenditure is incurred and no premium will have to be paid. If certain circumstance emerge, and if this clause is put in the Bill, the Government will have authority, without having again to seek the approval of Parliament, to undertake what they say they would do in the event of its being considered desirable and necessary. This clause was a useful addition to the 1967 Bill. In the immediate period after 1967 to the coal industry it was of great assistance.
May I, for the sake of the Record, quote the extent of the assistance which this clause meant so far as the coal industry was concerned just after 1967? In the following year the then Government, the previous Government to this one, supported coal-burn power stations and gas works to the extent of 7 million tons. What did that mean in human and in physical terms? In human terms it meant the preservation in the mining industry of 15,000 jobs; it prevented the closure of at least 15 pits. The blow to the industry in terms of manpower and output on the basis of those statistics, may I suggest to your Lordships, was considerably softened and it was a good thing that the principles of this clause were embodied in the 1967 Measure.
All that this clause would mean, as I see it, would be this. It would be a stand-by in case circumstances emerge peculiar to those that existed in the coal industry from 1957. We all know the size of the contraction that took place during those ten years that I have mentioned. This went on with increasing momentum, and after 1967 the principle of this particular clause saved 15,000 jobs.
We are in Committee and are negotiating on certain principles. There is a certain art in this business of negotiation and I should like to strike a bargain with the noble Lord. Speaking for the Government on Second Reading he said:

323
"I do not see the necessity for this clause". I am sure he believes that, but I do not see the necessity for Clause 7 in this Bill. That will be the subject of debate a little later on, and the offer I make to the noble Lord is this: if he, on behalf of the Government, will withdraw Clause 7, then my suggestion and advice to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would be that he withdraws this clause. That, I think, is a reasonable offer, and if it is accepted it will be a victory for the art of compromise in this delicate question of negotiation. I have great pleasure in supporting my noble friend Lord Diamond.
3.3 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I rise to support my noble friends Lord Diamond and Lord Taylor of Mansfield in the introduction of this new clause. This is not something new that is being brought forward. In introducing the Second Reading of the Bill to your Lordships, the Minister said that he was aware of the sentiments expressed—repeated to-day by Lord Taylor of Mansfield—in regard to what we call this coal-burn clause. With the demand for coal exceeding production, according to the Government the support measures, one of which was to save the coal to be used at the power stations and gas works, should not be provided for in this Bill. I would ask the noble Lord to note that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, used these words:
"… should coal again move into surplus, the Government will consider reintroducing this power."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/3/71; col. 1491.]
I direct my question to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate: why should we consider it? Why not leave the power in the Bill, as it was in the previous Bill proposed by the previous Administration? We have seen over the years that the Ministry of Fuel and Power have been wrong in their forecasts as to what the tonnage produced would be for a particular period. They have constantly been wrong in their estimates. I am sorry to have to say this and I do not say it as a means of discrediting those responsible for advising the Minister as to the tonnage that would be produced within a given year by the mining industry. In my opinion, it might have been more to his credit if he had taken more notice of those who work in the industry and heard
324
what their particular assessment would be. At different periods coal stocks could be high; but, on the other hand, coal stocks could be low, as they were this last year. But it could happen again, with the production of coal by the new methods that have been introduced into the mining industry, that production will rise tremendously.
If noble Lords will reflect, they will remember that over the years since nationalisation stocks have been so high that managements and collieries have had to find grounds within their respective areas to dump the coal, until we have had millions of tons actually lying unused because of lower consumption. I well remember one particular area which had been seriously affected by the closing of pits. We agitated with successive Governments and with the C.E.G.B. for a coal-powered power station to be built in that particular area, but the answer eventually was in the negative. To-day we find a nuclear-powered station being built within a coal-producing area.
The Minister, Sir John Eden, said in Standing Committee B on this Bill that the prospects ahead of the coal industry are of a secure and substantial market. The fact is that at present there is not enough coal to meet demand. If the forecast for next year is correct, the position will be just that. But it ought not to be forgotten that while coal stocks last year stood at 7½ million tons, in the previous year they stood in this country at 20 million tons. So your Lordships can see the disparity between year and year and what can happen over a period of twelve months. In 1973–74 the position could be reversed, and instead of a decline we might well see an improvement in the output of the industry. It ought not to be overlooked that if the rate of production in other types of industry had been rising at a similar rate we should not be in the serious economic position that we are to-day.
I would ask the Government whether they have in mind the same aims and objects as the last Government. Can the Minister tell us what is the Government's attitude to the conversion of power stations to oil? Can he tell us that no further conversions away from coal will be sanctioned where there is a permanent loss of outlet for the coal market? If widespread conversions were to take

325
place, the coal market would be affected and the shortage that we are experiencing at the present time could change to an excess of supply. If possible, I should like to receive an assurance on this point from the Minister when he comes to reply. If we do not get an assurance, then—and I say this most seriously—it must mean that the statement made by the Minister to which I have referred counts for very little indeed.
This makes it all the more important that the Amendment moved by my noble friend to insert this new clause, which would give the guarantees that we seek, should receive the full support of the Committee. I take the view, as an exminer—and I am not ashamed of being an ex-miner—that the planners, who seek to work to the slide-rule principle in this basic industry, have been proved wrong many times. If I, as an ex-minter, had to choose between the planner's forecast of coal production from a particular mine, and that of the colliery manager who is responsible for the day-to-day working of the mine, then I would choose that of the colliery manager. Why should I do that? My reason is simple. It is the colliery manager who is more conversant with the difficulties to be faced and what will have to be done to overcome them. In other words, he is the one who possesses the practical knowledge from the day-to-day reports that he receives from his officials.
In view of such belief, I have often wondered over the years whether, if due consideration had been given to the opinions of such men, so many pits would have been closed. However, these closures have taken place. I say to noble Lords that in many of these pits that have been closed there are millions of tons of coal that will never be extracted, because it would take too much capital as a form of investment to extract that coal which has been left underground. If the Government want to show goodwill to the coal industry and to the miners, they ought to accept this Amendment. Noble Lords are well aware of what this new clause seeks to do, and I hope that the Committee will pass the Amendment.
3.15 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Just 120 pregnant seconds of your Lordships' time. I do not want to reiterate any of the
326
arguments that have been made, because the purpose of the clause is obvious. I stand as somebody who comes from among the mining families in Wales to support this clause for a reason that has not yet been mentioned. I sincerely believe that this country should think of the social furniture that it has. We have destroyed much of the social furniture in the form of railways, because we work too often with computers. We have destroyed pits, where there is valuable coal, because we have depended on computers.
I used the phrase the other day "crackpot realism". I can give your Lordships an exact example of what I mean by the closure of pits and the use of computers. If you were offered two watches, one that lost two minutes a day and another one that does not go at all and cannot be repaired, and you asked the computer which was the best watch to buy, the computer would reply, "Buy the one that stops, because at least twice in 24 hours it is correct, whereas the other one is only correct once in six months". This is the kind of silly answer that you can get from a computer and if you do not use common sense.
It is a little common sense that I want to apply in this respect. We have seen in the papers this morning about blackmail in regard to the price of oil. I think that we ought to have a little bargaining power about our energy resources. Nye Bevan once said that we are surrounded by fish and live above millions of tons of coal, but we do not seem able to organise either of them. I believe that in this transitional period, before the Government say, "Nay", they should take this clause back, having listened to the speeches that have been made, because behind the speeches, too, is the necessity for us to have recourse, in the event of emergency, to other forms of energy. Besides that, if you want to recruit these magnificent men (and they are great men; they may not be literate in the sense of some noble Lords in this Chamber, but literacy is not wisdom), always remember that when Solomon in the Book of Kings was offered a choice he did not ask for cleverness; he asked for wisdom. Wisdom we find galore among the miners of this country; and when there has been a crisis, these are the men to whom we have turned for energy supplies.

327
Do not let us destroy this great piece of social furniture too quickly in this transition to this euphoric Utopia that all kinds of people have been trying to discover, with all the problems of inflation, since the May Report of 1930. And the truth is that nobody has a clue to the answer. I am certain that at the moment we are destroying some of our social furniture by closing pits too quickly, when with a little aid and commonsense they could be kept open as a bargaining power for energy for the future.
3.19 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The debate on this Amendment, which was very succinctly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has ranged rather widely. Perhaps it might be expedient therefore if I start by reminding noble Lords of what was in the 1967 White Paper about the objectives of energy policy, which were to make possible the supply of energy at the lowest total cost to the community having regard to the whole range of economic, social and regional considerations. The reason why the Government payments for extra coal-burn were introduced in 1967 was that stocks were rising at the time, and also that it was thought no longer desirable that the extra cost of using coal, as against oil, should be borne by the consumers of electricity and gas.
The Government therefore decided to introduce the extra coal-burn provision. They decided to provide up to £45 million over three years and eight months, to March, 1971, to meet the additional cost of burning coal instead of oil. In the end, perhaps I may remind your Lordships, about 12½ million tons of extra coal was burnt at power stations at an average extra cost of about £1·50 per ton. There was also about 1½ million tons that was burnt at gasworks, but at much higher cost. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, in passing, that the Amendment does not deal with gas; it deals only with electricity.
In 1969 the scheme was phased out because coal stocks were declining. Nevertheless, as noble Lords have reminded me, the last Government decided early in 1970 to make further provision for extra coal-burn, but for electricity
328
only. Since then it has become clear that we are facing a shortage which is likely to persist for at least the next year or two. The National Coal Board's planning is aimed at keeping production in balance with demand. What the demand will be depends on how competitive coal is in comparison with other fuels—and, of course, the cost of other fuels has been rising more rapidly than that of coal.
Besides maintaining that balance, the National Coal Board at the present time have also to build up winter stocks of coal. Last December it looked as if stocks might be insufficient, and permission was therefore given for the import of coal on open general licence. Imported coal is dearer than home production, so that imports are unlikely to continue once home stocks are available to meet demand. If the shortage abroad persists, we in turn should be able to export more if there is no fear of a shortage at home. The purpose of the extra coal-burn subsidy was not to enable uneconomic pits to be kept in production; it was to reduce excessive stocks. In the judgment of the Government, the risk of excessive stocks in the next two years or so is too slight to justify renewing the provision.
I hope the noble Lord will take note of what I have to say now. The Government recognise, with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that the position could change within 18 months or so. Productivity might regain its average annual rate of increase over the past 10 years of 4¾ per cent. We might be free from strikes, which lost us 3 million tons of coal both last year and this year. Next year we may have an even milder winter than this one. These are the considerations that arise. But if the position did change—this is the real point in this Amendment—there would be no sudden emergence of an intolerable burden of over-supply of coal. If stocks show a tendency to increase beyond a reasonable level, then action can be considered. The Government have given an assurance, which I now repeat, that they will consider reintroducing these powers if we once again find that we have too much coal instead of, as at present, too little. The Government believe that there is even less need for this provision than there was a year ago.

329
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, really put his finger on the point here. I always admire the honesty of his approach to these matters. The fact is that it does not make sense to put on the Statute Book a provision authorising expenditure up to £30 million in the next three years for a particular purpose when all the signs are that not one new halfpenny of it would be spent. If the situation changes, then the Government, in the period when the situation is changing, will be prepared to reconsider introducing the provision. But in the present circumstances I suggest that it would be paradoxical to commit the country to a potential expenditure of £30 million over the next three years when there does not appear to be any likelihood that it will be required.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: May I ask the noble Lord a question? Does he take up the offer that I made to him?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord may have thought that it was a generous offer. I am afraid it was not one that I should feel able to consider in the circumstances.
LORD DIAMOND: I was hopeful that the noble Lord would address himself to the essential arguments. I regret to say, with the greatest respect, that he has failed to do that. The essential point is that, broadly, the two sides are agreed on the facts. One fact is that it is impossible to say whether these powers will be needed or not. What I should have thought the Chief Whip could say is that he could not by any means guarantee to get a Coal Bill through both Houses every 18 months. That, I should have thought, was the second fact.
A third fact is that this proposal need cost absolutely nothing. The noble Lord has misunderstood the £30 million if he regards it as a cost of £30 million. The £30 million is a ceiling, because he and I both dislike open-ended commitments. Therefore, instead of providing an open-ended commitment on a power which exists to-day, as the noble Lord sits there and I stand here; instead of providing an open-ended commitment by way of a continuation of that power, the Amendment suggests that there should be a ceiling of £30 million. I repeat that the facts are that these powers may be needed, and
330
nobody can foresee the position further ahead than 18 months. Against a background of existing legislative difficulties in both Houses, it is absurd to suggest that any Government can guarantee that every 18 months there will be introduced a new Coal Industry Bill in order to provide the powers.
The present proposals need cost absolutely nothing. What is provided, at no cost at all, is reassurance in an area where, with the greatest respect, the Government ought to wish to seek to give reassurance—that is, in the area of industrial relations, where the Government could not claim at the moment that the country is in its happiest situation. My noble friend made it clear what the attitude of the mines and the miners is.
LORD ROBBINS: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, could provide some elucidation on this matter. I am perplexed at the exchange of views which has just taken place. Could the noble Lord outline the conditions in which he would think that these powers would be needed? It would help me a great deal if he could give a concrete example.
LORD DIAMOND: With the greatest of pleasure. The powers would be needed in the same conditions as those in which they have been used. I am sorry that I did not make it perfectly clear that they had been used in the past two years. These powers would again be used, and we should obviously wish to use them if the situation were such that it was worth while to import coal even though there was an excess of coal production in this country—that is, worth while taking all considerations into account. These are the considerations which were in the mind of the last Government, and which are not denied by the present Government—
LORD ROBBINS: Does the noble Lord—
LORD DIAMOND: I will give way in just one moment. The present Government are not suggesting that these powers could not be needed; they are suggesting that these powers will not be needed for 18 months. And I have the noble Lord's assurance that if they are needed the matter will be considered. All I am saying to the noble Lord who has spoken

331
for the Government is that he is incapable of giving a guarantee that that consideration will move to legislation. Therefore the present position is unsatisfactory.
LORD ROBBINS: Does the noble Lord mean "worth while" in the long term sense of the term, or simply in order to meet a transitory situation?
LORD DIAMOND: Nobody can say whether a transitory situation arises with regard to the winning of coal. That has been the great difficulty. Everybody has been advised, Ministers have made statements, and nobody knows with certainty what the position will be in 24 months' time. The relevant Minister of the previous Government and the relevant Minister of this Government have taken up an identical attitude; namely, that the policy must be one of flexibility. That is precisely the word used by each Minister on the appropriate occasion. All I am saying is that "flexibility" means taking these powers which enable you to do something you may want to have done, without which powers you could not do it, without which you could not guarantee the necessary Parliamentary time for legislation to get it done, which cost nothing in the meantime but give an assurance in an area where assurance should be given. That assurance is that the Government are considering the attitude of important workers down the pits. This is something the Government can get for nothing, and if the Government are not prepared to make use of it I am bound to say they are disregarding their responsibilities in a way which I myself could not find acceptable. I hope that the noble Lord will move a little further.
LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE: There are apparently two sides to this case. One is the sociological problem of the coal areas. This is a social problem. But the other one is a commercial problem for the Central Electricity Generating Board. It is perfectly understandable that, if there be a surplus of coal, some subvention may be needed in order to encourage people to use it. Such action would be taken for social reasons, and is understandable. But the Central Electricity Generating Board are in effect having to pay very large sums, without a subvention. If this
332
Amendment is not accepted, we shall be in the position that there may well be a shortage of coal—although in the long term, of course, it is very "dicey" and difficult to estimate—and the Central Electricity Generating Board will have to continue to burn coal at the Government's expense without receiving the allowances they are already receiving—
LORD DRUMALBYN: It would be right for me to intervene, I think, if the noble Lord will allow it. The Electricity Boards are not having to pay this charge at the present time because they are not burning coal uneconomically in a way which is not in accordance with their plans.
LORD WRIGHT OF ASHTON UNDER LYNE: May I put the point I am thinking of in the form of a question? As I understand it, the Central Electricity Generating Board have from time to time asked the appropriate Ministers for permission to change over from coal to oil or to gas, and permission has been refused. The Government have insisted—maybe properly in the social context—that they must continue to burn coal for social reasons. If social reasons no longer apply but the C.E.G.B. must still continue to burn coal, a hardship is caused which does not seem to make a lot of sense. Because of the circumstances which the Minister has described concerning a shortage of coal, would the appropriate Minister now be ready to say to the C.E.G.B., "In the circumstances which were explained to the House of Lords on such-and-such a date, the Government now give you permission to burn more oil and more gas, and less coal, because the supply of coal is not adequate"?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I was interested in the point which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, raised. I understood him to ask whether the noble Lord could see an eventuality when we might return to the conditions immediately post-1967. What I am going to say now is an assumption, and perhaps a rather unimaginative one, but not outside the realm of possibility. Supposing there is an influx of miners into the pits. The Coal Board are now actually conducting a campaign to increase manpower in the pits. I was told only a fortnight ago by a noble Lord that this was

333
taking place even in Norfolk. Therefore, supposing there were an influx into the pits and productivity increased and, as a consequence of that, global output increased. Then the eventuality of supply being greater than demand might arise. It is because of this possible eventuality that we should like to see this particular clause in the Bill.
3.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We are getting into considerable complications on this matter, but perhaps I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Ashton under Lyne. He is right in saying that from time to time permission to convert to oil is refused by the Secretary of State. As my honourable friend said in another place, however, there were seven conversions to oil in the last year of the previous Government, and another seven have been authorised since. In each case one of them—I think, the largest in each case—was conversion to dual-firing. But the whole of this question of keeping supply and demand in line must depend to a large extent on the degree to which the price of coal is competitive. We know that the price of oil is going up quickly. It went up 60 per cent., as against the price of electricity coal which went up 28 per cent. in a comparable period over the last year or so. So the demand for coal is likely to be relatively greater because the price of coal is now more competitive. Therefore, the points which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, has been making are to some extent met by the state of the market.
What we are concerned with in this Amendment is the stocks. Naturally, it is impossible for the Coal Board exactly to balance supply and demand over a period, and in so far as they do not balance them stocks are drawn down or are increased. When they are increased to an embarrassing extent, then it will of course be desirable for electricity to take off more of these stocks. The purpose of the previous provision was to encourage this to be done, and the extra cost of using coal, as compared with that of consuming oil, was borne by the Government. The Government's view at the present time is that, in view of the market situation, and of the present low level of stocks, it is extremely unlikely that the stocks will reach an embarrassing
334
position within, let us say, 18 months. That is a reasonable minimum. To go on from that, if these calculations and the market indications which seem to be quite clear are falsified by events, and stocks begin to mount to an embarrassing position, then we say that we will reconsider the position.
Undoubtedly the noble Lord is quite right in that one can make a strong case for saying, "If you think you may have to reconsider the position in any case, you ought to make provision now because it is simpler." Against that, it seems absurd to put into the Bill a provision of this kind, which has not been used in the last 18 months or so and which, on market prognostications at present, it seems very unlikely will be used.
I hope that, in view of the explanation I have given, noble Lords will be prepared not to press their Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, very delicately skated over the fact that, if this Amendment were pressed and won, another place might disregard it altogether because it really poaches on their preserves. That is one reason, at any rate, why I hope noble Lords will not press the Amendment. But my real reason for hoping that they will not do so is the assurance I have given. The noble Lord must know perfectly well that if a Bill of this kind were to be introduced because there was something like an emergency it would go through very quickly indeed, simply because he and his noble friends are at the present time in favour of it. So I think that the noble Lord is perhaps putting too great a weight on the difficulty of getting legislation through the unlikely event that we should have to reconsider the position. In the light of what I have said, I think that considering all the market trends at the moment this would not be a reasonable Amendment to accept.
LORD SHINWELL: I do not wish to delay the Committee in coming to a conclusion as a result of the debate, but I am bound to say that I fail to understand the variety of arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. There seemed to me to be only one relevant argument adduced by him, but doubtless he will correct me if I am wrong. His argument was to this effect: what is the use of inserting in legislation

335
something which, in the circumstances, appears to be unnecessary although it is admitted that it might become necessary later on. That is the Minister's case. The rest was mere "pocket fluff", if I may say so—not meaning any offence; but that is how it appears to me.
I have some understanding of the coal industry. I do not know whether I should mention the matter, but I piloted through the other place the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill and the Electricity Supply Bill. The complications came later on, and we are now discussing one of them. If the Minister's argument—namely, what is the use of inserting in legislation something which in the circumstances appears to be unnecessary?—had any relevance at all, it would apply to any kind of legislation. This Government, and indeed all the Governments that I can recall in this century, some of which I have been associated with, have introduced legislation much of which has in course of time become unnecessary and irrelevant, but in the prevailing circumstances it was regarded by the Government of the day or their advisers as being necessary. At some time it might be necessary to implement these items.
I am baffled by the Minister's reluctance to accept the Amendment. I hope I am not giving any offence by what I say to my noble friends, but even the proposition seems to me to be unnecessary. I should have thought that any person with even the rudiments of intelligence—not even common sense—would have asked: what is the situation? Who can tell what productivity in the coal industry will be in the course of time? Who can tell whether there is to be a shortage next year or 18 months hence, or whether there is to be an excess of coal? Who can tell whether production will exceed consumption, or, conversely, whether consumption will exceed production? All Governments have failed accurately to forecast what the situation would be in 18 months' time. There has been a variety of forecasts, all of which have been less successful than the astrologers—and you cannot be much less successful than that. The proposition seems to me to be quite a simple one. Insert something in the Bill which, although it may
336
not be regarded as relevant in existing circumstances, and therefore is unnecessary, can be regarded as an insurance. My noble friend mentioned that there was a sociological factor—we might go so far as to say a psychological factor. The miners feel insecure. They never know whether the pit in which they work is to be closed down. They read that the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham (not to be associated with the intelligent Lord Robbins who ventured just now to ask a question), has decided to recruit more labour into the mining industry, while only a year ago he was trying to get rid of them. It is a baffling problem. So in the circumstances why not give the miners of the country some assurance that if there is an excess of coal production and that coal has to be disposed of, we will look round for a possible potential consumer?
Who is the most likely consumer? The electricity supply industry. But the Central Electricity Generating Board and the area boards say, "We do not want the coal because it costs too much: we would rather use oil". I might say, in parenthesis, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was right in one thing he said. The fact that oil prices are now rising and coal may become favourably competitive with oil prices in the future is a point to be kept in mind. But if the Central Electricity Generating Board are asked to buy coal at a price in excess of the price of oil, they will have to be compensated. So the Government go to the Board and say: "We want to get rid of this coal. The domestic consumer wants less of it, so we are asking you to take it over and use it instead of using oil. Use the coal and we will compensate you." It is an insurance, and it will work very well all round. As the Minister so rightly said, it does not need to work now, but it may be required to work 18 months or two years hence. So why have a quarrel about this? Why have a Division? Why have a controversy? Let us be reasonable and accept the Amendment.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: I was wondering whether somebody might intervene from this side of the Committee to say that, impressive though the arguments that have been adduced by noble Lords opposite, many of whom

337
have had practical experience of the coal mining industry, are, there is a very important point which has not yet been touched upon. It is the effect of this clause, if accepted by your Lordships, on the commercial judgment of the Coal Board. It will be all too easy for them to say, "Let us produce. If we overproduce we have this section in the Act"—as it will then be—" which will enable us to pass on our surplus production, to pass on our incorrect estimates to the C.E.G.B." The very fact that if this clause is not passed they will have to apply to the Government, who in turn will have to put legislation through Parliament, will in itself be a disciplinary control on the commercial side of the National Coal Board and will mean that they will say "Well, we cannot be sure that we can get this subsidy from the taxpayer. Perhaps we had better be rather more careful when advocating a higher rate of production". I think this clause, so attractively and persuasively proposed by noble Lords opposite, would in fact have a damaging influence on the commercial judgment of the National Coal Board.
Secondly, I am sorry that there is nobody here to speak for the Central Electricity Generating Board. Why should they have to take coal all the time because the coal industry chooses to over-produce? It is not merely a question of their being compensated for the higher price of coal as an alternative fuel to either oil or natural gas. The Electricity Board are to have their commercial judgment, their purchasing policy, biased by a clause of this sort, and are to be denied their own business, scientific and engineering judgment.
Thirdly, although we in this Chamber represent none but ourselves, let us not
forget that it is not the Government who will be paying the subsidy, but the taxpayer. I think that all of us in this Chamber, although we may not represent taxpayers, are ourselves taxpayers. This clause, even if it is not used, nevertheless represents a kind of promise—limited to a modest £30 million by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond—to take £30 million from the taxpayer in order to subsidise the coal industry. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will reject the blandishments of the mining lobby now so handsomely ennobled.
LORD DIAMOND: I feel your Lordships have heard most of the arguments for and against this Amendment and would wish to come to a conclusion. May I point out that the figure of £30 million is the figure that was provided in previous legislation and was not a piece of imagination on my part. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, that I do not imagine that there are any Ministers who regret that they did not use these powers more than the present Ministers, who are having to battle with a shortage of coal which would not have been so acute had these powers been used more in the past. But my main difficulty lies with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who has, after two invitations, refused to recognise that he can, at no cost, deal with a very difficult social problem: that of labour relations in the mining industry. We therefore insist on drawing attention to our feelings in this matter by dividing the House.
3.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 116.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Chorley, L.

Hughes, L.

Archibald, L.

Constantine, L.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Janner, L.

Arwyn, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Beswick, L.

Faringdon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, Bs.

Fulton, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Boothby, L.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. Bs. [Teller.]

Bowden, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Brockway, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Loudoun, C

Buckinghamshire, E

Granville of Eye, L.

McLeavy, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Milford, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Moyle, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Serota, Bs.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Walston, L.

Popplewell, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Raglan, L.

Silkin, L.

White, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Slater, L.

Williamson, L.

Rowallan, L.

Snow, L.

Willis, L.

Royle, L.

Stonham, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Rusholme, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strang, L.

Segal, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mills, V.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Essex, E.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monck, V.

Albemarle, E.

Ferrier, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glasgow, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amulree, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gray, L.

Ogmore, L.

Atholl, D.

Greenway, L.

Poltimore, L.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Powis, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reay, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hailes, L.

Reigate, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

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

Rhyl, L.

Belstead, L.

Robbins, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hatherton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Hawke, L.

Rockley, L.

Boston, L.

Henley, L.

Sackville, L.

Bourne, L.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bradford, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hurcomb, L.

St. Just, L.

Buckton, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Carrick, E.

Ilford, L.

Sandys, L.

Clwyd, L.

Inchyra, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Shannon, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jessel, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Courtown, E.

Kindersley, L.

Stamp, L.

Craigavon, V.

Latymer, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Daventry, V.

Leathers, V.

Swaythling, L.

De Clifford, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Swinton, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Teviot, L.

Derwent, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Dundee, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Dundonald E.

Mar, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Merthyr, L.

Windlesham, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Meston, L

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of Board to enter into agreements in connection with overseas aid]:
4.0 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("and the said Minister of the Crown").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I suggest
340
to your Lordships that it might be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendment, to leave out
"for any purpose specified in the said section 1(1)".
Both Amendments affect broadly the same point in the same clause. The purpose of the two Amendments is really to enable the Coal Board to assist in attracting business to British manufacturers of mining machinery and, as such, I should have thought it would be welcome on all sides.
The position is that the scope of Clause 5 is rather narrow. There is no objection to subsection (1)(a) of Clause

341
5 being narrow, because there the Board will be acting merely as the agent of the Minister responsible for overseas aid, and the Minister must necessarily act within the limits laid down by the Act of 1966. However, when we come to subsection (1)(b) of this clause, it is a different story. When the Board are acting as principals there is no need to tie them to the limitations of the Overseas Aid Act. They could usefully provide technical assistance in countries additional to those needing help under the Overseas Aid Act. Furnishing technical assistance overseas is a field of activity in which the Board could do a lot of good for this country. With the contraction of the coal industry, opportunities here for manufacturers of mining machinery are becoming seriously curtailed. It is of vital importance for them to be progressive in their business and their techniques, and, to that end to be able to improve their opportunities for development in various types of mine in other countries.
Therefore in my view it is in the national interest to have an adequate mining consultancy service available to potential buyers of British equipment, and the technical knowledge and skill of the National Coal Board's engineers and scientists can make a most useful contribution to such a service. In addition, the Board would benefit, because the contraction of the industry has also, to some extent, limited opportunities for the Board's technical experts. If they are to develop and apply their techniques to the best advantage they need wider opportunities to do so and to study the efficiency of equipment used in the mining industry in other countries. In giving the Board powers, subject to Ministerial control, because that would still stand, to furnish technical assistance overseas, it is undesirable to limit their powers by reference to Section 1(1) of the Overseas Aid Act, because the areas intended to benefit are not the best in which to study or apply modern mining techniques.
A further and important point is that such a restriction would put the Board at a disadvantage in comparison with agencies in foreign countries. Without going into the detail (which I have here), it is the fact, which I am sure the Government recognise, that the Board's
342
opposite number in France, Charbonnages de France, have joined with others in providing an organisation which has been of considerable benefit to French manufacturers and which has worked in 25 countries in Europe, Africa, Asia, and North and South America. It is most desirable, therefore, that there should be some agency in the United Kingdom to parallel that, and the National Coal Board is the obvious choice.
If Clause 5(1)(b) were to be amended in the manner which I am proposing, the National Coal Board would be able to carry out this kind of activity overseas, but it would not be given a completely free hand; the power would be restricted to furnishing technical assistance and would be exercisable only with the consent of the Secretary of State. There would, however, be no need to require in addition the consent of the Minister of the Crown responsible for overseas development, and that is why the first Amendment provides for deleting reference to that Minister. I am sure there is no problem here because if, in fact, that Minister needed to be consulted, then the Secretary of State as a matter of normal, wise Government administration would, of course, consult him before reaching a conclusion. I hope, therefore, that the Government will welcome these Amendments. I am sure the second one would undoubtedly benefit both British interests and the National Coal Board.
4.9 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I rise to give support to my noble friend Lord Diamond on these Amendments. The clause, as drafted, as he has already said, is concerned with aid as provided for in the Overseas Aid Act 1966. However, as I have read that Act, I am left with the impression that its main function is to concentrate principally on welfare activities. I have no doubt that on visits abroad, particularly to developing countries, noble Lords will have recognised that if more technical assistance were forthcoming to those countries there would be greater economic advancement. How often has the plea been made in your Lordships' House, as it has been made in the other House, that if more aid were given, the conditions of people in the developing countries would improve much more rapidly than is the case at present!

343
Time and time again, the amount of money directed towards this end by successive Governments has come under attack as inadequate, and I believe that more aid is desirable in order to accelerate the improvement. I must admit that we do not have a bottomless purse from which to draw, but why should we not assist when we can do so without imposing the heavy hand of restriction? I believe that the coal industry, which is a basic industry upon which this country so much depends, could give a lot of technical assistance to the developing countries if more freedom and licence were given to it. We are being constantly reminded that we have a smaller coal industry in this country than ever before, and that means that manufacturers of mining equipment may be seriously affected. I have no doubt that noble Lords are aware of the manufacture and experimentation in connection with the mining industry which goes on at the Bretby installation, and to visit Bretby is an experience which anyone interested in mining never forgets.
Noble Lords will be aware that the bulk of the manufacture of equipment is still undertaken by outside manufacturers, and I should not like to see their interests curtailed through new techniques not being available to them. I should have thought that it was in the interests of the country to have an adequate mining consultative service available to the potential buyers of British equipment, and the technical knowledge and skill of the National Coal Board's engineers and scientists can make a useful contribution to such a service. There is no doubt that a smaller mining industry will limit the opportunities for some of the Board's technical experts. The Board having been given power to furnish technical assistance overseas when the consent of the Secretary of State has been obtained, it ought not to be necessary for them to get the same kind of consent from the Minister responsible for overseas development. This matter could surely be settled administratively within the Government framework. We know how Government Departments work, and this could easily be done. In moving the Amendment, my noble friend made the position quite clear, and I think that the Minister who is to reply will have some difficulty in knocking down his proposals. I have
344
great pleasure in adding my support to what my noble friend has said.
LORD DRUMALBYN: To start with, I think I should make it clear exactly what we are talking about here. We are not talking about anything in Clause 5(1)(a), which deals with those cases where requests for aid might come to the Minister for Overseas Development, who would then enter into agreements with the National Coal Board for providing it as part of the official aid programme. I say that because something which the noble Lord, Lord Slater, said might have been taken to indicate that we were—
LORD SLATER: If the noble Lord will study the Report of the Committee stage in another place, he will see that the comments that I have made are more or less the same as those which were made there.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I, too, have read the comments which were made in another place about this provision. All I am doing is to indicate what we are talking about. As usual the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, stated the case for the Amendment quite clearly. In paragraph (b) we are dealing with requests for aid which come direct to the National Coal Board, in which case that aid is going to be provided on a commercial basis. But because the Minister for Overseas Development co-ordinates aid to developing countries as a whole, it was thought appropriate—and, I may say, thought appropriate by the previous Administration in the previous Bill—that the Minister for Overseas Development should be consulted in this second case. Inadvertently, I think that that need would be removed by the first Amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will probably agree that where technical assistance is asked for by the developing countries and the Coal Board provides it on a commercial basis, then the Minister for Overseas Development should also be brought into the matter. It is a question of coordination.
Let us deal with the substance of the two Amendments. Taken together, they would mean that the National Coal Board would be empowered to furnish technical assistance on a commercial basis in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, provided that it first obtained the consent of the Secretary of State. Of course technical assistance can cover a

345
wide area; it is not quite the same as advice. I understand that the National Coal Board has from time to time sent members of its staff to advise when it was asked to do so, but what we are talking about goes rather further than that.
I think that, just as in another place—and, as in another place, we do not need to mention any of the names concerned—we know exactly what is the issue here. The point is that, given the distinctive relationship between the Government and nationalised Boards, it is right and proper that the Government should be consulted before they engage in activities abroad. The activities as a whole of the National Coal Board abroad are at present controlled by the Coal Industry Act 1949. Apart from Clause 5, authorisation for any activity would be required and would have to be given by an Order under Section 2 of that Act, and that Order would have to be laid before Parliament.
This clause is thus an exception, an exception confined entirely to developing countries—and it is confined in that way because it was asked for by the Minister for Overseas Development. That is the whole purpose of this clause; and in the Government's view it would not be appropriate to extend the purpose so as to alter radically the present law governing the overseas activities of the National Coal Board. If the National Coal Board have at any time a considered proposal to make for overseas activity—and it may well be that it would be of great advantage if they had, whether by themselves or in conjunction with others—they can put it to the Secretary of State, as they have been able to ever since 1949, and if he approves of it he will make an order under the Act. That is the present statutory position, and the Government see no reason why it should be altered.
Moreover, I would add that it seems hardly sensible to extend the powers of the National Coal Board further, into areas not related to their duties under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, in a Bill which is providing for a review of such activities. The main point that I wish to stress is that there is nothing at the present time to prevent the National Coal Board asking for authority from the Secretary of State to undertake overseas activities, and if the Secretary of State approves (and his approval is
346
required in any case under the clause now before your Lordships) then that can be done. All that has to be (lone is for the Secretary of State to make an order and lay it before the House.
LORD SLATER: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say this with regard to technical aid and to the consent of the Minister and the introduction of an order when an application is made by the National Coal Board? I am somewhat at a loss here. Prior to the Post Office becoming a public corporation, it did not require a particular order to be laid by the Minister for anyone to go from the Post Office at that time to give technical assistance or advice, or whatever it may have been, to other countries If it could apply then within that Ministry as it applies now to this nationalised industry, I cannot understand the reason why, under this Bill, it will have to receive the consent of the Minister and he will have to lay an order in regard to it if it is asked for.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We are here, of course, going back over a long period of history, but, as I understand it, when the 1946 Act was introduced, as it concerned coal under this land of ours, it was not thought fit at that time to talk about overseas activities. But three years later it was felt that there should be some possibility of the National Coal Board entering into arrangements overseas and going into activities overseas in certain circumstances. It was thought that that was quite possible; but, first, because its main functions, its duties, are in this country, it was thought right that the Minister should be consulted and should have to give his consent and to notify Parliament by making an order and laying it before them. That is all there is to it. It seems to me quite a reasonable procedure; and, if I may say so, I do not really think there is very much in this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I have listened most carefully to what the noble Lord has said. I take his points. First of all, there is nothing for us to fall out about as to the Amendment dealing with the exclusion of the Minister. If the noble Lord prefers the words referring to the Minister to remain in the clause for the reasons he has indicated, he understands my point and I understand his

347
and we certainly would not fall out about that one. I understand that what the noble Lord is saying is that he is not unsympathetic to the purposes that I have described as justifying my Amendment, but that these purposes can be carried out at the moment with this sole difference, that an order has to be laid—I hope I have understood it correctly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Made and laid.
LORD DIAMOND: Yes, made and laid. That would mean some delay but not necessarily a very large delay, particularly as presumably an order of this kind, once the Government were prepared to make it and lay it, would have the support of all sides of Parliament. Therefore I agree that there is not a great deal of difference between us. But the noble Lord has not directed his mind to my one anxiety; namely, that of reasonable competition. I like competition to take place without one party having his hands tied behind his back; and I have already indicated that the French national coal board have joined together with two other appropriate bodies to form a company called Sofremines which has been of considerable benefit to French interests in French areas. That is excellent.
All I am saying is that my desire—and I should have thought the Government shared it—is that British manufacturers should be similarly helped, and I am wondering whether the lack of an Amendment of the kind I have suggested, which I accept immediately is additional, new, does not put them at a disadvantage. I do not apologise for the fact that the Amendment is new, additional or imaginative. It is a little out of place, but one has to make use of whatever Bills come forward, so there is no need to quarrel about that. But without the Amendment I should have thought that the National Coal Board and the British interests were working at some disadvantage as compared with French interests.
I believe the noble Lord has taken my point, and I shall be grateful if he will look at this matter and see whether some other form of organisation is not the appropriate opposite number of the French organisation. It would assist British manufacturers. I am sure he would want to give sympathetic con
348
sideration, as I understood him to say, to proposals put by the National Coal Board to give assistance of the kind we have been discussing outside the scope of the Overseas Aid Act. If the noble Lord thinks that that can be satisfactorily done under the existing legislation, with the slight delay of an order but nothing worse than that, then so long as I have interpreted his views aright I should not wish to pursue the matter unduly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. As I understand it, there would be nothing to prevent the Coal Board, if it wanted to parallel the activities of Sofremines (if that is what it is called), from preparing a scheme and submitting it to the Secretary of State. I could not of course anticipate what the Secretary of State's decision would be, but I do not think that the situation would be any different if the Amendment were carried.
LORD DIAMOND: Then with your Lordships' permission I will seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power of Secretary of State to call for report of Board's diversified activities]:
4.29 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("colliery activities within the meaning of the Act of 1946") and insert ("coal-mining activities").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that this Amendment is identical to Amendment No. 6 (at page 5, line 33), to the next clause, and I imagine that your Lordships will find it convenient that these two should be discussed together. In fact, the words in my Amendment are defined in Amendment No. 11, which is to page 7, line 9, and says "'coalmining activities' means …", and so on. So I hope it will be convenient to your Lordships that I should also refer to that definition at the same time. The purpose of this Amendment is, if I may say so without being at all patronising, to help the Government out of a little difficulty; and a responsible Opposition is always delighted to do that.
Perhaps I may first of all set out the position as it is understood on all sides. It was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the Second Reading of this Bill on March 4. He said—and I quote:
"To take the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, there was one single central feature to it: the duty laid on the Coal Board under Section 1 of the Act to work and get coal; to secure the efficient development of the coal-mining industry and to make supplies of coal available at such quantity and at such prices and so on. These were the duties of the Coal Board, and to exercise these duties they were given a discretion to extend their functions in certain directions. These were called discretionary functions.
"What we are saying in this Bill is that over the period of years there has never been any full examination or even a partial examination of the ancillary functions of the Coal Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/3/71; col. 1527.]
That is what this Amendment seeks to deal with: to describe those additional ancillary functions. The words at present in the Bill fail to do that. The words which I am suggesting in the Amendment do achieve the Government's purpose, and I hope that they will prove acceptable.
The expression at present in the Bill, "colliery activities", means no more than getting coal out of the ground, making it saleable and disposing of soil. The expression excludes a number of activities without which collieries cannot be worked—for example, colliery electricity activities, as defined in paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the 1946 Act. But a colliery could not be operated without engaging in electrical activities of the kind referred to. Similar considerations apply to colliery transport activities which are concerned with colliery loading and storage arrangements, and to colliery sales activities which are concerned with marketing arrangements. These important services, and also those such as the provision of pithead baths and canteens, which are known as colliery welfare activities, are not covered by the expression "colliery activities". Nor indeed is ventilation in colliery workshops and offices.
All these activities are essential functions, yet they are not ancillary functions. They are absolutely central to the act of coal-mining. What I am suggesting is a new definition which is set out, as I have said, in Amendment No. 11. That definition is based on the language of Section 1 of the 1946 Act in which the
350
Board's duties and powers are set out. It covers in my view precisely what the Government have in mind; that is to say, the main coal-mining activities. May I deal with them in a logical order?
The section starts, as your Lordships will see, with "searching and boring" (and these are taken from Section 12(a) of the Act); then follows "working and getting" (which is in Section 11(a)); then "treating, rendering saleable, supplying, selling" (which is in Section 12(b), with the addition of "making available" (from Section 11(c)). Finally, a new expression is incorporated: "efficient development of the coal-mining industry" (which is from Section 11(b)). This new definition includes essential activities which are excluded, I imagine unintentionally, by the use of the expression "colliery activities". I hope that I have found a definition which carries out the Government's intentions as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on Second Reading and that the Government—they need not say "Thank you"—will accept the Amendment.
4.35 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: This clause in the Bill calls for a review of all the Coal Board's activities other than the winning of coal and preparing it for sale at the surface. This clause is the forerunner to Clause 7, which is to hive-off the profitable parts, and therefore Clause 6 will allow speculators to know in the books what wealth they can get for themselves. Whenever a large robbery takes place in this country there is always the organisation before the actual event. Therefore, Clause 6 represents the organisation before we get the taking away of the plunder in Clause 7. I have a deep suspicion that pickings are being prepared for the robbing of the coal industry of its profitable parts to hand over to the friends of the Tory Party who supported them financially in the last Election. When we see how the Government have hived-off £6 million from B.O.A.C.; when we see that they are going to sell the nationalised breweries and public houses in Cumberland, it makes us doubly suspicious that this exercise in Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill is the forerunner of another gift of the nation's assets to the friends of the Tory Party.

351
This clause which we seek to amend gives the Minister power to call for reports of non-colliery activities which are an integral part of coal production: those which earn big profits, like computers and North Sea gas; the farms; the coke ovens; the by-products plant; open-cast mining, and coal distribution. "Colliery activities "—coal-getting—last year lost £4½ million before interest, even after making a profit of £7·3 million on opencast. According to the 1970 Report of the Board, coke, by-products and processed fuels made profits, before interest, of £9·4 million, and other activities made £4·2 million. Clearly, these interests are vital to the industry, and if they are hived off and only an extractive industry is left, this loss will have to be made up from somewhere for these assets are vital to the industry.
It will follow, as I understand Tory philosophy, that they will say, when the hiving-off is done, that wage increases cannot be paid because the industry would be losing heavily—as we saw in the Post Office dispute. Last year, the profits made by the non-colliery activities turned a loss of £4·5 million into a profit of £8·8 million. Surely these assets are important to the Coal Board in relation to its financial welfare—they were a godsend to the industry last year.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We may have to return to this point later, but the noble Lord realises, I am sure, that the figures on profits and losses which he quoted were the figures before the payment of interest on capital, and that the overall loss of the Board (I think we ought to get this straight, otherwise there may be misunderstanding) was £26·3 million.
LORD BLYTON: I have said that the figures were of profits before interest. I made that very plain. It makes one wonder why the Government want to review activities which are concerned with improving the Board's profitability and with achieving the full use of assets to assist efficient coal producing.
The Government have not shown, either in another place or here, any evidence that these activities lead to any losses on coal-mining. Surely the Minister does not need a review to tell him that the processing of coal goes on at collieries.
352
It has gone on for over fifty years to my knowledge. It went on under private enterprise, and I see no reason at all why nationalised mining should not be allowed to carry on in the same way—except prejudice.
It does not need an inquiry to know that once the coal is on the surface it faces competition from cleaner and more adaptable fuels. It has always been known that it is better to transform coal into coke, in respect of which there is no competition, and which to-day brings a high price when sold for use in steel industry blast furnaces and in other industries. In the old days pits were owned by steel companies who made their own coke and got the by-products as well. What was good for private enterprise can also be good for the nation. To-day a great deal of money may be made from the manufacture of specialised fuels, especially bearing in mind the clean air legislation, and this is known by both the Coal Board and also by private enterprise.
It may be that this is one of the sections which it is intended to hive off to private enterprise. There has always been money in the development of chemical by-products. The old coal owners knew this and they located their coke ovens and their chemical plants at the collieries. All that the Coal Board has done, since it took over from the owners in 1945, is carry on in the same way; and it was sensible to do so because it reduced transportation costs. It does not need an inquiry to discover that the Board is involved in the distribution of coal. The old coal owners had a distribution organisation; they had their depots, their lorries and their sales departments, and the Coal Board has carried on where they left off.
In this field the Coal Board has tried to reduce distribution costs. Why do not the Government draw the attention of the nation to the big difference between the pithead price of coal and the price when it reaches the coal house of the consumer? That is something about which they could have a profitable inquiry. The Coal Board has joined Amalgamated Anthracite in forming the British Fuel Company for the reasons I have stated. The Board has created large mechanised depots in order to reduce distribution costs, and has been

353
making money in that way. Why is the Coal Board to be put through the hoop for doing something which, were it done by private enterprise, would be exalted to the skies as a great achievement? It is ridiculous to think that the Board can be confined to selling coal at the pithead. Its activities must be diversified and it should be allowed to act in whatever way it thinks best.
If the Government want to do something to help the industry, why do they not set un a review of coal distribution? According to the 1969–70 Report, coal costs were £5 2s. 0d. per ton at the pithead; and coal is sold in the South at something like £15 to £20 a ton. It would be useful if the Government would investigate this, instead of trying to plunder the nation's assets in coal. Oil, gas and electricity are all in the central heating market, and surely it is common sense for the Coal Board to be interested in that market as the other industries are its competitors. These industries have organisations to assist in extending central heating and it is important that coal should have a footing in this market.
One product of the mines is shale and clay. I remember that in Durham, in the days of private enterprise, coal owners had brickworks and made drains and bricks from the slag, or clay, brought from the pits. The Coal Board is doing the same. Is it something in which to glory when private enterprise does these things, but something which is criminal when the Board does them? The Board has hundreds of houses, many of which were built in order to attract miners to the Midlands; and the Board makes a profit on its houses. Are the housing speculators to get their hands on these houses? Many of the old houses taken over from the coal owners have been modernised and there would be some "loot" here for the boys, if they could get their hands on it.
I know that the Tories are upset by the fact that the Board is also involved in the computer market and in North Sea gas; but why not? The Coal Board is associated with the Continental Oil Company in respect of North Sea gas. It is interesting to note that the Continental Oil Company developed from the Continental Coal Company. If this Government take away the N.C.B., the
354
company which will carry on was originally an American-based coal company. It would be nothing short of a scandal if Britain's coal industry was sold out so that an American-based coal company involved in continental oil could carry on.
The Bill and this clause is designed to examine the profitable parts of the National Coal Board, leaving the unprofitable parts for the nation to carry. If an examination is to take place, one would have thought that it would be an examination of the unprofitable parts. If there is no ulterior motive, why examine the profitable parts and not the unprofitable parts? Is it because the Government want to make sure that later they will not be faced with the need to hive off something which will be unprofitable? It cannot be said that it is in the public interest to hive off the profitable parts of our nationalised industries.
This clause is a preparation for the plundering which is to take place under the provisions of Clause 7. It is a sad thing for the industry in which I spent so many years of my life that its fortunes are now in the hands of its greatest enemies. It is tragic for my people that the Government are determined to give away the profitable parts to their friends, as they have done with the natianalised airlines and the pubs and breweries in Cumberland. It is tragic that leaving only the unprofitable parts will produce great problems for my people and bring discontent and bitterness again to the mining industry. I support the Amendment, and I hope that it will be carried to a Division.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: It seems to one on these Benches who, admittedly, is an outsider, that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, have "blown the whistle" on the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I am quite aware that there is a genuine political difference of opinion; one that might even cause some "abrasiveness" as I believe we term it now, over the issue of Clause 7. But it seems very curious that there should be framed an Amendment which would make it impossible for there to be any real review of activities, as suggested by Clause 6; that is to say, activities other than colliery activities under the definition of the 1946 Act.

355
If noble Lords opposite are prepared to acknowledge that there is going to be a difference of opinion over Clause 7, and the authority to hive off or dispose of certain non-mining activities, I do not see why they should yet feel it necessary to reject the principles underlying Clause 6. We know that it is now 25 years since the 1946 Act, and it would seem to me to be a perfectly legitimate request by the Secretary of State to have a review of the whole of the activities of the Board at this time.
4.50 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the debate on this Amendment has certainly been most interesting. I found Lord Diamond's speech in moving it characteristically disarming. He said that he wanted to help the Government out of a difficulty, because on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn referred to the ancillary functions of the Coal Board, and these included electricity and transport. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, made his Amendment sound highly commendable, but the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, rather showed up the other side of the Amendment, which really seeks to curtail the Government's review of the Coal Board activities.
When I first saw the Amendment on the Order Paper I am bound to say that I could not see quite what the point was, until I read the distinction between colliery activities and coal-mining activities which, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, says, is given in Amendment 11 to Clause 10. The operative phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, wishes to include by his Amendment, is:
"activities undertaken for the purpose of … supplying, selling or otherwise making available coal, or for the efficient development of the coal mining industry."
These are the spheres in which he wishes the Government not to be able to carry out a review. This is indeed understandable. One understands the reasons why the noble Lord has out forward the Amendment, but I should like to reassure him, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who said, I think, that the Government were going to hand over the pickings to the Tory Party and plunder the nation's coal industry. With the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Blyton—and one knows his interest and
356
lifelong attachment to the coal industry—this is not in fact what this clause seeks to do, nor what the Government seek to do. All the Government seek to do is to carry out a review of the non-mainline activities, if one can so put it, of the coal industry.
LORD DIAMOND: With respect, I have listened to the not very complimentary opening comments of the noble Earl, who has been challenging my motivation in putting forward this Amendment, which is unusual, and he certainly may not invent a new phrase of his own. This phrase has come forward because the Government have been in real difficulty in finding a form of words to give effect to their intention. I have tried to find such a form of words. If there is anything wrong with the form of words I shall be glad to listen to what the noble Earl has to say.
EARL FERRERS: I am sorry if the noble Lord found what I said to be in any way disagreeable. This was the last thing I had intended. What the Government wish to do is to be able to carry out a review of what I described as the non-mainline activities of the Coal Board. If we incorporate the words which the noble Lord has in his Amendment No. 11 to Clause 10,
"or for the efficient development of the coal-mining industry",
I suggest to the noble Lord that this is making a blurred distinction between what may be permitted to be subject to review and what may not. It may well be said that many aspects of the Board's work are for the efficient development of the coal-mining industry, and what the Government are anxious to do is to be able to review all the non-colliery work which the Coal Board carries out. That does not mean to say that there is any intention of selling off or hiving-off vast areas, or indeed many of the areas to which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to the electricity activities of the coal-mining industry and other ancillary parts of collieries and I would only, if I may, draw his attention to the assurance that was given in another place by my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who said the only thing he could ask

357
the House to do (and this was on a similar Amendment to the noble Lord's) was to leave it to the good sense of his honourable friend
"not to review things like pithead baths and activities of the sort which are clearly part of the activity of a colliery. Anyone who thought that it was worth having a special review of pithead baths or of the electrical machinery in a pit would be wasting the time of all concerned, and we have no intention of doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 25/2/71, col. 936.]
I would offer that to the noble Lord as an assurance that the Government do not intend to embark on a review covering these small, or relatively small, yet important aspects of coal-mining work.
If the Government were to accept the noble Lord's Amendment this would in fact make it far less clear to which areas such a review may extend and I would only say, to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who was concerned about this, that if at any time (this comes to the next clause) any directions should be given by the Minister there is a perfectly good provision in Clause 7(6) which states that any such directions would have to be laid before Parliament under a Statutory Instrument and would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
LORD BLYTON: These activities could still be hived-off.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, but I thought the noble Lord was concerned that this review was anticipating some kind of hiving-off of particular elements on which he would have no further say. In fact, before anything happened—if indeed it did happen—there would be this obligation on the Minister to place any such suggestions before Parliament. The Minister does not have any sinister motives; it is simply that after 25 years of nationalisation it is considered appropriate that the workings of the Coal Board, excluding their main activities, should be reviewed. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, that his Amendment would not improve this Bill because it would make less clear the particular parts which the Minister may not review.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him a question? If, as he says, the intentions of the Government about hiving-off are so benign, why is it that
358
for weeks and months the Press have not only stated but argued and accused the Government of hiving-off the profitable parts not only of the coal industry but of the railways and of the steel industry? How can he explain that?
EARL FERRERS: This particular Amendment does not refer to the whole lot. It refers to the difference in colliery activities and coal-mining activities, which as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said involves transport and matters like that. It does not refer to the other parts of the operations of the coal industry.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Could the noble Earl please help us a little? These ancillary activities to which he has referred were undertaken in the days of the privately owned coal-mining industry. If it was found necessary for efficient working under private ownership, by what reasoning have the Government arrived at the decision that it is now necessary to divorce these things from the main industrial development here? We are always being told that publicly owned undertakings should be on equal terms with privately owned undertakings and should be commercially viable. The noble Earl is being very apologetic at the moment, and says that it will not necessarily be done; it is a review. That is all right for Parliamentary talk in order to get a Bill through, but we all know that if these provisions are included there is an ulterior motive behind it. Will the noble Earl explain why it is necessary now to interfere with something that even private enterprise found essential for the efficient operation of the industry?
5.2 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: Before the Minister replies, in the matter of a distinction between colliery activities and coal-mining activities could it not be argued that the distinction is meaningless except that the submission made by the Minister is somewhat disingenuous? Let me explain. Even the words "coal-mining activities" can be regarded as somewhat restrictive in character, but certainly less restrictive than "colliery activities", because colliery activities could be rightly interpreted as being confined to a particular colliery, whereas coal-mining activities could be applied to the industry as a whole.
The reason why I suggest that the Minister's argument is somewhat disingenuous is that the Government are

359
trying to hide something. Is it not this that they are trying to hide—that as a result of a review that has been suggested it may be discovered that some sectors of coal-mining activities, or even for that matter colliery activities, are not necessarily closely integrated with the activities of the colliery or of the industry itself and therefore should be hived off?
I can imagine how a Government would be tempted to extract from the nationalised industries some very profitable sectors. To take an example, I understand that the National Coal Board in the course of their progress and development have entered the hotel and restaurant industry. That may be regarded as quite improper and irrelevant to the industry, but is that necessarily so? Let us examine it for a moment. It is the purpose of the industry to produce coal: that is expressly stated in the legislation for which I was responsible and piloted through the House of Commons 25 years ago. Its purpose is the production of coal; not even the distribution of coal to the ordinary consumer, although it was intended that the coal should be conveyed to the wholesalers in the business, who would, in turn, provided the price was satisfactory, convey it to the retailers.
On the other hand, in order to develop an industry on satisfactory lines—this is consistent with the general run of industry in this country, and indeed in all industrial countries—it is necessary to export part of the product. The nationalised coal industry arranges for the production of coal, and part of it is used for the purpose of export. As a natural consequence of this it engages in transactions with foreign importers. It may be necessary to invite foreign importers to come to the United Kingdom for the purpose of engaging in the commercial transactions associated with the business. Surely, therefore, it would not be improper for the National Coal Board to arrange hotel accommodation, and even catering, for the foreign importers who come to this country and assist materially in the development, financially and otherwise, of the nationalised industry.
That may be regarded as fantastic and absurd; but is it really? Let us consider what has been happening in this industry over the past century or so. I was asso
360
ciated with the Ministry as a result of being a junior Minister in a Government long before nationalisation. Indeed, I had conversations with prominent members of the privately-owned industry: for example, the Marquess of Londonderry and the Marquess of Linlithgow—Linlithgow with coal in Scotland, in the constituency that I first represented, and Londonderry with coal in the constituency that I recently represented over a long period of time. There was an occasion in 1924 (this is a parenthetical observation; nevertheless it might be regarded as an item of political history) when the Marquess of Londonderry came to me when I was with the Ministry of Mines and suggested that because of some turbulence in the mining industry it might be desirable to form something in the nature of an amalgamation: a national trust engaged in coal-mining activities. He asked me whether I would enter into partnership with him. There was a very strong temptation to do so.
If I had accepted that invitation I should to-day probably be a millionaire or a multi-millionaire, with aristocratic and plutocratic connections: and somebody close to me suggests, quite improperly, that I might even be sitting on the other side of the House. I remember that at that time, in the period of private ownership of the coal-mining industry, I was (I must confess this) invited as a member of the first Labour Government to go to a most elaborate and palatial mansion in North Yorkshire to stay for a few days and nights, be regaled with all kinds of delicious comestibles, and where the accommodation was superb, the best I had ever experienced at that time of my life. I discovered that this was all part of the privately-owned colliery industry. So they were doing that sort of thing at that time—running a kind of hotel and restaurant business for private persons. Surely, if they were engaged and entitled to be engaged in that kind of transaction there is no reason why the National Coal Board should not do so. It is quite proper; there is nothing wrong with it all.
In this assembly there is a disposition, a quite proper and righteous disposition, to be friendly. It is the most friendly assembly I have ever been in. Sometimes, indeed, one even engages in compromise. Sometimes it is excessively friendly and

361
it disarms one; one has to struggle against it. There is a strong temptation to conform. In such an assembly one must not dare to offend. Noble Lords on all sides of the House are so likeable. I would say that of every noble Lord on the other side of the House, equally with noble Lords on this side. Indeed, I would go so as far as to say that noble Lords on the other side of the House are sometimes more friendly to one than noble Lords on this side of the House. So one does not wish to be unfriendly. Yet I am bound to say, quite honestly, earnestly and I would even go so far as to say relevantly, that there is something sinister behind the legislation that the Government have now offered and is now embodied in the Coal Industry Bill.
My noble friend Lady Gaitskell suggested that we have to rely sometimes on what appears in the Press. That is true. Never mind about the Press; the speeches in the other place, on the Government side, surely have indicated the proper and real intention of the Government—the time is ripe for a review. I could not put it more emphatically than that. The time is ripe for a review after 25 years; the noble Lord said so. He said that almost pathetically, pleading to noble Lords, seeking to be persuasive. He said that after 25 years surely the time is ripe for a review. But for what purpose? An innocent review? Is it a casual review, a review with no sinister intention? Surely the noble Lord would not go so far as that, because if it is completely innocent and there are no sinister motives behind this legislation, then the Government need show no reluctance whatever in accepting the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Diamond.
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, in his speech to a previous Amendment—an excellent and earnest speech—made an offer to the Government. They rejected it. I believe that was a mistake. I will make an offer to them: let the Government expose their true intention, come clean about it, tell us, tell the world at large, that it is now the intention to have a review for one purpose and one only: that is, to extract from the National Coal Board some activities, a sector that is profitable, and use it for private gain—not for the Government's private gain but for the
362
gain of those who take advantage of the situation and purchase at a reasonable price the hived-off section of the coal mining industry. That would leave what? An industry turning the clock back to all the struggle, the turbulence and the insecurity. In other words, it amounts to defeating nationalisation. Is not that the intention?
Noble Lords opposite—I do not regard this as a serious misdemeanour, for they have been educated in this way—are against nationalisation. They dislike it. They prefer private ownership and enterprise. Private enterprise, such as it is, is very private, but there is very little enterprise. This is surely their intention. So why not say so, and then we shall know where we are? Then we can divide not so much on the Amendment, which after all is very small beer, but on what really is the difference between noble Lords on this side and noble Lords on the other side of the House. This is not in a quarrelsome fashion; it is not because we dislike noble Lords on the opposite Benches, or they dislike us, but simply because there is a fundamental difference of opinion. Let us divide on that. That is what we should divide on, not so much on the Amendment.
5.17 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has made some remarks which will obviously be very carefully considered, but if I may say so this Amendment is slightly narrower than the considerations to which he addressed himself. This debate is on whether we use the words "colliery activities" or the words "coal-mining activities". I am bound to point out the difference in the Bill as it stands. "Colliery activities" says quite clearly what they refer to. They refer to:
"… searching or boring for, winning working or getting, coal, bringing it to the surface, treating it and rendering it saleable, and includes depositing spoil arising from working coal or from any other of the activities mentioned in this definition."
It is absolutely crystal clear under this definition precisely what "colliery activities" refers to. It is this of which the Minister may not have a review.
If we take Lord Diamond's Amendment, this would be unexceptionable if it included precisely what was meant by

363
"colliery activities", but it goes wider than that. It says:
"'coal-mining activities' means activities undertaken for the purpose of …"
which could be for the purpose of, "searching, boring for," and so forth. That could be given a wider interpretation. It includes supplying selling or otherwise making available coal, and then it says:
"… or for the efficient development of the coal-mining industry."
It is those last few words particularly which I suggest we draw attention to, because if the Minister were to ask for a review to be carried out it could be argued perfectly fairly that almost anything which the Coal Board does now could, in the last analysis, be for the development of the coal-mining industry. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said almost the same when he said that the Coal Board ran hotels. You could argue that the running of hotels, if they make money, would help the Coal Board to make money, and therefore it assists the efficient development of the coal-mining industry. So, those words which are in the noble Lord's Amendment make it far less clear precisely what the Minister may not review. It is for that reason that I would suggest we keep the words which are used in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, said earlier on, "Why is it that we have to have this review since the Coal Board took over a great many assets that were run by private enterprise before?" It is perfectly true that they did take over a number of enterprises some years ago. It is merely the Government's view that it should now be considered whether the National Coal Board should still be involved in all these enterprises which were taken over. May I give one or two examples of the type of thing which could well come within the purview of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond? If there is reference to "the efficient development of the coal-mining industry", then, of course, there are such things as coke ovens, brickworks, tar distillation plants and so forth, all of which could be considered as being part of the coal industry and necessary for its efficient running. But it is the Government's view that the provision authorising such reviews as may be carried out should be
364
perfectly specific as to what may be reviewed and what may not. I would suggest that the words in the Bill are very much clearer as to where the line is to be drawn than are the words in the Amendment.
5.22 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I have been much helped by the valuable and moving speeches of my noble friends who have covered both this Amendment and some general principles stemming from it. I do not want them to think, because I am now going to concentrate more narrowly on the Amendment, that I am not grateful for everything they have said, and indeed for what they are going to say when we come to the Question, Whether the clause should stand part. But I do not want to make this a wide discussion because, of course, if one makes a wide discussion on a narrow Amendment one lets the Government off the hook; and I have no intention of doing that. So I refer simply to the Amendment.
I repeat what I said at the start: that my desire is to find words which fit the Government's intentions. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was perhaps led off his normal, most courteous manner of addressing the Committee by his noble friend behind him who thought that he could see a distinction between what one of my noble friends was saying and what I was saying. There is no distinction at all. I loathe Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of this Bill with as deep a loathing as that of all my noble friends put together. But what I want to do is to achieve what I hope and continue to think is the function of this noble House: to improve legislation coming from another place. In another place, and in this place, both the responsible Ministers concerned have said that what they wish to exclude from this review are activities wider than colliery activities. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said the same thing. He has just said to us that colliery activities do not include welfare and pithead baths and the like; and he said, quite sensibly, that anybody who thought the Government would call for a review of those things was "off his nut". I accept that entirely. Therefore, what we are trying to do is to find words which fit the statements of the Government. We think it is better that legislation should incorporate a Government intention rather

365
than that it should not do so. That is the best I can do, having regard to the current philosophy of the Tory Party.
I repeat what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who carefully described the origin of the phrases and differentiated between "the efficient development of the coal-mining industry" and the discretionary functions. I again quote him:
"… what we are saying in this Bill is that over the period of years there has never been any full examination or even a partial examination of the ancillary functions of the Coal Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/3/71; c. 1527.]
I have therefore put forward words which would enable all the ancillary functions to be fully examined, not because I believe that they need to be; not because I believe that the Government need the power. I am bound to tell the Committee that in the six years in which I had ministerial responsibility during which time I had of necessity to inquire about a whole host of things, week after week, regarding the figures of the National Coal Board, I was not once met with the reply, "I am sorry. We cannot give the information." If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is aware of a single occasion on which the Coal Board has been asked for information by a Minister and has refused to give it, he might well tell the Committee. All I am saying is that it is beyond my experience that that ever took place. So I repeat that I do not think the powers to get the information are even necessary. But we know why the Government are getting the information. We know because it appears in the next clause, which is the hiving-off clause.
What I am saying to the Government is this. As soon as they define an area, as a local authority defines an area, which is going to be hived off, they cast a blight on that area; and in the interests of this country I want the blighted area to be as small as possible. That is what I am saying to noble Lords opposite, and it is a perfectly reasonable proposition to make. Their own words exclude ancillary functions. The words I am putting to your Lordships are the words used in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, which for greater accuracy I have in front of me. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has complained about only the last few words in that definition. He
366
says that "the efficient development of the coal-mining industry" is a phrase which is capable of more than one interpretation. I do not disagree about that. It is. I use it only because the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, drew the historical creation of the words at col. 1527 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of March 4 last. And here it is in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 in exactly the same words, in Section 1(1)(b):
"securing the efficient development of the coal-mining industry".
So, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, those are precisely the words which accommodate the views of his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and which are consistent with the views expressed by the Minister in another place.
Nevertheless, if the noble Earl were to say to me, "The words you have proposed are better than the definition in the Bill because they mean what we, the Government, want; but, on second thoughts, we do not like the last few words and, although they stem from the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, Section 1(1)(b), we would like to see those words removed", then that is something we can talk about. I am not married to every word that is proposed. But what I do say, with respect, is that this Amendment must be treated seriously. It is an honest attempt to meet the definition described by Ministers in both Houses, and it is an attempt by me to limit the area of blight.
EARL FERRERS: May I first of all say to the noble Lord that if I was in any way discourteous, either to him or to his noble friends, I would certainly apologise, for that was not what I intended at all. But he has said that his purpose in putting forward this Amendment was to help the Government by preventing such things as pithead baths, electricity, and so forth, from being examined. He said that I said that anybody who was going to examine them was "off his nut". I think that this is perfectly true, and in so far as his Amendment were to do that it would be a help; but of course it does a very great deal more than that. This is where the problem arises. Were it only to circumscribe that one particular area in which I have suggested that the words of a Minister in the other place should be taken as being a pledge by

367
which the Government would undertake not to involve themselves in such activities, then this Amendment would be acceptable. The whole point is that the Amendment goes very much further by using the words "for the efficient developing of the coal-mining industry". The noble Lord rests a good deal of his argument on the fact that these are the principal words of the principal Act. This is perfectly true, but the Act defines what the Coal Board is to do. This particular Amendment defines the area in which the Minister may not make a review, and therefore I suggest the two are not comparable.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not want to delay your Lordships, and I am sure it is time we reached a conclusion on this Amendment. I wish to say only one thing. May I remind your Lordships of the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the Second Reading debate on this Bill; namely
"the duty laid on the Coal Board under Section 1 of the Act to work and get coal; to secure the efficient development of the coal-
mining industry and to make supplies of coal available. … These were the duties of the Coal Board,".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4/3/71, col. 1527.]
The noble Lord then makes it clear that additional duties were laid upon them. That is the distinction which he has made. But his noble friend Lord Ferrers says something quite different. The noble Earl says that the original duties are now to be subject to the same review. It is absolutely clear that either the Government have not thought about this at all or there is such an inconsistency between what one Minister says and what another noble Lord says that we really do not know where we stand. All we can do—and I have regard to the speeches made by my noble friends—is to protest both against the words in this clause, if they remain unamended, and against the attitude of the Government by dividing the Committee.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-contents, 108.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Popplewell, L.

Ardwick, L.

George-Brown, L.

Raglan, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hall, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bowden, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kennet, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Constantine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Summerskill, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

McLeavy, L.

Walston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mais, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milford, L.

White, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williamson, L.

Fiske, L.

Moyle, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Clitheroe, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Blackford, L.

Colyton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Boston, L.

Conesford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Bourne, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Auckland, L.

Boyd of Murton, V.

Courtown, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Bradford, E.

Craigavon, V.

Barnby, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Belstead, L.

Camoys, L.

Daventry, V.

De Clifford, L.

Hanworth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Harris, L.

Poltimore, L.

Derwent, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Digby, L.

Hawke, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hood, V.

Reigate, L.

Dundee, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rhyl, L.

Dundonald, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Rochdale, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Ilford, L.

Rockley, L.

Eccles, V.

Ironside, L.

Sackville, L.

Effingham, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Helens, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Jessel, L.

St. Just, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Essex, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sandford, L.

Falkland, V.

Kindersley, L.

Sandys, L.

Ferrers, E.

Latymer, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrier, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Lothian, M.

Strang, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gray, L.

Merrivale, L.

Greenway, L.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Grenfell, L.

Milverton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gridley, L.

Monck, V.

Thurlow, L.

Hacking, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vivian, L.

Hailes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

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

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wolverton, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I would not wish to detain your Lordships long on this question. I think we have had a fair discussion on the whole of the clause arising out of the Amendment which has recently been decided upon. However, I just want to say that of course we are wholly opposed to this clause. We think it unnecessary, as I have already indicated. I entirely agree with my noble friend that not only is it an unnecessary clause but it is a sinister clause. I dislike intensely the powers which enable the Government to get information out of the private sector by backdoor methods. I think this is reprehensible. There are powers in this clause which enable a Government to get information through the Ministers and through the Coal Board in cases where the Coal Board has only a 5 per cent. interest in another company, and that company can be required to give information.
But this is only one of the aspects which we dislike intensely. The subsequent clause, Clause 7, is the really vicious part of the Bill, and it is that clause which I am sure many of my noble friends would wish to speak to. I will not detain your Lordships longer, except to
370
say that although we do not propose to divide the House, in order to save time, we are wholly opposed to this clause.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Further power of Secretary of State to give directions to the Board]:
5.45 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 23, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. There are several reasons why I am opposed to the whole of this subsection. First, in my view it goes clearly against the whole scheme of the Statute relating to the Board. The way the Statute was drawn up was to provide a scheme under which the Board were to decide how to carry on their activities, and the Minister was given a broad power of intervention, as in Section 3 of the 1946 Act. But in contrast to that, subsection (3) in this clause gives the Minister power to direct the Board to take specified steps with a view to altering the way in which activities are organised. I consider that that is bad for management.
I cannot see how the Board can be expected to act as a commercial concern if the Minister is to have an uncontrolled power to say to them: "No: do not do it that way; do it this way". I con

371
sider it is bad for the Ministry, which would have to involve itself ever more closely in the affairs of the Coal Board so as to be able to inform the Minister, who would have to answer questions in both Houses of Parliament relating to the day-to-day activities of the Coal Board. The relief which has previously existed would no longer apply, because, of course, under this subsection the Minister could give a direction, and he could be asked, once he has that power and responsibility, why he has not given a direction to do this or that of a specified nature. This goes completely against the provision made. It will destroy the initiative of individuals who should be acting in a commercial sense and driving forward; they would have the knowledge that at any moment anything they had done or were proposing to do could be questioned or altered.
The legality of it (I speak with considerable doubt, not being a lawyer) too, troubles me very much. What is proposed here is that the Coal Board could be directed to say to one of its subsidiaries, or to one of the companies in which it has an interest "You must do so-and-so". The Board does not have to say to the subsidiary, "You, the directors of the subsidiary, must comply with the law of the land and have regard to the general interests of your total body of shareholders"—which is the way every board of directors behaves at the moment. It could be required to say to the directors of the subsidiary company, irrespective of the interests of the non-Coal Board shareholders (which, although they would mostly be a minority, could be up to 99 per cent.): "The Minister requires us, the Coal Board, and we therefore require you, the board of the subsidiary, to do so-and-so in a certain way, irrespective of whether in your opinion it is in the best interests of the shareholders or not."
I think that that is of doubtful legality, to put it at the minimum. It is not of doubtful commercial morality: I am quite sure that it is commercially immoral. I have never heard of such goings on, nor do I know anybody in the City who has heard of such goings on: that the board of a company would be required to disregard the interests of the general body of shareholders, which
372
is what this subsection requires them to do. I say I dislike the subsection, and I think it is going to create all the difficulties to which I have referred. The only thing we can do with it is to omit it completely, and therefore I beg to move this Amendment.
5.51 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I regard Clause 7 as the "plunder" clause of this Bill. Clauses 6 and 7 are tied up together, and therefore we must look at this matter from that point of view. These two clauses have resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, being driven from the chairmanship of the National Coal Board. The noble Lord made his position very clear, that he did not accept the invitation to carry on, partly because of what the Government were embodying in this particular Bill. He also said, "I will not stay to operate such measures", meaning, of course, the hiving off of the profitable parts of this industry. Just as my noble friend Lord Hall and Professor Clegg were sacked, so the Government have driven the noble Lord, Lord Robens, out. That is the effect of this particular clause.
Somebody will have to operate this industry, and whoever gets the job will no doubt be one who will be accommodating to the Government in helping the surgical operation contained in this particular clause. What is the Government's case? The Conservatives have always argued since I came to Parliament that they were not opposed to the nationalised industries, their argument being that they are opposed to the nationalised industries being able to compete with private enterprise on what they have called unfair terms. I sat on the Select Committee for Nationalised Industries for 12 years, and over the years I always thought that the nationalised industries were more hampered because they were nationalised and responsible to Parliament than private enterprise was. The claim of the Conservatives when they were in opposition was for equal competition between the public and the private sector, but that now is not their claim, and that has gone by the board. The Government's claim now is for unhampered private enterprise, and a hampered and restricted public industry. The

373
argument that has brought forward Clause 7 is that the Government say that the task of the Coal Board is to produce coal, and to stop at the pithead. Their argument is that what happens to the coal industry's product after that is not the Board's responsibility; and their programme to this end is to remove, by this legislation, as many of the Coal Board's assets as they can.
If diversification is good for noble Lords opposite in all their own business interests, why, then, is it wrong for a nationalised industry? Why is it wrong for public enterprise, and good for private enterprise? The only reason I have found is their hatred for our nationalised industries, and their haste to give the plums of these industries to their friends as sharply as they can. I mentioned in my previous speech B.O.A.C. and the Post Office. I did not mention Thomas Cook; but that is another plum that has been handed over. I mentioned what has happened in Carlisle, and I am convinced that Clause 7 is the clause that will operate against this industry in the same way as has happened in these other industries.
This Bill will not produce an ounce of additional coal. It will cause great difficulties throughout the coal fields, and make the financial position of the Coal Board intolerable. Except for the continuing payment for the social consequences of closures, the Bill does nothing at all to help the coal industry, and I am pleased that we shall oppose it to the end. It is quite apparent to me that the Government are guided by a doctrinaire determination to reduce the scope of our nationalised industries. Their philosophy is the belief that if a nationalised industry makes a profit and a success of an activity, it should be hived off and given to private enterprise.
The ancillary industries of the Coal Board have most certainly played a useful part in helping the industry's finances. In the year ending March, 1970, the sale of coal amounted to £726 million, while sales of other products and services brought in £100 million, or about 12 per cent. of the total. The profit made on these activities before interest payment was over £13 million, and that compares with an operating surplus of £28·6 million from colliery activities. Of
374
the £13 million profit, £7½ million came from the Board's coke ovens, and another £2 million came from its processed fuel plants. There was a small operating loss last year on the brickyards, mainly due to the Government's housing policy depressing the building industry.
The ancillary industries of the Board cover a wide field. I should like the House to appreciate this. They include coal depots, farms, estates, and joint undertakings with other firms for the production of chemicals and building materials. The Board is engaged in the exploration of the North Sea and the Irish Sea, and I understand that the sales of gas from the Viking fields will begin in 1972. If this activity is taken away, then the profits will go again to private enterprise. In these enterprises the Board have made use of their technical knowledge and their existing organisations to expand into other industries which, in one way or another, are closely associated with coal.
Why should there be this threat to the diversification of our industry? This is being followed by almost every large company in private enterprise, and mostly by the principal competitors of coal. All the major oil companies have expanded into the production of chemicals in a large way since the war. No one knows this better than the Secretary of State for Trade who brings this Bill forward. He was chairman of Shell-Mex for many years. I never knew of his advocating there the abolition of Shell-Mex ancillary industries, and I met him many times over the years when I was dealing with fuel and power in another place. British Petroleum is expanding into chemicals. Coal companies in foreign countries have done the same. The Dutch State mines, the German and the United States coal companies, are all examples. I ask: what is wrong with the coal industry of Britain doing the same? Why are the Government prepared to deny to the coal industry what is done on a larger scale by the oil companies? If it is right for them, it must be right for us. In their programme of 1968 called, Make Life Better the Tory Party said that they would let managements get on with the job, and stop messing them about with damaging political pressures and interference by a Government Department.

375
Now they have turned a double somersault with this Bill to suit the private investors.
The Board's expansion into associated industries does not in any way create a monopoly. On the contrary, it increases the competition in such industries as building materials and chemicals. It follows that if, under this clause, the Board are deprived of the profitable section of their business, then there will be greater need of financial assistance from the Government or someone else. No coal industry can survive, or ever did survive, without a major degree of diversification. When we nationalised this industry it was never suggested that it was simply an instrument for coal-getting, and the Board have diversified not so much because it is a nationalised industry but because it is in the nature of colliery activities and coal-mining that they must do so.
Where does all this end? The Board will be told to stop some of their activities for no other reason than that it is a nationalised industry. Here we have a dogma of delusion erected as a public policy and contrary to all the economics that, to my knowledge, have been preached for over fifty years. Can the Government say—and I listened to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on the last Amendment—whether the coke ovens are an improper activity of the Board? If so, let them tell us why. If coke ovens are considered to be improper, then the whole range of heavy organic chemical production must follow. How can you have coke ovens involving coke production without moving into the heavy chemical activity? Is the distribution of coal an improper activity, any more than the actions of an oil company which permits the sale of cars or has garages in its ownership?
Who will buy the profitable parts of this industry? I am certain that there will be many ready to make money out of a national asset, and when these parts are put on the market we shall want to know what is to happen. Will it be the State mines of Holland, which the Sunday Times said last year would be a most interested and aggressive bidder for the chemical interests? Who will get them? It will be ironic if the highly successful operations of the Coal Board get
376
into foreign hands. What of the future? Instead of our nationalised Boards getting on with the job of producing more coal, steel, electricity, gas and other essential fuels, they will be spending a large amount of their time warding off attacks from the Minister upon their respective industries.
The Tories must appreciate that they are doing incalculable harm to one industry after another. Why do they do it? There can be no other reason than that they intend to give to business interests the plums of the nationalised industries. This is a sinister Bill, devised to cater for the greed and avarice of those who would seek to exploit the coal industry and our other nationalised industries. There is no justification at all for it. We shall be watching the way in which the profitable parts are taken, and we give a warning that at some future date we may want to take them back. Furthermore, there is a deep feeling in this country, especially on the Labour side, that if we do take them back no compensation will be paid.
I conclude my opposition to this clause and my support for my noble friend's Amendment by quoting a paragraph from the Economist, which cannot be said to be a friend of the Labour Party or an ardent advocate of nationalised mining. On November 28, 1970, the Economist stated:
"There are some attractive tit-bits in the N.C.B. non-colliery cupboard. With a total capital of £122 million, the non-coal activities show an average return on capital of 33 per cent. on coke ovens; 10·3 per cent. on processed fuel plants; 2·7 per cent. on housing, and 13·2 per cent. on other activities. The Government would be wrong to compel forced sales of any of these."
That is a quotation, not from me but from the Economist, which is the Bible of the Conservative Party.
I do not think it is much use asking the Minister to call a halt. I believe the Government mean to hive off the successful parts of this industry, and they do not take much notice of what is said here. I can only say, in all seriousness, that if they rush ahead and pursue this disastrous and discouraging policy of plundering the coal industry which is outlined in Clauses 6, 7 and 8, the Government will bear a heavy responsibility for the dangerous consequences which are bound to follow. I shall be pleased

377
to go into the Lobby to support my noble friend in his Amendment.
6.7 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I should like to support my noble friends' observations on this Amendment. Subsection (3) indicates very clearly the differences between the Opposition and the Government, and we believe that publicly-owned undertakings should have the same commercial viability as private undertakings. Since the coal mines were nationalised there has been very heavy capital investment in all sections of the industry, not only in the mines but in all the ancillary undertakings, and there is now very efficient production. This is a very enticing tit-bit to would-be private investors who are looking forward to taking over these profitable undertakings with a view to reaping the reward of public investment. Reference has been made to the profitability of the coking side. Every year at the commencement of winter there is a general outcry about the shortage of smokeless fuel, and many local authorities have had to put a brake on declaring smokeless zones. What will happen if the coking ovens are handed over to private enterprise?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether we are not getting a little too far out of order. If I may suggest it to your Lordships, we are discussing an Amendment which deals entirely with directing the Board "to take specified steps". We are not at the moment discussion subsection (1), which deals with requiring the discontinuance of any functions or the disposal of assets, and so on. I wonder whether we should not get on a little faster if we were to concentrate on the particular Amendment we are dealing with.
LORD POPPLEWELL: We are discussing leaving out subsection (3), and surely subsection (3) gives very wide powers to the Secretary of State with a view to hiving off.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It says:
"The Secretary of State may direct the Board to take specified steps, in respect of any activities of the Board or a subsidiary of the Board, with a view to altering the way in which those activities are organised."
If that is not a blank cheque for hiving off, I do not know what is.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With respect, I have been advised that that is not the meaning of those words, but that the hiving off is dealt with in the previous subsections.
LORD POPPLEWELL: That is my interpretation of it, and this is my opportunity, under Clause 7, to register my distinct objections to it. If I may return to the provision of smokeless fuel, which I think is extremely important, I wonder what will happen if the coke ovens are hived off. Will private enterprise be able to continue the various bits of research that are being carried out under the Coal Board, and will they do so, with a view to providing this essential commodity? I wonder, too, in regard to this power to alter the way in which these activities are organised: will private enterprise follow the same policy concerning human relations as has been followed by the Coal Board? This is the general pattern that is to be followed in the case of a wide variety of other industries, and no matter what blandishments may be advanced by the Minister in reply this principle is involved. This is the time when it should be noised in this House. This is a big step backward for all the publicly-owned undertakings. From the other side we get lip service paid to us, saying, "We are living in and we accept a mixed economy". As to a mixed economy, the indications are that so far as concerns the profitable sides of publicly-owned undertakings, they should be hived off; so far as concerns the non-profitable sides of publicly-owned undertakings, they should remain as publicly-owned, and then they can be held up as examples of the failure of publicly-owned undertakings.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? If he is concerned with preventing hiving off or the disposal of non-colliery assets or activities, how, without this subsection, does he imagine that they can be reviewed in order to make decisions about their future?
LORD POPPLEWELL: I have seen what happens when this type of development takes place. One remembers the question of transport. When the Tory Government came into power in 1951, one remembers that the directives they gave to the transport undertakings—not clearly laid down, but suggestions—ultimately led,

379
as the House will know, to the retirement of Lord Robertson, then chairman of the B.T.C., in exactly the same way as we have had the retirement of Lord Hall and others. This power to give directives pinpoints the will of the Government to interfere with the efficient running of the undertakings, and so to prepare them for hiving off.
6.1 p.m.
LORD SLATER: Noble Lords are apt to forget that we are dealing here with a nationalised industry—one of the most basic industries that this country has ever had and upon which the economy of the country, apart from the mining industry itself, was tremendously built up. I want to say this to the young noble Earl, who is more or less not just out of his teens but not an advanced politician: that when the nationalisation of this basic industry took place it was the policy of the Labour Party that adequate compensation should be paid, and adequate compensation was paid to the old coal-owners for this basic industry. I was in the industry at the time that took place, and I know what happened at the particular pit that I was working at then. Let me say this to the young noble Earl—and he can look this up in the history of the Miners' Association. In the conditions which then prevailed inside the industry I was producing coal at the coal face for 1s. 0½d. a ton. We were hewing at that particular time under private enterprise.
However, that time has passed, and we are now dealing with this nationalised industry. I repeat that the owners received fair compensation. My noble friend Lord Shinwell made reference to Lord Londonderry. I should like to refer to his son, also Lord Londonderry, who was known at my particular time as Viscount Castlereagh. When the nationalisation of the coal industry took place, what were his words to Arthur Horner, the Secretary of the Mineworkers' Union? They were: "This is one of the best things that were ever done. So far as we are concerned you have taken away the responsibility, and we have no longer any need to worry." But here we are faced with a situation in which a Tory Government, because of expansion under the Nationalisation Act into fields of
380
operation, take exception to and seek to denigrate (if one may be allowed to use that term; I know it will be challenged) action going outside the 1946 Act and entering into, taking over or taking an interest in other subsidiary activities.
Let us have a look to see what the Minister said during the Second Reading debate—and I want to be fair to the Minister. To be fair to the Minister, he listed some of the things that were taken over: brickworks, shale depots, coke ovens, forms of housing. Admittedly, they were among the vested interests transferred to the Board under the 1946 Act. What he was taking exception to, on behalf of the Government, was that the Board have further interests in other fields. Now if the Coal Board had stepped outside the 1946 Act—and that is what Ministers must establish—then I could have understood the type of action and approach that they are seeking to pursue on this occasion. I could have understood their concern, as a Government, if that had been the case. But the Coal Board have not done so. The Minister admitted that a profit of some £50 million, before interest, was made by the Board. To the Minister who is to reply for the Government—and I know that he is not attached to what used to be the Ministry of Fuel and Power—I put this question: what is wrong with that? What is wrong with making that profit? I should have thought that the Government would have welcomed the initiative of this great undertaking.
Let us suppose that the mining industry had not been nationalised; let us suppose that the previous owners still controlled this operation. Does anyone think for a moment that a Tory Government would have stopped them from doing what the Coal Board are charged with doing on this occasion? Of course not, I can imagine a Tory Government—as did the Baldwin Government—complimenting the coal owners on their enterprise and their initiative and crying, "Carry on boys! You are going a good job. There is a wider field to cover. Open up new outlets, outlets which will give you positive returns." That would have been the attitude if the coal industry had still been in private hands.
But what happens now—now that it is a nationalised industry? What happens

381
now when the industry takes the initiative in wider fields? I am not surprised at the Tory attitude. I am not surprised because a similar situation obtained when we were putting through the Post Office Bill, trying to formulate a Board and put the industry under nationalisation. They took a similar attitude then. So I know what I am talking about. "Big business" is desirous of coming into the market—and the chopper comes down. Let us be honest about this. Noble Lords on the other side know this to be true. When big business cracks the whip, they have to take notice. We have seen it often in the past. Every Tory Government of the past led their troops this way, and this Government will not be allowed to escape the privilege. Big business must be protected, irrespective of the consequences. My experience in Standing Committees has proved that such is the case.
My noble friends Lord Blyton and Lord Popplewell made reference to a mixed economy. I am not arguing against the principle of a mixed economy, for one must admit that some of our major industries under private enterprise have proved themselves efficient; there was one such in the community I represented before I came to your Lordships' House: the chemical industry, I.C.I., and Monsanto. They do a very good job in seeking to assist the nation's economy and to have good relations with their employees. But I fear the attitude taken by the Tory Government in this case and in this particular Bill, as set out under this particular clause, Clause 7. This is a devastating attitude and will not only upset the National Coal Board as such, will not only restrict them in their forms of enterprise and initiative, but—and I say this to the Minister kindly and candidly for I do not look upon members of the Tory Party or upon noble Lords opposite as wicked people—will upset those men who are working in the industry and who are now endeavouring to give of their best. The Government, by their action in introducing legislation of this type in this particular Bill, are asking for trouble.
I ask the Minister to consider earnestly what has been said in this Committee today when he comes to have further talks with his right honourable friend; though I sometimes wonder what power even
382
his right honourable friend has in relation to the policies that have been introduced. During the course of the Steel Bill, when the Labour Government, despite their narrow majority, were still prepared to go ahead with the nationalisation of steel, I well remember Winston Churchill saying in effect, "You say that you had it in your Manifesto. Well, if you put that in your Manifesto why do you not put everything into your Manifesto?" Was this in the Tory Party Manifesto?—this action against this basic industry, this nationalised industry. Time and again we challenged the Tory Party as to what were their intentions in this regard and whether they were prepared to denationalise. I hope that the Minister responsible for carrying the Bill through this House will have further thoughts. I hope that he will have some influence with those responsible for drafting this Bill so that certain Amendments may be made in the interests of the industry and in the interest of those who are responsible for running it at this moment.
6.27 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: Nobody who has listened to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, could fail to be moved by the views he has expressed, coming as they do from one who has spent a lifetime in the coal industry. We on this side of the House appreciate full well the sincerity with which he expressed those views, and the attachment he has to the coal industry as a whole. All I would say is that, while I greatly respect those views, the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, brought the matter to the nub when he said that this is the big difference between the two sides of the House. One does not wish to get involved too much in what one might describe as Party political controversy over this matter, although one necessarily accepts that it is controversial. I only hope that any remarks I may make will be made in such a way as to keep the tenor of such controversy as even as possible. But there is a difference and one might as well recognise the difference.
Noble Lords opposite and the Party to which they belong feel that the nationalised Coal Board has carried out its duties under the Act—as it has done—and that therefore it should not be interfered with. The view of the Government is that since the coal industry was nationalised it has grown and grown,

383
and its subsidiaries have grown and grown, and that the time has come when a review should be held of all their non-colliery activities, simply in order to see what they are and where they are. It is no more than that at the moment. There is no question at this stage of the hiving-off of activities or subsidiaries. The subsection which noble Lords opposite wish to delete gives power to the Minister to give directions in certain circumstances. The effect of this Amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to direct the Board to take steps to see that any of its activities, or those of its subsidiaries, are reorganised. That is its purpose, so that the Amendment runs counter to what the Government have in mind.
When the review is made it may turn out that various aspects of the situation are not clear. For instance, it may turn out to be as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, put it when he listed a host of different industries with which the Coat Board is connected. The noble Lord referred to coke ovens, housing estates, farms, road transport, wagon repair shops and so on. As a result of the review the Minister may feel it appropriate to give a direction about the broad lines on which the subsidiaries should operate, in order to avoid the possibility of a cross-subsidisation of activities which might not be apparent in the accounts as they are at present produced. For example, it may be that the coke ovens, or some other such enterprise, subsidise the brickworks, though that fact may not be apparent. It could be—I am not saying it will be—that the Minister might consider that directions should be given to make perfectly apparent how the structures of the various enterprises are made up.
The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, asked a specific question: are coke ovens improper? The answer is that I have not the slightest idea, and the purpose of the review which the Government have in mind is to find out the position.
LORD BLYTON: Surely the Minister is not saying that a coke oven is improper. To my knowledge, coke ovens have been with the collieries for up to 72 years. On top of that the collieries
384
have always had by-products, so surely this is not something new.
EARL FERRERS: Of course it is not new. I think the context in which the noble Lord said it was slightly different from that in which I put it. He has insinuated that the Government would consider a coke oven an improper thing for the Coal Board to manage.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: May I ask the noble Earl, before he leaves the question of the review, if it is not a fact that, in practice, the Chairman of the Coal Board meets the Minister periodically and reviews policy, finance, and so on, for the current year; and that all the things the noble Earl has mentioned are known by the Ministry officials?
EARL FERRERS: No. These vast enterprises with which the Coal Board is involved use, I think, a capital of something over £100 million, and they are outside the colliery activities. They are very complex. Very often they intertwine and interrelate. For this reason the Government would like to have a review to see precisely what is what. That, I repeat, is the purpose of the review.
To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, it is not for me to say whether it is proper or improper for the Coal Board to run coke ovens. That is something which must wait for the review. It would be only subsequent to such a review that the Government would be in a position to make up their mind. The other point to which I think it important to refer was made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his opening speech. He said that this would involve the Government in day-to-day management. That is not the intention of the subsection: the intention is merely to give broad lines on which the various activities of the Coal Board or its subsidiaries should be organised.
A number of noble Lords opposite, quite understandably, said that they were worried about the interference of the Government and about the powers the Government are taking under this subsection. I do not think noble Lords need be so worried. The subsection does not incorporate any new principle. Both the Iron and Steel Act 1967 and the Transport Act 1968—measures introduced

385
by a Government supported by noble Lords opposite—contained powers to direct the alteration of the organisations or their activities. Those particular powers extended to the whole of the activities and not, as in the present case, only to the non-mainline activities. So the principle of the subsection which noble Lords opposite wish to remove is not new. This has been done before. The precise drafting of the present subsection is calculated to be appropriate for the coal industry.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Does the principle in the 1946 Act still operate? If so, why is there a necessity for this subsection?
EARL FERRERS: What I said was that such principles as are contained in this clause operate in both the Iron and Steel Act and also the Transport Act. But they cover the whole of the industries concerned, whereas this subsection does not. I fully recognise the feelings which noble Lords opposite have expressed, but this is not a subsection which is new in principle, and it is one which the Government think should be kept in the Bill.
6.37 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Earl has not moved us at all by his argument—quite the contrary. He has said that this subsection is not for specific powers but for broad powers—I think those were the words he used. I cannot accept that from the noble Earl, otherwise words would cease to have their meaning. Subsection (3) says:
"The Secretary of State may direct the Board to take specified steps …
"Specified steps", means specific steps.
EARL FERRERS: With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think it does. "Specified" is not the same as "specific".
LORD DIAMOND: I am very glad to hear that. So the Secretary of State is not going to direct the Board to take specific steps. I have that on the authority of the Minister. That is a little advance. The noble Earl said that the purpose is to give broad indications. But as my noble friend Lord Popplewell has made clear, the broad indications are already contained in the original Act. Therefore
386
I cannot see the purpose of this subsection, if it has been accurately described from the Government Front Bench.
It is perfectly true that these powers are similar to the existing powers in other Acts. But the noble Earl did not go on to explain the different context. The context of the nationalisation of coal was, I think (I am speaking offhand) different from every other one, in that when coal was nationalised it took over specific listed assets. When every other industry has been nationalised it has taken over companies and shares in companies. It has been essential, therefore, in order to define the boundary between the nationalised sector and the private sector, for the Government to have powers to say clearly which activities shall come on which side of the line, so that nationalisation should take place. That is a total difference between the two, and it is quite unnecessary for the purposes of the coal industry, which it has been made perfectly clear functions well—it has been complimented on its functioning by Ministers opposite. It has functioned well over all these years, and it is totally unnecessary to have the kind of powers which the words in the subsection indicate.
I am in the difficulty of having to toss up and say, "Shall we vote against the Bill itself, which is totally unsatisfactory so far as its subsections are concerned, or shall we accept the word of the Minister who speaks with a different voice?" I am bound to say, with the greatest respect to him, that those outside this House will have regard to the words in the Bill; and the words in the Bill are quite unacceptable for the reasons I have given and which the noble Lord did not see fit to deal with. The words are unacceptable because of the management difficulties, because of the legal difficulties, because of their commercial immorality, and for all the reasons which my noble friends have given; and I can only invite my noble friends to divide the Committee on this Amendment.
6.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 92.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gifford, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Rusholme, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hall, V.

St. Davids, V.

Bacon, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bowden, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Constantine, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Mais, L.

White, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williamson, L.

Fiske, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Raglan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mersey, V.

Albemarle, E.

Gisborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glasgow, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Barnby, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Boston, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hacking, L.

Rochdale, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailes, L.

Rockley, L.

Clitheroe, L.

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

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colyton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Just, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hatherton, L.

St. Oswald. L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hertford, M.

Sandys, L.

Cromartie, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Daventry, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Skelmersdale, L.

De Clifford, L.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jessel, L.

Dundee, E.

Kilmany, L.

Teviot, L.

Dundonald, E.

Kindersley, L.

Teynham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thurlow, L.

Eccles, V.

Latymer, L.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wolverton, L.

Essex, E.

McCorquodale of Newton. L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) In giving a direction to the Board under this section the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirement imposed on them to direct their policy to securing the financial objective specified in section 1(4)(c) of the Act of 1946."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that in giving a direction under Clause 7 the Secretary of State takes into account the financial consequences of what he requires to be done. Under Clause 6(2) paragraph (c) ensures that any report made under that clause deals with the financial consequences of continuing the activities reported upon or of modifying them in some way. It is certainly important to take financial consequences

389
into account when reviewing and reporting on a matter, but it is even more important to do so when making a decision that some activities are to be discontinued or some part of an undertaking is to be disposed of. The Board is required under Section 1(4)(c) of the original Act to break even, in effect, over a period of years, and the Board's ability to do that will be affected by any exercise of the power given to the Secretary of State by Clause 7 of this Bill. So, consistently with the provision in Clause 6, this Amendment specifically provides that the financial implications for the Board are to be taken into account when the Secretary of State is considering the exercise of the very wide power proposed to be given to him. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would suggest to the noble Lord that this Amendment is unnecessary. He has quite correctly quoted the fact that the advantages, if any, and financial consequences foreseen as resulting from a continuance of the activities must be contained in the report, and therefore they are bound to be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, when the Secretary of State is consulting the Board, as he is bound to do before giving a direction, they will again without doubt be brought to his attention. On the basis of what is in the report, and as a result of the consultations, the Minister will then have to make up his mind what to do.
The noble Lord says that the Bill does not lay down that in making up his mind he must have regard to the financial objectives specified in Section 1(4)(c) of the original Act. But surely the Secretary of State must have regard to what is a duty placed upon the Board. He cannot possibly give a direction to the Board to do something which it would be outside his powers to give. The Board has to meet these requirements; the Secretary of State knows this, and therefore is bound to take it into consideration. As I say, this seems to me to be a wholly unnecessary Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I am not sure whether to welcome or to reject that reply. The noble Lord says that the Amendment is unnecessary because this is what the Secretary of State is going to do anyway. I am bound to say that if that is so I see no reason why it
390
should not be incorporated in the Bill. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord is saying (I do not know whether he meant to say this, but it is what I understood him to say) that the Secretary of State will not have power under this Bill to direct the Coal Board to do something which the Coal Board thinks is against its duty under Section 1(4)(c) of the original Act, then I welcome it and will leave it there. But he is now going to tell me that I misunderstood him.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not say that it was a question of what the Coal Board thinks. It is a question of fact whether it would or would not be so.
LORD DIAMOND: With the greatest respect, nobody on earth could say what the fact is about this. If I may say so with negligible authority, an army of accountants could all express different views as to whether the financial consideration was such as to make it essential for this particular activity to be carried on in order to make ends meet: because it is the totality of the Board's activities which has to be organised in such a way to make ends meet, and not any single one of them. It is an impossible argument to pursue.
I should have thought that we are on far safer ground if we take the words in the Bill to mean what they say. They mean that under the previous clause the financial effect has to be taken into account; and under this clause, which is even more important than the information clause (this being the action clause as opposed to the information clause) that the financial consequences should be taken into account. The noble Lord is saying that they will be taken into account. I merely put to him the simple proposition: why not put it in the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The answer, which I am sure the noble Lord must himself often have given, is that you do not put things into a Bill which are unnecessary.
LORD DIAMOND: I will have it to your Lordships. It is obvious that there is a difference of view here. It would detain the Committee too long to vote on it. We merely register our view once more that the sensible thing is that Bills should mean what they say.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.0 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction to the Board under this section the effect of which would be to require them to dispose or require a subsidiary of theirs to dispose, of any part of their or its undertaking, or any asset, which is managed or held wholly or mainly for the purposes of colliery activities."
The noble Lord said: I suppose one must never tire of doing good, and so I offer this Amendment to your Lordships. The purpose of this Amendment is to repair an omission in Clause 7. Subsection (1) refers to the continuing activities and also to the disposal of assets. It is made clear by subsection (4) that the power to require the discontinuance of activities does not apply to colliery activities. However, the wording of subsection (4) is such that the same restriction does not apply where the Secretary of State's direction is to dispose of an asset. He could, therefore, require the Board to dispose of (shall we say?) the surface of a colliery, or something else essential to the working of the colliery, and in that way bring about what he is specifically precluded from doing by the Bill; namely, to restrict the carrying on of a colliery activity.
I am talking here about a real colliery activity. The argument about going beyond the definition of colliery activity was disposed of. It is clearly illogical to restrict the Secretary of State's powers in regard to activities, while not doing so in relation to part of an undertaking or assets that may be directly associated with the carrying on of the activities. I repeat, one should never tire of doing good, and I therefore offer the Committee this Amendment, which should help the Government to put right that omission.
EARL FERRERS: This Amendment would result in the widening of the protection given to colliery activities. It would prevent the Secretary of State from requiring a subsidiary to dispose of any parts of its undertaking or assets managed or held wholly or mainly for colliery activities. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, gave an example of the surface of the coal mine being sold. But it is perfectly possible that the National Coal Board may have many other assets which, after a review, the Government might consider
392
should be subject to direction, yet which could be said to be held wholly or mainly in connection with their colliery activities.
One example that comes to mind is computers. It could perfectly well be argued that the main object of a computer is to deal with all the facts and figures which come out of the colliery activities. But it could also be used for other purposes. It is this type of situation which the Government feel should be subject to review. That is why we are not keen to have the Amendment which the noble Lord has suggested incorporated in the Bill; and it goes very much farther than the rather specific example which the noble Lord gave.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not believe my Amendment goes as far as the noble Lord has indicated. I am bound to say that he seemed to indicate that there were Amendments which might be satisfactory to him, although this one is not. In these circumstances I think the best way of dealing with this is for me to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment, so that I can read and consider very carefully what the noble Earl has said. Then I can perhaps at a later stage put down an Amendment which might be acceptable.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) Where, by virtue of a direction given under this section, the Board are under a duty to dispose of any part of their undertaking or any assets, or to secure the disposal of any part of the undertaking, or any assets of a subsidiary of theirs, they may discharge that duty in such manner and by such stages, and with such postponements as are necessary to secure that the consideration obtained in respect of the disposal is financially adequate."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is merely designed to give statutory effect to assurances given by the Minister in another place. Sir John Eden said in Commons Standing Committee B at col. 529:
"There would be no question of a forced sale in the sense that the Board would be required to dispose of an asset by a particular time."
Later he added:
"When a requirement is placed on the Board to sell an asset, the direction must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that

393
the best possible price is obtained for that asset."
This Amendment does no more than give effect to that.
The Minister's assurances relate to a most important aspect of the matter—the price to be paid for an asset which he has said is to be disposed of. It is so important that feel sure he will welcome his words being given statutory effect. The language chosen is the language of the Amendment and follows closely that of a proviso to Section 18 of the Iron and Steel Act 1953, which was passed by a previous Conservative Government. The proviso says in the context of setting up I.S.H.R.A. (the Iron and Steel Holdings Realisation Agency) to return the iron and steel undertakings to private ownership:
"Provided that the Agency may discharge their duty under this section in such manner, and by such stages, and with such postponements of the sale of securities or other assets, as they may with the approval of the Treasury determine, and shall so discharge the said duty as to secure, without disregard to other relevant matters, that the consideration obtained from the disposal of assets is financially adequate …"
I should have thought that this Amendment serves that purpose; that it gives statutory effect to the undertaking of the Minister, and would, therefore, be welcome to the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am struck by one thing from the parallel that the noble Lord quoted in the Iron and Steel Act; that is, that the approval of the Treasury was required in the steps for the disposal. I can see no parallel to that in the Amendment that the noble Lord has moved. Our intention, the noble Lord has correctly stated, is that the timing of such disposals as may turn out to be necessary shall secure that the consideration is financially adequate. He was quite correct in quoting what my honourable friend said in another place. But the difficulty of putting an obligation of this kind on to the Board (particularly the last sentence of the Amendment), is that it can really never be quite certain that it has got the best possible price. If you say:
… with such postponements as are necessary to secure that the consideration obtained in respect of the disposal is financially adequate"
394
they may always feel, "If we postpone a little longer we might get more". It may be found afterwards that they might have postponed, and that had they done so they would have received more. This would be a very unsatisfactory burden to place upon them.
I hope that the noble Lord will review these words again, for I do not think that they are really apt for the purpose that he has in mind. Nobody wants disposals to take place at other than the best possible price. When the best possible price can be obtained is a matter of judgment. If you put obligations in this form all that will happen is you will secure delay in disposing of assets, and that would in itself be undesirable and might lead to loss.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord has said that the provision made in the Iron and Steel Act 1953, which, if my recollection serves me correctly, was introduced by a Government of which he was a member, and the words used, were unwise. I do not think that they were. They served their purpose; the Iron and Steel Holdings Realisation Agency were not able to carry out the complete hiving-off of the steel industry, any more than the Government would be able to carry out the complete hiving-off of the peripheral activities of the coal-mining industry. I realise that a great deal of heat and energy will be wasted, the Government's time will be wasted and the nation's assets will be wasted. Nevertheless, it is our duty to protect the nation's assets as well as we can. The way the Government of that day thought they could best protect them was the way in which every businessman knows how best to protect his assets: by not having a forced sale; not selling under the auctioneer's hammer, or the receiver's hammer (if I may refer to something nearer at home at the moment), but by having a sale under which the best price is obtained because time is given.
Already the Government are putting a blight on these assets—I know I have used the phrase before but it is very true. As soon as the Secretary of State says that a certain activity is going to be hived off, no purchaser is going to be such a fool as to offer a fair price for the assets involved. He knows that all he

395
has to do is to wait for the right plum to fall, because the Secretary of State has decided, and the public will know that he has decided, that a certain activity is to be hived off. There can be only a certain number of people interested in buying, and they will wait their time and obtain the assets at their price. So already the act of the Secretary of State under this Bill will do enormous damage to the value of assets which are held by the nation.
All I was seeking to suggest was that the damage should be minimised by requiring those concerned to take account of the financial result, and to dispose of the assets in a sensible way, as any ordinary businessman would dispose of any assets which he did not require for the running of a going concern. The noble Lord has only told me, really, that the words I propose do not include the words which were included on a previous occasion with the approval of the Treasury. Do I gather him to mean that he would find the Amendment acceptable if those words were added? I am sure that it is an easy procedure in your Lordships' House to move a manuscript Amendment to add those words at an appropriate place. If that is what the noble Lord wants, I will gladly accommodate him by moving an Amendment to the Amendment in order to add those words. I will do so if he tells me that that is what he wants.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has illustrated the differences between the Iron and Steel Act procedure and what is likely to take place here. He said that a blight is cast over the whole of the ancillary activities of the Coal Board from now on, if I understand him correctly—
LORD DIAMOND: No, I did not. I apologise for interrupting, but it is important that I make my point clear. What I am saying is this. Just as when a local authority says that certain streets are going to be pulled down within the following 15 years a blight is cast over the streets and the value of the houses in them, so a blight is cast when the Secretary of State says that he is not going to continue, for example, coke ovens. Apparently, the Minister is saying that the Government do not know
396
whether the Coal Board have closed up the business of coke ovens (although a coke oven is not something which can be hidden under the kitchen dresser) and therefore a full examination has to be held under Clause 6 to determine whether or not they are carrying on the business of running coke ovens. But, having discovered that the Board are running coke ovens, the Secretary of State could then say that coke ovens must be hived-off, in which case he would have to lay an Order in the House and everybody would know about it. When the Secretary of State says that a particular peripheral activity must be hived-off he immediately blights the price.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Obviously this is a difficult situation, no doubt partly because of the public direction that has to be given—I heard the noble Lord's sotto voce remark.
LORD DIAMOND: I apologise. I assure the noble Lord that it was sotto voce. If it had not been, adjectives would have been added to it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: At any rate I am glad the noble Lord does not whisper to himself obscenely. However, the point here is this. Obviously in circumstances of this kind there will be commercial difficulties; there can be no doubt about that. The question is whether one is going to make the position any better or worse by an Amendment of this kind. As the noble Lord has made quite plain, these are circumstances which are rather different from those under the Act which he quoted. What I have said is that it might be possible under the words as they are before us for the Board, in good faith, to postpone indefinitely the disposal of these assets. I do not think this would be a desirable result. The fact of the matter is that working provisions of this kind can be dealt with only with the fullest co-operation and understanding between the Minister and the Board. If that understanding exists, then words of this kind are not necessary. That is the first argument. The second argument I have already given. It is that I am very doubtful whether the words of the Amendment would be apt to achieve the purpose, and I am not at all certain that they would not run the Board into difficulties by putting upon them an impossible task.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.16 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 39, leave out ("or (2)") and insert (", (2) or (3)").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (6) of Clause 7 of the Bill, which requires directions by the Secretary of State to be made by Statutory Instrument the draft of which has to be laid before Parliament, applies at present only to directions under subsections (1) or (2); that is to say, it applies only to directions to discontinue or restrict activities, or to dispose of any part of an undertaking or of any assets. It does not apply to directions pursuant to subsection (3) to alter the way in which activities are organised. Accordingly, my Amendment is designed to make the requirement to proceed by way of Statutory Instrument apply to all kinds of directions under Clause 7.
A direction to alter the way in which particular activities are organised could be just as adverse to the Board, just as damaging to the national interest, as a direction to restrict activities. Moreover, as I indicated on an earlier Amendment, a Ministerial direction under subsection (3) would completely cut across the scheme of the Coal Industry Acts. It would represent an even greater degree of interference on the part of the Minister in the management of the industry, and it requires the safeguard of an Order subject to Parliamentary control just as much as a direction to discontinue or restrict an activity does.
This is a reasonable precaution. The Government must recognise that they are acting in an extremely controversial field. They are taking up powers which are very great indeed, yet they are giving to Parliament only the minimum check, the check of the Negative Resolution procedure—not of an Affirmative Resolution. I am suggesting to the Government that they would seem to be totally authoritarian, unless they agree at all events to extend the area of check which Parliament has over the activities of a Government. I beg to move.
7.19 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The reason why I am afraid that I must once again say that the Government cannot accept this Amendment is that it seeks to make directions under this subsection subject
398
to the same Parliamentary procedure as directions under subsections (1) and (2). The point is that the directions under subsection (3) are of quite a different kind. They are concerned only with the way in which non-colliery activities of the Board or its subsidiaries are organised, and they do not involve the disposal of assets. The principle which makes Parliamentary procedure appropriate to directions under subsections (1) and (2) is not applicable to directions under subsection (3).
When one is disposing of assets in this way, involving nationalised industries, it is surely proper that where financial considerations are directly involved there should be reference to Parliament by an Order. But where there ate simply directions as to organisation, this is a different matter. After all, there are many points in the nationalisation legislation where directions can be given—and directions of a general character are in fact given. In most cases they are not subject to Parliamentary approval. Normally, the most that happens is that the Board will record the direction in their Annual Report, and I presume that the same would apply if a direction were given to the Board, under subsection (3), for the reorganisation of assets. I would expect that to happen, but it is in that same class of direction and not in the class of the disposal of assets.
I hope the noble Lord will accept that argument, but I might perhaps add one further point. He was concerned at an earlier stage, both on Second Reading and earlier this afternoon, that this might mean almost day-to-clay interference with the activities of the Board. That of course is not the intention. The general intention, as my honourable friend has made clear in another place, is that there should first of all be a general review, and that following that general review he would have a look (the whole purpose of the review being to see the industry in perspective) and decide what action required to be taken and where reorganisation of activities might be required.
I should have thought that in circumstances of that kind it would not be improper (this is obviously a matter for the Committee) to ask in Parliament what directions the Minister had given and

399
what they were about. So such directions can be raised in Parliament. It would not be in the nature of day-to-day interference, yet information about directions would still be available to Parliament, if only when the Board present their Report. That being so, I should have thought the noble Lord need not be unduly disturbed about the position.
LORD DIAMOND: Well, the noble Lord is unduly disturbed, because one of the activities I do not rejoice in is crying over spilt milk: it is a great waste of time. All the noble Lord has said is that once the Minister has given a direction Parliament can, of course, ask the Minister what direction he has given—that is, assuming that Parliament knows about it, or that somebody has been put wise that a Question should be asked. That is far too late for the protection of the national interest. Parliament is the proper place in which the national interest should be judged and in which the power should finally reside.
The noble Lord said that this is totally different from subsections (1) and (2) under which assets are disposed of or activities are restricted. I can only repeat that it is just as adverse to the Board, in their opinion, and in my opinion and the opinion of my noble friends, for the way in which particular activities are organised to be altered as for activities to be
restricted. The Board would not be organising them in a certain way unless they thought that organising them in a different way would be damaging, foolish or unwise, and so the financial interests which the noble Lord referred to are involved just the same.
I see no distinction between these different categories, and therefore, with one exception, I see no reason why Parliament should not have the opportunity of considering the spilling of the milk before it is spilt. The one exception I am beginning to see—I am slow on these things and it takes me rather a long time—is that the Minister has come here to reject every single Amendment, one after the other, and to pay no attention at all to any of the arguments; and the same remarks apply to his noble friend. I have never heard arguments dealt with, with less clear understanding of what the arguments are about, and I have never heard briefs stuck to more rigidly. I suggest that we demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the unwillingness of the Government to have regard to a simple argument on a most controversial matter by dividing the Committee.
7.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordsips divided: Contents, 48; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Ardwick, L.

George-Brown, L.

Segal, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Granville of Eye, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Burntwood, L.

Jacques, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Walston, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Mais, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williamson, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wright of Ashton-under-Lyne, L.

Fiske, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Foot, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gardiner, L.

Royle, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Conesford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Auckland, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craigavon, V.

Barnby, L.

Carrington, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Clitheroe, L.

Daventry, V.

Boston, L.

Colyton, L.

De Clifford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

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

Rochdale, V.

Essex, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Falkland, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Helens, L.

Ferrers, E.

Hertford, M.

St. Just, L.

Ferrier, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Gisborough, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandford, L.

Glasgow, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Gowrie, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Somers, L.

Gray, L.

Mersey, V.

Teynham, L.

Greenway, L.

Milverton, L.

Thurlow, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Vivian, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I would ask the indulgence of your Lordships for a few more moments. I know the hour is getting late, but when we consider that Members had more than 100 hours in Committee in the other place and we have had only about three, we realise that we have been very conservative. I could not let this clause pass without a parting word, because I dislike it so much; I did not conceal my dislike on Second Reading, nor have I again this afternoon. Talking about dislike of this clause, I am not the only person; I think all my noble friends on this side of the House dislike it as much as I do. But let us look at external dislikes. The National Coal Board does not like it, in my opinion, and Clause 7 may be one of the reasons why the present Chairman of the National Coal Board is vacating his office. I can say with authority, too, that the organisation which represents the men in the industry, the National Union of Mineworkers, dislike the clause as well. If the noble Lord had accepted my offer this afternoon, we could have "called it a day" long ago, and I am sure we should have gone away happy and abundantly satisfied. But for reasons best known to himself he was not inclined to accept the magnanimous offer I put to him a few hours ago.
To me this clause is a dangerous clause, dangerous psychologically so far as the men in the industry are concerned. I am quite certain that it will not help to sweeten industrial relations in the mining industry. There is a bit of dynamite in this particular clause, and it would have been much better had the Government
402
not sought to introduce it, and particularly in a Bill of this kind. What does it do? We should be clear about it, and I should like to read it very briefly.
"The Secretary of State may direct the Board to discontinue or restrict any of their activities …"
That is point number 1. The clause then goes on to say:
"dispose of any part of their undertaking …"
My understanding of those particular words is that the Minister may direct the National Coal Board to sell off, dispose of—whatever term you like to use—any of the non-colliery activities upon which the National Coal Board are et present engaged. I could recite quite a number of these, but the ground has been covered by my noble friend Lord Diamond, my noble friend Lord Slater and other noble Lords, and it would be a waste of time.
But may I mention one or two by-products of coal: distribution of solid fuel, brickworks, and now North Sea gas. My information is that last year the income of the National Coal Board from these activities which are described as non-colliery activities was in the legion of £100 million, and the profit accruing therefrom was in the neighbourhood of £13 million. These activities are not unusual; they have not sprung up overnight since nationalisation; they have been common in this mining industry for a long number of years, except of course, North Sea gas. They were carried on long before nationalisation in 1947.
May I make one reference to coal distribution, because that subject was raised earlier on. I knew a man, now deceased, named Frank Hodges. When he left the Electricity Commissioners he went to be general manager of a group of collieries in the Leicestershire coalfield. One of the things that he did was

403
to take over completely every bit of coal distribution from that group of collieries. That was one of the reasons why Frank Hodges, the general manager of that group of collieries, began to make those collieries pay. The particular colliery that I worked at for a number of years had brickworks. Why? This was the result of the sagacity of the colliery company. The shale which came out of the pits, had it not been made—and it was suitable for the purpose—into bricks, would have gone on the spoil heap, disfiguring the countryside. Non-colliery activities of that kind could be multiplied many times, but I will not labour the position at this hour of the night.
We are told that no decision has yet been taken regarding the disposing of these non-colliery assets; but there are grave suspicions. If there is a clause in this Bill which arouses the suspicions of many of us, it is Clause 7. I will not talk about B.O.A.C. or Thos. Cook & Son, or the proposal, already in the form of a Public Bill, about the breweries and public houses in the county of Cumberland, which I suppose we shall be dealing with in the near future. What concerns me, and what deepens my suspicions, is the statement that was made to the Bournemouth Evening Echo by the Minister responsible for this Bill in another place. He is reported as having said:
"The Government will almost certainly make a start this year on selling off parts of the State-owned sections of British industries."
He does not specifically mention the coal industry, it is true, but it has happened so far as B.O.A.C. and Cook's Tours are concerned, and, who knows, it could be, although we are told that no decision has yet been taken, that the non-colliery activities of the mining industry will be next.
It reminds me of the young man and woman whose engagement was announced. A mutual friend met them in the street and said, "I notice you are now engaged". They said, "Yes. We have looked at it, made all the reviews we can, and decided to get married; but we have not yet decided the date." I am wondering whether that is in the mind of the Government so far as these non-colliery activities are concerned. So
404
far as the coal industry is concerned, have they decided in principle to implement what I regard as this hiving off Clause 7? I hope that is not so. Believe me—and I say it to the two Ministers who are responsible in this Committee stage of this Bill—in my view it would be a very sad day psychologically for the mining industry if this hiving off process takes place.
Before I sit down may I say one more thing. I wish the Government were more interested in the burdens that the coal industry is carrying. This was a sadly neglected feature by all post-war Governments until 1965, when the then Labour Government reduced the capital debt by £400 million. That resulted in a considerable saving so far as interest payments were concerned. I do not want to talk about imported coal. I do not want to say anything at this stage about the coal industry from nationalisation right up to the end of 1956 when it was regarded as a social service.
I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the question of coal royalties. In 1938, coal royalties were nationalised by the Chamberlain Government, and a commission was set up to administer them. On nationalisation, in 1946, the Coal Commission was wound up, and the whole of the liabilities were transferred to the National Coal Board. The initial cost of compensating the royalty owners in 1938 was £66 million. The liability transferred to the National Coal Board under the Act of 1946 was £78 million. A few years ago in another place I asked a Question as to what the position was, and the information given to me (this is on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT) was that beyond 1990 the National Coal Board has to pay more than £2 million in the form of interest for those royalties nationalised in 1938. One could go on about the burden which has been placed on the National Coal Board, and I would ask the noble Lord to use his influence inside the Government to see that some of these burdens are eased so far as the Board is concerned.
I regret that this particular clause is in the Bill, and I am insistent on dividing the Committee on it. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench, at the end of this debate on this clause, will call

405
for a Division, and that we shall register our dissatisfaction at its being in the Bill.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: Before my noble friend sits down, did he mean £2 million or £2,000 million?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I meant £2 million per annum. As a matter of fact, the figure is just over £2 million, but I was using round figures.
7.49 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not think my noble friend need have any anxiety about what action we shall suggest on this side of the Committee with regard to the Question whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill. As I have indicated, it is the most vicious clause in the Bill. All the damage stems from this clause: the damage to the Coal Board, to the national interest, to the morale of the miners and to our relationship with them. I have made clear, both on Second Reading and on the previous Amendments to which I spoke, what my own views are with regard to this clause, and I should not wish to delay your Lordships by going over all these matters once more. However, there are some matters to which I must draw the Government's attention because they are matters which are not in the clause.
I have referred to the question of management and the interests of the shareholders—possibly majority and possibly minority shareholders—in subsidiary companies. I referred to the problem of the disposal price. There is still nothing in the clause to secure that a fair price will be obtained by the State-owned industry. But what I want to draw your Lordships' attention to is the question of the rights of third parties. In a number of instances the Board have undertaken ancillary activities by means of joint enterprises. The arrangements vary, but in each case an agreement has been freely negotiated with a third party which was no doubt believed by the Board and the other party concerned to be to their mutual advantage. Now it is normal practice for the parties either to agree to continue the enterprise for a minimum term, or to provide restrictions on one or other withdrawing without the consent of the other. That is perfectly normal drill. But the clause makes no provision
406
in respect of the Board's obligations or the third party's rights. Yet a statutory direction to the Board to withdraw would override a bargain entered into in good faith. It must be almost unheard of for a Bill to provide for the private rights of a person to be overridden without one sentence to adjust the rights of that person or to provide for the situation which results.
A similar chaotic situation will arise in connection with the Board's financial obligations. Under this clause, the Secretary of State has power to give a direction to call in a loan made by the Board or to exercise any power they might possess to revoke a guarantee. Again, no provision is made to deal with the resulting situation. Let us suppose that the Board were in a position to call in a substantial loan or to revoke a guarantee. The result might be to bankrupt a company with a promising future. "Bankrupt" is a word which still causes certain reactions on this side: noble Lords opposite may be getting used to it, but we hope not. Alternatively, the Board may be called upon to withdraw from a joint enterprise and dispose of their assets without having any say in the choice of a purchaser, and may then be left with a substantial loan to the joint enterprise without any control over its activities. As noble Lords know, the normal method of protecting your loan to a joint enterprise is to have a right to appoint somebody to the board, to take part in its activities. Here there can be a direction to dispose of the assets, to dispose of the shares and to be left with a substantial loan—which one cannot call in—to the joint enterprise, without any control over it at all.
These problems are of particular consequence in respect of the Board's interest in North Sea gas. The Board's partners are mostly American owned and certain contracts were negotiated freely with the oil companies. I am told that collaboration has often been both successful and harmonious, and it has also been very active. The Board have not been sleeping partners, and certainly their interest in some of these enterprises is extremely valuable. Will the Board be made to give this up? If so, on what terms and, for heaven's sake! why, except that these activities are highly profitable?

407
So far I have discussed only the effect of the proposals and the clause on existing transactions, but the impact of the clause on the future management of the industry by the Board could be even more serious. How can anybody be expected to collaborate with the Board or to enter into long-term commitments, with the knowledge that the Secretary of State can destroy a bargain by a direction over which neither the Board nor the third party has any control? We on this side have made it clear how we regard this clause, and I have dealt only with those parts which have not previously been covered. We are dealing with it briefly because we feel that it is to the convenience of your Lordships that it should be dealt with in that way. We shall obviously come back to many of the points to which there have been totally inadequate answers. The main difficulties have not been dealt with at all, and we shall come back to them at a later stage in the Bill. But I assure my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who made such an interesting speech, that in addition to his views, my views and all views on this side of the House—and I hope more than on this side of the House—are wholly opposed to this dogmatic approach to one of our most successful and important industries, and that we shall divide the Committee on this clause.
7.56 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: One could not have expected noble Lords on the other side to welcome this clause; nor, I suppose, could one have expected the mineworkers in general to do so. As I said on Second Reading, those who create an industry quite naturally tend to take a paternal interest in it, and they do not like the prospect of its being altered in any way whatsoever. Yet there can be no doubt that the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was one which provided less scope for alteration than subsequent nationalisation Acts, and the result is that we now have a state of affairs where subsidiaries have been built up over the years, further assets have been taken on, additional interests have been acquired—all perfectly correctly, and very often with the consent of the Minister; in fact, where any substantial capital investment was involved that consent was obtained. But the general effect is that we now find
408
that the Coal Board have a mixed lot of assets.
I do not believe anybody really anticipated, when the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act was passed, that developments would go on in the way they have done. A great many assets were taken over compulsorily along with the colliery assets. Furthermore, some were taken over at the option of the colliery owner with the consent of the Coal Board, while others were taken over at the option of the Coal Board. Out of this has grown quite a considerable edifice and it is not too much to say that in a way, instead of a Coal Board we now have a great holding company. Surely it must be right at some time for the Minister who has overall responsibility for the Board to be put in a position to take a careful look at the whole enterprise, to see whether or not it is right; and, if not, what changes can be made. One must surely accept that no activity of this kind, which has been built up in this way, can be so perfect that no alterations are necessary.
LORD DIAMOND: Is the noble Lord going to answer at this stage the question which I asked earlier? I asked on which occasions, if any, the Government have been denied the information for which they asked the Coal Board.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord did not exactly ask me a question. He merely challenged me to say whether to my knowledge this had ever happened. To my knowledge it has not happened, but I am bound to confess that my personal knowledge in this matter is not very extensive. In any case, since the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act provides that facilities for obtaining this information must be made available to the Minister, one would hardly have expected that the information would not be forthcoming. Noble Lords opposite cannot get into their minds the idea of an overall review of the industry.
I should like to be able to answer all the detailed points which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has put to me, but I confess that I do not have the knowledge to do so, and, as he said, he will come back to these rather detailed points about the effect on third parties of any directions that may be given. I promise him

409
that I will look very carefully into these points before the next stage of the Bill, and perhaps we can come back to them then.
I would say only this: that as these provisions are almost identical with or are closely parallel to provisions in other legislation, such as the Iron and Steel Act, the Transport Act and even the Post Office Act—these directions to discontinue are in very similar terms in both the Iron and Steel Act and the Transport Act—I should have thought that the difficulties that the noble Lord envisages, if they had been going to arise at all, would have arisen already; and presumably, as we have not heard a lot about the difficulties, they have not arisen. I can only give the noble Lord that answer in the meantime, but where there have been parallel powers and there has been no great shout about them I do not see that the fears of the noble Lord are going to arise.
We acknowledge the difference of approach here. The noble Lord calls it
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 7 agreed to accordingly.
a vicious clause. All we are saying is: let us have the review; let us see what needs to be done; and then, under the clause, a direction can be drafted and an order laid before the House, and both Houses can consider whether it is proper that that order should be made. The noble Lord complained that this did not apply to subsection (3). We have argued about that, and we can leave it at that for the moment, at any rate; but the broad picture must be right. I put it very simply and very shortly: that here is an industry which has grown up like Topsy, and it is time to have a look at it. When we have had a look at it, action may be necessary. If it is, that action will take the form provided for in Clause 7, and to us on this side of the Committee, at any rate, that does not seem unreasonable.
8.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lothian, M.

Barnby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mersey, V.

Belstead, L.

Glasgow, E.

Milverton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gray, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Broughan and Vaux, L.

Greenway, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Colyton, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Conesford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hailes, L.

St. Just, L.

Craigavon, V.

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

St. Oswald, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Sandford, L.

Cromartie, E.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Daventry, V.

Hertford, M.

Sempill, Ly.

De Clifford, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Thurlow, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Vivian, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Segal, L.

Ardwick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bacon, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burntwood, L.

Jacques, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Mais, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Clause 8 [Further provision as to annual accounts of the Board]:
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I will not detain your Lordships but there are just two short questions I should like to ask about this clause. First, why are the provisions here not the same as those in the Companies Act? Why is the Coal Board being required to do more than ordinary companies are required to do under the Companies Act? Secondly, may I take it that before being required to carry out the instructions of the Minister under this clause there will be prior consultation with the Board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: With regard to the noble Lord's first question, it does not follow necessarily from the clause, of course, that subsidiaries will be required to do more than they are under the Companies Acts, but they may be. I think the noble Lord recognises that the Companies Acts really prescribe minima, and it may be that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State may consider that more information is desirable, particularly in regard to certain activities. For that reason, he may require the accounts to be in a slightly different form. As to the noble Lord's other question, he sat down so quickly that I was unable to make a note of it.
LORD DIAMOND: I did not wish to detain the Committee for too long at what I thought was getting to be an inconvenient hour. The question that I wanted to ask was this. Can I take it—that is the form in which I pose it—that before exercising his power under this measure the Minister will have had prior consultation with the Board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have certainly taken it to be so. May I simply say that I will consult and will let the noble Lord know. I had assumed that this would be so, for that would be consonant with the general spirit in which my honourable friend intends to operate the Bill.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL
8.15 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Diplock.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAMPION in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Abolition of deposit or filing of instruments creating powers of attorney]:
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("under section 25 of the Trustee Act 1925, section 125 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or section 219 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is not a substantial Amendment; it is put down for clarification only. Although I have no doubt that it will be known to solicitors what are the relevant provisions under which powers of attorney are deposited or filed at the Central Office, this is not so transparently clear to others, including Law Lords, and to insert these words into the Bill will make the position clearer to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Protection of donee and third persons where power of attorney is revoked]:
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("in good faith and")
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to keep the Committee for long, but I should like to point out in connection with' this Amendment that the Law Society, after giving extremely careful consideration to the Bill (incidentally, solicitors and the Bar are in favour of the Bill and believe it to be a good one),

413
feel that from a practical point of view the words to which I have referred should be inserted. Their worry concerns Clause 5(2). Although it seems that a power of attorney can be revoked without any formality, it is quite another matter for a donor to make sure that a donee does not go on acting under it, perhaps using certified photo-copies which might still be in circulation after the donor has destroyed the original. It is difficult to get to the root of this problem, but the Law Society think that from a practical point of view it might help—and I believe it would—to tidy up Clause 5(2) slightly as suggested in the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: It would help me, and no doubt other members of the Committee, if my noble friend were to explain how any third party can be acting in bad faith if he does not know that the power of attorney has been revoked.
LORD JANNER: In the view of the Law Society circumstances may arise in which, if these words were not inserted, the donee might be in a position to act. They feel—as I say, the point has been very carefully considered—that these words would help.
8.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that the noble Lord who has proposed this Amendment, in admirably concise terms, will, when he has heard the explanation that I give, not wish to press it. Clause 5 provides for the protection of the donee of the power of attorney, and third persons who deal with him, against the consequences of revocation. Subsection (2) provides that:
"Where a power of attorney has been revoked and a person, without knowledge of the revocation, deals with the donee of the power, the transaction between them shall, in favour of that person, be as valid as if the power had then been in existence."
This Amendment would require the third person not only to have no knowledge of revocation but to be "in good faith" for the validity of the transaction to be upheld.
I share the difficulty of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. It is difficult at first sight—and I am not sure that one would actually go much further than first sight however deeply one penetrated—to see that this is not purely tauto
414
logical. At any rate, whatever "good faith" may mean, it must in very great part at least be comprehended by lack of knowledge. It would be unfortunate—and we all agree—if the courts were given the impression that a whole second limb was required for validity (when it is not) and then left to puzzle out what that second limb can be—to the possible prejudice of clarity and the certainty of transactions. I therefore accept the criticism implied in the question of the noble and learned Lord to the noble Lord, Lord Janner.
But let us suppose that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is wrong: I do not think he is—it seems almost impossible. But let us suppose that in fact he is wrong and that I am wrong, too. Let us assume, therefore, that a second limb, whatever it may mean and however obscure the meaning, is required and the purchaser ought to be in good faith, a; well as ignorant of the revocation. This, if it were so, would expose a deeper objection to the Amendment; namely, that it is both inappropriate and also irrelevant to the form of the subsection. If the subsection said that in these circumstances a purchaser will gel a good title, the question of good faith might be relevant. But it does not. All it says—and I stress these words—is that if the condition (of lack of knowledge of revocation) is satisfied, then the transaction shall be as valid—that does not mean to say valid, it means neither more valid nor less valid—as if the power had not been revoked.
Even if the condition is satisfied, and the power must be treated as if it had not been revoked, the transaction may still be invalid for some quite different reason—for instance, because the purchaser is knowingly a party to a fraud by the donee. It is at this stage, and not before, that the question of good faith, if it is different from knowledge, becomes relevant.
The Law Commission have accordingly taken the view that the Amendment is misconceived and should be resisted. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, who has done us all a service by putting forward the view of the Law Society, will on reflection feel that it would not be wise, at any rate at this stage, to press the Amendment until he has fully

415
considered the objection I have put forward.
LORD JANNER: I appreciate the point which has been made. Part of that point was made by the Law Commission, for whom I have a high regard—I do not want the Committee to be under any misunderstanding about that. The Law Society feel that as the matter stands at present there might be difficulties, but I am quite prepared to consider the points put forward and leave it for another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Additional protection for transferees under stock exchange transactions
" .—(1) Without prejudice to section 5 of this Act, where—

(a) the donee of a power of attorney executes as transferor, an instrument transferring registered securities; and

(b) the instrument is executed for the purposes of a stock exchange transaction,

it shall be conclusively presumed in favour of the transferee that the power had not been revoked at the date of the instrument if a statutory declaration to that effect is made by the donee of the power on or within three months after that date.
(2) In this section "registered securities" and "stock exchange transaction" have the same meanings as in the Stock Transfer Act 1963".
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, the object being to insert an additional clause after Clause 5. This is an Amendment of substance because on consideration, particularly by the Stock Exchange, the conclusion was reached that the existing Clause 5, particularly the provision for the statutory declaration, would not work in the case of Stock Exchange transactions. This results from the fact that under the Stock Transfer Act 1963 the form of transfer is not signed by the transferee, and indeed is often not seen by him. Further, in the case of a broker's transfer, which takes place where the original holding has been split up, the transferee may never know who the transferor was.
In those circumstances, if he were to be required, as under Clause 5(4), to make a statutory declaration to the effect that he did not know of the revocation of the power at the material time, it would be a nonsense; because at the material time he would not even know whether the transfer was made under a power of attorney or not. In those circumstances, it is thought that the position is best preserved by the new clause which requires the statutory declaration to be made by the donee of the power.
This is a matter which has been discussed between the Law Commission and the Stock Exchange and it has the approval of both. It is thought that it will work in a practical way so far as Stock Exchange transactions are concerned. I would draw attention to the fact that the clause is limited to Stock Exchange transactions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Effect of general power of attorney in specified form]:
8.27 p.m.
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 42, after ("effect") insert ("but expressed to be made under this Act,").
The noble Lord said: I propose to be very brief in moving this Amendment. The problem is to be sure what form will satisfy the statutory requirement. I agree that the reference to "a form to the like effect" is fairly standard in these cases, but solicitors who have to put these things into practical effect feel that it should be made clear beyond a doubt that a person is not to be regarded as having conferred the very wide powers provided for in the clause unless he has specifically indicated his intention to do so by at least referring to the Act. In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, may be favourably inclined to accept this Amendment. I cannot see that it would do any harm. I am not even clear that without these words an appointment would be valid under Clause

417
9. It is clearly most desirable, I think, that any appointment should include these words, and on those grounds I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel inclined to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is very much a question of judgment, but the Law Commission in fact considered this proposal and on the whole came to the conclusion that it would be better not to accept it. I should like to tell the Committee why I do not think that this is an Amendment either for which or against which one should die in the last ditch; but I should like to tell the Committee why the Law Commission, on balance, were against it. They thought that powers of attorney sometimes have to be executed at very short notice. It would be unfortunate if proper identification of the Act in precise terms became a formal requirement, when, for example—and I am using a phrase which might be used by somebody who did not have the Act of Parliament before him with the actual schedule form in it—"I grant this general power of attorney under the Act of Parliament in that behalf", or some such words, is perfectly plain. The Law Commission thought on balance that such a form should be valid and that the clause seemed better without the Amendment. I can only give the Committee the wisdom of the Law Commission on this subject because, to be perfectly candid, I do not have any strong feelings about it. I do not think any great harm would be done either way, but I was persuaded, on balance, that the Law Commission were right.
LORD DIPLOCK: So far from being prepared to die in the last ditch over this, I am completely neutral.
LORD JANNER: In the circumstances, may I ask that the view of the Law Society, which, after all, is dealing with practical practitioners, be considered? While I have the highest regard for the Commission—as I have said before, they have done remarkably good service—nevertheless, the actual practitioner who has to deal daily with these matters in his hands and the Society which represents him feel that this should be inserted. In view of that fact—it is not a question of a last ditch matter—I thought the
418
Committee would see its way to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Short title, repeals, consequential amendments and extent]:
LORD DIPLOCK LORD DIPLOCK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 6, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) This Act shall come into force on 1st October 1971."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is simply an Amendment to provide the date when the Bill shall come into force. It was thought better that it should not come into force immediately on passing, but that a short time should be given for the profession to familiarise itself with it and the Land Registry to consider some alterations in its rules as a result. The date, October 1, 1971, being the first day of the legal term, was thought to be a suitable date for that purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES BILL
8.35 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I feel that I must start with a number of apologies. The first is for introducing so technical a Bill at so late an hour. The second is that anyone so junior in the service of the House should be presuming to sponsor a Bill of this sort. I can only say that I have done so because the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack asked me to do so, presumably because much of the Bill is concerned with a sphere of judicature and administration for which I myself am partly responsible. I am particularly sorry that I should be moving it when I am so junior, because I know that noble Lords would wish the sponsor of this Bill to congratulate the noble

419
Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, on being, as I understand he is to be, for the first time the spokesman from the Front Opposition Bench on this Bill, and I hope that I may be allowed to do so without being thought impertinent.
My third apology concerns the subject matter of the Bill: it would be idle to pretend that it is hilariously entertaining. I doubt whether even the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, with his great capacity for giving animation to inert material, could make it very gay. I certainly cannot; but I do commend it to your Lordships as a useful improvement in the law and practice governing the administration of estates—that is to say, the law and practice which authenticates the right of persons to deal with the estate of a deceased person. The Bill implements the recommendations of two Reports. The second one has received wide publicity; both have been widely welcomed. In view of that, I hope your Lordships will think that I may deal fairly summarily with the provisions of the Bill. So far as I know, there is only one clause, Clause 10, which has provoked any misgivings at all, and I propose to say a word or two about that in due course.
My Lords, the fourth matter of apology is that this Bill is concerned not only with England and English law and practice but also with those of Scotland and Northern Ireland. I am constantly conscious of my own gaps in knowledge of English law, and I am almost completely ignorant of Scottish and Northern Irish law and practice, though I am told that Northern Ireland practice and law in these matters do not differ very greatly from our own. But part of the ostensible difficulty in this Bill springs, I think, from a mere difference in nomenclature. For example, your Lordships will see in the Bill a reference to the commissarist office in Edinburgh. Now that corresponds, as I understand it, to the principal probate registry in this country, both of them being the administrative substructures of judicature in this sphere.
As to the rest, in England we speak of grants of representation, in other words the sort of authentication which I mentioned. We speak both of "probate" of a will which appoints executors and of
420
"letters of administration"—the latter being when there is either no will or one appointing no executors. The Scottish grants of representation, as your Lordships have probably seen, have a different nomenclature. They speak only of "confirmation", where we should speak both of probate and letters of administration. There is also, though, a reference to "certificates of confirmation". I have been advised that those refer to certified extracts from confirmations which, for administrative convenience, are made in Scotland, dealing particularly with specific assets—especially, for example, with the shares of one particular company. The other term that your Lordships may see which may be unfamiliar is "additional confirmation". That, as I understand it, is merely a confirmation where the estate is not fully administered. We have a similar concept in our own probate law. As I have said, as I understand it, Northern Ireland employs very much the same sort of nomenclature as we do, as well as having a similar law and practice.
Clauses 1 to 7 abolish the necessity of re-sealing grants in the various countries in the British Isles. The problem arises where a person dies domiciled in one part of the British Isles leaving property in another part. A grant of representation can always be made in the country where the property is left, but that is quite an expensive and formal proceeding. It involves examining not only the authenticity of the document—say, a will—but also the credentials of an applicant. Therefore an alternative procedure has been evolved known as "re-sealing". Where a person dies domiciled, say, in Scotland, the grant in Scotland may be re-sealed in England. That means that only the authenticity of the document—that is to say, the grant in Scotland—is examined, and not the qualifications and credentials of the applicant. That applies not only between England and Scotland but also between England and Northern Ireland, and again between Northern Ireland and Scotland.
That, as I have said, is a simpler and cheaper procedure than the original grant, but it is still troublesome and of some expense. The Law Societies of England and of Scotland made representations on that matter to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he

421
was Lord Chancellor. In consequence, he and the Secretary of State for Scotland at the time appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of one of the registrars of the Principal Probate Registry and consisting of probate officials (as we call them) and solicitors of both countries to examine the problem. They found that the cost was by no means minimal. They estimated the annual cost of re-sealing, both the direct cost to the public and the administrative overheads, to be between £71,000 and £81,000 a year.
Their terms of reference were to see whether re-sealing any longer served any really useful purpose. They found that in Scotland it was a mere empty formality; in England it still served two useful purposes. But the Committee came to the conclusion, which I think has commanded general approbation, that those advantages could be obtained in other ways. Their conclusion was:
"Re-sealing does not serve any useful purpose on either side of the Border."
They therefore recommended its abolition. That, as I have said, is done by the early clauses of the Bill.
I hope your Lordships will think that that is sufficient explanation at this stage. If your Lordships have any further points of detail that you wish to raise I will try to deal with them either in reply or on Committee stage. If they relate to Scottish and Northern Irish law, I think the latter course is virtually a certainty.
I turn to the second Part of the Bill which consists of Clauses 8 to 11. That is the result of the Law Commission's Report, Administrative Bonds, Personal Representatives' Right of Retainer and Preference and Related Matters. It corresponds very closely to the Bill that was drafted by the Law Commission as the annexure to their Report. There are only minor amendments, and the arguments in favour of the various steps proposed are set out with great clarity in the Law Commission's Report. Therefore I do not think I should be justified in troubling your Lordships with the detail.
The position is this. At present an administrator—not an executor—must enter into a bond that he will collect, get in and administer the estate of the deceased. That is only therefore when there is no will appointing executors.
422
Moreover, the bond must be for double the gross value of the estate, and not merely for its value. In most cases, in addition, sureties are required for the bond—sometimes one; sometimes, and generally, two—and they are often, for convenience, an insurance company, which of course charges a premium. The cost, certainly cumulatively, is quite extensive.
I know that the Law Society were of opinion that it was questionable whether the necessity for bonds and sureties was still potent. Actions on a bond are very rare because there is an alternative available in the form of an administration action in the Chancery Division. Even the main purpose of the bond, the action against sureties, is very rarely exercised. There are, however, two indirect purposes of the bond which have considerable moment to this Bill, particularly to the clause which is the only one that has aroused misgiving. In the first place, when there is a grant to a creditor of the estate, it is always a term of the bond that he should undertake to waive any right to prefer his own claims to those of other creditors. The other one is less important: the bond sets out concisely the duties which the general law imposes on executors.
The Law Commission, after extensive consultations, came to the conclusion that bonds were no longer necessary; the interests of creditors could be otherwise safeguarded. What they recommended was that bonds should be abolished, except that a probate registrar should have a discretion to require guarantees by sureties up to the value of the gross estate—no longer twice the value—in certain types of cases which seemed to call for safeguards. Those cases are set out in paragraph 14 of the Report. They are practically entirely similar to the cases whereby under the present law and practice the sureties are required to "justify": that is a technical term for proving to a registrar that the sureties are good for their guarantees. The Law Commission went on to recommend that the rights of personal representatives to prefer their own claims to those of others was an anachronism and should be abolished. That was so whether the grant was obtained as a grant to a creditor, or in any other way. They recommended finally that the duties of a personal representative, which would be

423
no longer defined in the bond because the bond would be abolished, should be defined by Statute.
The advice I had from the Probate Registry coincided with the advice that was proffered to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by the Law Commission. The Law Commission also considered whether the existing right of a personal representative to prefer one creditor to another of the same class, including himself, should be perpetuated. That is the only matter that I think has aroused any misgivings. They recommended that the power should be continued only where the personal representative, acting reasonably and in good faith, pays the claim of a creditor at a time when he has no reason to believe the estate is insolvent.
My Lords, may I deal quite briefly with Clause 10? As I say, that is the only one which has been questioned; indeed all the other clauses, so far as I know, have been welcomed. That clause has two purposes. It abolishes the personal representative's ancient rights of retainer and preference, and, secondly, it affords protection to a personal representative who makes preferential payments to creditors in good faith at a time when the personal representative does not know that the estate is insolvent. In other words, it implements the Law Commission's recommendations. The Law Commission sent out invitations to professional bodies to comment, and I think there has been some misunderstanding, or miscarriage, because the Report was printed before any misgivings were expressed. So far as I am concerned, it was only at the end of last week that I knew that there was any difficulty in that clause.
May I set out what seemed to me to be the arguments in favour of the clause as it stands, and the arguments of the Law Society and part of the Bar Council—the arguments in favour of the retention of the present system. It said first that it may be necessary for the protection of a personal representative acting in good faith. It said secondly that without that power, administration might be slowed up; thirdly, with the abolition, persons might be discouraged from accepting the duties—which are often onerous—of personal representatives; and, finally, that abolition places the
424
personal representative creditor in a worse position than other creditors. The Law Commission were not persuaded by those arguments. They felt that the right of retainer, the right to pay one's own debts in priority to creditors of the same class, was an archaic rule and was inconsistent with the general equitable principle that a person in a fiduciary position should not benefit from his trust. They felt that the personal representative acting in good faith was adequately protected in two ways: one, by advertising for claims, as he can do under the Trustee Act, and, secondly, under subsection (2) of Clause 10, which gives a new and additional safeguard. They did not feel that administration would be slowed up; they felt that subsection (2) gave sufficient safeguards for an administrator to get on with the payment of small bills, servants' wages, and so on.
I apprehend that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will wish to hear the arguments that may be deployed in this debate, on that clause at any rate, so as to be in a position to advise the Committee on the matter in due course. If the noble and learned Lord is agreeable and willing for me to do so, and if the course commends itself to your Lordships, I am very willing myself to discuss this matter with the Law Commission and with the Law Society and the Bar Council, to see what measure of agreement can be obtained. That will not, of course, preclude any noble Lord from moving an Amendment at Committee stage. But since, as I understand it, that is the only clause which arouses misgiving, I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
9.1 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, may I first thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his kind remarks? Secondly, I am sure your Lordships would wish me to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I should also like to thank him for introducing this Bill. We are all, I am sure, grateful to him for his explanation of its provisions. We on this side of the House welcome this Bill, subject only to some reservations in respect

425
of Clause 10, which has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord. As he has said, both the Law Society and the Chancery Bar Association warmly welcome this Bill, with the exception of Clause 10.
Clauses 1 to 7 relate to the reciprocal recognition of grants of probate and administration. It is now generally accepted that resealing is a useless formality which wastes time and money; and Mr. Registrar Kenworthy's Working Party, which was set up by my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, satisfied themselves that no administrative or other difficulties would result from its abolition. The proposals in the Bill also extend to Northern Ireland.
The remainder of the Bill, as the noble and learned Lord has said, gives effect, with slight modifications, to the recommendations in the Law Commission's Report on administration bonds, and this arose out of a proposal which the Law Society made to the Law Commission in 1966. We have no objection to this part of the Bill, except to Clause 10, relating to personal representatives' rights of retainer and preference. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said he will discuss this clause with the interested parties before the Committee stage. I welcome this suggestion and am hopeful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will accept any proposals resulting from such discussion. My noble friend Lord Janner will be speaking next, with, I understand, particular reference to Clause 10, so I do not propose to comment further on it.
The abolition of the need to reseal grants of probate and letters of administration between the courts of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the abolition of the statutory requirement that administrators must give a bond, will save personal representatives both time and money. I therefore support the request to your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
9.5 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, may I, too, offer my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale on his new appointment; and also to my noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds on the manner in which he has expressed
426
himself in respect of this Bill, this being the first occasion on which he has spoken from the Front Bench. May I also say that I had no doubt, judging from the opinions which have been expressed in the profession and outside, that there was not likely to be any serious argument about the main objects of the Bill, to abolish administration bonds and the resealing of grants in different parts of the United Kingdom?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that this was not a matter which was likely to be regarded as an hilarious one. Well, it certainly will not be a matter in which hilarity will be felt by anyone who might find himself at some time or another in a position of having commenced the administration of an estate which ultimately turns out to be insolvent. So far from being a matter of hilarity, in practice it may place him in a very serious position indeed. The Bill may seem like a very dry piece of lawyers' law, but in fact it has the sole purpose of saving members of the public unnecessary expense and delay in the administration of estates of deceased persons.
The economies of time and money will not be spectacular, but even to save a few pounds and a few days on each of quite a large number of estates every year is very welcome at a time when the usual effect of legislation is to make the administration of estates slower and more expensive. I say this as a practising solicitor myself, and I am sure that the public as a whole will appreciate this from a profession which is not always regarded as being extremely helpful—I do not know about the feeling in this House, as I have not been here long enough; but sometimes in another place, quite wrongly, it has not been regarded as being helpful in these matters. The support of a Bill of this nature means, of course, that legal costs will be saved to people who otherwise would have to incur them. This is something which the profession itself commends.
If, for example, a husband dies intestate leaving a fairly modest estate, his widow may well have difficulty in making ends meet. The inevitable expenses of administering the estate are increased by the premium on an administration bond and the legal charges for the work involved in obtaining it. If, as is quite

427
common nowadays, some of the securities of the estate are registered in Scotland, there are the further fees and charges for the sealing of a grant in Edinburgh. All this could add up to £20 or £30, which the widow could ill afford at such a time. The solicitors' profession have for long thought that the rules requiring administration bonds and the resealing of grants are a nuisance, and have suspected they have completely outlived any useful purpose they may ever have served. We are therefore grateful to the Law Commission and to others concerned with the preparation of this Bill for having demonstrated clearly that this is so and providing its solution.
I now come to a matter which has caused a considerable amount of concern to both branches of the profession, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Simon, referred when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. The position with regard to the administration of an estate when it becomes insolvent, or if it is insolvent at the commencement, causes considerable anxiety and concern to those who would be prepared, under normal circumstances, to administer the estate, and who in the circumstances are placed in an extremely serious and difficult position. To place upon administrators obligations in the event of anything occurring at any time to make the estate insolvent—and it is not an unusual fear in present circumstances—is something which has to be very carefully considered. This is where the two professions—the solicitors' branch and the Bar—feel that the matter must be extremely carefully considered, because as the position stands at present it is almost impossible to get people, if they feel that there is a possibility of the estate becoming insolvent, to administer an estate. It is quite a reasonable attitude to take.
Let us examine, for instance, the position to-day. Who would have imagined, when winding up an estate, that shares in the Rolls-Royce company would have dropped in the manner they have done? Yet, on administering the estate, as your Lordships well know, the price quoted for those shares at the time of the death of the individual is what will be included in the application for letters of administration to be granted. As circumstances are at present, situations of that sort—though not so drastic, everybody sincerely hopes
428
—may arise, and consequently no one can be really sure, if certain assets belong to an estate, what may happen to decrease their value.
In these circumstances, both professional bodies feel that the time has come when consideration should be given as to the method to be adopted in place of the present one, which demands that letters of administration must be taken out first, before bankruptcy proceedings can be taken in respect of an insolvent estate. And who is going to do it, with safety, unless there is some provision whereby he is protected? I think that is at the bottom of the fear and anxiety which prevails in respect of Clause 10.
As I said before, I have a high regard for the Law Commission and those connected with it, but I hope that neither they nor your Lordships will consider it impertinent if one were to say that, after all, the people who really know the difficulties in all matters are not necessarily members of that Commission. The practitioners who have to deal with these situations, both in the solicitors' profession and at the Bar, get the experience in the course of their practices of dealing with the practical issues that arise, and both sides of the profession have come to the conclusion that the situation is very unsatisfactory. Therefore it is suggested that perhaps at some later stage your Lordships may consider it advisable to remove Clause 10 from the Bill as at present drafted, and that a Committee of some kind should be set up (one appreciates, of course, that the Law Commission has heavy duties on its hands) which would consider such suggestions as that in the event of an estate appearing to be likely to be insolvent it should be dealt with perhaps by a county court or by a registrar in bankruptcy, with provision for persons concerned to intervene and to ask that the administration should proceed in the normal way, or that some method of that kind might be devised to cope with this situation.
The Law Society themselves, in a memorandum which some of your Lordships may have received, say this:
"It is proposed by Clause 10 of the Bill that a personal representative's right to retain a debt due to himself should be abolished altogether. We have endeavoured to apply our minds to the situation that would result from this. If the right of retainer is abolished how

429
would a personal representative in such circumstances ever pay his own debt short of going to court? Lord Atkins' explanation of the right in Attorney General v. Jackson was this:

'Without the right the executor would be bound to pay the other debts of the testator and to leave the testator's debt to himself unpaid. A personal representative cannot sue himself and therefore he cannot pay himself. Any other creditor would be entitled to say'"—

LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, surely that is quite exaggerated, because at the moment the condition of the bond insists on waiver of the right of preference.
LORD JANNER: Yes, my Lords, but now, with the greatest respect, the position is that you are introducing a clause which excludes altogether this possibility of retainer, and in my view—if a person enters into a bond that is an entirely different matter—he is compelled, according to the provision in Clause 10, to accept the position in which his debt can never be recovered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is wrong about that. If he looks at paragraph 8 of the Law Commission's Report, he will see it quite clearly stated therein that the abolition of the right of retainer will in no way interfere with the personal representative's right to pay his own debt pari passu with others, and I cannot see that there is anything in what the noble Lord is saying which would not entitle him to take advantage of Lord Simon's invitation to discuss this matter with him before Committee stage.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I am loath to argue any matter on which the point of view of the Law Society may differ from that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I gathered from what he has said now that there is a possibility between now and Committee stage of the position being considered by the professions. Obviously, if that is the position, then at some later stage the two professions might get together with the Law Commissioners.
I do not want to press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I would certainly be happy to accept the suggestion that has been made, so that by the time we come to Committee stage the
430
matter could be carefully considered and could be argued out. But the views I am expressing are not my views alone. I am reading from the manifesto which is issued by the profession and which has been accepted by the appropriate committee of the Bar Association.
I am quite prepared to sit down at this stage and give way to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he would be prepared to express himself in respect of the suggestion that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, because I think that everybody in the House would be very pleased if that were done. Apparently the noble and learned Lord is not prepared at this stage to agree to that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but I said what I had to say once, and I do not think that it would be improved by saying it twice. I was proposing to address the House when the noble Lord resumed his seat.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, if I misunderstood, I offer my apologies, and I shall not proceed further in the circumstances.
9.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House at this late hour. I should like to echo what noble Lords have said, both in welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds—whose father I sat under in another place, and whom I knew very well in this House—and also to the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who I think has placed the House again in his debt by undertaking this not very exciting but, I hope, valuable piece of legislation, which he has been in a position to expound rather better than any noble Lord on either side of the House. I should like to join in the congratulations to him on his new appointment, which will bring him into this House in another capacity where, I hope, he will give incomparable service like his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson.
I do not want to weary the House at this stage, because the Bill has been so admirably canvassed by the three speakers so far. I should just like to say, on the first part of the Bill, that the

431
Northern Ireland Government welcomes the change, and my noble friend the Minister of State for Scotland has asked me to underline the welcome which she and my Scottish colleagues give to the Bill as regards the resealing provisions. The point about the administration bonds was dealt with fully by the noble Lord, Lord Simon, from the Cross-Benches. Your Lordships simply cannot leave out Clause 10 altogether for the reason that the noble Lord advanced: that at present administration bonds prevent an administrator who is a creditor from putting the money in his own pocket in preference to the other creditors. That seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to expect of an administration bond.
As we are abolishing the administration bond, we have to say something about the right of retainer. We cannot just leave it like a floating kidney until somebody has looked into the situation; it has to be dealt with in this Bill in one way or another, otherwise this part of the Bill would have to go altogether. It is unthinkable that the right of retainer should be left unspecified if the administrator's bond is being abolished. The noble Lord, Lord Simon, said that he would be prepared to discuss this matter. It has brought misgiving to members of the Chancery Bar Association and to the Law Society. I can think of nobody who could conduct those discussions better than the noble Lord, Lord Simon. If it is thought that insufficient protection is given to the personal representative in an insolvent estate, I am sure that if it is possible to find an adequate solution it will be found on Committee stage.
I must just say that I have not quite the sympathy with the personal representatives expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and by the Law Society. My advice, which comes from the Law Commission, is that there is nothing in the abolition of the right of retainer which does not entitle the personal representative to pay a debt due to him pari passu with the other creditors, but it does prevent him from putting himself in a position of advantage by reason of his fiduciary position. My own inclination was to feel wholly persuaded by the argument to that effect in paragraphs 7 to 10 of the Law Commission's Report, which advocated the abolition of the right
432
of retainer on the terms contained in Clause 10. Basically this is a question which is better discussed on Committee, as the rest of the Bill is acceptable. The only thing which would not be acceptable would be to pass into law an Act of Parliament which abolished the administration bond and remained silent about the law of retainer, because that would be a nonsense.
In conclusion, before seeking to take the opinion of the House, I should like to express my gratitude both to the noble Lord, Lord Simon, for taking on this Bill, and to Sir Clive Bossom in another place for sponsoring this not very exciting piece of legislation. They both do all the more service to the public by undertaking legislation of this kind precisely because it is both difficult and onerous, and, as I say, it carries little kudos for those who undertake the work. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Milner, and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for the contributions they have made to the debate.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, I should certainly be abusing your Lordships' patience if I did more in exercising a right of reply than to thank your Lordships most warmly for what you have said about me to-day.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CIGARETTE SMOKING AND HEALTH WARNINGS
  CIGARETTE SMOKING AND HEALTH WARNINGS